Panaji, 30th January, 2020 (Magha 10,1941)
SERIES II No. 44
779
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Environment
__
Order
No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part I/1159
In pursuance of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the
Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000,
the Government of Goa is pleased to direct the
“authority” specified in the Government
Notification No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part I/922 dated
04-12-2007, published in the Official Gazette, Series
II No. 37 dated 13-12-2007, Notification No. 7/4/98/
/STE/DIR/Part I/1545 dated 15-01-2010, Notification
No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part I/104 dated 23-04-2015 and
Notification No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/Part II/480 dated
12-09-2019, to permit the use of loudspeakers or
public address system during night hours (between
10.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight) during the year 2020,
on the days specified in the Schedule hereto,
throughout the State of Goa.
“Terms and conditions for issue of permission.
1. The permission shall be granted only on a
case-to-case basis, in response to a
specific application made by the
concerned Village Panchayat, Municipal
Corporation/Municipal Council or an
individual.
2. The provisions of the Noise Pollution
(Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 shall
be strictly complied with.
3. The ‘authority’ concerned shall monitor the
noise levels during the permitted festive
occasion and take prompt remedial action
in the event of any violation of the same
and of above conditions.”
SCHEDULE
Sr.
Cultural/Religious
Date
No.
Festive occasion
1. Carnival (last day of
25th February, 2020.
carnival)
2. Holi
09th March, 2020.
3. Easter Eve
11th April, 2020.
4. Ganesh Chaturthi
23rd August, 2020.
(2nd day of idol immersion)
5. Ganesh Chaturthi
26th August, 2020.
(5th day of idol immersion)
6. Anant Chaturdashi
01st September, 2020.
7. Navaratri (1st day of
17th October, 2020.
Navaratri)
8. Navaratri (last day of
24th October, 2020.
Navaratri)
9. Kojagiri Poornima
30th October, 2020.
10. Diwali Eve
13th November, 2020.
11. Diwali
14th November, 2020.
12. Tripurari/Kartiki Pornima
29th November, 2020.
13. Christmas Eve
24th December, 2020.
14. Christmas
25th December, 2020.
15. New Year’s Eve
31st December, 2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shri Johnson Fernandes, Director/ex officio Joint
Secretary (Environment).
Porvorim, 27th January, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Finance
(Revenue & Control) Division
__
Notification
No. 38/1/2017-Fin(R&C)(128)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 123
of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and
in supersession of Government Notification
No. 38/1/2017-Fin (R&C)(118) dated 20th November,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
780
2019, published in the Extraordinary Official
Gazette, Series II No. 33 dated 20th November, 2019,
except as regards things done or omitted to be
done before such supersession, the Government
of Goa hereby re-constitutes the State Level
Screening Committee consisting of the following
officers, namely:-
(a) Additional Commissioner of State Tax-I,
Goa State.
(b) Additional Commissioner, Central GST,
Goa, Government of India.
This Notification shall come into force with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Pranab G. Bhat, Under Secretary, Finance (R&C).
Porvorim, 23rd January, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Forest
—
Notification
No. DCF(WP)/Pvt.For/16(THC)/2013(WZ)/19-20/26
A Committee comprising of following members
is hereby constituted to review the private forests
areas provisionally identified by the North (Thomas)
and South (Araujo) Goa Forest Division Committees
constituted vide notification No. 7-1-2009/FOR/439
dated 27-11-2012.
1) Conservator of Forests
—
Chairman.
(Conservation)
2) Additional Collector,
—
Member.
North Goa District
3) Additional Collector,
—
Member.
South Goa District
4) Director of Settlement and
—
Member.
Land Records
5) Director of Agriculture
—
Member.
6) Assistant Conservator of
—
Member.
Forests, Headquarters,
North Goa Division
7) Assistant Conservator of
—
Member.
Forests, Headquarters,
South Goa Division
8) Deputy Conservator of
—
Member
Forests (Working plan)
Secretary.
The Committee shall get the methodology
approved by the Government within 15 days for
reviewing the private forest areas provisionally
identified by the North (Thomas) and South (Araujo)
Goa Forest Division Committees.
The Committee shall submit its report by 10th
March, 2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Forest).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
—
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-I/30
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 25-11-2019 in Case
No. LC-II/IT/30/2013 is hereby published as
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 16th January, 2020.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar,
Hon’ble Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/30/2013
Shri Sadanand Pokle,
C/o. AITUC, Velho Bldg.,
Panaji-Goa.
… Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Ltd.,
Paraise de Goa,
Alto Porvorim, Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri A.
Shirodkar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Agarwal.
Panaji, Dated: 25-11-2019
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
781
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by
Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947), the Government of Goa, by Order dated
31-03-2015, bearing No. 28/6/2015-Lab/398 referred
the following dispute for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in
turn assigned the present dispute to this Labour
Court-II, vide her order dated 30-10-2013.
“(1)
Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation
Limited, Alto Porvorim, Goa, in refusing
employment to Shri Sadanand Pokle, Driver
with effect from 17-10-2004 and thereafter
dismissing him from services by their order
dated 02-04-2007, is legal and justified?
(2)
If the answer to the issue No. (1) above is in
the negative, then, to what relief the
Workperson is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/30/13 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, both the parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short,
‘Workman’) filed his statement of claim on
30-06-2014 at Exb. 4. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he was
employed with the Employer/Party-II (for short
“Employer”) as ‘Driver’ in the year 1995. He stated
that somewhere in August, 2004, he suffered a
kidney stone ailment and was admitted at Apollo
Hospital, Margao, Goa. He stated that due to his
aforesaid sickness, he was unable to attend his
duties. He stated that he informed about his
sickness to the Employer alongwith all medical
certificates. He stated that the Employer has
however, issued him a back dated charge-sheet
alleging certain misconducts. He stated that he
filed his detail reply to the said charge-sheet
alongwith medical certificates denying each and
every allegations being false and misleading. He
stated that on 17-10-2004, he reported to the Asstt.
Traffic Inspector of Margao depot alongwith the
joining report and requested the officer of the
Employer to allow him to report for work. He stated
that however, the said Asstt. Traffic Inspector did
not allow him to report for duty. He stated that
thereafter, he also met the Vice-Chairman as well
as the General Manager of the Employer with a
request to allow him to resume for his duties. He
stated that however, he was not allowed to resume
for work. He stated that in the meantime, the
Employer initiated enquiry proceedings against
him into the said charge-sheet. He stated that he
duly attended the enquiry proceedings. He stated
that after conducting the enquiry, the Employer
terminated the services vide their order dated
02-04-2007. Being aggrieved with the order of
dismissal, he raised an industrial dispute before
the office of Dy. Labour Commissioner, Margao, vide
letter dated 01-10-2008, which ended in failure.
3. The Workman contended that the enquiry
proceedings initiated against him by the Employer
was conducted in gross violation of principles of
natural justice nor allowed him to get himself
defended in the enquiry by the representative of
his choice. He submitted that the procedure of the
enquiry was not explained to him. He submitted
that he was not allowed to raise his objections in
the enquiry and even when the written objections
were raised by him, the same were not considered
by the Enquiry Officer. He submitted that this has
seriously prejudiced his defense and not a single
charge has been proved against him. He submitted
that neither the Employer has completed the said
enquiry nor given any findings to him. Without
admitting, he submitted that the Enquiry Officer
has submitted his findings and that the said
findings never reached to him before dismissal of
his service. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer
conducted the enquiry in a biased manner in favour
of the Employer. He submitted that he is presently
unemployed and does not have any source of
income to maintain himself and his family. He
submitted that he has not been able to secure any
employment in spite of his best efforts. The
Workman therefore prayed that the action of the
Employer in dismissing him from service w.e.f.
17-10-2004 be held as illegal, unjustified and
bad-in-law and he be reinstated back in service
with full back wages and continuity in service
alongwith all other consequential benefits.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman, by filing its written statement dated
11-12-2014 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objections, submitted that the
reference is not maintainable as it is made under
Section 10 (1) (d) of the said Act to the Industrial
Tribunal constituted under Section 7-A of the said
Act and as such this Labour Court constituted
under Section 7 of the said Act has no jurisdiction
to entertain and try the reference, that there is no
industrial disputed exist between the parties as
defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and that the
reference made by the Government of Goa, without
any material on record in haste and without
application of mind.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
782
5. The Employer stated that it is a Government
Company registered u/s 617 of the Companies Act,
1956. The Employer stated that it is a State
Transport Undertaking under the M.T. Act, 1988.
The Employer admitted that the Workman joined
in their services on 04-05-1994 as a ‘Daily Wage
Driver’. The Employer stated that thereafter the
Workman was taken on probation as ‘Heavy Vehicle
Driver’ w.e.f. 08-03-1995 for initial period of six
months. The Employer stated that the Workman
was thereafter confirmed in the services. The
Employer stated that the past record of the
Workman was blemished and was issued various
punishment for misconduct on his part. The
Employer stated that the Workman was issued a
charge-sheet dated 03-03-2004 alleging that it is
reported by his departmental head that the
Workman attached to Margao depot remained
absent unauthorizedly and without any intimation
or prior permission w.e.f. 23-08-2004 to till date i.e.
03-03-2005 and that he was sent a notice dated
08-02-2005 by registered A/D post directing to
report duties immediately alongwith written
explanation of his absence. The Employer stated
that the charge-sheet further stated that though
the Workman has acknowledged the said notice,
he failed to report for his duties till date nor
intimated anything regarding his absence. The
Workman was therefore charge-sheeted for
misconduct under the Certified Standing Orders of
the Employer as follows, (24) (A)(ii) If any Workman
remains absent without intimation or prior
permission for a period exceeding 30 days, he shall
be deemed to have resigned from services and the
Employer is entitled to consider such employee
having voluntary resigned from his job. (28) (xviii)
Habitual absent without leave or absent without
leave or more than five consecutive days or
overstaying the sanction leave without sufficient
grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation.
(28)(xxxv) Breach of any rules and instructions given
by superiors for the proper functioning or safety of
the establishment.
6. The Employer stated that vide the aforesaid
charge-sheet, the Workman was directed to explain
in writing within seven days from the receipt of
the said charge-sheet as to why necessary action
as per the provisions of its Certified Standing Orders
should not be taken against him. The Employer
stated that the Workman replied to the aforesaid
charge-sheet through his Advocate, Shri Rajiv
Gomes, by his reply dated 22-03-2005. The Employer
stated that by the said explanation dated
22-03-2005, the Workman contended that he has
been suffering from kidney stone ailment for last
two years and due to the said ailment, he had
severe pains and as such he had to stay away from
the work since 25-08-2014. The Employer stated
that the Workman further contended that he was
forced to attend Apollo Victor Hospital regularly
between 17-11-2003 to 25-08-2004 and was advised
complete rest from 25-08-2004 to 20-09-2004. The
Employer stated that the Workman wished to attend
the work, but on account of unbearable pains, he
could not attend. The Employer submitted that
the Workman further contended that he had
approached the ESI dispensary at Margao from
24-09-2004 to 16-10-2004 and that he had written
a letter to the Asstt. Traffic Sir, MRC Depot, Margao
on 17-10-2004 informing about his sickness. The
Employer submitted that the Workman further
contended that he produced copies of certificate
mentioned above and also informed that he would
report for work on 17-10-2004. The Employer stated
that the Workman further stated that he was
however, not allowed to report for work from
17-10-2004 by the ATS. The Employer submitted
that the Workman contended that he met the
Chairman, Mr. Manohar Parrikar and informed him
that the ATS has not allowed him to report for
work and that the Chairman wrote a letter to the
Vice-Chairman, Mr. Sopte, who assured him that
he would look into the matter. The Employer stated
that Workman met the Personnel Officer and
Dy. Vice-GM, who told him that they would send
a letter to him. The Employer stated that the
Workman received a letter dated 08-02-2005, but,
he could not reply as well as report to the P.O. as
the Workman was undergoing treatment for the
kidney stone from 08-02-2005 to 20-03-2005 and
that he is willing and ready to join the employment
at the earliest as his absence was due to medical
conditions. The Employer stated that vide its letter
dated 03-04-2005, they advised Adv. Mr. Rajeev
Gomes to produce original ESI certificates of the
sickness of the Workman to confirm his sickness as
well as acknowledgment copy of the letter of the
Workman, by which he intimated to the Depot
Manager about his sickness. The Employer stated
that the Workman had never approached the
Personnel Officer and Mr. V.V. Kunkolienkar to
intimate about his sickness and that inspite of the
letter sent to him, but the Workman, though
acknowledged the said letter, did not report for
work. The Employer stated that the Workman did
not report for work thereafter and as such the
services of the Workman were terminated w.e.f.
02-04-2007.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
783
7. The Employer stated that thereafter on
01-10-2008, KTC Drivers and Allied Employees
Association raised an industrial dispute with the
Dy. Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer,
Margao alleging illegal dismissal of the services of
the Workman w.e.f. 17-10-2004. The Employer stated
that during the conciliation on 21-10-2011, its
Personnel Officer filed an application dated
21-10-2011 informed its willingness to allow the
Workman to join the duties at Margao depot with
immediate effect by protecting his last pay drawn
at the time of alleged termination. The Employer
stated that on 21-10-2011, neither the Workman
nor his representative attended the proceedings
and as such the copy of the said application was
placed in the file of the Conciliation Officer. The
Employer stated that the Workman did not attend
the proceedings on 03-11-2011 and as such the
application was not served to the Workman by the
Conciliation Officer. The Employer stated that
thereafter, the matter was taken up only on
06-12-2012 and on 24-01-2013 on which date a copy
of the said application dated 21-10-2011 was served
to the Workman by the Conciliation Officer. The
Employer stated that though the Workman was
offered re-employment by them on the conditions
prevailing as on the alleged date of termination,
the Workman did not join the duties at Margao
depot on receipt of the application dated
21-10-2011 on 24-01-2013 nor filed his reply to the
said application. The Employer stated that in view
of the fact that the Workman neither reported for
work as per the offer given to him nor replied to
the said application, the Workman is not interested
in working with them and hence no relief could be
given to the Workman. The Employer stated that
as per the proceedings of 16-04-2013, the Workman
desired to accept the offer with conditions, which
cannot be done. The Employer stated that the
proposal given by them was not accepted by the
Workman and thereafter the conciliation
proceedings before the Dy. Labour Commissioner,
resulted in failure on 05-08-2013 due to adamant
attitude of the Workman. The Employer therefore
submitted that the Workman is not entitled to the
relief of reinstatement and back wages and other
consequential benefits. The Employer submitted
that its action in dismissing the Workman is legal,
justified and no interference is called for. The
Employer submitted that the Workman is in
gainful/self-employed for last many years and is
earning substantially. The Employer therefore
prayed for rejection of the present reference.
8. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
on 20-07-2015 at Exb. 8. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all his
submissions, averments and statements made in
his Claim Statement to be true and correct and
denied all the statements, averments and
submissions made by the Employer in its Written
Statement, which are contrary to his statement
and averments made in his Claim Statement.
9. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the following issues on
20-07-2015 at Exb. 8.
1. Whether a free, fair and proper enquiry was
conducted against the Workman/Party-I in
respect of charge-sheet dated 03-03-2004?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Workman has been proved to
the satisfaction of this court by acceptable
evidence?
3. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that
the action of the Employer Corporation in
refusing him employment w.e.f. 17-10-2004,
is illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that
the action of the Employer Corporation in
dismissing him from services vide their order
dated 02-04-2007, is illegal and unjustified?
5. Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that
the present order of reference is not
maintainable in law in view of the reasons
stated in para 2(a), 2 (b) and 2 (c) of the
Written Statement?
6. Whether the Workman/Party-I he is entitled
to any relief?
7. What order? What award?
10. Thereafter, on 27-02-2017, Ld. Adv. Shri G.B.
Kamat, along with the Workman remained present,
the Employer was represented by Adv. Shri P.
Agarwal. Both the parties submitted that they have
arrived to the interim settlement on the following
consent terms, which are reproduced hereunder:
1. It is agreed in between the parties that
pending final disposal of the issues framed
by the Hon’ble Labour Court in the above
reference, the Workman/Workman will be
re-instated in the services of the Employer/
/WorkmanI as Heavy Vehicle Driver.
2. It is agreed between the parties, that the
basic pay corresponding under VIth Pay
Commission in the pay band of Rs. 5200-
-20200+1900/- at the time of dismissal of the
Workman/Workman will be protected.
3. It is agreed in between the parties that, the
claim of Party-I for wages, annual increments
etc. between the period from the date of his
dismissal from service till the date of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
784
application dated 21-10-2011 shall be
subject to the final decision of the case in
Ref. No. IT/30/2013.
4. It is agreed by the Workman/Workman that
he will fully co-operate with the Employer/
/WorkmanI in maintaining the discipline
and smooth functioning of the Kadamba
Transport Corporation Limited.
11. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the
evidence of the Workman. The Workman also filed
his affidavit in evidence. The Workman has
however, failed to remain present for his further
examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination
by the Ld. Advocate of the Employer. The Workman
has been given ample opportunities to lead his
evidence, however, he failed to do so. Neither the
Workman nor his advocate on record remained
present on the date of hearings held on 28-08-2019
and as such his evidence was closed. Ld. Adv.
Shri P. Agarwal appearing for the Employer
submitted that since the Workman has not lead
any evidence, the Employer also does not wish to
lead any evidence in the present matter. Thus,
neither the Workman nor the Employer led any
evidence either oral or documentary in support of
their case respectively. Hence, in the absence of
any evidence on record, it is held that the Workman
failed to prove that he is entitled for back wages
between the period from the date of his dismissal
from service till date of his application dated
21-10-2011 as per Clause 3 of the terms of consent
settlement at Exb.17.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following Order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the dispute referred by the
Government as to “whether the action of
the management of M/s. Kadamba Transport
Corporation Limited, Alto Porvorim, Goa, in
refusing employment to Shri Sadanand
Pokle, Driver with effect from 17-10-2004 and
thereafter dismissing him from services by
their order dated 02-04-2007, is legal and
justified”, does not survive.
2. It is further held that the Workman
Shri Sadanand Pokle, Driver, having been
reinstated, not entitled to any further relief.
3. No Order as to Costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-I
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 30-12-2019 in Case
No. IT/26/12 is hereby published as required
under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 16th January, 2020.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. IT/26/12
Shri Rajesh Keshav Gaonkar,
H. No. 118, Mala,
Panaji-Goa.
…
Workman/Party-I
V/s
The Managing Director,
The Goa State Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
EDC Complex, Patto Plaza,
Panaji-Goa.
…
Employer/Party-II
Party-I/Workman represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jeorge.
Party-II/Employer represented by Adv. M.H.
Govekar.
Panaji, Dated: 30-12-2019.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 28-05-2012,
bearing No. 28/02/2012-LAB/262, referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa. Pending the matter for its
adjudication before the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal-
-cum-Labour Court, Panaji-Goa, the Govt. of Goa,
transferred the present reference for its
adjudication to this Labour Court II, vide its order
No. 28/12/2011-Lab/86 dated 09-02-2016.
“(1) Whether the action of the Goa State
Co-operative Bank Ltd., Panaji-Goa, in
dismissing from service its workman
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
785
Shri Rajesh K. Gaonkar, Peon, with effect
from 15-04-2008, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/26/12 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Parties put in their
appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on
11-09-2012 at Exb-5. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/
/Party II (for short, “Employer”) is an Apex
Co-operative Bank in the State of Goa and is run by
its board of directors, elected from time to time. He
stated that the employees of the Employer Bank
are members of Goa State Co-operative Bank
Employees’ Union, which is a registered union. He
stated that the Employer has entered into
settlements with its employees union from time to
time on improving wages and service conditions of
its employees. He stated that the last wage
settlement has been signed between the Employer
bank and its employees union on 09-11-2008 and
registered in the office of Labour Commissioner as
per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947.
3. He stated that he was employed with the
Employer as Sub-staff/Peon w.e.f. 12-12-1995. He
stated that initially, he was posted at the head
office of the Employer branch and thereafter at the
Merces branch. He stated that at the time of
termination of his services, he was working at
Taleigao branch of the Employer. He stated that
one of his duties was to open the bank early in the
morning, before office hours for cleaning purpose.
He stated that a fraud had taken place at Taleigao
branch and the Employer alleged that its clerks
and officers of the said branch were involved in
the said fraud. He stated that in pursuance to the
said fraud, the bank had issued charge-sheet to its
Clerk, Shri Santosh Mahadik, Mrs. Vidya Nadkarny
and officer Shri Babli Chodankar alleging that they
were involved in the said fraud and departmental
enquiry was conducted against them. He stated
that the Enquiry Officer gave report holding all
the aforesaid employees are guilty of misconducts
alleged against them in the charge-sheet issued to
them respectively. He stated that thereafter, even
show-cause notices were also issued to aforesaid
three employees, asking why they should not be
dismissed from services on account of proved
charges of misconduct in the enquiry. He stated
that after receiving the replies of all the aforesaid
three employees, the Employer dismissed all the
aforesaid three employees from its service, by way
of dismissal. He stated that all the aforesaid three
employees namely its Clerk, Shri Santosh Mahadik,
Mrs. Vidya Nadkarny and officer Shri Babli
Chodankar were reinstated back in service, after
they requested in writing to the Employer. He stated
that all the aforesaid three employees are working
in the Employer bank.
4. He stated that for the first time, he was issued
a charge-sheet dated 23-02-2007 alleging certain
acts of misconduct against him by the Employer.
He stated that Adv. Shri Arun Naik was appointed
as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry against
him. He stated that Mr. D.B. Bandodkar was also
appointed as Management Representative. He
stated that Mr. Subhash Naik Jeorge, the President
of the employees union represented him in the
said enquiry. He stated that after the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer gave his findings, holding that he
is guilty of the charges levelled against him, though
there was no evidence to that effect. He stated
that thereafter the Employer terminated him from
its service with immediate effect vide its letter
dated 15-04-2008.
5. He contended that the enquiry conducted
against him is in violation of the principles of
natural justice. He submitted that the findings
submitted by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and
not based on evidence on record. He submitted
that the punishment of termination of service w.e.f.
15-04-2008 meted out to him is illegal and
unjustified, besides being malafide. Without
prejudice to the above and without admitting that
he had committed misconduct, he submitted that
the punishment meted out to him is highly
disproportionate and unjust, taking into account
the facts and circumstances of the case. He
submitted that the enquiry was conducted in
violation of the provisions of the service rule and
as such it is null and void.
6. He submitted that he is unemployed since
the date of his termination. He submitted that he
tried to secure the jobs, however, he did not
succeed. He submitted that the termination of his
service has cast a stigma on him and people would
not like to give him a job due to the said stigma.
The Workman therefore prayed for reinstatement
in service with full back wages and continuity in
service.
7. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
18-01-2013 at Exb. 6. The Employer submitted that
the dispute referred by the Government of Goa is
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
786
bad-in-law as it is a multi-state co-operative society,
registered under the Multi-State Co-operative
Societies Act, 2002. The Employer stated that its
business has been spread over in more than one
state and as such the Appropriate Government is
the Central Government and not the State
Government. The Employer submitted that the
claim of the Workman is baseless, frivolous,
vexatious and based on distorted facts. The
Employer submitted that the claim does not
disclose any cause of action and as such the claim
is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action.
8. The Employer admitted that it is an Apex
Co-op. Bank for the State of Goa, controlled by its
members. The Employer stated that it has its own
bye-laws/rules and regulations governing the
internal management, business and administration.
The Employer stated that the ultimate authority of
bank is vested in the General Body of its members
i.e. consisting of representatives from affiliated
societies, delegates from individual members. The
Employer denied that all its clerical and sub-staff
employees are the members of the union, namely
Goa State Co-op. Bank Employees union and that
the said union is a recognized union. The Employer
stated that the said union has not been registered
as a union as required under the law and hence,
the said union cannot raise the dispute against
them before any authority or court of law.
9. The Employer stated that the service record
of the Workman since the time he joined in its
service, is full of memos, warnings etc. for the acts
of misconduct committed by him. The Employer
stated that the Workman was never diligent,
devoted and sincere in the matter of discharge of
his official duties. The Employer stated that the
Workman was issued two warning letters one dated
12-12-1997 and another dated 28-09-2004 and a
memo dated 16-03-2006 for his acts of misconduct.
The Employer stated that the Workman was also
issued three memorandums one dated 21-03-1998,
second dated 22-1-2004 and third dated 31-08-2004.
The Employer stated that the Workman was issued
a charge-sheet for his acts of commission and
omission and irregularities. The Employer stated
that the said acts of misconducts committed by
the Workman is grave and serious in nature and is
a major misconduct in terms of its service rules
applicable to its employees.
10. The Employer stated that the Workman, with
his fraudulent intension and in connivance with
one Shri Gurunath G. Naik, Smt. Vidhya P. M. S.
Nadkarny and Shri Santosh K. Mahadi, opened the
bank premises at Taleigao branch on several days
after closure of the banking hours and on Sundays
and holidays, in order to make fraudulent entries
in various accounts during his tenure with the
bank at Taleigao branch. The Employer stated that
the Workman assisted and allowed the aforesaid
persons to make fraud amounting to crores of rupees
in the customer’s account maintained with said
branch, involving the banks fund. The Employer
stated that as a result, it has suffered heavy
financial losses in its business and also the
goodwill of the reputed customers.
11. The Employer stated that on 02-12-2016, the
Workman allowed Shri Gurunath Naik, who was
not the staff of Taleigao branch at the relevant
time, to enter the bank premises of Taleigao branch
before normal working hours and to interfere with
the records of the bank. The Employer stated that
further the Workman did not inform the said fact
immediately to his officer/manager on the same
day about the visit of Shri Gurunath Naik and his
handling of books of accounts and interference
with the bank’s records in that branch. The
Employer submitted that the aforesaid act of the
Workman amounts to misconduct. The Employer
stated that the Workman acted against the
principles and norms of the bank and caused the
bank to suffer heavy financial loss. The Employer
submitted that they had lost the complete faith in
the Workman. The Employer stated that the
Workman failed to perform and discharge his duties
entrusted to him with honesty, integrity and
efficiently.
12. The Employer submitted that the Workman
has committed serious acts of omission and
commission and irregularities, while discharging
his duties and acted in a manner not befitting a
bank employee and against the interest of the bank.
The Employer stated that vide office order dated
27-01-2007, the Workman was placed under
suspension with immediate effect in contemplation
of disciplinary action against him. The Employer
stated that thereafter the Workman was issued a
charge-sheet dated 23-02-2007. The Employer
stated that the Workman submitted his reply to
the aforesaid charge-sheet. The Employer stated
that as they were not satisfied with the reply
submitted by the Workman, it decided to conduct
an enquiry against the Workman, vide order dated
12-04-2007 by appointing Adv. Arun Naik as
Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated that Mr. D.B.
Gaonkar, General Manager (Vigillance), was
appointed as Presenting Officer in the same
enquiry. The Employer stated that the Workman
was represented by Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge as
his Defence Representative. The Employer
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
787
submitted that Enquiry Officer conducted the
enquiry in due compliance with the principles of
natural justice. The Employer stated that after
completion of the management evidence, the
Workman chose not to examine any witness in
support of his defence by remaining absent on the
scheduled date of hearings, so much so that the
Enquiry Officer closed the evidence of the Workman
by giving him ample opportunities. The Employer
stated that thereafter the Enquiry Officer
submitted his report, vide its report dated
31-12-2007.
13. The Employer submitted that the disciplinary
authority considered the report of the Enquiry
Officer as well as the say given by the Workman,
the grave and serious nature of misconduct
committed by the Workman and took a conscious
decision of dismissal of Workman from service. The
Employer submitted that the Workman has been
dismissed from service by its disciplinary
authorities, by an order dated 15-04-2008. The
Employer denied that the termination of service of
the Workman is illegal and unjustified as it is in
violation of principles of natural justice. The
Employer submitted that it would lead evidence
and demonstrate that the action taken by them
against the Workman for acts of grave misconduct
is legal, justified and warranted and that the
Workman is not entitled to any relief.
14. The Employer denied that the Workman is
unemployed since the termination of his service.
The Employer stated that the Workman sustained
himself by going for fishing at Four Pillars at Panaji.
The Employer stated that the wife of the Workman
does bidding for sarees and does other odd jobs,
which keeps the fire burning at home. The
Employer therefore prayed that the present claim
of the Workman be dismissed with cost.
15. Though the Workman was given
opportunities to file his rejoinder if any to the
written statement filed by the Employer, Ld. Rep.
Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge, appearing for the
Workman, during the course of hearing on
01-04-2013 orally submitted that the Workman does
not wish to file any rejoinder.
16. Based on the pleadings filed by the
respective parties, the Hon’ble Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed
certain issued on 20-06-2013 at Exb. 07.
17. Thereafter, this Hon’ble Court disposed off
the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, vide order dated
20-07-2017 after hearing both the parties and as
the enquiry was quashed and set aside vide the
aforesaid order dated 20-07-2017, the matter was
fixed for the additional evidence of the Employer.
The Employer also examined its first witness namely
Shri Vasudev S. Madkaikar, its General Manager-
Administration (I/C). He was partly cross-examined
by Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik Jorge appearing for
the Workman. It is at this stage, Ld. Rep.
Shri Subhash Naik Jorge as well as Ld. Adv.
Shri M. H. Govekar appeared before me on
16-04-2019 and submitted that they are trying to
settle the matter amicably between the parties
and accordingly, on 23-12-2019, both the parties
alongwith their representatives respectively
remained present and filed the consent terms of
settlement which is on record at Exb. 40 and prayed
for passing the consent award. The terms of
settlement appearing in Exb. 40 are reproduced
hereunder:
1. It is mutually agreed between the parties
hereto that Shri Rajesh K. Gaonkar, Party
No. 1 herein will be reinstated in service of
Party No. II Bank with immediate effect
without any back wages.
2. It is mutually agreed between the parties
hereto that the reinstatement of Shri Rajesh
K. Gaonkar will be with continuity in service
from 15-04-2008.
3. It is further mutually agreed between the
parties hereto that Shri Rajesh K. Gaonkar
will not be entitled to/for any back wages
upon his reinstatement in service.
4. It is mutually agreed between the parties
that Shri Rajesh K. Gaonkar will be entitled
only to his annual increments from the last
increment released to him for calculation of
his fitment (i.e. his basic pay should be fixed
after adding all the increments from the date
of his last increment without any arrears of
increments).
5. It is mutually agreed between the parties
that Shri Rajesh K. Gaonkar will not be
entitled for benefits of any kind of leave
during the period of his termination.
6. It is further mutually agreed between the
parties that Shri Rajesh K. Gaonkar will
adhere to the service rules in future and
give no scope for complaints.
7. On execution of the present consent Decree/
/Terms, the Party No. 1 shall have no claim
demand of whatsoever against the Party
No. II in respect of the relief claimed in the
present case or in respect to the above said
issue in future.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
788
I have carefully perused the said terms of
settlement at Exb. 40 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 Goa State
Co-operative Bank Limited, Panaji-Goa, in
dismissing from service its workman
Shri Rajesh K. Gaonkar, Peon, with effect from
15-04-2008, is legal and justified?, does not
survive.
2. The Workman, Shri Rajesh K. Gaonkar, 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. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-III/61
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
23-12-2019 in reference No. IT/13/15 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2020.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/13/15
The General Secretary,
Higher Secondary & College
Attendants Association of Goa,
F-6, Block 4, Galaxy Apartments,
Khorlim, Mapusa,
Goa 403 507.
… Workmen/Party I
Vs.
1. Mustifund Higher Secondary School,
Near Mahalaxmi Temple,
Dada Vaidhya Road,
Panaji, Goa 403 001.
… Employer/Party II(1)
2. The Directorate of Education,
Government of Goa,
Porvorim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
L. V. Palekar.
Employer/Party II(2) ex-parte.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month
of December, of the year 2019)
By Order dated 24-04-2015, bearing No. 28/49/
/2014-Lab/475, 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
Mushtifund Higher Secondary School, Panaji,
Goa, in refusing to concede the following
demands of the workmen, represented by the
Higher Secondary and College Attendants
Association of Goa, is legal and justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
(i) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants in Higher Secondary Schools
should be granted vacation as is granted
to the Laboratory Assistants and Librarian
every year as per rules.
(ii) Laboratory Attendants should be allotted
duties only in laboratories and Library
Attendants should be allotted duties only
in libraries as per rules.
(iii) The working hours for Laboratory
Attendants and Library Attendants should
be 6 hours and 30 minutes every day as
per rules. Beyond 6 hours and 30 hours
work, Laboratory Attendants and Library
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
789
Attendants should be paid overtime at the
rate of double the gross wages paid for
that day. This overtime should be paid
retrospective from the date of joining till
the date this issue is settled.
(iv) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be treated as Group “C”
employees as per rules.
(v) Laboratory Attendants should be provided
Lab Coats and Lab Safety Shoes while at
work.
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
negative, then, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/13/15 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exb. 7 and
Party II(1) filed written statement at Exh. 12.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II(1) is a Higher Secondary School which has
been operating for last several decades managed
by the managing committee and is governed by
Goa Education Act and Rules and the orders of
Directorate of Education, Government of Goa. The
managing committee is the appointing authority
for all the teaching and non-teaching staff. The
Laboratory and Library Attendants have been
appointed by the Party II(1) and have been placed
under supervision and control of head of Higher
Secondary School. The Laboratory and Library
Assistants across 17 different Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges have formed their Union and
they are the members of Higher Secondary and
College Attendants Association. The Party I have
raised a Charter of demands dated 4-11-2013 with
Directorate of Education and 17 Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges. The Directorate of Education
in its reply dated 16-12-2013 stated that the
Association should approach their respective
employers for demands since they have been
appointed by the respective management. The
Association then raised a Charter of demands with
the Party II(1) vide letter dated 24-3-2014. The
Party II(1) did not reply to the Charter of demands
and as such the Party I approached the Labour
Commissioner for conciliation who requested the
Party II(1) to attend the conciliation proceedings
and as the Party II(1) refused to discuss the
demands, the Assistant Labour Commissioner
recorded a failure of the conciliation proceedings.
The demands raised by Party I are legal and
justified as per the Goa Education Act and Rules
and direction issued by the Government of Goa
from time to time. The action of the management
in rejecting the demands of the Party I is illegal
and unjustified. Hence, the reference.
4. The Party II(1) filed a written statement inter-
-alia contending that the Party I is not competent
to raise the dispute. The Charter of demands
was submitted by Association without any
authorization or support of the members. The
alleged dispute is not an industrial dispute as the
demands were not raised on the Party II. The
Industrial Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for
adjudicating the dispute. The terms of reference
does not include the State Government which is
the body that provides the grants for the payment
of wages and other monetary benefits to the
employees.
5. It is a matter of record that the Party II(1) has
filed an application for addition of Directorate of
Education, Government of Goa as Party to the
proceedings and as the Party I has given no
objection, Directorate of Education, Government of
Goa has been added as Party II(2). The Party II(2)
thereafter filed a written statement inter-alia
contending that the Chairman of the School
Managing Committee is the appointing authority
of the workmen in the higher secondary schools
concerned in Goa and they are governed by Goa
School Education Act, 1984 and Rules, 1986 and
the circulars issued from time to time. The Party
I are not the employees of the Directorate of
Education and therefore the reference be
dismissed.
6. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 15 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I prove that the action of
Party II in refusing to concede their demands
mentioned in the schedule, is illegal and
unjustified?
(2) Whether Party II proves that the Industrial
Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for
adjudicating the dispute?
(3) What Relief? What Award?
7. It is a matter of record that the matter was
posted for evidence and during the course of
proceedings, Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the Party
I has filed an application along with a Circular
dated 17-12-2019 issued by the Directorate of
Higher Education, Government of Goa at Exh. 24
colly stating that the Under Secretary (Higher
Education) issued the Circular fixing working hours
of 6.30 hrs. per day excluding lunch break for all
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
790
Educational Institutions observing 6 days a week
for Party I workmen i.e. Laboratory and Library
Attendants and that 6.30 hrs. per day has been
their demand and the same is acceptable to them
and that the Party I does not wish to pursue the
present reference pertaining to the working hours
and with regard to other demands, the Party I has
filed a Writ Petition No. 86/2019 in the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Panaji, Goa Bench and
that they are pursuing those demands before other
authorities and hence, the Party I does not wish to
pursue the same before this authority and therefore
the matter may be closed. Needless to mention,
the above circular has been issued by Directorate
of Higher Education and not the Directorate of
Education, concerned in the present reference. Be
that as it may, it appears that the Party I workmen
are satisfied with the above circular. It also appears
that the Party I is not interested in pursuing the
matter, although evidence has been led, for the
reasons stated above. Therefore, there remains no
dispute, claim and/or demand of whatsoever nature
against each other in the present reference.
8. In view above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands disposed of in terms
of the application at Exhibit 24 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-III/63
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
23-12-2019 in reference No. IT/12/15 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2020.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/12/15
The General Secretary,
Higher Secondary & College
Attendants Association of Goa,
F-6, Block 4, Galaxy Apartments,
Khorlim, Mapusa,
Goa 403 507.
… Workmen/Party I
Vs.
1. People’s Higher Secondary School,
Rua de Qurem, Mala,
Panaji, Goa 403 001.
… Employer/Party II(1)
2. Directorate of Education,
Government of Goa,
Porvorim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
R. Rao.
Employer/Party II(2) ex-parte.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month
of December, of the year 2019)
By Order dated 24-4-2015, bearing No. 28/51/
/2014-Lab/464, 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
People’s Higher Secondary School, Rua De
Qurem, Mala, Panaji, Goa, in refusing to
concede the following demands of it’s
workmen, represented by the Higher
Secondary
and
College
Attendants
Association of Goa, is legal and justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
(i) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants in Higher Secondary Schools
should be granted vacation as is granted
to the Laboratory Assistants and Librarian
every year as per rules.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
791
(ii) Laboratory Attendants should be allotted
duties only in laboratories and Library
Attendants should be allotted duties only
in libraries as per rules.
(iii) The working hours for Laboratory
Attendants and Library Attendants should
be 6 hours and 30 minutes every day as
per rules. Beyond 6 hours and 30 hours
work, Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be paid overtime at the
rate of double the gross wages paid for
that day. This overtime should be paid
retrospective from the date of joining till
the date this issue is settled.
(iv) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be treated as Group “C”
employees as per rules.
(v) Laboratory Attendants should be provided
Lab Coats and Lab Safety Shoes while at
work.
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
negative, then, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/12/15 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exb. 9 and
Party II(1) filed written statement at Exh. 12.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II(1) is a Higher Secondary School which has
been operating for last several decades managed
by the managing committee and is governed by
Goa Education Act and Rules and the orders of
Directorate of Education, Government of Goa. The
managing committee is the appointing authority
for all the teaching and non-teaching staff. The
Laboratory and Library Attendants have been
appointed by the Party II(1) and have been placed
under supervision and control of head of Higher
Secondary School. The Laboratory and Library
Assistants across 17 different Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges have formed their Union and
they are the members of Higher Secondary and
College Attendants Association. The Party I have
raised a Charter of demands dated 4-11-2013 with
Directorate of Education and 17 Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges. The Directorate of Education
in its reply dated 16-12-2013 stated that the
Association should approach their respective
employers for demands since they have been
appointed by the respective management. The
Association then raised a Charter of demands with
the Party II(1) vide letter dated 24-3-2014. The
Party II(1) did not reply to the Charter of demands
and as such the Party I approached the Labour
Commissioner for conciliation who requested the
Party II(1) to attend the conciliation proceedings
and as the Party II(1) refused to discuss the
demands, the Assistant Labour Commissioner
recorded a failure of the conciliation proceedings.
The demands raised by Party I are legal and
justified as per the Goa Education Act and Rules
and direction issued by the Government of Goa
from time to time. The action of the management
in rejecting the demands of the Party I is illegal
and unjustified. Hence, the reference.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II(1) has
claimed that the Party I has no legal character to
maintain the present proceedings and that in the
claim statement the Party I has not disclosed the
nature of association, its address, its composition
and under which law such association stands
registered or formed and therefore the present
reference be rejected. The demands made by the
Party I are unlawful and illegal and cannot be
enforced against the Party II(1) as the Party II(1) is
not the employer of Party I for the purpose of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. It is a matter of record that the Party II(1) has
filed an application for addition of Directorate of
Education, Government of Goa as Party to the
proceedings and as the Party I has given no
objection, Directorate of Education, Government of
Goa has been added as Party II(2). The Party II(2)
thereafter filed a written statement inter-alia
contending that the Chairman of the School
Managing Committee is the appointing authority
of the workmen in the higher secondary schools
concerned in Goa and they are governed by Goa
School Education Act, 1984 and Rules, 1986 and
the circulars issued from time to time. The Party I
are not the employees of the Directorate of
Education and therefore the reference be
dismissed.
6. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 15 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the action
of Party II in refusing to concede their
demands mentioned in the schedule, is
illegal and unjustified?
(2) What Relief? What Award?
7. It is a matter of record that the matter was
posted for evidence and during the course of
proceedings, Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the
Party I has filed an application along with a Circular
dated 17-12-2019 issued by the Directorate of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
792
Higher Education, Government of Goa at Exh. 17
colly stating that the Under Secretary (Higher
Education) issued the Circular fixing working hours
of 6.30 hrs. per day excluding lunch break for all
Educational Institutions observing 6 days a week
for Party I workmen i.e. Laboratory and Library
Attendants and that 6.30 hrs. per day has been
their demand and the same is acceptable to them
and that the Party I does not wish to pursue the
present reference pertaining to the working hours
and with regard to other demands, the Party I has
filed a Writ Petition No. 86/2019 in the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Panaji, Goa Bench and
that they are pursuing those demands before other
authorities and hence, the Party I does not wish to
pursue the same before this authority and therefore
the matter may be closed. Needless to mention,
the above circular has been issued by Directorate
of Higher Education and not the Directorate of
Education, concerned in the present reference. Be
that as it may, it appears that the Party I workmen
are satisfied with the above circular. It also appears
that the Party I is not interested in pursuing the
matter for the reasons stated above. Therefore,
there remains no dispute, claim and/or demand of
whatsoever nature against each other in the
present reference.
8. In view above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands disposed of in terms
of the application at Exhibit 17 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-III/64
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
23-12-2019 in reference No. IT/31/15 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2020.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/31/15
The General Secretary,
Higher Secondary & College
Attendants Association of Goa,
F-6, Block 4, Galaxy Apartments,
Khorlim, Mapusa,
Goa 403 507.
… Workmen/Party I
Vs.
1. Ponda Education Society’s,
Shri Ravi Sitaram Naik
Higher Secondary
School of Arts, Science,
Commerce & Vocational
Studies, Farmagudi,
Ponda, Goa-403 401.
… Employer/Party II(1)
2. Directorate of Education,
Government of Goa,
Porvorim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
G. K. Sardessai.
Employer/Party II(2) ex-parte.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month
of December, of the year 2019)
By Order dated 01-9-2015, bearing No. 28/43/
/2015-Lab/824, 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
Ponda Education Society’s, Shri Ravi Sitaram
Naik Higher Secondary School of Arts,
Science, Commerce & Vocational Studies,
Farmagudi, Ponda, Goa, in refusing to
concede the following demands raised by
the Higher Secondary and College Attendants
Association of Goa, vide it’s letter dated
31-12-2014, is legal and justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
793
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
(i) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants in Higher Secondary Schools
should be granted vacation as is granted
to the Laboratory Assistants and Librarian
every year as per rules.
(ii) Laboratory Attendants should be allotted
duties only in laboratories and Library
Attendants should be allotted duties only
in libraries as per rules.
(iii) The working hours for Laboratory
Attendants and Library Attendants should
be 6 hours and 30 minutes every day as
per rules. Beyond 6 hours and 30 hours
work, Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be paid overtime at the
rate of double the gross wages paid for
that day. This overtime should be paid
retrospective from the date of joining till
the date this issue is settled.
(iv) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be treated as Group “C”
employees as per rules.
(v) Laboratory Attendants should be provided
Lab Coats and Lab Safety Shoes while at
work.
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
negative, then, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/31/15 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exb. 6 and
Party II(1) filed written statement at Exh. 9.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II(1) is a Higher Secondary School which has
been operating for last several decades managed
by the managing committee and is governed by
Goa Education Act and Rules and the orders of
Directorate of Education, Government of Goa. The
managing committee is the appointing authority
for all the teaching and non-teaching staff. The
Laboratory and Library Attendants have been
appointed by the Party II(1) and have been placed
under supervision and control of head of Higher
Secondary School. The Laboratory and Library
Assistants across 17 different Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges have formed their Union and
they are the members of Higher Secondary and
College Attendants Association. The Party I have
raised a Charter of demands dated 4-11-2013 with
Directorate of Education and 17 Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges. The Directorate of Education
in its reply dated 16-12-2013 stated that the
Association should approach their respective
employers for demands since they have been
appointed by the respective management. The
Association then raised a Charter of demands with
the Party II(1) vide letter dated 24-3-2014. The
Party II(1) did not reply to the Charter of demands
and as such the Party I approached the Labour
Commissioner for conciliation who requested the
Party II(1) to attend the conciliation proceedings
and as the Party II(1) refused to discuss the
demands, the Assistant Labour Commissioner
recorded a failure of the conciliation proceedings.
The demands raised by Party I are legal and
justified as per the Goa Education Act and Rules
and direction issued by the Government of Goa
from time to time. The action of the management
in rejecting the demands of the Party I is illegal
and unjustified. Hence, the reference.
4. The Party II(1) filed a written statement inter-
-alia contending that the Party I is not competent
to raise the dispute. The Charter of demands
was submitted by Association without any
authorization or support of the members. The
alleged dispute is not an industrial dispute as the
demands were not raised on the Party II. The
Industrial Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for
adjudicating the dispute. The terms of reference
does not include the State Government which is
the body that provides the grants for the payment
of wages and other monetary benefits to the
employees.
5. It is a matter of record that the Party II(1) has
filed an application for addition of Directorate of
Education, Government of Goa as Party to the
proceedings and as the Party I has given no
objection, Directorate of Education, Government of
Goa has been added as Party II(2). The Party II(2)
thereafter filed a written statement inter-alia
contending that the Chairman of the School
Managing Committee is the appointing authority
of the workmen in the higher secondary schools
concerned in Goa and they are governed by Goa
School Education Act, 1984 and Rules, 1986 and
the circulars issued from time to time. The
Party I are not the employees of the Directorate of
Education and therefore the reference be
dismissed.
6. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 12 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the action
of Party II in refusing to concede their
demands mentioned in the schedule, is illegal
and unjustified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
794
(2) Whether Party II proves that the Industrial
Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for
adjudicating the dispute?
(3) What Relief? What Award?
7. It is a matter of record that the matter was
posted for evidence and during the course of
proceedings, Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the
Party I has filed an application along with a Circular
dated 17-12-2019 issued by the Directorate of
Higher Education, Government of Goa at Exh. 21
colly stating that the Under Secretary (Higher
Education) issued the Circular fixing working hours
of 6.30 hrs. per day excluding lunch break for all
Educational Institutions observing 6 days a week
for Party I workmen i.e. Laboratory and Library
Attendants and that 6.30 hrs. per day has been
their demand and the same is acceptable to them
and that the Party I does not wish to pursue the
present reference pertaining to the working hours
and with regard to other demands, the Party I has
filed a Writ Petition No. 86/2019 in the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Panaji, Goa Bench and
that they are pursuing those demands before other
authorities and hence, the Party I does not wish to
pursue the same before this authority and therefore
the matter may be closed. Needless to mention,
the above circular has been issued by Directorate
of Higher Education and not the Directorate of
Education, concerned in the present reference. Be
that as it may, it appears that the Party I workmen
are satisfied with the above circular. It also appears
that the Party I is not interested in pursuing the
matter, although evidence has been led, for the
reasons stated above. Therefore, there remains no
dispute, claim and/or demand of whatsoever nature
against each other in the present reference.
8. In view above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands disposed of in terms
of the application at Exhibit 21 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-III/65
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
23-12-2019 in reference No. IT/17/15 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2020.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/17/15
The General Secretary,
Higher Secondary & College
Attendants Association of Goa,
F-6, Block 4, Galaxy Apartments,
Khorlim, Mapusa,
Goa 403 507.
… Workmen/Party I
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
St. Xavier Higher Secondary
School, Mapusa, Bardez,
Goa 403 507.
… Employer/Party II(1)
2. Directorate of Education,
Government of Goa,
Porvorim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri V.
Korgaonkar.
Employer/Party II(2) ex-parte.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month
of December, of the year 2019)
By Order dated 24-6-2015, bearing No. 28/35/
/2015-Lab/628, 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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
795
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
St. Xavier’s Higher Secondary School, Mapusa,
Goa, in refusing to concede the following
demands submitted by the Higher Secondary
and College Attendants Association of Goa,
is legal and justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
(i) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants in Higher Secondary Schools
should be granted vacation as is granted
to the Laboratory Assistants and Librarian
every year as per rules.
(ii) Laboratory Attendants should be allotted
duties only in laboratories and Library
Attendants should be allotted duties only
in libraries as per rules.
(iii) The working hours for Laboratory
Attendants and Library Attendants should
be 6 hours and 30 minutes every day as
per rules. Beyond 6 hours and 30 hours
work, Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be paid overtime at the
rate of double the gross wages paid for
that day. This overtime should be paid
retrospective from the date of joining till
the date this issue is settled.
(iv) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be treated as Group “C”
employees as per rules.
(v) Laboratory Attendants should be provided
Lab Coats and Lab Safety Shoes while at
work.
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
negative, then, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/17/15 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exb. 8 and
Party II(1) filed written statement at Exh. 12.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II(1) is a Higher Secondary School which has
been operating for last several decades managed
by the managing committee and is governed by
Goa Education Act and Rules and the orders of
Directorate of Education, Government of Goa. The
managing committee is the appointing authority
for all the teaching and non-teaching staff. The
Laboratory and Library Attendants have been
appointed by the Party II(1) and have been placed
under supervision and control of head of Higher
Secondary School. The Laboratory and Library
Assistants across 17 different Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges have formed their Union and
they are the members of Higher Secondary and
College Attendants Association. The Party I have
raised a Charter of demands dated 4-11-2013 with
Directorate of Education and 17 Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges. The Directorate of Education
in its reply dated 16-12-2013 stated that the
Association should approach their respective
employers for demands since they have been
appointed by the respective management. The
Association then raised a Charter of demands with
the Party II(1) vide letter dated 24-3-2014. The
Party II(1) did not reply to the Charter of demands
and as such the Party I approached the Labour
Commissioner for conciliation who requested the
Party II(1) to attend the conciliation proceedings
and as the Party II(1) refused to discuss the
demands, the Assistant Labour Commissioner
recorded a failure of the conciliation proceedings.
The demands raised by Party I are legal and
justified as per the Goa Education Act and Rules
and direction issued by the Government of Goa
from time to time. The action of the management
in rejecting the demands of the Party I is illegal
and unjustified. Hence, the reference.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II(1) has
claimed that the Party II(1) is run and managed by
Diocesan Society of Education and employees are
appointed by the said management and are
governed by Goa School Education Act and Rules.
The Party I are not the workmen within the
meaning of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore
no reference could be entertained by the Tribunal.
The reference therefore may be dismissed.
5. It is a matter of record that the Party II(1) has
filed an application for addition of Directorate of
Education, Government of Goa as Party to the
proceedings and as the Party I has given no
objection, Directorate of Education, Government of
Goa has been added as Party II(2). The Party II(2)
thereafter filed a written statement inter-alia
contending that the Chairman of the School
Managing Committee is the appointing authority
of the workmen in the higher secondary schools
concerned in Goa and they are governed by Goa
School Education Act, 1984 and Rules, 1986 and
the circulars issued from time to time. The
Party I are not the employees of the Directorate of
Education and therefore the reference be
dismissed.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
796
6. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 13 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the action
of Party II in refusing to concede their
demands mentioned in the schedule, is
illegal and unjustified?
(2) Whether Party II proves that the Industrial
Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for
adjudicating the dispute?
(3) What Relief? What Award?
7. It is a matter of record that the matter was
posted for evidence and during the course of
proceedings, Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the
Party I has filed an application along with a Circular
dated 17-12-2019 issued by the Directorate of
Higher Education, Government of Goa at Exh. 15
colly stating that the Under Secretary (Higher
Education) issued the Circular fixing working hours
of 6.30 hrs. per day excluding lunch break for all
Educational Institutions observing 6 days a week
for Party I workmen i.e. Laboratory and Library
Attendants and that 6.30 hrs. per day has been
their demand and the same is acceptable to them
and that the Party I does not wish to pursue the
present reference pertaining to the working hours
and with regard to other demands, the Party I has
filed a Writ Petition No. 86/2019 in the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Panaji, Goa Bench and
that they are pursuing those demands before other
authorities and hence, the Party I does not wish to
pursue the same before this authority and therefore
the matter may be closed. Needless to mention,
the above circular has been issued by Directorate
of Higher Education and not the Directorate of
Education, concerned in the present reference. Be
that as it may, it appears that the Party I workmen
are satisfied with the above circular. It also appears
that the Party I is not interested in pursuing the
matter for the reasons stated above. Therefore,
there remains no dispute, claim and/or demand of
whatsoever nature against each other in the
present reference.
8. In view above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands disposed of in terms
of the application at Exhibit 15 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-III/62
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
23-12-2019 in reference No. IT/21/15 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2020.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/21/15
The General Secretary,
Higher Secondary & College
Attendants Association of Goa,
F-6, Block 4, Galaxy Apartments,
Khorlim, Mapusa,
Goa 403 507.
… Workmen/Party I
Vs.
1. The Chairman,
Purushottam Walawalkar Higher
Secondary School,
Mapusa, Bardez,
Goa 403 507.
… Employer/Party II(1)
2. Directorate of Education,
Government of Goa,
Porvorim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
R. Kolwalker.
Employer/Party II(2) ex-parte.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month
of December, of the year 2019)
By Order dated 01-7-2015, bearing No. 28/36/
/2015-Lab/675, 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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
797
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
Purushottam Walavalkar Higher Secondary
School, Mapusa, Goa, in refusing to concede
the following demands raised by the
Higher Secondary and College Attendants
Association of Goa, vide it’s letter dated
24-03-2014, is legal and justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
(i) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants in Higher Secondary Schools
should be granted vacation as is granted
to the Laboratory Assistants and Librarian
every year as per rules.
(ii) Laboratory Attendants should be allotted
duties only in laboratories and Library
Attendants should be allotted duties only
in libraries as per rules.
(iii) The working hours for Laboratory
Attendants and Library Attendants should
be 6 hours and 30 minutes every day as
per rules. Beyond 6 hours and 30 hours
work, Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be paid overtime at the
rate of double the gross wages paid for
that day. This overtime should be paid
retrospective from the date of joining till
the date this issue is settled.
(iv) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be treated as Group “C”
employees as per rules.
(v) Laboratory Attendants should be provided
Lab Coats and Lab Safety Shoes while at
work.
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
negative, then, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/21/15 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exb. 7 and
Party II(1) filed written statement at Exh. 11.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II(1) is a Higher Secondary School which has
been operating for last several decades managed
by the managing committee and is governed by
Goa Education Act and Rules and the orders of
Directorate of Education, Government of Goa. The
managing committee is the appointing authority
for all the teaching and non-teaching staff. The
Laboratory and Library Attendants have been
appointed by the Party II(1) and have been placed
under supervision and control of head of Higher
Secondary School. The Laboratory and Library
Assistants across 17 different Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges have formed their Union and
they are the members of Higher Secondary and
College Attendants Association. The Party I have
raised a Charter of demands dated 4-11-2013 with
Directorate of Education and 17 Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges. The Directorate of Education
in its reply dated 16-12-2013 stated that the
Association should approach their respective
employers for demands since they have been
appointed by the respective management. The
Association then raised a Charter of demands with
the Party II(1) vide letter dated 24-3-2014. The
Party II(1) did not reply to the Charter of demands
and as such the Party I approached the Labour
Commissioner for conciliation who requested the
Party II(1) to attend the conciliation proceedings
and as the Party II(1) refused to discuss the
demands, the Assistant Labour Commissioner
recorded a failure of the conciliation proceedings.
The demands raised by Party I are legal and
justified as per the Goa Education Act and Rules
and direction issued by the Government of Goa
from time to time. The action of the management
in rejecting the demands of the Party I is illegal
and unjustified. Hence, the reference.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II(1) has
claimed that the reference is not maintainable in
law and on facts. The claims put forward by the
Party I are barred by law of limitation and without
any cause of action and therefore the reference
may be dismissed.
5. It is a matter of record that the Party II(1) has
filed an application for addition of Directorate of
Education, Government of Goa as Party to the
proceedings and as the Party I has given no
objection, Directorate of Education, Government of
Goa has been added as Party II(2). The Party II(2)
thereafter filed a written statement inter-alia
contending that the Chairman of the School
Managing Committee is the appointing authority
of the workmen in the higher secondary schools
concerned in Goa and they are governed by Goa
School Education Act, 1984 and Rules 1986
and the circulars issued from time to time. The
Party I are not the employees of the Directorate of
Education and therefore the reference be
dismissed.
6. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 12 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the action
of Party II in refusing to concede their
demands mentioned in the schedule, is
illegal and unjustified?
(2) What Relief? What Award?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
798
7. It is a matter of record that the matter was
posted for final arguments and during the course
of proceedings, Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the
Party I has filed an application along with a Circular
dated 17-12-2019 issued by the Directorate of
Higher Education, Government of Goa at Exh. 44
colly stating that the Under Secretary (Higher
Education) issued the Circular fixing working hours
of 6.30 hrs. per day excluding lunch break for all
Educational Institutions observing 6 days a week
for Party I workmen i.e. Laboratory and Library
Attendants and that 6.30 hrs. per day has been
their demand and the same is acceptable to them
and that the Party I does not wish to pursue the
present reference pertaining to the working hours
and with regard to other demands, the Party I has
filed a Writ Petition No. 86/2019 in the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Panaji, Goa Bench and
that they are pursuing those demands before other
authorities and hence, the Party I does not wish to
pursue the same before this authority and therefore
the matter may be closed. Needless to mention,
the above circular has been issued by Directorate
of Higher Education and not the Directorate of
Education, concerned in the present reference. Be
that as it may, it appears that the Party I workmen
are satisfied with the above circular. It also appears
that the Party I is not interested in pursuing the
matter, although evidence has been led, for the
reasons stated above. Therefore, there remains no
dispute, claim and/or demand of whatsoever nature
against each other in the present reference.
8. In view above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands disposed of in terms
of the application at Exhibit 44 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-IV/67
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
23-12-2019 in reference No. IT/04/16 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2020.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/04/16
The General Secretary,
Higher Secondary & College
Attendants Association of Goa,
F-6, Block 4, Galaxy Apartments,
Khorlim, Mapusa,
Goa 403 507.
… Workmen/Party I
Vs.
1. Kamakshi Higher Secondary
School of Arts, Commerce &
Science, Curti, Ponda,
Goa 403 401.
… Employer/Party II(1)
2. Directorate of Education,
Government of Goa,
Porvorim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik
Jorge.
Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
G. K. Sardessai.
Employer/Party II(2) ex-parte.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month
of December, of the year 2019)
By Order dated 07-10-2015, bearing No. 28/49/
/2015-Lab/903, 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
Kamakshi Higher Secondary School of Arts,
Commerce & Science, Curti, Ponda, Goa, in
refusing to concede the following demands
raised by the Higher Secondary and College
Attendants Association of Goa, vide it’s letter
dated 04-05-2015, is legal and justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
799
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
(i) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants in Higher Secondary Schools
should be granted vacation as is granted
to the Laboratory Assistants and Librarian
every year as per rules.
(ii) Laboratory Attendants should be allotted
duties only in laboratories and Library
Attendants should be allotted duties only
in libraries as per rules.
(iii) The working hours for Laboratory
Attendants and Library Attendants should
be 6 hours and 30 minutes every day as
per rules. Beyond 6 hours and 30 hours
work, Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be paid overtime at the
rate of double the gross wages paid for
that day. This overtime should be paid
retrospective from the date of joining till
the date this issue is settled.
(iv) Laboratory Attendants and Library
Attendants should be treated as Group “C”
employees as per rules.
(v) Laboratory Attendants should be provided
Lab Coats and Lab Safety Shoes while at
work.
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the
negative, then, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/04/16 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exb. 5 and
Party II(1) filed written statement at Exh. 9.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II(1) is a Higher Secondary School which has
been operating for last several decades managed
by the managing committee and is governed by
Goa Education Act and Rules and the orders of
Directorate of Education, Government of Goa. The
managing committee is the appointing authority
for all the teaching and non-teaching staff. The
Laboratory and Library Attendants have been
appointed by the Party II(1) and have been placed
under supervision and control of head of Higher
Secondary School. The Laboratory and Library
Assistants across 17 different Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges have formed their Union and
they are the members of Higher Secondary and
College Attendants Association. The Party I have
raised a Charter of demands dated 4-11-2013 with
Directorate of Education and 17 Higher Secondary
Schools and Colleges. The Directorate of Education
in its reply dated 16-12-2013 stated that the
Association should approach their respective
employers for demands since they have been
appointed by the respective management. The
Association then raised a Charter of demands with
the Party II(1) vide letter dated 24-3-2014. The
Party II(1) did not reply to the Charter of demands
and as such the Party I approached the Labour
Commissioner for conciliation who requested the
Party II(1) to attend the conciliation proceedings
and as the Party II(1) refused to discuss the
demands, the Assistant Labour Commissioner
recorded a failure of the conciliation proceedings.
The demands raised by Party I are legal and
justified as per the Goa Education Act and Rules
and direction issued by the Government of Goa
from time to time. The action of the management
in rejecting the demands of the Party I is illegal
and unjustified. Hence, the reference.
4. The Party II(1) filed a written statement
inter-alia contending that the Party I is not
competent to raise the dispute. The Charter of
demands was submitted by Association without
any authorization or support of the members. The
alleged dispute is not an industrial dispute as the
demands were not raised on the Party II. The
Industrial Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for
adjudicating the dispute. The terms of reference
does not include the State Government which is
the body that provides the grants for the payment
of wages and other monetary benefits to the
employees.
5. It is a matter of record that the Party II(1) has
filed an application for addition of Directorate of
Education, Government of Goa as Party to the
proceedings and as the Party I has given no
objection, Directorate of Education, Government of
Goa has been added as Party II(2). The Party II(2)
thereafter filed a written statement inter-alia
contending that the Chairman of the School
Managing Committee is the appointing authority
of the workmen in the higher secondary schools
concerned in Goa and they are governed by Goa
School Education Act, 1984 and Rules, 1986
and the circulars issued from time to time. The
Party I are not the employees of the Directorate of
Education and therefore the reference be
dismissed.
6. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 12 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the action
of Party II in refusing to concede their
demands mentioned in the schedule, is illegal
and unjustified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
800
(2) Whether Party II proves that the Industrial
Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for
adjudicating the dispute?
(3) What Relief? What Award?
7. It is a matter of record that the matter was
posted for evidence and during the course of
proceedings, Shri Subhash Naik Jorge for the Party
I has filed an application along with a Circular
dated 17-12-2019 issued by the Directorate of
Higher Education, Government of Goa at Exh. 14
colly stating that the Under Secretary (Higher
Education) issued the Circular fixing working hours
of 6.30 hrs. per day excluding lunch break for all
Educational Institutions observing 6 days a week
for Party I workmen i.e. Laboratory and Library
Attendants and that 6.30 hrs. per day has been
their demand and the same is acceptable to them
and that the Party I does not wish to pursue the
present reference pertaining to the working hours
and with regard to other demands, the Party I has
filed a Writ Petition No. 86/2019 in the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Panaji, Goa Bench and
that they are pursuing those demands before other
authorities and hence, the Party I does not wish to
pursue the same before this authority and therefore
the matter may be closed. Needless to mention,
the above circular has been issued by Directorate
of Higher Education and not the Directorate of
Education, concerned in the present reference. Be
that as it may, it appears that the Party I workmen
are satisfied with the above circular. It also appears
that the Party I is not interested in pursuing the
matter for the reasons stated above. Therefore,
there remains no dispute, claim and/or demand of
whatsoever nature against each other in the
present reference.
8. In view above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands disposed of in terms
of the application at Exhibit 14 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
__
Order
No. 5/3/2015/LD-Estt./143
The Government of Goa is pleased to
re-constitute the following panel for representing
the State of Goa in Mahadayi matter before the
Water Disputes Tribunal at New Delhi as and when
matter come up for hearing. The concerned
advocates may get in touch with the concerned
Department.
1. Adv. Pinaki Mishra (Senior Advocate).
2. Adv. Sanjay Upadhaya.
3. Adv. Pratap Venugopal.
4. Adv. Vishnuprasad Lawande.
5. Adv. Sanjay Sardessai.
6. Adv. Shivadatta Munj.
7. Adv. Geetesh Shetye.
This Order shall supersede the earlier Order
No. 5/3/2015/LD-Estt./136 dated 23-01-2018.
This issues with the approval of the Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 13/24/2016/PER/260
Whereas, the Government vide Order
No. 13/24/2016-PER/2620 dated 30-09-2019 was
pleased to grant extension in services to Dr. Jose
O. A. D’Sa, Dy. Director (Public Health) holding the
charge of Director of Health Services, Directorate
of Health Services for a period of one year w.e.f.
01-10-2019 to 30-09-2020 subject to vigilance
clearance, concurrence of Finance Department and
approval of Council of Ministers;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has
submitted Vigilance Clearance stating that, no
Disciplinary Proceedings/Vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against Dr. Jose
O.A. D’Sa;
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
801
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U.O. No. 1400069864 dated 05-12-2019 concurred
the proposal for grant of extension of Dr. Jose O.A.
D’Sa, Dy. Director (Public Health) holding the
charge of Director of Health Services, Directorate
of Health Services subject to Cabinet approval and
adherence of all Rules in force;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers in its
XVIIth meeting held on 07-01-2020 resolved to grant
ex-post facto approval for extension in service
beyond superannuation to Dr. Jose O.A. D’Sa, Dy.
Director (Public Health) holding the charge of
Director of Health Services, Directorate of Health
Services for a period of one year w.e.f. 01-10-2019 to
30-09-2020;
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the Order No. 13/24/2016-PER/2620 dated
30-09-2019 granting extension in service beyond
superannuation to Dr. Jose O.A. D’Sa, Dy. Director
(Public Health) holding the charge of Director of
Health Services, Directorate of Health Services for
a period of one year w.e.f. 01-10-2019 to 30-09-2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 21st January, 2020.
________
Order
No. 15/5/97-PER(Part)/282
On the recommendations of the Goa Services
Board and with the approval of the Government,
the following Officers in the cadre of Block
Development Officer are posted as mentioned in
column (3) with immediate effect in public interest:-
Sr.
Name of the officer
Posted as
No.
and designation
1
2
3
1. Shri Siddesh S. Kerkar
BDO, Quepem thereby
(awaiting posting)
relieving Shri Bhagwant
A. Karmali, BDO, Sanguem
of additional charge.
2. Shri Paritosh Ulhas
BDO-II, Salcete thereby
Dessai (awaiting
relieving Shri Amitesh
posting)
Shirvoikar, BDO-I,
Salcete of additional
charge.
3. Shri Ashwin @
BDO-II, Ponda thereby
Sadashiv Krishna
relieving Shri Milindra
Dessai (awaiting
G. Velip, BDO-I, Ponda
posting)
of additional charge.
4. Shri Gurudatta P. Naik
BDO-III, Directorate of
(awaiting posting)
Panchayat, North with
additional charge of
BDO-IV, Directorate
of Panchayat, North
thereby relieving Shri
Prasiddh P. Naik, BDO,
Mormugao of additional
charge.
The officers shall complete the process of
handing over/taking over immediately and submit
compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 24th January, 2020.
________
Order
No. 5/12/2017-PER/316
Shri Gurudas Dessai, Deputy Director of Mines-II
is hereby deployed in the Goa State Election
Commission w.e.f. 01-02-2020 for the conduct of
General Elections to Zilla Panchayat till the election
process is over.
Shri Manuel Baretto, Deputy Director of Mines-I
shall hold the posts of Deputy Director of Mines-II
& Deputy Director of Mines-III in addition to his
own duties w.e.f. 01-02-2020 till Shri Dessai is
relieved from the Election duty.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 27th January, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 44/7/2017-I/PHD/164
Government is pleased to transfer the following
Medical Officer under Directorate of Health
Services and post her at the place indicated in
Col. No. 4 against her name with immediate effect
until further orders:-
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 44
30TH JANUARY, 2020
802
Sr.
Name of the
Present place
Transferred and
No. Medical Officer
of posting
posted at
1
2
3
4
1. Dr. Priteeja Parab,
CHC,
PHC, Cansaulim
Medical Officer
Valpoi
vice Dr. Satish
Pednekar retired
voluntarily.
The transfer of Dr. Priteeja Parab, Medical Officer
is made as per her own request.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 23rd January, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Revenue
__
Order
No. 35/03/05/2019-RD/2979
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a)
of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (Act 2 of 1899), as in force in the
State of Goa, the Government of Goa is hereby
pleased to exempt Dr. K. B. Hedgewar Shikshan
Prasarak Mandal from payment of Stamp Duty
amounting to ` 36,000/- (Rupees thirty six thousand
only) on the Gift Deed calculated @ 3% of
` 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs only), being
the total value of the plot admeasuring 2,350
sq. mts. approx. bearing Sy. No. 104/2-L of village
Carapur, Taluka Bicholim being donated in favour
of the Mandal by ‘Vithalpur Dnyan Prasark Mandal’,
Vithalpur Carapur, Sankhali-Goa for the purpose of
constructing a School Complex.
This order is issued with the concurrence of
the Finance (R&C) Department vide their U.O.
No. 204/F dated 21-01-2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sudin A. Natu, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 27th January, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Tourism
__
Notification
No. 3/3(922)/05/DT/3777
Read: Notification No. 3/3(922)17/DT/1120 dated
10-07-2019.
In partial modification to the above Notification,
the Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint
Shri Rajan Kadkade, r/o. Bicholim-Goa as the
Director on the Board of Directors of Goa
Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. in place of
Dr. Shri M. Moddasir, r/o. Dona Paula, Tiswadi-Goa,
under provisions of Clause 107 of the Articles
of Association of Goa Tourism Development
Corporation Ltd.
All other contents of the above referred
Notification shall remain unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Menino D’Souza, Director & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Tourism).
Panaji, 24th January, 2020.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 24.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—341/160–1/2020.