Panaji, 13th February, 2020 (Magha 24,1941)

SERIES II No. 46

845

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 Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Order

No. 15-318-ADT/RCS/2017/4939

Whereas, the Maharashtra V.K.S.S. Society Ltd.,

Gokulwadi, Sankhali-Goa (hereinafter referred to

as “the said society”) was registered on

03-01-1963 bearing registration No. C/27. The area

of operation of the said society is restricted to

Sankhalim, Gauthan and Virdi village with common

intention to assist the farmers with their

agricultural needs and to fulfill the objectives as

laid down under bye-law of the society.

And whereas, the accounts of the said society

for the year 2017-2018 have been audited by

Shri B. Y. Sawant, the Certified Auditor from the

panel of Auditors constituted by the Department

wherein the said Auditor has pointed out

misappropriation of the fund of the society amounting

to ` 32,62,294/- during the period under audit.

And whereas, the Secretary of the aforesaid

society, vide letter dated 28-03-2019 informed that

other then above misappropriated amount society

has also found discrepancies in Saving Bank

Accounts of the members and requested this office

to conduct re-audit of the said society for the

period from 2017-2018 to ascertain the actual

misappropriated amount in the funds of society.

And whereas, considering the gross negligence

and mis-appropriation in the funds of the society

the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, has

appointed Shri G. R. Shanbhag, Chartered

Accountant, Ponda-Goa to conduct re-audit of

Maharashtra V.K.S.S. Society Ltd., Gokulwadi,

Sankhalim-Goa, for the year 2017-2018.

And whereas, the concerned CA after

proceeding with said re-audit has informed that

all the staff of Maharashtra V.K.S.S. Society Ltd.,

Gokulwadi, Sankhalim-Goa, with common intention

hatched criminal conspiracy, alleged to be

misappropriated gold ornaments pledged to the

society by fraudulently removing the same from

the societies lockers and thereafter mortgaged the

same with other financial institutions/banks and

obtained gold loan for their wrongful gain.

And whereas, the concerned Chartered

Accountant also informed this office that there

exists lot of manipulations, scribbling in the figures

in saving bank account and is very difficult to

locate it properly. The daybook, the cashbook and

general ledger do not match with the figures due

to alterations. The society has maintained fixed

deposit account however some of the FD’s do not

match with the documentary evidence. There are

major irregularities in the payments of electricity

bill and the figures of daybook and cashbook does

not tally. Due to misappropriation, the affairs of the

society has reached to a standstill stage and the

society is facing constraints to meet with the

demands of its depositors and gold loanee members.

And whereas, the duties of the Board of

Directors are clearly laid down under bye-laws of

the society and keeping this in view, it was

expected from the Board to discharge their duties

and responsibilities in accordance with the

provision of bye-law of society. However, it

transpires from the present position that the Board

has failed to perform their duties as per the Act

Note:-

There are three Extraordinary issues to the

Official Gazette, Series II No. 45 dated 06-02-2020

as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 06-02-2020 from pages

837 to 838 regarding Notification from Raj

Bhavan.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 06-02-2020 from

pages 839 to 840 regarding Corrigendum from

Department of Elections.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 12-02-2020 from

pages 841 to 844 regarding Order &

Notifications from Department of Panchayati

Raj & Community Development.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

846

Rules and Bye-laws, thereby adopted a lenient view

at the helm of affairs of the society. This also

underlines the fact that as a part of precautionary

measures, Government’s intervention is required

immediately in the larger interest of the members/

/depositors and shareholders of the society.

And whereas, due to misappropriation/fraud

in the various accounts of the society, the

possibility of developing a scare of insecurity in

the minds of the depositors & the general members

cannot be ruled out. If this scare of insecurity is

allowed to continue further, then there is every

possibility that the situation may go out of control

in near future. Therefore from the past experience

and predicting such type of unpleasant

eventualities and to restrict the society from

carrying out the business in a manner detrimental

to the interest of the members/depositors in

particular and the society in general, the

Government on receipt of the report from the

Registrar and in exercise of the powers vested in

it under Section 68 of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act,

2001 is inclined to impose following restrictions on

the Maharashtra V.K.S.S. Society Ltd., Gokulwadi,

Sankhali-Goa:-

The society shall stop collecting all types of

fixed deposits until further order.

The society shall stop collecting all types of

bills such as electricity bill, water bills etc.

until further order.

The society shall not make any advances to

any individual member until further order.

The society shall put all efforts to recover

misappropriated

amount

and

gold

ornaments fraudulently mortgaged with

other financial institutions/banks, from the

alleged persons.

The Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies,

Bicholim Zone shall strictly enforce, the

guidelines issued by this office in respect

of gold loans vide circular No. 15-228-2008/

/ADT/RCS/part file/1421 dated 6-07-2017 to

stop the gold loans advances from the

society.

The Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies,

Bicholim Zone, shall take overall review of

progress made by the society in respect of

disbursement of loans, recovery of gold

ornaments and misappropriated money etc.

after every 3 months and thereafter submit

a detail report to the Head Office suggesting

to withdraw or to continue with the

restrictions as the case may be.

The above directives shall remain in force till

further order and the same shall be strictly adhered

to. Any non-compliance of the above said directives

shall be viewed seriously.

This order is issued with the approval of

Government and the same shall come into force

with immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Vikas S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 23rd January, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Education

Order

No. 1(2)-1-2015/SE/199

Government is pleased to transfer Kum. Ansari

Azra Z.A., Headmaster, Bhagwan Mahavir

Government High School, Honda, Satari and post

her as Headmaster, Government High School,

Advoi, Satari with immediate effect.

Smt. Sheetal S. Kadam, Headmaster, Government

High School, Advoi, Satari under the Directorate of

Education shall be stationed at the Directorate of

Education, Porvorim, awaiting posting with

immediate effect. She shall draw her pay &

allowances against the post of Headmaster,

Bhagwan Mahavir Government High School,

Honda, Satari, until further orders.

Shri Ulhas B. Gaonkar, Headmaster, Government

High School, Pissurlem, Satari-Goa shall hold the

additional charge of the post of Headmaster,

Bhagwan Mahavir Government High School,

Honda, Satari-Goa, in addition to his own duties

with immediate effect, until further orders.

The above Headmasters are entitled for TA/DA

as admissible as per rules.

The above Headmasters stand relieved

immediately.

The Officers shall complete handing over and

taking over process with immediate effect and

submit compliance.

They should submit a copy of their joining report

to the concerned Zonal Office under intimation to

this Directorate and report to the place of posting

immediately.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

847

This issues with the approval of the Government

vide U.O. No. 552/F dated 20-01-2020.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Vandana Rao, IAS, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Education).

Porvorim, 10th February, 2020.

———u———

Directorate of Higher Education

Order

No. ACAD-III/GC/Filling of Posts/04/2018/10796

Read:

Memorandum No. ACAD-III/GC/Filling of

Posts/04/2018/7314 dated 05-12-2019.

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/I/5/78(4)/2015/232 dated 01-11-2019,

Government is pleased to appoint Shri Aaron

Avelino Pereira to the post of College Director of

Physical Education in the Goa College of Music,

Altinho, Panaji-Goa under Directorate of Higher

Education on temporary basis in the Pay Matrix

Level 10 [Pay Band-3, Rs. 15,600-39,100+Academic

Grade Pay of Rs. 6,000/- (pre-revised)] with

immediate effect, and as per the terms and

conditions contained in the Memorandum cited

above.

Shri Aaron Avelino Pereira shall be on probation

for a period of two years.

Shri Aaron Avelino Pereira has been declared

medically fit by the Medical Board. The

appointment is made subject to the verification of

his character and antecedents. In the event of any

adverse remarks noticed by the Government on

verification of his character and antecedents, his

services shall be terminated.

He shall draw his salary against the newly

created post vide Order No. 1/5/2017-DHE/1024

dated 07-06-2018.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Premraj K. Shirodkar, Under Secretary (Higher

Education).

Porvorim, 5th February, 2020.

________

Certificate

No. ACAD III/SHEC/Filling of Posts/02/2019/

/Part-I/10730

Read:

ACAD III/SHEC/Filling of Posts/02/2019/

/Part-I/7916 dated 01-01-2020.

Certified that the character and antecedents of

Ms. Vandana Ulhas Naik appointed to the post of

Assistant Professor for Research, Development and

Innovation for State Higher Education Council

(Group “A” Gazetted) under Directorate of Higher

Education vide above referred Order has been

verified by the Addl. Collector & ADM, North, Office

of the District Magistrate, North Goa, Panaji-Goa

and nothing adverse has come to the notice of the

Government.

Premraj K. Shirodkar, Under Secretary (Higher

Education).

Porvorim, 29th January, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Forest

Order

No. 4-3-2014/FOR/57

On recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa

Public Service Commission vide letter No. Com/II/

/11/22(1)2016/332 dated 28-01-2020, the Governor

of Goa is pleased to promote Shri Pradeep Verekar,

Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF), to the post

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

Gazetted, in the pay scale of PB-3 Rs. 15,600-

-39,100+6,600/- (Level-11 of the 7th Pay

Commission) on regular basis in the Office of the

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest

Department, Panaji, with immediate effect.

The above officer shall be on probation for a

period of two years.

The officer shall exercise the option for fixation

of pay within one month from the date of this order

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

The pay of officer on promotion shall be fixed as

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

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Forests).

Porvorim, 10th February, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

848

Order

No. 4-4-2012/Seniority/FOR/Part/54

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

/22(1)/2015/333 dated 28-01-2020, the Government is pleased to declare the below mentioned four (04)

Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACFs) having satisfactory completed the probation period of two years

as mentioned hereinbelow:

Sr.

Name of the officer

Date of

No.

joining regular

completion of

Birth

service as Assistant

probation

Conservator of

period

Forests

Shri Amar A. Heblekar

28-03-2016

27-03-2018

18-08-1968.

Shri Shrikrishna R. Prabhu

29-03-2016

28-03-2018

20-09-1962.

Shri Anant G. Samant

29-03-2016

28-03-2018

28-10-1961.

Shri Deepak G. Pednekar

06-04-2016

05-04-2018

06-04-1970.

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

Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Forests).

Porvorim, 6th February, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Home

Home—General Division

—

Order

No. 9/15/87-HD(G)/PF/292

Read: 1. Notification No. 9/15/87-HD (G) dated

01-12-2000.

2. Order No. 9/15/87-HD (G) dated

28-09-2007.

3. Order No. 9/15/87-HD (G) dated

24-04-2012.

4. Order No. 9/15/87-HD (G)/PF/3304

dated 16-10-2014.

5. Order No. 9/15/87-HD (G)/PF/1598

dated 06-06-2017.

6. Order No. 9/15/87-HD (G)/PF/1341

dated 18-08-2019.

In exercise of power conferred by Rule 376 of

the Goa Prison Rules, 2006, Government of Goa is

pleased to constitute Board of Visitors for the New

Modern Central Jail, Colvale, Bardez, Goa, which is

as follows:-

(I) Non-Official Visitors in terms of Rule 378 shall

be as follows:

Sr.

Name of the

Designation

No.

Non-Official Visitors

1. Shri Pravin Zantye

MLA, Maem.

2. Shri Nilkanth Halarnkar

MLA, Thivim.

3. Shri Dayanand Sopte

MLA, Mandrem.

4. Chairperson, Goa State

Women Commission

4. Smt. Suhasini Prabhugaonkar

Social Worker.

(II) The Ex-Officio Visitors as per Rule 377 of the

Goa Prison Rules, 2006 are as follows:-

1. District & Sessions Judge, North Goa,

Panaji ....... Chairman.

2. District Magistrate, North Goa, Panaji.

3. Director General of Police, Panaji.

4. Superintendent of Police (North), Porvorim.

5. Chief Engineer, Public Works Department,

Altinho, Panaji.

6. Director of Handicrafts and Textile, Panaji.

7. Director of Agriculture, Panaji.

8. Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary

Services, Panaji.

9. Director of Education, Panaji.

10. Director of Social Welfare, Panaji.

11. Director of Institute of Psychiatric & Human

Behavior, Bambolim.

12. Director of Health Services, Panaji.

(III) In terms of Rule 379(3) of the Goa Prison Rules,

2006, the tenure of Non-Official Visitors shall

ordinarily be of two years and of the Members

of Goa State Legislative Assembly shall be one

year or till the member ceases to be a member

of Goa State Legislative Assembly, whichever

is earlier.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

849

(IV) The above order will be effective from the date

of issue.

(V) This issues in supersession of the earlier Order

No. 9/15/87-HD(G)/PF/1341 dated 18-08-2019.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nilesh K. Dhaigodkar, Under Secretary (Home).

Porvorim, 27th January, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Industries

—

Order

No. 3/97/2011-IND(Vol.IV)/72

Government of Goa is pleased to constitute a

District Level Export Promotion Committee under

the Chairmanship of District Magistrate/Collector

for South Goa District of the State of Goa as under:-

Composition of District Export Promotion

Committee

Official/Department

Role

District Magistrate/Collector

Chairperson.

(South)

Designated Director General of

Co-Chair.

Foreign Trade/Regional Authorities

(DGFT/RA)

General Manager–District Industries Member.

Centre (DIC), Directorate of

Industries, Trade & Commerce

Deputy Director (Industries),

Member.

Directorate of Industries, Trade

& Commerce

Lead Bank Manager

Member.

Representative of Ministry of Micro,

Member.

Small & Medium Enterprises–

–Development Institute (MSME-DI),

Margao

Representative from Goa Chamber

Member.

of Commerce & Industry (GCCI)

dealing with exports related

matters

Representatives from Department

Member.

of Agriculture

Representatives from Directorate

Member.

of Fisheries

Representatives from Department

Member.

fo Information Technology

Representatives from Directorate

Member.

of Food & Drugs Administration

Representative Export Inspection

Member.

Council

Representative from National Bank

Member.

for Agriculture & Rural Development

(NABARD)

Representative from Small Indus-

Member.

tries Development Bank of India

(SIDBI)

Representative from Directorate of

Member.

Mines & Geology

Representative from Goa Industrial

Member.

Development Corporation (GIDC)

Any other Member with the

approval of Chairperson

The Terms of Reference of the Committee shall

be as under:-

(i) Benchmarking baseline export performance

of district-current situation.

(ii) Identification of potential export products

from the district.

(iii) Creation of district level export action plan

with quantifiable targets.

(iv) Creation of sub-groups for each identi-

fied potential export product–involving

stakeholders like manufacturers, artisans,

exporters of the identified products.

(v) Monitoring sub-group activities for export

promotion of identified sub-groups for each

product.

(vi) Identification of bottlenecks for exports of

potential products.

(vii) Identifying training and development needs

of each district industries and co-ordination

for training with other Departments.

(viii) Act as one point facilitator for export

promotion at district level.

(ix) Liaison with and report progress to State

Level Export Promotion Committee.

(x) Update Online DEPC Progress Monitoring

Portal.

(xi) Dissemination of information through

trainings, seminars, guest lectures, practical

training, exchange visits with other districts

as excellence.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

850

(xii) Report progress at identified intervals of

State Level Export Promotion Committees

headed by Chief Secretaries of each State.

(xiii) Any other matter to be referred by the

Chairman.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 5th February, 2020.

________

Order

No. 3/97/2011-IND(Vol.IV)/74

Government of Goa is pleased to constitute a

District Level Export Promotion Committee under

the Chairmanship of District Magistrate/Collector

for North Goa District of the State of Goa as under:-

Composition of District Export Promotion

Committee

Official/Department

Role

District Magistrate/Collector

Chairperson.

(North)

Designated Director General of

Co-Chair.

Foreign Trade/Regional Authorities

(DGFT/RA)

General Manager–District Industries Member.

Centre (DIC), Directorate of

Industries, Trade & Commerce

Deputy Director (Industries),

Member.

Directorate of Industries, Trade

& Commerce

Lead Bank Manager

Member.

Representative of Ministry of Micro,

Member.

Small & Medium Enterprises–

–Development Institute (MSME-DI),

Margao

Representative from Goa Chamber

Member.

of Commerce & Industry (GCCI)

dealing with exports related

matters

Representatives from Department

Member.

of Agriculture

Representatives from Directorate

Member.

of Fisheries

Representatives from Department

Member.

fo Information Technology

Representatives from Directorate

Member.

of Food & Drugs Administration

Representative Export Inspection

Member.

Council

Representative from National Bank

Member.

for Agriculture & Rural Development

(NABARD)

Representative from Small Indus-

Member.

tries Development Bank of India

(SIDBI)

Representative from Directorate of

Member.

Mines & Geology

Representative from Goa Industrial

Member.

Development Corporation (GIDC)

Any other Member with the

approval of Chairperson

The Terms of Reference of the Committee shall

be as under:-

(i) Benchmarking baseline export performance

of district-current situation.

(ii) Identification of potential export products

from the district.

(iii) Creation of district level export action plan

with quantifiable targets.

(iv) Creation of sub-groups for each identi-

fied potential export product–involving

stakeholders like manufacturers, artisans,

exporters of the identified products.

(v) Monitoring sub-group activities for export

promotion of identified sub-groups for each

product.

(vi) Identification of bottlenecks for exports of

potential products.

(vii) Identifying training and development needs

of each district industries and co-ordination

for training with other Departments.

(viii) Act as one point facilitator for export

promotion at district level.

(ix) Liaison with and report progress to State

Level Export Promotion Committee.

(x) Update Online DEPC Progress Monitoring

Portal.

(xi) Dissemination of information through

trainings, seminars, guest lectures, practical

training, exchange visits with other districts

as excellence.

(xii) Report progress at identified intervals of

State Level Export Promotion Committees

headed by Chief Secretaries of each State.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

851

(xiii) Any other matter to be referred by the

Chairman.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 5th February, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

—

Notification

No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-I/91

The following award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 06-01-2020 in case

No. Ref. LC-II/IT/11/16 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, 30th January, 2020.

______

IN THE LABOUR COURT–II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/11/16

Shri Ramdas Naik,

R/o. Madkai, Ponda-Goa.

….

Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Procter and Gamble Hygiene

and Health Care Ltd.,

Plot No. 173, GDDIC, Kundaim,

Ponda-Goa.

….

Employer/Party II

Workman/Party-I present in person.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri G.B.

Kamat.

Panaji, Dated: 06-01-2020.

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

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

Government of Goa, by Order dated 10-10-2016,

bearing No. 28/32/2016-Lab/719 referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this Labour

Court-II, Panaji, Goa.

“1. Whether the action the management of

M/s. Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health

Care Ltd., Plot No. 173, GDDIC, Kundaim,

Ponda-Goa in dismissing from service

Shri Ramdas Naik, Technician, with effect

from 12-12-2012, is legal and justified?

2. If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II IT/11/16 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

12-01-2017 at Exb-4. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/

/Party-II (for short ‘Employer’) is manufacturing

sanitary napkin products. He stated that he was

working as a ‘Technician’ with the Employer since

01-10-1991 till he was suspended from service.

3. He stated that on 21-03-2011, he had fixed his

sister’s wedding, however, it was not confirmed

due to some family difficulties. He stated that he

had verbally informed the manager for leave

requirement for the aforesaid reason and that he

also told that the date of wedding was not

confirmed. He stated that on 22-03-2011, i.e. the

next day of his sister wedding, he personally went

to meet the manager, Mr. Anup for leave as he was

disturbing him by calling him again and again to

join the duties. He stated that the said manager,

Mr. Anup also threatened him that he would be in

loss of pay. He stated that on both the days, the

said Mr. Anup was not in his office and he was

waiting for him. He stated that he informed HR

Manager, Mr. Arpan Gupta about his urgent leave

and that he would join on duty on 26-03-2011. He

stated that the said Mr. Arpan Gupta agreed for

the leave and also told him that he would convey

the same to Mr. Anup. He stated that he joined the

duties on 26-03-2011 instead of 02-04-2011 before

period of expiry of his leave.

4. He stated that after resuming duty on

26-03-2011, Mr. Anup started harassing him. He

stated that to his surprise, on 08-06-2011 he was

put under suspension on the ground that he has

abused and insulted the supervisor. He stated that

he was suspended without conducting any

preliminary enquiry on a concocted story. He

stated that he was issued a charge-sheet dated

21-06-2011 without giving copies of the complaint.

He stated that he was dismissed from service

vide dismissal order dated 12-12-2012 without

conducting a fair and proper enquiry. He stated

that he raised a dispute before the Dy. Labour

Commissioner, Ponda on 04-12-2012, which ended

in failure.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

852

5. He contended that the Enquiry Officer was

biased and conducted an enquiry in unfair and

improper manner. He submitted that the Enquiry

Officer has acted as an agent of the management.

He submitted that the punishment imposed

upon him is severe in nature and has made

discrimination against him. He submitted that the

enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of

natural justice. He submitted that he is a married

person and is having dependent mother, wife and

two school going children. He therefore prayed

that his dismissal from service be declared as

illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law and direct the

Employer to reinstate him with full back wages

and continuity in service.

6. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement on

22-02-2017 at Exb. 6. The Employer, as and by way

of its preliminary objections, submitted that the

reference filed by the Workman is bad-in-law, that

the Workman has not given any justification for

the demands/claim raised by him, that the present

dispute of the Workman is not an ‘industrial dispute’

as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and that

there is non-application of mind by the Appropriate

Government while referring the present dispute.

7. The Employer stated that it is in the

manufacture of hygiene and health care products.

The Employer stated that the Workman had raised

the present dispute just to pressurize and harass

them without any justifiable reasons. The Employer

submitted that it had followed the proper

procedure with due regards to the principles of

natural justice in case of the Workman. The

Employer submitted that its decision in the matter

of the Workman is legal, just and not in

contravention of any law. The Employer stated that

the Workman was involved in several acts of

misconduct during his service tenure. The Employer

stated that they have afforded him several

opportunities to improve his behavioral and other

related issues at workplace. The Employer stated

that it believes in maintaining best of the relations

with its employees and if any issue arises, they

believe in settling the same amicably. The Employer

stated that however, the acts of the Workman at

workplace constrained them to initiate disciplinary

proceedings against him as he failed to avail and

improve even after affording several such

opportunities as mentioned above time and again.

The Employer stated that the Workman was placed

under suspension vide suspension letter dated

08-06-2011 and he was regularly paid suspension

allowances as per law.

8. The Employer stated that a charge-sheet-cum-

notice of enquiry dated 21-06-2011 was issued to

the Workman. The Employer stated that they have

instituted an enquiry by appointing Mr. Prasanna

C. Chawdikar an advocate, as an Enquiry Officer to

conduct an impartial enquiry. The Employer stated

that accordingly, the enquiry was conducted by

an impartial and competent Enquiry Officer. The

Employer stated that the enquiry has been

conducted in accordance with the principles of

natural justice. The Employer stated that the

Workman was given every conceivable opportunity

to participate and present his case during the

enquiry. The Employer stated that after conclusion

of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his

findings dated 03-10-2012 holding that the

Workman guilty of charges levelled against him as

mentioned therein. The Employer stated that it

has perused the charges, the proceedings of the

enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer

and concluded that the enquiry has been

concluded in accordance with the principles of

natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry

Officer are fair, proper and based on evidence on

record. The Employer stated that it can be seen

that the Enquiry Officer has given his reasoned

findings. The Employer stated that considering the

gravity of proved misconduct, past records, they

dismissed the Workman from its services vide

dismissal letter dated 12-12-2012 and paid his all

the legal dues as per the law which has been

duly accepted by him. The Employer therefore

submitted that the termination of services of the

Workman is therefore legal and justified and hence,

he is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him

in the present case.

9. The Employer stated that the Workman is

gainfully employed immediately from the date of

his dismissal and as such his mother, wife and two

school going children can be looked after by him

without any hurdles. The Employer stated that the

Workman is having many sources of income and as

such, he is not facing any hardships due to his

dismissal from service. The Employer stated that in

the event, this Hon’ble Court come to the

conclusion that the enquiry proceedings held

against the Workman was not conducted fairly and

properly for any reason whatsoever and that the

findings of the enquiry are perverse or vitiated for

any reason whatsoever and for the said reasons

the proceedings of the enquiry are liable to be set

aside, they may be permitted to hold the said

enquiry a fresh and/or to lead evidence a fresh

before this Hon’ble Court to prove the charges of

misconduct against the Workman to its satisfaction.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

853

The Employer denied the overall case as pleaded

by the Workman and prayed for dismissal of the

present reference.

10. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder

at Exb.11. The Workman, by way of his rejoinder,

reiterates all the submissions and averments made

by him in his Claim Statement to be true and

correct and denies all the statements and

averments made by the Employer in their Written

Statement, which are contrary and inconsistent to

the statements and averments made by him.

11.

Based on the pleadings filed by the

respective parties, this court framed the following

issues on 25-07-2017 at Exb.13.

1. Whether a free, fair and proper enquiry has

been conducted against the Workman/

/Party I in accordance with the principles of

natural justice?

2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled

against the Workman/Party I vide charge

sheet dated 21-06-2011 are proved to the

satisfaction of this court by an acceptable

evidence?

3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the action of the Employer/Party II in

dismissing him from service w.e.f. 12-12-2012,

is illegal and unjustified?

4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the reference is not maintainable and

bad-in-law in view of the reasons stated in

para (a) to (d) of its written statement?

5. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to

any relief?

6. What Order? What Award?

12. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a) Issue No. 1

: In the affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

: Partly in the affirmative

and

partly

the

negative.

: In the negative.

(d) Issue No. 4

: In the negative.

(e) Issue No. 5 & 6 : As per final order.

REASONS

I have heard the oral arguments of the Workman

in person as well as Ld. Adv. Shri G.B. Kamat,

appearing for the Employer. Ld. Adv. Shri G.B.

Kamat, representing the Employer also filed

synopsis of Written Arguments on behalf of the

Employer.

13. During the course of oral arguments, the

Workman submitted that he was working for the

Employer as a Technician since 01-10-1991 till he

was suspended from service w.e.f. 08-06-2011. He

submitted that he was issued a charge-sheet

dated 21-06-2011 for the misconduct of wilful

insubordination or disobedience, whether alone or

in combination with others, to any lawful and

reasonable order of a superior, wilful damage to or

loss of Employer’s good or property, habitual

absence without leave or absence without leave

for more than 10 days, riotous or disorderly

behaviour during working hours at the

establishment or any act subversive of discipline,

neglect of work. He submitted that vide order dated

11-06-2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in

answering the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, held

that a fair and proper enquiry has been conducted

against the Workman in respect of charge-sheet

dated 21-06-2011 and that except the charge of

habitual absence without leave or absence without

leave for more than 10 days, all the charges of

misconduct levelled against the Workman, vide

charge-sheet dated 21-06-2011 have been proved

to the satisfaction of this court by acceptable

evidence. He submitted that the charges proved

against him are not severe and grave. He submitted

that he was a confirmed employee and had worked

with the Employer continuously since 01-10-1990

till the date of his termination w.e.f. 12-12-2012. He

submitted that he had unblemished past service

record with the Employer. He submitted that during

the course of his employment with the Employer,

he has been awarded meritorious certificate several

times. He submitted that as per the Standing Orders

of the Employer applicable to him, the Workman

cannot be suspended without enquiry for more

than four days. He submitted that he was

appointed by an appointment letter duly signed

by Vice President of the Employer, however, he

was dismissed from service by letter dated

12-12-2012 signed by Plant Manager. He therefore

submitted that the action of the Employer in

dismissing him from service is null, void and illegal.

He submitted that no powers were given by the

Board of Directors of the Employer to the Plant

Manager by taking appropriate resolution to

dismiss him from service. He therefore submitted

that his dismissal from service is bad-in-law. He

submitted that the punishment of dismissal from

service issued to him is disproportionate to the

proved misconduct. He submitted that he is

unemployed from the date of termination of his

services till date. The Workman therefore prayed

that he be reinstated in service with full back wages

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

854

alongwith consequential benefits. In support of his

oral contentions, the Workman relied upon

following judgments:

(a) In the case of M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd.

v/s. State of U.P. and 3 others, reported in

AIR 1996 All 199 of Hon’ble High Court of

Allahabad.

(b) In the case of Raghubir Singh v/s. General

Manager, Haryana Road ways, Hissar,

reported in 2014 10 SCC 301 of Hon’ble Apex

Court.

v/s. The Presiding Officer and Anr., LPA

No. 403 of 2013 of Hon’ble High Court of

Punjab and Haryana.

(d) In the case of Indian Seamless Metal Tubes

Limited (Tubes Works), Ahmednagar v/s.

Kailash Nampelli Ushakoyal & Anr., reported

in 2014 III CLR 47 of Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay.

The Workman therefore prayed for setting aside

the dismissal order dated 12-12-2012 and direct

the Employer to reinstate him in service with full

back wages and consequential benefits thereof.

14.

Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G.B. Kamat,

representing the Employer submitted that

undisputedly, the Workman was working with the

Employer as ‘Technician’ since 01-10-1991 till the

date of his dismissal w.e.f. 12-12-2012. He submitted

that the Workman was issued a charge-sheet dated

21-06-2011. He submitted that the Workman was

dismissed from service for his proved misconduct

as spelt out in the charge-sheet dated 21-06-2011

by holding an enquiry. He submitted that vide order

dated 11-06-2019 passed by this Hon’ble Court in

its findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2,

it is held that a free, fair and proper enquiry has

been held against the Workman and that except

the charge of habitual absence without leave or

absence without leave for more than 10 days, all

the charges of misconducts levelled against the

Workman vide charge-sheet dated 21-06-2011 have

been proved to the satisfaction of this court by

acceptable evidence. He submitted that the

misconduct proved against the Workman were

severe and grave warranting the dismissal of

service of the Workman. He submitted that the

punishment of dismissal imposed on the Workman

is proportionate to the proved misconduct. He

submitted that the punishment of dismissal from

service imposed on the Workman is just, fair and

proper. He submitted that the past record of the

Workman is blemished and had been issued several

memos, show-cause notices etc. In support of his

oral contention he relied upon the following

judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

(a) In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra

Ltd. v/s. N.B. Narawade reported in AIR 2004

SC 1993.

(b) In the case of M.P. Electricity Board v/s.

Jagdish Chandra Sharma reported in

[(2005) 3 SCC 401].

Trust and Anr. v/s. State of Karnataka &

Ors., reported in 2006 (1) SCC 430.

(d) In the case of Employers Management

West Bokaro Colliery of Tisco Ltd. v/s.

Ram Pravesh Singh, reported in AIR 2008

SC 1162.

He also relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble High

Court of Gujrat in the case of Madhavsingh N.

Solanki v/s. Gujrat Electricity Corporation Ltd. and

Anr., reported in 2001 LAB I.C. 3491.

I have carefully perused the entire records of

the present case including the synopsis of

arguments filed by the Employer. I have carefully

considered the various submissions advanced by

the Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Shri G.B. Kamat

appearing for the Employer.

REASONS

15. Issue No. 1 and 2:

Vide order dated 11-06-2019 passed by this

Hon’ble Court in its findings on the preliminary

issue No. 1 and 2, it is held that a free, fair and

proper enquiry has been held against the Workman

and that except the charge of habitual absence

without leave or absence without leave for more

than 10 days, all the charges of misconducts

levelled against the Workman vide charge-sheet

dated 21-06-2011 have been proved to the

satisfaction of this court by acceptable evidence.

The issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and

the issue No. 2 is answered partly in the affirmative

and partly in the negative.

16. Issue No. 3:

It appears from the pleadings of the Workman

on record that the Workman challenged his order

of dismissal from service w.e.f. 12-12-2012 by

contending to be illegal and unjustified on the

ground that the enquiry conducted against him is

unfair, improper, in violation of the principles of

natural justice and that the punishment imposed

upon him is of severe nature.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

855

17. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that

“It is no doubt true that after introduction of

Section 11-A in the I.D. Act, 1947, certain amount of

discretion

vested

with

the

Labour

Court/ Industrial Tribunal in interfering with the

quantum of punishment awarded by the

management where the Workman concerned is found

guilty of misconduct. The said area of discretion

has been very well defined by the various judgments

of this court referred to hereinabove and it is

certainly not unlimited as has been observed by the

Division Bench of the High Court. The discretion,

which can be exercised under Sec. 11-A is available

only on the existence of certain factors like

punishment being disproportionate to the gravity

of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the

court, or the existence of any mitigating

circumstances which require the reduction of the

sentence or past conduct of the Workman which

may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the

punishment. In the absence of any such factor

existing, the Labour Court cannot by way of

sympathy alone exercise the power u/s. 11-A of the

Act and reduce the punishment”.

18. In the case of Chairman & Managing

Director, United Commercial Bank and Other

V/s P. C. Kakkar., reported in 2003 – LLR 436, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that

“the court should not interfere with the

administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or

suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking

to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it

was in defiance of logic or moral standards. Only

where the Court finds that a punishment is

shockingly disproportionate it must record reasons

for coming to such conclusion and mere expression

that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate

could not meet the requirement of law. Further the

charges against Respondent not being casual in

nature, but being serious, the High Court was not

justified in interfering with the quantum of

punishment”.

19. The Principle laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, in its aforesaid respective

judgments is well established and there is no

dispute about the same. Thus, it is settled law that

the discretion of the court to alter or reduce the

punishment as empowered u/s. 11-A of the I.D.

Act, 1947 is not absolute. The discretion, which

can be exercised u/s 11-A is available only on the

existence of certain factors, like punishment being

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, so

as to disturb the conscience of the Court, or the

existence of any mitigating circumstances, which

requires the reduction of the sentence or the past

conduct of the Workman, which may persuade the

Labour Court to reduce the punishment.

Ld. Adv. Shri G.B. Kamat appearing for the

Employer, relied upon the following judgments of

Hon’ble Apex Court in support of its contention

that the action of the Employer in dismissing the

services of the Workman is just, fair and proper.

20. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra

(supra), where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

as under:

“…….as noticed herein above at least in two of

the cases cited before us, i.e. Orissa Cement

Ltd. (supra) and New Shorrock Mills (supra),

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has that

“punishment of dismissal for using of

abusive language cannot be held to be

disproportionate”. In this case all the forums

below have held that the language used by the

Workman was filthy. We too are of the opinion

that the language used by the Workman is

such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilized

society. Use of such abusive language against

a superior officer, that too not once but twice,

in the presence of his subordinates cannot be

termed to be an indiscipline calling for lesser

punishment in the absence of any extenuating

factor referred to hereinabove….’.

21. In the case of M.P. Electricity Board (supra),

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“In the case on hand, the employee has been

found guilty of hitting and injuring his

superior officer at the workplace, obviously in

the presence of other employees. This clearly

amounted to breach of discipline in the

organization. Discipline at the workplace in an

organization like the Employer herein, is the

sine qua non for the efficient working of the

organization. When an employee breaches such

discipline and the Employer terminates his

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

Industrial Tribunal to take the view that

the punishment awarded is shockingly

disproportionate to the charge proved. We have

already referred to the views of this court. To

quote Jack Chan, “discipline is a form of

civilly responsible behaviour which helps

maintain social order and contributes to the

preservation, if not advancement, of collective

interests of society at large”.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

856

22. In the case of Hombe Gowda Education Trust

and Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held as under:

“…..The recent trend in the decisions of this

court seek to strike a balance between the earlier

approach of the industrial relation wherein

only the interest of the workmen was sought

to be protected with the a vowed object of fast

industrial growth of the country. In several

decisions of this court it has been noticed that

how discipline at the workplaces/industrial

undertaking received a set back. In view of the

change in economic policy of the country, it

may not now be proper to allow the employees

to break the discipline with impunity. Our

country is governed by rule of law. All actions,

therefore, must be taken in accordance with

law. Law declared by this court in terms of

Article 141 of the constitution of India, as

noticed in the decisions noticed supra,

categorically demonstrates that the Tribunal

would not normally interfere with the quantum

of punishment imposed by the Employers

unless an appropriate case is made out

therefor. The Tribunal being inferior to that of

this court was bound to follow the decisions of

this court which are applicable to the fact of

the present case in question. The Tribunal can

neither ignore the ratio laid down by this court

nor refuse to follow the same…..

Further, in the same judgment, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as under:

“ ……….A person, when dismissed from

services, is put to a great hardship but that

would not mean that a grave misconduct

should go unpunished. Although the doctrine

of proportionality may be applicable in such

matters, but a punishment of dismissal from

service for such a misconduct cannot be said

to be unheard of maintenance of discipline of

an institution is equally important….”.

23. In the case of Employers Management West

Bokaro Colliery of Tisco Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as under:

“After going through the order of the Industrial

Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the

Tribunal has interfered with the findings

recorded by the domestic Tribunal as if it was

the Appellate Tribunal. There was evidence

present on record regarding indecent, riotous

and disorderly behaviour of the respondent

towards his superiors. The management

witnesses who were present at the scene of

occurrence have unequivocally deposed about

the misbehavior of the respondent towards his

superiors. Their evidence has been discarded

by the Tribunal by observing that in the

absence of independent evidence, the

statements of the workmen who were present

at the scene of occurrence could not be believed.

The Industrial Tribunal fell in error in

discarding the evidence produced by the

management only because the independent

witnesses, were not produced…..”

24. In the case of Madhavsingh N. Solanki v/s.

Gujrat Electricity Corporation Ltd. (supra), the

Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat in para 14 of its

judgment held as under:

“14. The Apex Court, in Bharat Heavy

Electricals Ltd. v/s. M. Chandrashekhar Reddy and

Ors, in paragraph 26 held as under at p.870 of LLJ:

23…….The fact that the misconduct now

alleged is the first misconduct again is no ground

to condone the misconduct….

From the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court,

it is clear that past record of service may be a

relevant factor for considering as to whether

the punishment imposed upon the delinquent

employee was shockingly disproportionate to

the charge or not but merely because it was a

first misconduct could not be a ground to

condone a serious misconduct. Now coming to

the facts of the case in hand, we find that in

past there was no misconduct committed by

the appellant and poor financial condition may

be a relevant consideration for awarding leser

punishment, but the gravity of charge which

was found proved against the appellant that

he interfered with the inqury proceedigns of

another daily wage employee, misbehaved with

the Inquiry Officer, tore the papers of the

inquiry proceedings were sufficient to warrant

his dismissal from service. No linient view could

be taken in such matters as it would encourage

indiscipline and such employee has to be dealt

with an iron hand by the Employer. The Labour

court had not given cogent reasons as to why

it has directed reinstatement in service when

the Labour Court had found the charge of

misbehavior and misconduct proved against

the Workman. The only reason given by the

Labour Court is that in the past the Appellant

had not committed any misconduct, was not

sufficient to condone the grave misconduct

committed by the appellant. The reprehensible

behaviour of the appellant and serious

misconduct committed by him was not

pardonable and the dismissal from service in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

857

such case was the appropriate punishment.

We do not find any illegality in the impugned

judgment passed by the learned single judge.

In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly

dismissed summarily….”

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court as well as Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat in its

aforesaid respective judgments is well established

and also applicable to the case in hand.

25. In the instant case, vide order dated

11-06-2019 passed in my findings on preliminary

issue No. 1 and 2, I have discussed and come to the

conclusion that the enquiry conducted against the

Workman is fair and proper and that except the

charge of habitual absence without leave or

absence without leave for more than 10 days, all

the charges of misconduct levelled against the

Workman vide charge-sheet dated 21-06-2011 have

been proved to the satisfaction of this court by

acceptable evidence. The charges of misconduct

proved against the Workman vide charge-sheet

dated 21-06-2011 are so grave and serious in nature

that the unblemished past record would not

operate as a mitigating factor. The punishment of

dismissal from service imposed upon the Workman

is proportionate to the proved misconduct, taking

into consideration the past record of the Workman

as well as the extenuating circumstances. The

dismissal from service of the Workman is just, fair

and proper.

26. During the course of oral arguments, the

Workman submitted that he was appointed by a

Vice-President of the Employer and that he was

dismissed from service by a letter duly signed by

the Plant Manager of the Employer and as such

his dismissal from service is illegal and unjustified.

The Workman further submitted that no powers

were given by the Board of Directors of the

Employer by way of resolution to dismiss him from

service. However, I do not find any merits in the

aforesaid submissions of the Workman as there is

no pleading to that effect.

27. In the case of Indian Seamless Metal Tubes

Limited (Tubes Works), Ahmednagar (supra),

before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, the

Workman was dismissed from service after having

proved the charges of misconduct namely

disobedience of the lawful order and refusal to

accept a charge-sheet or a communication. The

Workman challenged his dismissal by filing a

complaint (ULP) before the Labour Court. The

Labour Court partly allowed the complaint by its

impugned judgment dated 05-09-1996 and the order

of dismissal of the Respondent was held to be

bad-in-law. The Petitioner challenged the judgment

of the Labour Court by filing a revision petition

before the Industrial Tribunal, which resulted in

its dismissal. The Petitioner challenged the

dismissal order of the Industrial Tribunal by filing

a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. While

dismissing the writ petition filed by the Petitioner,

the Hon’ble High Court has observed as under

“25. In my view, the Employer is obliged to

consider the past records since a clean and

unblemished record operates as a mitigating

factor to reduce the seriousness and the

gravity of the misconduct proved against the

Workman. Similarly, a bad/blemished past

record would aggravate the seriousness and

gravity of proved misconduct.”

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay is well established and also

applicable to the case in hand. However, Clause 5

of the letter of dismissal dated 12-12-2012 issued to

the Workman indicates that the Employer

considered the past records of the Workman and

have come to the conclusion there are no

extenuating circumstances.

28. In the case of M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd.

(supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held

that “a careful reading of the Clause 21 of the

Certified Standing Orders indicates that an act of

habitual absence or an act of negligence or neglect

of work, if repeated is an act or omission, which

would amount to a misconduct. There is no doubt

about the fact that about the wilful disobedience

or insubordiniation is an act of misconduct under

Clause 21 (y) of the Certified Standing Orders but

taking note of the fact that the Labour Court has

substituted the punishment of dismissal in order

to give a chance to the Workman to improve

himself, this court in exercise of power of judicial

review under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India does not find any justification to take a

different view. Further the Hon’ble High Court

further held that “the Labour Court having taken

note of Clause 21 of the CSO held that the absence

of the Workman from duty was a solitary act. It was

not a repeated act of negligence of duties and the

Workman cannot be said to be habitual absentee.

It has further noticed that though the charge of

threatening to superior at his residence is proved

but since it was an act outside the precincts of the

establishment and further no criminal complaint

has been lodged against the Workman, it was not

such a serious misconduct which would warrant

punishment of dismissal”.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

858

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court in its aforesaid case is not applicable to the

case in hand as the facts of the case in hand are

totally different than the case before the Hon’ble

High Court.

29. In the case of Raghubir Singh (Supra), the

Hon’ble Apex Court in para 40 of its judgment held

as under:

“40. The above critical analysis of law laid down

by this Court in the case referred to supra, is

very much relevant to the case on hand, which

is neither discussed nor considered and

examined by the courts below while answering

the reference made by the State Government

and passing the award, judgments and orders

in a cavalier manner. Thus, the lives of the

appellant and his family members have been

hampered. Further, on facts, we have to hold

that the order of termination passed is highly

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct

and therefore shocks the conscience of this

court. Hence, we hold that the appellant is

entitled for the reliefs as prayed by him in this

appeal”.

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court is not applicable to the case in hand.

Hence, it is held that the Workman failed to

prove that the termination of his services w.e.f.

12-12-2012 is illegal and unjustified. The issue

No. 3 is answered in the negative.

30. Issue No. 4:

The Employer, by way of its preliminary

objections, submitted that the reference is

bad-in-law, that the Party I has not given any

justifications for the demands/claims raised by him

that the dispute raised by the Party I is not an

‘industrial dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 and that there is non-application of mind

by the Appropriate Government, while referring

the dispute. The burden was cast on the Employer

to prove the said issue No. 4.

31. The Employer has however, did not examine

any of its witness in support of its aforesaid

submissions. Even otherwise, the Employer

admitted the status of the Party I as ‘workman’

within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,

1947. The dispute raised by the Workman

pertaining to his non-employment is therefore an

‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of

Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, I do not

find any merits in the preliminary objections raised

by the Employer. It is therefore held that the

Employer failed to prove that the reference is not

maintainable and bad-in-law in view of reasons

stated by the Employer in para (a) to (d) of its

written statement. The issue No. 4 is therefore

answered in the negative.

In view of the above discussion and with regards

to the facts and circumstances of the case, I pass

the following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that action of the management of

M/s. Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health

Care Ltd., Plot No. 173, GDDIC, Kundaim,

Ponda-Goa in dismissing from service

Shri Ramdas Naik, Technician, with effect

from 12-12-2012, is legal and justified.

2. It is further held that the Workman,

Shri Ramdas Naik, Technician, is not entitled

to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

———uuu———

Department of Panchayati Raj &

Community Development

Directorate of Panchayats

Read: Notice of Election and Public Notice

FORM I

[See Rule 10(1)]

Notice is hereby given that:-

The elections will be held to elect the members

of the below mentioned Village Panchayat on

26th April, 2020.

Sr.

Name of the

Ward

Reserved for

No.

Village Panchayat

No.

OBC/ST/Woman

V. P. Agassaim,

VII

Tiswadi

Nominations may be delivered by a candidate

to the Returning Officer in his office between such

hours as to be fixed by the State Election

Commission.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Sd/- Secretary (Panchayats).

Panaji, 27th January, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

859

Department of Personnel

—

Order

No. 5/16/2017-PER/407

Read: 1) Order No. 6/20/2016-PER/782 dated

07-03-2019.

In terms of Rule 28 of the Goa Civil Service Rules,

2016 and on the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II/12/42(1)/2020/326 dated 28-01-2020,

the Governor of Goa is pleased to declare the

following Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service,

to have satisfactorily completed their period of

probation in Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service

and confirmed in the grade with effect from the

date of their completion of probation period

i.e. 24-11-2016:

Sr.

Name of the probationers

No.

Shri Umakant Nhanu Korkankar.

Smt. Fransquinha Oliveira.

Shri Paresh M. Fal Desai.

Shri Sudhir Kerkar.

Shri Shankar Barkelo Gaonkar.

Smt. Triveni Paik Velip.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 4th February, 2020.

________

Order

No. 4/4/2013-PER/410

Read: Order No. 4/4/2013-PER/3635 dated 06-12-2019.

The Governor of Goa is pleased to order transfer

of Dr. (Smt.) Shamila Dos Milagres Monteiro, Director

of Fisheries as Member Secretary, Goa State

Pollution Control Board, Saligao.

Smt. Monteiro shall also hold the charge of

Director in the Directorate of Fisheries in addition

to her own duties till further orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 4th February, 2020.

Order

No. 6/11/2019-PER/456

In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 43,

of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016 (hereinafter to

be called as said rules), the Government, in

consultation with the Goa Public Service

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

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

the table hereinunder to the following class of

officers in Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service as

mentioned in column (2):

Sr.

Name of the officer

Relaxation in years of

No.

qualifying service

granted

1. Shri Umakant Korkankar

1 year 02 months.

2. Smt. Fransquinha Oliveira

1 year 02 months.

3. Shri Paresh Fal Desai

1 year 02 months.

4. Shri Sudhir S. Kerkar

1 year 02 months.

5. Shri Shankar B. Gaonkar

1 year 02 months.

6. Smt. Triveni Paik Velip

1 year 02 months.

This issues with the approval of the Goa Public

Service Commission conveyed vide letter No. COM/

/II/11/42(1)/2020/1649 dated 07-02-2020.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 7th February, 2020.

________

Order

No. 6/16/2013-PER/Part/431

Read: Order No. 6/16/2013-PER/Part dated 21-04-2017.

Whereas, on the recommendation of Depart-

mental Promotion Committee as conveyed by the

Goa Public Service Commission vide its letter

No. COM/II/11/42(1)/2016/573 dated 19-04-2017, 22

Officers holding the posts included in Schedule-II

of the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, were promoted

to Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service, Group ‘A’

Gazetted, in the Level 10 of the Pay Matrix vide

Order read in the preamble;

And whereas, Shri Tushar Halarnkar, one of the

Officer holding the post included in Schedule II of

the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016 was also

considered by the D.P.C. for promotion to Junior

Scale of Goa Civil Service, but the findings of D.P.C.

were kept in sealed cover;

And whereas, the Directorate of Vigilance has

informed that no disciplinary proceedings are

pending against Shri Halarnkar;

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 46

13TH FEBRUARY, 2020

860

And whereas, the proposal was referred to the

Commission to open the sealed cover;

Now therefore, on the recommendation of the

Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by

the Goa Public Service Commisision vide its letter

No. COM/II/11/42(1)/2019/338 dated 31-01-2020, the

Governor of Goa is pleased to promote and appoint

Shri Tushar Halarnkar to Junior Scale of Goa Civil

Service, Group ‘A’ Gazetted under Rule 17 of the

Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016 read with Rule 8 (b)

of the said Rules in Level 10 of the C.C.S. Revised

Pay Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 21-04-2017 and place him

below Smt. Anuja A. Naik Gaunkar alias Faldessai

and above Shri Manuel P. Barreto in the order read

in preamble.

Shri Tushar Halarnkar shall be on probation

for a period of two years with effect from 21-04-2017.

He shall exercise option for pay fixation in the

promotional grade in terms of provisions of

F.R. 22(1)a(1) within a period of one month from the

date of issue of the order.

The option once exercised shall be final. He shall

be entitled for all the consequential benefits

enjoyed by his juniors promoted vide order dated

21-04-2017 read in the preamble.

Shri Tushar Halarnkar shall continue in the

present posting, until further orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 6th February, 2020.

_______

Order

No. 7/23/2017-PER/481

Read: Letter No. 14046/66/2013.ITS.I dated

04-02-2020.

Sanction of the Government is accorded to

relieve Shri Ravi Jha, IAS (AGMUT:2011) from the

State Administration w.e.f. 14-02-2020 (a.n.), to join

the new place of posting as OSD to the Minister for

State (I/C) DoNER and Mos for PMO, PPG&P, Atomic

Energy and Space (Dr. Jitendra Singh) in the

Department of Atomic Energy, New Delhi.

Shri Sanjay Kumar, IAS, Secretary (Revenue),

shall hold the charge held by Shri Ravi

Jha, IAS, Secretary (IT) in addition to his own

duties.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 10th February, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Social Welfare

Directorate of Social Welfare

Notification

No. 51-99-2016-17-HC/4947

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rules

(2) and (3) of Rule 17 of the Goa Rights of Persons

with Disabilities Rules, 2018, the Government of

Goa hereby constitutes the Search-cum-Selection

Committee consisting of the following members,

namely:

1. Secretary (Social Welfare)

— Chairperson.

2. Joint Secretary (Personnel) — Member.

3. Director of Social Welfare

— Member

Secretary.

This Notification shall come into force with

immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Umeshchandra Joshi, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Social Welfare).

Panaji, 11th February, 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. 16.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—358/160–2/2020.