Panaji, 27th February, 2020 (Phalguna 8,1941)
SERIES II No. 48
889
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. 48-8-2001/TS/RCS/IV/5400
In exercise of the powers conferred on me under
Section 86(1) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,
2001 read with Rule 116(1) of the Goa Co-operative
Societies Rules, 2003, I, Vikas S. N. Gaunekar,
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Goa hereby
appoint Adv. Ramchandra alias Vinod M. Dessai, as
Registrar’s Nominee for deciding the disputes, as
provided u/s 83 and 82 of the Goa Co-op. Societies
Act, 2001. The Registrar’s Nominee concerned is
entitled to hear the disputes referred to him by the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Panaji or Asstt.
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Central Zone,
Panaji, Ponda Zone, Ponda, South Zone, Margao,
North Zone, Mapusa, Quepem Zone, Quepem,
Bicholim Zone, Sanquelim, Election Cell, North Goa
District, Panaji, Election Cell, South Goa District,
Margao, the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Arbitration & Execution (North), Panaji-Goa and
the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Arbitration
& Execution (South), Margao-Goa, as the case
may be.
The Registrar‘s Nominee so appointed is advised
to maintain all the case files in terms of Civil Manual
issued by the Hon’ble High Court for the guidelines
of the subordinate Courts keeping in view the
provisions of the Goa Co-operative Societies
Rules, 2003.
The Registrar‘s Nominees shall refrain himself
from representating before the above mentioned
authorities as a legal practitioner of a Party to the
dispute under the provisions of Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001. This Order shall come into force
with immediate effect and will remain in force until
further orders.
Vikas S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).
Panaji, 17th February, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Education
__
Notification
No. DE/Accts/GEDC-Funds/2018-19/126
Government in its XVIIIth Cabinet Meeting of
Council of Ministers held on 29-01-2020 at 10.30
a.m. decided on agenda item No. 2, to entrust the
work of repairs, upgradation, maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of Government
Primary, Middle, Secondary and Higher Secondary
Schools to Public Works Department.
Henceforth, all new work of repairs, upgradation,
maintenance, construction and reconstruction of
Government Primary, Middle, Secondary and Higher
Secondary Schools shall be carried out through
Public Works Department. GSIDC will complete its
Note:-
There are four Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 47 dated 20-02-2020
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 20-02-2020 from pages 875
to 876 regarding Order from Department of
Finance.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 20-02-2020 from
pages 877 to 882 regarding Notifications from
Department of Panchayati Raj & Community
Development.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 20-02-2020 from
pages 883 to 884 regarding Notification
from Goa Legislature Secretariat.
(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 21-02-2020
from pages 885 to 887 regarding Order,
Notifications & Notice in Form No. 2A from
Department of Elections.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
890
ongoing work latest by December, 2020 and no
new work will be assigned to GSIDC except on a
case to case basis, as decided by the Hon’ble Chief
Minister.
This is issued for the general information of the
public.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Vandana Rao, IAS, Director (Education).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2020.
———u———
Directorate of Higher Education
__
Certificate
No. ACAD III/GC-03/Filling-Asstt. Prof./
/89/2018/11112
Read: ACAD III/GC-03/Filling-Asstt. Prof./89/
/2018/7935 dated 01-01-2020.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Shri Anand Atmaram Kolambkar appointed to the
post of Assistant Professor in Marathi (Group “A”
Gazetted) in Sant Sohirobanath Ambiye
Government College of Arts and Commerce,
Pernem-Goa 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, 18th February, 2020.
———u———
Directorate of Art and Culture
__
Order
No. DAC/Acctts/RBB/Committee/2019-20/7191
In exercise of powers conferred under Clause 5
of the Constitution of Ravindra Bhavan, Baina-Goa,
the Government is pleased to nominate Shri
Shashikant Suresh Parab, H. No. 112, near Hari
Mandir, Bhatwadi, Headland Sada, Mormugao-Goa
as the Chairman of Ravindra Bhavan, Baina-Goa
with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sagun R. Velip, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Art & Culture).
Panaji, 18th February, 2020.
Order
No. DAC/Acctts/RBB/Committee/2019-20/7192
In exercise of powers conferred under
Clause 5 of the Constitution of Ravindra Bhavan,
Baina-Goa, the Government is pleased to
nominate Dr. Dharmendra Prabhudessai, as the
Vice-Chairman of Ravindra Bhavan, Baina-Goa with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sagun R. Velip, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Art & Culture).
Panaji, 18th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. DAC/Acctts/RBB/Committee/2019-20/7193
In exercise of powers conferred under
Clause 7 (vii) of the Constitution of Ravindra
Bhavan, Baina-Goa, the Government is pleased to
nominate following Members on the General
Council of Ravindra Bhavan, Baina-Goa with
immediate effect.
1. Shri Mohan Dicholkar, Vasco-Goa.
2. Shri Santosh Naik, Vasco-Goa.
3. Shri Sudesh Bhosle, Vasco-Goa.
4. Shri Prasad Prabhugaonkar, Vasco-Goa.
5. Ms. Noela Rodrigues, Vasco-Goa.
6. Smt. Kamla Prasad Yadav, Vasco-Goa.
7. Shri Dhanu Dicholkar, Near Ganapati Temple,
Sanmolem, Baina, Vasco-Goa.
8. Shri Pravesh Amonkar, Vasco-Goa.
9. Shri Anil Kondurkar, Vasco-Goa.
10. Shri Shyam Chari, Sasmolem, Baina, Vasco-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sagun R. Velip, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Art & Culture).
Panaji, 18th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. DAC/Acctts/RBB/Committee/2019-20/7194
In exercise of powers conferred under Clause 11
(viii) of the Constitution of Ravindra Bhavan,
Baina-Goa, the Government is pleased to nominate
following Members on the Executive Board of
Ravindra Bhavan, Baina-Goa with immediate effect.
1. Shri Mohan Dicholkar, Vasco-Goa.
2. Shri Santosh Naik, Vasco-Goa.
3. Shri Sudesh Bhosle, Vasco-Goa.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
891
4. Shri Prasad Prabhugaonkar, Vasco-Goa.
5. Ms. Noela Rodrigues, Vasco-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Sagun R. Velip, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Art & Culture).
Panaji, 18th February, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Elections
Goa State Election Commission
__
Order
No. 5/26/GZPNS/Elec/2019-SEC/282
Sub.: Filing of Form A & B.
Whereas, the superintendence, direction &
control of Zilla Panchayat Election in Goa is vested
by the Article 243K of the Constitution of India
with the State Election Commission of Goa.
Whereas, by way of the Goa Panchayat Raj
(Amendment) Act, 2015 (Goa Act 6 of 2015), the
provision of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act has been
amended and Clause 16A incorporated in the Act
defining political parties as defined under the
Clause (f) of sub-section 1 of Section 2 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 and further
Section 133A was inserted in the Goa Panchayat
Act, 1994 which provided that the Election of the
Members of the Zilla Panchayat in the Constituency
of the Zilla Panchayat shall be for the candidate
sponsored by political parties as defined under the
Clause 16A of sub-section 2 of the Act. However,
independent candidate shall also be eligible to
contest as independents;
And whereas, it is necessary and expedient to
provide in the interest of purity of election to Zilla
Panchayat Constituency and in the interest of the
conduct of such election in a fair and efficient
manner for the specification, reservation and
allotment of symbols to a candidate of recognised
political party and also independent candidates
and for matters connected therewith;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Article 243K of the Constitution of
India read with Section 2 of the Panchayat Raj
Act, 1994 and Rule 20 of Goa Panchayat & Zilla
Panchayat (Election Procedure) Rules, 1996, the
Commission hereby gives the following directions:
1. A candidate shall be deemed to be set up by
a recognised National/State Political Party
upon a notice by the Political Party in writing
in Form B or Form A not later than 3.00 p.m.
on the last date of submission of nomination
to the RO of the Constituency.
2. Form B shall be signed by the recognized
political party President or Secretary of Goa
Region having party office in Goa.
Alternatively, Form A is to be used by the
President or Secretary of the recognized
political party not having a party office in
Goa.
3. The Form A & B are signed in ink only
provided that no specimen signature or
signatures by means of rubber stamp of any
such office bearer shall be accepted and no
form transmitted by fax shall be accepted.
4. The Form A & B prescribed by Election
Commission of India and as modified by the
Goa State Election Commission which is
appended hereto shall be used.
R. K. Srivastava, IAS (Retd.), Commissioner
(Goa State Election Commission).
Altinho, Panaji, 24th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. 5/26/GZPNS/Elec/2019-SEC/311
Sub.: Rate Chart of material for campaigning.
The Goa State Election Commission vide Order
No. 5/26/GZPNS/Elec/2019-SEC/307 dated 25-02-2020
has directed that the total maximum election
expenses the Zilla Panchayat by a candidates has
been fixed at Rs. 5.00 Lakhs. To have a proper
account of the said amount, it is necessary to notify
uniform rate chart of the material relating to
campaign.
Recently, Elections to North Goa Parliamentary
Constituency 2019 and bye-elections to
01–Mandrem
and
05–Mapusa
Assembly
Constituencies, the Collector (North) in
consultation with the political parties has finalized
the rate chart of materials needed. This rate chart
was published in the local newspapers. In order to
facilitate and to maintain the accounts and have
uniformity amongst all the candidates, this
Commission is adopting the said rate chart. All the
Candidates and the political parties shall calculate
the expenses incurred for the campaign on the
basis of the said rate chart and submit the accounts.
The R.O.’s shall furnish the copy of the rate chart
to the candidates while tendering the register to
maintain the accounts of expenses.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
892
This shall be followed scrupulously by all
concerned candidates and expenditure observer.
R. K. Srivastava, IAS (Retd.), Commissioner
(Goa State Election Commission).
Altinho, Panaji, 24th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. 5/26/GZPNS/Elec/2019-SEC/307
Sub.:
Zilla Panchayat Elections–Expenditure by
Contesting Candidates.
Read: 1) Order No. 5/26/GZPNS/Elec/2019-SEC/21
dated 06-01-2020.
2) Order No. 5/26/GZPNS/Elec/2019-SEC/22
dated 06-01-2020.
3) Order No. 5/26/GZPNS/Elec/2019-SEC/61
dated 20-01-2020.
Whereas, the superintendence, direction &
control of the conduct of Zilla Panchayat Election
in Goa is vested with the Goa State Election
Commission under Article 243K of the Constitution
of India read with Section 237 of the Goa Panchayat
Raj Act, 1994.
And whereas, it is necessary and expedient to
provide in the interest of purity of election to Zilla
Panchayat Constituencies an account of
expenditure incurred by the candidate and for
matters connected therein.
Now, therefore, this Commission hereby directs
as follows:-
1.
The Returning Officer shall provide the
format appended hereto to the contesting
candidate by last day of the finalization of
list of contesting candidates.
2.
The Register so maintained shall be duly
numbered and authenticated by the
Returning Officer of the relevant Zilla
Panchayat Constituency at the time of issue.
3.
All day to day expenditure shall be truly
recorded in this register by the candidate
or the election agent.
4.
All documents such as vouchers, receipts,
bills, etc. in support of day to day
expenditure incurred shall be maintained
in chronological daywise order alongwith
the aforesaid format as prescribed.
5.
The day to day accounts maintained in the
aforesaid format together with the
supporting document shall be made
available once on the date fixed by the R.O.
before the polling date for scrutiny. The
RO shall fix the date of inspection of
documents.
6.
The accounts of the candidate shall be
scrutinized by the RO or by the officer
nominated by R.O.
7.
The candidate shall also submit to the Zilla
Panchayat Election Officer of the concerned
Zilla Panchayat, the expenditure register
comprising of day to day expenditure
within 30 days of election results without
fail.
8.
The election expenditure, as submitted by
the candidate may be scrutinized by the
Zilla Panchayat Election Officer and
submitted to the Goa State Election
Commission as soon as possible with brief
comments.
9.
The Commission on receipt of the report
from the ZPEO will issue a show cause notice
to the candidate who has failed to lodge
their account of election expense within
the time as prescribed above.
10.
The show cause notice to the defaulting
candidate will be served by the ZPEO
concerned and after serving the notice the
ZPEO is to send acknowledgment receipt
obtained from the candidates.
11.
The defaulting candidate for ZP Election
may be disqualified by the Commission.
12.
The period of disqualification starts from
the date of order of disqualification
irrespective of period consumed in issuing
of the order.
13.
The expenses incurred by the Party which
can be related to the expenditure of
promoting the prospect of particular
candidate or group of candidates, shall be
treated as expenditure authorized by the
candidate concerned and such expenditure
shall be counted for election expenses
account of the candidate concerned. In
those cases where the expense is incurred
by the party for the benefit of a given group
of candidate, the expenses will have to be
apportioned equally among the candidates.
14.
The total maximum limit of election
expenses in a Zilla Panchayat Election has
been fixed as Rs. 5,00,000/-.
R. K. Srivastava, IAS (Retd.), Commissioner
(Goa State Election Commission).
Altinho, Panaji, 24th February, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
893
Department of Finance
Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
__
Notification
No. CCT/PF(SSG)/2019-20/3056
In exercise of the powers conferred on the
undersigned under sub-rule (v) of Rule 9 of the
Departmental Examination Rules, published
under Notification No. 6/17/83-Fin(R&C)/847 dated
24-04-2018, I, the Commissioner of State Tax, hereby
declare the result of the Departmental Examination,
held w.e.f. 21-10-2019 to 26-10-2019 and the Project
Work held on 05-12-2019, for retention to the post
of Commercial Tax Officer.
The following candidates have been declared
successful at the Departmental Examination:
Sr.
Name of the Candidate
Roll No.
No.
1. Smt. Sophia Lawrence e Vaz
A–1
2. Shri Naresh K. Gaude
A–2
3. Smt. Ankita A. Kamat
A–3
4. Shri Sirajuddin Gulamrasul Jamadar
A–5
5. Smt. Sweta Rohan Harmalkar
A–6
6. Shri Saba Krishna Parab
A–10
7. Shri Kalpesh Ramrai Amonkar
A–11
8. Shri Siddhesh Laxman Shetkar
A–12
9. Shri Satyam Vinayak Adkonkar
A–13
The following candidates have failed but secured
exemptions in the papers mentioned against their
names, in view of Rule 7(ii) of the Departmental
Examination Rules.
Sr.
Name of the
Roll
Exemption secured
No.
Candidate
No.
in papers
1. Shri Rohan Arvind
A–4
Paper II, IV and
Loliyekar
VI.
2. Kum. Ashvita Ankush
A–7
Paper I, II, IV and
Goltekar
VI.
3. Shri Melwin Faleiro
A–8
Paper II, IV and
VI.
4. Ms. Gargi Ajit Kamat
A–9
Paper II and VI.
5. Shri Rajendra Shamba
A-14
Paper II, IV and
Gaude
VI.
Hemant Kumar, IAS, Commissioner of State Tax.
Panaji, 24th February, 2020.
Goa Legislature Secretariat
__
Notification
No. LA/LEGN./2654/2020
In exercise of the powers vested in me by Rules
269 of the “Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business of Goa Legislative Assembly”, I declare
that Dr. Pramod Sawant, Hon’ble Chief Minister,
Government of Goa has laid the following
documents on the Table of the House on the 7th
February, 2020.
a)
Report of the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, of the Government of Goa
for the year ended 31st March, 2018 (Report
No. 2 of the year 2019).
b)
Report of the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India, on State Finances, of
the Government of Goa for the year ended
31st March, 2018 (Report No. 1 of the year
2019).
c)
Finance Accounts 2017-18, Volume–I.
d)
Finance Accounts 2017-18, Volume–II.
e)
Appropriation Accounts 2017-18.
Assembly Hall,
Namrata Ulman,
Porvorim-Goa,
Secretary, Legislature.
18th February, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
__
Order
No. 11/28/2019-IND(Part)/120
The Government of Goa is pleased to constitute
a Monitoring Committee to monitor the develop-
ment of the Coal Block allotted to Goa Industrial
Development Corporation comprising of the
following members:-
(i) Minister for Industries
— Chairman.
(ii) Chairman, Goa Industrial
— Vice-
Development Corporation
-Chairman.
(iii) Secretary (Industries)
— Member.
(iv) Additional Secretary
— Member.
(Finance)
(v) Shri Damodar Kochar,
— Member.
President Goa State Industries
Association
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
894
(vi) Shri Manoj Caculo, President, — Member.
Goa Chamber of Commerce
& Industry
(vii) Shri Jaivant Dessai, Director, — Member.
Goa Industrial Development
Corporation
(viii) Ms. Purti Patkar, Director,
— Member.
Goa Industrial Development
Corporation
(ix) Managing Director, Goa
— Member
Industrial Development
Secretary.
Corporation
The terms of reference of the above Committee
shall be as under:-
(i) The Committee may devise a standard
procedure for development of coal block.
(ii) The Chairman may co-opt any person as an
advisor/expert(s)/official(s) if necessary, for
obtaining necessary inputs and assistance.
(iii) The Chairman shall hold its meetings on
such dates and at such time and place as
determined by him.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. 11/28/2019-IND(Part)/121
The Government of Goa is pleased to constitute
a Selection Committee for selection of the
consultant, based on their technical qualification
and financial offers for Coal Block allotted to Goa
Industrial Development Corporation comprising of
the following members:-
(i) Secretary (Industries)
— Chairperson.
(ii) Additional Secretary
— Member.
(Finance)
(iii) Under Secretary (Industries) — Member.
(iv) Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Industries, Trade & Commerce
(v) Managing Director,
— Member
Goa Industrial Development
Secretary.
Corporation
The terms of reference of the above Committee
shall be as under:-
(i) The Committee may devise a standard
procedure for selection of consultant.
(ii) The Chairperson may co-opt any person as
an advisor/expert(s)/official(s), if necessary,
for obtaining necessary inputs and
assistance.
(iii) The Chairperson shall hold its meetings on
such dates and at such time and place as
determined by her.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Information Technology
__
Notification
No. 1(90)/DOIT/ITG-DIR/2001/1779
In supersession of the Notification No. 1(90)/
/DOIT/ITG-DIR/2001/646 dated 31-07-2019 and in
pursuance of Clause 116(2)(b) and (c) of the Articles
of Association of Info Tech Corporation of Goa
Limited, Government of Goa is pleased to
reconstitute the Board of Directors for Info Tech
Corporation of Goa Limited, with the following
composition with immediate effect:-
1. Shri Nilkanth Halarnkar,
— Chairman.
MLA, Thivim Constituency
2. Secretary (Information
— Director.
Technology), Government of Goa
3. Shri Parind U. Nachinolkar
— Director.
4. Shri Prathamesh Tulaskar
— Director.
5. Shri Rohan Desai
— Director.
6. Shri Nagraj Narsinhva Prabhu — Director.
Borkar
7. Managing Director,
— Director.
Goa State Infrastructure
Development Corporation
Limited (GSIDC)
8. Managing Director,
— Director.....
Info Tech Corporation of Goa
Member
Limited (ITG)
Secretary.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
895
This is issued with the prior approval of
competent authority, vide U.O. No. 302/F dated
30-01-2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Ankita Anand, IAS, Director/ex officio Joint
Secretary (IT).
Panaji, 14th February, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
—
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/135
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
29-01-2020 in reference No. IT/59/03 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, 18th February, 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/59/03
The General Secretary,
The Madgaum Urban
Co-op. Bank
Workers Organization,
Sukdow Building,
Margao-Goa.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
The Madgaum Urban
Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
‘Varsha’, Near Cine Vishant,
Aquem,
Margao-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.
Gaonkar along with Shri P. Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II represented by Shri K. V.
Nadkarny.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 29th day of the month
of January, of the year 2020)
By Order dated 26-8-2003, bearing No. 28/40/
/2003-LAB/640, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the following demands raised by the
Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Workers
Organization vide letter dated 13-7-1999 before
the management of M/s. The Madgaum
Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Madgaum-
Goa, are legal and justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
Demand No.
(1) (a) Clerical Grades: Pay Scales:
250-20-310-25-360-30-390-35-460-40-540-45-
-675-50-825-55-990-60-1290-65.
(b) Subordinate staff:
160-10-190-12-214-15-244-20-324-25-424-30-
-544-33-709.
Fitment in the new scale shall be on the
stage to stage basis.
(2)
Dearness Allowance: The organization
demands that existing system of Dearness
Allowance should be continued.
(3)
Additional D. A.: The Organization
demands’ that, besides D.A., additional
D.A. shall be paid as per the existing
system, with the following modification.
(i) For basic upto Rs. 800/- as per existing
formula (a) & (b).
(ii) From basic pay Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1050/
/additional D.A. 25% for every 4 points
rise above 202 points of consumer price
index 1960=100.
(iii) From basic pay Rs. 1100/- to Rs. 1300/
/additional D.A. 20% for every 4 points
rise above 202 points of consumer price
index 1960=100.
(iv) From basic pay of Rs. 1301/- and above
additional D.A. at the rate of 15% for
every, 4 points of consumer price index
1960=100. The other condition shall
remain unchanged.
(4)
House Rent Allowance: Organization
demands that all the workmen shall be
paid House Rent Allowance at the rate of
15% of basic and DA.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
896
(5)
Functional Allowance: Organization
demands that the existing functional
allowance shall be revised as under:
(a) For Clerical Staff:-
(i) Head Cashier (Main)
Rs. 500/- p.m.
(ii) Cashier
Rs. 450/- p.m.
(iii) Electricity bill collection Rs. 100/- p.m.
Margao Br.
(iv) Cleaning house
Rs. 400/- p.m.
allowance
(v) Lodging of cash/gold
Rs. 10/- p.m.
with other banks
(vi) Recovery clerks for
Rs. 400/- p.m.
outdoor duty
(vii) Officiating duty shall be given to the
senior most staff at branch level as and
when required and allowance of
Rs. 50/- per day shall be paid to the
concerned clerk.
(b) For sub-staff:-
(i) Stitching of notes
Rs. 120/- p.m.
(ii) Filing and stitching
Rs. 80/- p.m.
of vouchers
(iii) Hand delivery peon
Rs. 120/- p.m.
(iv) Cyclostyling Machine
Rs. 80/- p.m.
Operator
(v) Lodging of cash/gold
Rs. 08/- per
with other banks
trip
(vi) Subordinate staff at small branches
shall be paid consolidated allowance
of Rs. 200/- p.m. for performing various
functions provided if there is only one
peon at the branch.
(c) Waiting Allowance for Peons:-
The waiting allowance for peons shall be
Rs. 50/- per head per meeting.
(6)
Evening Session Allowance:
(i) Clerks
Rs. 240/- p.m.
(ii) Subordinates
Rs. 140/- p.m.
(7)
Travelling and Daily Allowance:
Organization demands that T&D allowance
shall be revised as under:
(i) Clerks (a) Actual collective taxi fare
of Rs. 4.00 per km.
if own vehicle is used for
travelling.
(b) Daily allowance of
Rs. 100/- per day.
(ii) Subor-
(a) Rs. 4.00 per km.
dinate
if own vehicle is used for
travelling.
(b) Daily allowance
Rs. 80/- per day.
(iii)
However when an employee is
deputed for some other branches
within the same municipal area, only
T.A. is payable. Further, in case of
deputation outside Goa, either for
training or any other work, the daily
allowance shall be at the rate of
Rs. 500/- per day.
(8)
Tea Allowance: The Organization demands
that Tea Allowance shall be paid at the
rate of Rs. 150/- p.m. to each staff members.
(9)
Closing Allowance to the Clerical and
sub-staff: The organization demands that
the closing allowance shall be revised to
Rs. 350/- per closing and it will be credited
to the S.B. Account of respective staff
members.
(10)
Car Loan: The organization demands that
staff members who have put minimum of
15 years of service shall be considered
eligible for car loan of 80% of vehicles cost
with 4% interest.
(11)
Leave: Organization demands that as the
existing leave is very less the same should
be increased. The details will be discussed
during the time of negotiations.
(12)
Pension: Organization demands that
pension at par with the nationalized
banks, shall be made applicable with the
amendment time to time.
(13)
Transfer: Organization demands that no
transfer should be made and in case of
genuine need of the transfer, it should be
done with the consent of the employees
and also with the discussions with
Organization (Union).
(14)
Medical Re-imbursement: The Organization
demands that total reimbursement of
medical bills of the employees spent by
him for medical expenses of self and
dependent shall be reimbursed without
any restriction.
(15)
Leave Travel Concession: The Organization
demands that all the permanent
employees shall be reimbursed the leave
travel concession in block of two years on
following basis:-
For Officers
:
Rs. 10000/-
For Clerks
:
Rs. 9000/-
For sub-staff
:
Rs. 7000/-
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
897
(16)
Housing Loan:
(a) Organization demands that Housing Loan
entitlement shall be revised as follows:-
Clerks from
: Rs. 2,25,000/- to Rs. 4,25,000/-
Sub-staff from : Rs. 1,75,000/- to Rs. 2,75,000/-
(b) Housing Loan for House Repair:
Organization demands that existing House
Repair loan shall be revised to Rs. 2 Lakhs,
other conditions shall remain the same.
(c) The Organization demands that rate of
interest should be 5% per annum on total
loan.
(17)
Computer Allowance: The Organization
demands that the existing Computer
Allowance shall be revised to Rs. 500/- p.m.
for clerks and Rs. 750/- p.m. for officers,
the other conditions remain unchanged.
(18)
Advances: The Organization demands
that the existing advances shall be revised
to the tune of 100% (The details will be
submitted at the time of negotiations).
(19)
Promotion Policy: The Organization
demands that new promotion policy
should be promulgated in consultation
with, our Organization (The detailed policy
will be submitted during the time of
negotiations).
(20)
The Organization reserves the right to
add, delete, amend any demands during
the time of negotiations.
(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/59/03 was
registered. Notices were issued to both the parties
under registered post, upon which both the parties
were served. Party I thereafter filed a Claim
statement at Exh. 4 and the Party II filed a Written
statement at Exh. 6.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II is a financial institution registered under
Co-operative Societies Act having several branches
in Goa. The settlement signed between the parties
expired on 30-6-1999 and on expiry of said
settlement, the Party I Union vide their letter dated
13-7-1999 submitted Charter of demands on the
management. The management on the day of salary
for the month of October, 2002 altered the salary
structure of the employees and on noticing the
changes, the workers have sought the reasons for
change in salary structure for which they were
informed that they have signed the settlement with
the other union. The demands submitted by the
Party I on behalf of their members was not finalized
nor any positive steps to resolve the issue of
Charter of demands were taken. The Union
thereafter sought the intervention of the
Conciliation Officer vide their letter dated
15-11-2002 and on receipt of the said letter, the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Margao called both
the parties for joint discussion.
4. The said settlement dated 18-10-2002 is signed
even without receiving the Charter of demands
from the said union. All the workers who signed
the settlement were promised higher promotion.
The management forcefully obtained the
signatures of the employees in order to show that
they have accepted the terms of so called
settlement. The Party I on noticing the change in
the salary structure individually wrote to Party II
not to change their salary structure and they
should be paid as per existing salary structure.
The Party I have not accepted the change in the
salary structure nor they were the members of the
other union and therefore the terms of the so called
settlement are not binding on the members of the
Party I. The demand for revision in salary structure
is just, fair and proper and therefore, the Hon’ble
Tribunal may grant the same.
5. In the written statement, the Party II has
contended that the entire reference is not
maintainable and bad in law. The Party I have no
authority or right to raise the present dispute or
continue with the said dispute relating to the
Charter of demands. The management and the
workmen represented by the union signed their
first wage settlement on Charter of demands
submitted by the union on 28-8-1980 and thereafter
five more wage settlements for the Charter of
demands by the workmen and also by the Officers
were signed. However, somewhere in the year 1987-
88, some disgruntled elements comprising of five
junior officers and 3-4 workmen broke away from
Madgaum Urban Co-op. Bank Employees Union and
formed a new union and the management signed
three settlements with the said union and benefits
of the same were extended to the members of the
said union. The Party I workmen have
unconditionally accepted the benefits under the
settlement dated 18-10-2002 and continued to enjoy
all the benefits under the said settlement and
therefore nothing survives in the present reference.
The settlement dated 18-10-2002 has brought the
level of pay scales and pay structure of its
employees to all India level and therefore the
present reference be rejected.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
898
6. In the rejoinder at Exh. 7, the Party I has
denied the case set up by the Party II in the written
statement.
7. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 8 are as
follows:
(1) Whether the Party I/Union prove that the
demand raised by it against the Party I by
letter dated 13-7-99 are legal and justified?
(2) Whether the Party II proves that the
reference made by the Government is not
maintainable?
(3) Whether the workmen are entitled to any
relief?
(4) What Award?
8. It is a matter of record that an additional issue
was framed on 14-10-2004 at Exh. 17 which is as
follows:
2-A. Whether the Party II proves that 8 out of
the 20 members of the Party I namely
Mr. Siddhakumar D. Amonkar, Mr. Anil
Saudagar, Mr. Sandeep G. Nagvekar,
Mr. Sripad M. Pinge, Mr. Chandan C. Naik,
Mr. Mahesh G. Pai Kane, Mr. Raghunath P.
Pai Raikar and Mr. Subhash G. Dessai are
not “workmen” as defined under Section 2(s)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 and therefore, this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain
and decide the dispute?
9. It is also a matter of record that an additional
issue was framed on 23-9-2010 at Exh. 37 which is
as follows:
1-A. Whether the Party II proves that the
Settlement dated 18-10-2002 is fair and legal
and whether it is binding on the Party I
workmen?
10. In support of his claim, Party I examined
Shri Sandeep Nagvekar as witness and produced
on record a copy of minutes of conciliation
proceedings and Failure Report dated 4-7-2003 at
Exh. 30 colly. In cross examination, the Party II
produced through this witness a copy of
application dated 29-11-1977 at Exh. 38, a copy of
appointment letter of Sandeep Nagvekar dated
29-4-1978 at Exh. 39, a copy of adhoc promotion
letter dated 6-6-1985 at Exh. 40, copies of adhoc
promotion letters dated 22-7-1985 & 31-10-1985 at
Exh. 41 colly, a copy of promotion letter dated
28-11-1987 at Exh. 42, a copy of letter dated
13-7-1999 along with Charter of demands at
Exh. 43 colly, a copy of Failure Report dated
4-7-2003 at Exh. 47, a copy of Settlement dated
18-10-2002 between Party II and Margao Urban
Co-op. Bank Officers Assoc. at Exh. 48, a copy of
Settlement dated 18-10-2002 between Party II and
Margao Urban Co-op. Bank Employees Union at
Exh. 49, a copy of Settlement dated 26-2-1988
between the management of Madgaum Urban
Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Madgaum Urban Co-op. Bank
Union at Exh. 50, a copy of Settlement dated
28-8-1980 at Exh. 51, a copy of Settlement dated
1-2-1984 at Exh. 52, a copy of Settlement dated
28-2-1992 at Exh. 53, a copy of settlement between
Bank and the Employees Union at Exh. 54, a copy
of settlement between Bank and the Officers Assoc.
at Exh. 55, a copy of salary certificate at Exh. 56, a
copy of salary certificate dated 10-1-2003 at Exh. 57,
a copy of application for salary certificate dated
11-1-2003 at Exh. 58, a copy of salary certificate
dated 16-1-2003 at Exh. 59, a copy of salary sheets
of Sep. 2002 and Nov. 2002 at Exh. 60 colly, a copy
of acknowledgment letter dated 24-10-2002 at
Exh. 61, a copy of letter dated 1-11-2002 to Party II
at Exh. 62, copies of individual letters addressed to
the Party II at Exh. 63 colly, a copy of application
dated 9-11-1999 claiming LTC at Exh. 64, copies of
applications dated 17-5-2004 and 5-6-2008 claiming
LTC at Exh. 65 colly, copies of applications dated
30-12-2002, dated Nil, dated 31-2-2006 and dated
27-12-2007 at Exh. 66 colly and a copy of application
dated 14-8-1990 along with enclosures at Exh. 67
colly. The Party I also examined Shri P. Gaonkar as
second witness and produced on record the
statement showing difference in basic pay at
Exh. 73.
11. On the other hand, the Party II examined
Shri Kishor Amonkar as witness and produced on
record a copy of Memorandum of settlements
between the Bank and workmen dated 17-3-1988
at Exh. 76, Copy of Memorandum of settlements
between Bank and workmen dated 28-2-1992 at
Exh. 77, a copy of Charter of demands dated
24-3-2000 at Exh. 78, a copy of circular dated
22-10-2002 issued by the Chairman of Party II to all
employees at Exh. 79, a copy of circular dated
12-1-2001 issued to all Branch Managers enclosing
list of employees of each branch at Exh. 80, copies
of medical reimbursement submitted for year 2002
on 7-12-2002 and 2003 submitted on 11-12-2003 by
Chandan Naik at Exh. 81 colly, a copy of LTA
sanction letter dated 23-6-2003 along with appl.
dated 16-6-2003 by Chandan Naik at Exh. 82 colly,
a copy of medical reimbursement appl. dated
30-12-2002 submitted by Siddhakumar Amonkar at
Exh. 83, a copy of medical reimbursement appl.
dated 30-12-2002 submitted by Sandeep Nagvekar
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
899
at Exh. 84, a copy medical reimbursement appl.
dated 30-12-2002 submitted by Mahesh Kane at
Exh. 85, a copies of medical reimbursement appl.
dated 27-12-2002 & 31-12-2003 submitted by
Raghunath R. Pai Raikar at Exh. 86 colly, a copy
medical reimbursement appl. dated 28-12-2002
submitted by Sadashiv Ramnath Naik at Exh. 87, a
copy of the Memorandum of settlement dated
30-3-2000 between Indian Banks Assoc. and
workmen represented by All India Bank Employees
Association at Exh. 88.
12. The Party II witness also produced on record
a copy of approval dated 25-6-2003 of the Govt.
received through the Dy. Registrar of Co-op.
Societies at Exh. 89, a copy of Addl. W.S. cum reply
to rejoinder reply filed by Party I at Exh. 90, a copy
of reply of the Employer filed before DLC, Margao
dated 17-4-2003 at Exh. 91, a copy of rejoinder to
reply filed by Party II before Conciliation Officer at
Exh. 92, a copy of reply of management dated
12-3-2003 at Exh. 93, a copy of letter Ref. No. 615
dated 18-8-2004 at Exh. 94, a copy of IOM dated
16-8-2004 at Exh. 95, a copy of IOM dated 3-2-2004
at Exh. 96, a copy of letter dated 28-11-2003 at
Exh. 97, a copy of IOM dated 20-12-2002 at Exh. 98,
a copy of Transfer Order dated 14-2-2002 at Exh. 99,
a copy of IOM dated 28-2-2002 at Exh. 100, a copy
of IOM dated 13-5-1997 at Exh.101, a copy of IOM
dated 20-5-1997 at Exh. 102, a copy of H. O. IOM
dated 5-11-1998 at Exh. 103, a copy of letter dated
1-12-1998 at Exh.104, a copy of letter dated
25-11-1998 at Exh.105, a copy of letter dated
6-5-1996 at Exh. 106, a copy of letter dated
27-1-1997 at Exh.107, a copy of IOM dated
12-2-1997 at Exh. 108, a copy of letter dated
13-2-1997 at Exh. 109, a copy of letter dated
15-4-1997 at Exh. 110.
13. The Party II witness also produced on record
a copy of IOM dated 1-1-1996 at Exh. 111, a copy
of letter dated 9-1-1996 at Exh.112, a copy of leave
application dated 9-10-1995 from Sandeep Nagvekar
at Exh. 113, a copy of letter dated 28-8-1995 at
Exh. 114, a copy of certificate dated 16-3-1995 at
Exh. 115, a copy of letter dated 18-4-1995 at
Exh. 116, a copy of letter dated 19-6-1995 at
Exh. 117, a copy of letter dated 6-2-1995 from
Chairman at Exh.118, a copy of letter dated
17-12-1994 at Exh. 119, a copy of IOM dated
23-2-1995 at Exh. 120, a copy of reply dated 3-3-94
from Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh. 121, a copy of letter
dated 14-2-1994 at Exh. 122, a copy of letter dated
10-12-1993 at Exh. 123, a copy of letter dated
7-12-1991 at Exh. 124, a copy of resolution No. 5
dated 5-7-1991 at Exh. 125, a copy of letter
dated 9-7-1991 at Exh. 126, a copy of IOM dated
31-12-1990 at Exh.127, a copy of letter dated
17-12-1990 at Exh. 128, a copy of letter dated
21-9-1990 at Exh.129, a copy of IOM dated
29-11-1990 at Exh. 130.
14. The Party II witness also produced on record
a copy of letter dated 10-8-1990 at Exh. 131, a copy
of relieving order dated 6-6-1990 at Exh. 132, a
copy of letter dated 23-3-1990 at Exh. 133, a copy
of certificate dated 6-3-1990 at Exh. 134, a copy of
letter dated 12-9-1990 at Exh.135, a copy of office
order dated 18-11-1989 at Exh. 136, a copy of
Promotion letter dated 28-11-1987 at Exh. 137, a
copy of representation dated 7-9-1998 from Sandeep
Nagvekar at Exh. 138, copy of letter dated
18-9-1998 from Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh. 139,
a copy of letter dated 13-8-2004 at Exh.140, a copy
of IOM dated 4-10-2004 along with statements at
Exh. 141, a copy of IOM dated 2-9-2004 along with
statements at Exh. 142 colly, a copy of ROE dated
19-2-2003 with IOM dated 21-1-03 at Exh. 143 colly,
a copy of ROE dated 19-2-2003 with IOM dated
7-2-2003 at Exh. 144 colly, a copy of ROE dated
27-3-2003 with IOM dated 10-2-2003 at Exh. 145
colly, a copy of ROE dated 19-4-2004 with IOM
dated 5-4-2004 at Exh. 146 colly, a copy of ROE
dated 31-12-2003 with IOM dated 12-12-2003 at
Exh. 147 colly, a copy of ROE dated 9-12-2003 with
IOM dated 20-11-2003 at Exh. 148 colly, a copy of
ROE dated 24-6-2003 with IOM dated 16-6-03 at
Exh. 149 colly, a copy of ROE dated 24-6-2003 with
IOM dated 23-5-2003 at Exh. 150 colly.
15. The Party II also produced on record a copy
of letter dated 26-8-2004 at Exh. 151, a copy of
letter dated 13-9-2004 at Exh. 152, a copy of letter
dated 9-4-2003 at Exh. 153, a copy of letter dated
17-6-2002 at Exh. 154, a copy of letter dated
18-4-2002 at Exh. 155, a copy of Transfer letter dated
14-2-2002 at Exh. 156, a copy of IOM dated
22-2-2002 at Exh. 157, a copy of transfer letter dated
2-7-1997 at Exh. 158, a copy of IOM dated 1-12-1990
at Exh. 159, a copy of IOM dated 28-1-1991 at
Exh. 160, a copy of IOM dated 10-12-91 at Exh. 161,
a copy of IOM dated 8-12-90 at Exh. 162, a copy of
IOM dated 10-7-1990 at Exh. 163, a copy of IOM
dated 2-7-1990 at Exh.164, a copy of IOM dated
9-8-1990 at Exh. 165, a copy of IOM dated 20-8-1990
at Exh. 166, a copy of office order dated 6-9-1990
at Exh. 167, a copy of promotion letter dated
29-3-1989 at Exh.168, a copy of IOM dated
12-5-1988 at Exh.169, a copy of letter dated
12-5-1988 at Exh. 170, a copy of letter dated
5-5-1988 at Exh. 171, a copy of letter dated
30-3-1995 from Chandan Naik at Exh. 172, a copy of
IOM dated 1-4-2004 at Exh. 173, a copy of letter
dated 18-12-2002 at Exh. 174, a copy of transfer
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
900
letter dated 14-2-2002 at Exh. 175, a copy of letter
dated 16-2-2002 at Exh.176, a copy of letter dated
1-2-1993 at Exh. 177, a copy of letter dated
30-6-1992 at Exh.178, a copy of letter dated
26-8-1991 at Exh. 179, a copy of letter dated
10-6-1992 at Exh. 180.
16. The Party II also produced on record a copy
of letter dated 12-12-1991 at Exh.181, a copy of
letter dated 30-12-1991 at Exh. 182, a copy of letter
dated 3-1-1992 at Exh. 183, a copy of letter dated
30-9-1991 at Exh. 184, a copy of letter from Chandan
Naik dated 5-12-1991 at Exh.185, a copy of letter
dated 22-7-1991 at Exh.186, a copy of letter dated
5-8-1991 at Exh. 187, a copy of letter dated
16-8-1991 at Exh. 188, a copy of letter dated
16-9-1991 at Exh. 189, a copy of letter dated
3-7-1991 at Exh. 190, a copy of letter dated 9-7-1991
at Exh. 191, a copy of letter dated 2-3-1991 at
Exh. 192, a copy of letter dated 8-3-1991 at
Exh. 193, a copy of IOM dated 25-3-1991 at Exh. 194,
a copy of letter dated 16-4-1991 at Exh. 195, a copy
of letter dated 19-4-1991 at Exh. 196, a copy of
letter dated 30-4-1991 at Exh. 197, a copy of letter
dated 25-5-1991 at Exh. 198, a copy of letter dated
10-6-1991 at Exh. 199, a copy of representation
dated 22-10-1990 along with enclosures from
Mr. Chandan Naik for T.A. & D.A. Bill at Exh. 200
colly.
17. The Party II also produced on record a copy
of IOM dated 1-12-90 at Exh. 201, a copy of IOM
dated 28-12-1990 at Exh. 202, a copy of IOM dated
25-1-1991 at Exh. 203, a copy of IOM dated
28-1-1991 at Exh. 204, a copy of IOM dated
26-11-1990 at Exh. 205, a copy of IOM dated
22-2-1991 at Exh.206, a copy of promotion letter
dated 29-3-1989 at Exh. 207, a copy of letter dated
2-5-1989 at Exh.208, a copy of IOM dated 1-2-1990
at Exh. 209, a copy of IOM dated 7-2-1990 at
Exh. 210, a copy of office order dated 6-9-1990 at
Exh. 211, a copy of Transfer order dated 14-2-2002
at Exh. 212, a copy of letter dated 9-5-1996 at Exh.
213, a copy of letter dated 12-9-1995 from Anil
Saudagar at Exh. 214, a copy of letter dated
2-4-1994 at Exh. 215, a copy of letter dated 7-7-1992
at Exh. 216, a copy of letter dated 14-5-1987 at
Exh. 217, a copy of letter dated 10-11-1986 at 218,
a copy of letter dated 25-5-1984 at Exh. 219, a copy
of letter dated 12-5-1984 at Exh. 220 and a copy of
letter dated 22-8-1983 along with certificate at
Exh. 221 colly.
18. The Party II also produced on record a copy
of letters dated 16-12-2003 & 26-11-2002 of
registration of settlements dated 18-10-2002 with
Labour Commissioners’ office at Exh. 222 colly, a
copy of pay sheets for the month of Sept. and
Nov. 2002 in respect of St. Andre Branch at
Exh. 223 colly, a copy of pay sheets for the month
of Sept. and Nov. 2002 in respect of Court Branch
at Exh. 224 colly, a copy of pay sheets for the month
of Sept. and Nov. 2002 in respect of Benaulim
Branch at Exh. 225 colly, a copy of Increment letter
dated 28-11-03 and 5-12-2001 issued to Mr. Sandeep
Nagvekar at Exh. 226 colly, a copy of Increment
letters dated 18-4-2002, 9-4-2003, 1-4-2004, 1-4-2006
& 1-4-2008 to Mr. Chandan N. Naik at Exh. 227
colly, a copy of Medical expenses claimed by
Mr. Chandan Naik with self attested certificate
for the year 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 at
Exh. 228 colly, a copy of LTC claim application of
Mr. Chandan Naik dated 16-6-2003 and 17-8-2006
and sanction letter dated 23-6-2003 and 21-8-2006
at Exh. 229 colly, a copy of Increment letter dated
14-4-2002,
9-4-2003,
1-4-2005
issued
to
Mr. Siddhakumar Amonkar at Exh.230 colly, a copy
of Medical expenses claimed by Mr. Siddhakumar
Amonkar with self attested certificate for the year
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 at Exh. 231 colly,
a copy of LTC claim application of Mr. Siddhakumar
Amonkar dated 14-6-2002 and 23-6-2003 and
sanction letter dated 17-6-2002 and 1-7-2003 at
Exh. 232 colly, a copy of Increment letters dated
7-5-2002 and 1-5-2004 issued to Mr. Anil K. Saudagar
at Exh. 233 colly, a copy of Medical expenses
claimed by Mr. Anil K. Saudagar with self attested
certificate for the year 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006
and 2007 at Exh.234 colly, a copy of LTC
claim application of Mr. Anil K. Saudagar dated
27-11-2002 and 4-1-2006 and sanction letter dated
29-11-2002 and 4-1-2006 at Exh. 235 colly.
19. The Party II also produced on record a copy
of Increment letters dated 5-12-2001, 28-11-2003
and 1-12-2005 issued to Mr. Shripad Pinge at
Exh. 236 colly, a copy of Medical expenses claimed
by Mr. Shripad Pinge with self attested certificate
for the year 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 at
Exh.237 colly, a copy of LTC claim application of
Mr. Shripad Pinge dated 21-7-2003 and 12-6-2006
and sanction letter dated 9-7-2003 and 16-6-2006
at Exh. 238 colly, a copy of leave application dated
31-10-1997 from Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh. 239,
a copy of leave application dated 3-11-1997
addressed to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh. 240, a
copy of joining report dated 3-6-1990 from Mr.
Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh.241, a copy of joining
report dated 29-11-1985 addressed to Mr. Sandeep
Nagvekar at Exh. 242, a copy of authority letter
dated 3-3-1990 issued to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at
Exh. 243, a copy of letter dated 12-1-1990 issued to
Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh. 244, a copy of letter
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
901
dated 23-4-1991 issued to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at
Exh. 245, a copy of letter dated 5-2-1986 from
Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh.246, a copy of letter
dated 22-2-1986 issued to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at
Exh. 247, a copy of letter dated 29-11-1985 issued
to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh.248, a copy of
letter dated 4-5-1990 issued to Mr. Sandeep
Nagvekar at Exh. 249, a copy of IOM dated
5-12-1990 issued to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at
Exh. 250
20. The Party II also produced on record a copy
of IOM dated 16-1-1990 issued to Mr. Sandeep
Nagvekar at Exh.251, a copy of IOM dated 7-2-1990
issued to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh.252, a copy
of letter dated 23-2-1994 received from Mr. Sandeep
Nagvekar at Exh. 253, a copy of Relieving order
dated 24-2-1994 issued to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at
Exh. 254, a copy of show-cause dated 26-2-1994
issued to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh.255, a copy
of Leave application dated 20-2-1998 received from
Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh. 256, a copy of IOM
dated 2-8-1996 from Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar along
with leave application at Exh. 257, a copy of letter
dated 23-3-1990 issued to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at
Exh. 258, a copy of transfer order dated 6-9-88
issued to Mr. Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh. 259, a copy
of authority letter dated 7-5-1990 issued to Mr.
Sandeep Nagvekar at Exh. 260, a copy of
Memorandum of settlement dated 7-12-2002 with
Employees Union at Exh. 261, a copy of application
for leave encashment dated 20-5-1997 at Exh. 262,
a copy of letter dated 20-5-1997 conveying sanction
for leave encashment at Exh. 263, a copy of
appointment letter of Chandan Naik dated
16-8-1982 at Exh. 264, a copy of letter dated
22-4-1992 at Exh. 265, a copy of letter dated
11-3-1992 at Exh. 266, a copy of letter dated
5-12-1991 from Chandan Naik at Exh. 267, a copy of
letter dated 4-11-1991 at Exh. 268, a copy of letter
dated 10-6-1991 addressed to Chandan Naik at
Exh.269, a copy of letter dated 17-6-1991 issued
to Chandan Naik at Exh.270, a copy of letter
No. 17/422/91-92 dated Aug., 1991 at Exh. 271, a
copy of letter dated 5-6-1991 addressed to Chandan
Naik at Exh.272, a copy of representation dated
15-9-1989 at Exh. 273, a copy of letter dated
14-7-1990 addressed to Chandan Naik at Exh. 274,
a copy of letter dated 10-7-1990 at Exh. 275, a copy
of letter dated 14-5-1988 addressed to Chandan
Naik at Exh.276, a copy of letter dated 7-9-1993
addressed to Chandan Naik at Exh. 277, a copy of
confirmation letter dated 30-8-1983 at Exh. 278, a
copy of pay sheet for the month of Sept, Oct &
Nov. 2002 in respect of Margao Branch at Exh. 279
colly.
21. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by the
Party I as well as the Party II.
22. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
… In the Negative.
Issue No. 2
… In the Negative.
Issue No. 3
… As per final order.
Issue No. 4
… As per final order.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Issue No. 1-A … In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2-A … In the Affirmative.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 1-a:
23. Learned Advocate Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the
Party I has submitted that although the Party I has
raised the number of demands, it is restricting its
claim to demand No. 1, 2 and 3 viz. Pay Scale,
Dearness Allowance and Additional DA since it is
these elements of the wage structure that has been
severely altered by the Party II to the prejudice of
the workmen and in those demands the Union has
claimed new pay scale for the staff employed in
clerical capacity and those employed as
subordinate staff along with fitment in the new
scale. Similarly, the Union has demanded that the
existing system of Dearness Allowance should
continue and that additional DA in accordance
with scheme already prevailing be granted
depending upon increase in consumer price index.
He further submitted that the main ground for the
above demands is that by settlement dated
18-10-2002, the wage structure has been severely
changed to the prejudice of the workmen and
therefore it should be restored back. He further
submitted that in respect of demands pressed, the
wage structure that was existing was governed by
previous settlement dated 25-9-1997 which has
been accepted and is part of service conditions of
all the workmen and subsequently by settlement
dated 18-10-2002 which was in supersession of the
previous settlement, the pay structure was altered
as basic pay was substantially increased, the
fitment in the new structure was done not only by
taking the Basic but by considering the basic and
DA as one; additional DA was removed and the DA
was severely altered 0.24% of Basic and this
percentage decrease for the workmen with higher
Basic and as the DA was reduced, the salary was
not protected from rise in inflation and increase in
consumer price index and the benefit that workmen
would have continued to get under old settlement
has been reduced under new settlement.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
902
24. Ld. Adv. Shri Gaonkar has further submitted
that since by way of settlement the wage structure
has been changed, the employer was required to
give notice of change under Section 9-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Pay sheets of
September, 2002 and of November, 2002 show how
the structure has been changed which has been
admitted by Shri Amonkar, the management
witness. He further submitted that Section 9-A puts
an embargo on the employer to give the mandatory
notice before effecting any change and that it is
essential that the matter which required a Section
9-A notice fall under fourth schedule which
includes category such as wages, other allowances
amongst others, which clearly cover the case at
hand. The employer has not produced any notice
given by it under Section 9-A of the Act. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harmohinder
Singh vs. Kharga Canteen, 2001(5) SCC 540, has
observed that to attract Section 9-A, there must be
a change in condition of service, the change must
adversely affect the workmen and change must
relate to matters provided in the fourth schedule.
The Apex Court in the case of Lokmat Newspaper
vs. Shankar Prasad, 1996 (6) SCC 275, has also
held that the non-compliance with Section 9-A
renders the change non-est and ab initio void.
25. Per contra, Shri K. V. Nadkarny for the
Party II has submitted that not a single workman
from the Bank has stepped into witness box and
examined before the Tribunal to prove its case.
There is no issue of reduction in the Basic wage
nor is it a part of Charter of demands. There is also
no averment in the claim statement about violation
of Section 9-A by the Party I. The Tribunal being a
creature of reference, can adjudicate matter within
the purview of dispute actually referred to it by
the order of reference. He further submitted that it
is well settled that reference is limited to the
dispute between the employer and the workmen
employed by them and that Tribunal cannot
adjudicate the matters outside the purview of
dispute and therefore determination by the
Tribunal on the question other than the one which
statute directs it to decide would be decision not
under the provision of the Act. The Party I have not
proved the above issue No. 1, but on the contrary,
the Party II has proved that the Settlement dated
18-10-2002 is fair and legal and is binding on the
Party I workmen and therefore the issue No. 1 and
additional issue 1-A be answered accordingly.
26. Admittedly, the present matter pertains to
the order of reference dated 26-8-2003 whereby
the Charter of demands raised by the Union vide
their letter dated 13-7-1999 has been referred for
adjudication. It is claimed by the Party I that they
are restricting their claim to demand No. 1, 2 and 3
regarding pay scale, dearness allowance and
additional dearness allowance, which in other
words mean that they are giving up demand No. 4
to 20 as per the order of reference/claim statement.
The Party I have not given any justification in
support of the demands raised by it and on the
contrary have given up the demands other than
the first three pertaining to pay structure. It is now
claimed by the Party I that in October, 2002, the
salary structure was unilaterally modified by the
Party II without giving reasons or even notice as
contemplated under Section 9-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. There is no issue of reduction
in the Basic wage nor is it a part of Charter of
demands. There is also no averment in the claim
statement about violation of Section 9-A by the
Party I as rightly submitted by Shri Nadkarny and
therefore on the above count alone, the case of
Party I fails.
27. There is also no dispute that the Party II
entered into two settlements in October, 2002, one
with Madgaum Urban Co-op. Bank Employees Union
and the other with Madgaum Urban Co-op. Bank
Officers’ Association. The Party I has examined
witnesses viz. Shri Sandeep Nagvekar, Vice
President of Madgaum Urban Co-op. Bank Workers’
Association and Shri P. Gaonkar. Shri Sandeep
Nagvekar has stated that the earlier settlement
signed between the parties expired on 30-6-1999
and on expiry they submitted a fresh charter of
demands, however on the day of salary for the
month of October, 2002, the salary structure of the
employees were altered and they were informed
that it was as per the settlement with other union.
They thereafter individually wrote to the Party II
not to effect the change in the salary structure as
they have not accepted the change nor they were
the members of the other union. The annual
increments provided in the existing scales of pay
are low compared to increments provided in scales
of pay elsewhere. The existing rate of the dearness
allowance is required to be modified. The demand
for revision in DA is just, fair and proper. In the
cross examination, he admitted that he had applied
for the post of Junior Officer and was appointed as
Senior Clerk and the persons who are graduates
are designated as Sr. Clerks. He also admitted that
vide letter dated 6-6-1985, he was promoted on
ad-hoc basis as Jr. Officer for one month and
thereafter was re-appointed as Jr. Officer and vide
letter dated 28-11-1987, he was promoted as
Jr. Officer.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
903
28. Shri Nagvekar also admitted that it is a
practice in the Bank that clerks promoted to
Jr. Officer are posted in branches of the Bank to
officiate as branch Manager and that he was
posted as officiating Branch Manager at Sanguem
branch and that they were paid Managerial
allowances on posting as officiating Branch
Manager. He also admitted that as per the direction
of the head office, the officiating branch manager
was disbursing the loan sanctioned by the head
office and similarly all the loan documents were
also executed by officiating branch manager as
per the direction of the head office. He also
admitted that as officiating Manager whatever
powers conferred under Negotiable Instruments
Act and directives from Reserve Bank of India were
followed by the Branch Manager. He claimed that
he cannot reconcile now whether he and other
officers were drawing more than Rs. 15,000/- per
month but admitted that the officers viz. S. G.
Amonkar, Anil Saudagar, etc. were all drawing
salaries more than Rs. 15,000/- per month in the
year 2002, which clearly shows that witness of
the Party I is not a workman but the officer of
the Party II and therefore the submission of
Shri Nadkarny that not a single workman from the
Bank has stepped into witness box and examined
before the Tribunal to prove its case appears to be
true as the second witness is an Union leader and
not the workman.
29. Shri Nagvekar also admitted that the Party I
union has not raised any Charter of Demands on
behalf of the Officers of Party II and that 35
members of the Party I includes officers and that
on the date of Charter of demands, he was working
as Jr. Officer. He also admitted that when papers
were sent for registration for their union, he, Shri
S. G. Amonkar, Shri Anil Saudagar, Shri Chandan
Naik and Shri Sripad Pinge were officers. He also
admitted that there was settlement dated
18-10-2002 at Exh. 48 between the management of
Party II and Madgaum Urban Co-Op. Bank Officers’
Association and another settlement dated
18-10-2002 at Exh. 49 between the management
and Madgaum Urban Co-op. Bank Employees Union.
He also admitted that by providing the pay scale
vide Exh. 49, the Bank has increased the scales 500
times more than what they have claimed, however
he claimed that DA is reduced from 80% to 0.22%
and by that way the total pay package is reduced.
He feigned ignorance to the suggestion that DA
allowed by the Party II is based on All India Bank
Association settlement.
30. The Party I also examined Shri P. Gaonkar,
President of the union. He also claimed that in the
month of October, 2002, the salary structure of the
employees was altered as the other union had
signed terms of settlement thereby reducing the
basic wage without their consent which amounts
to a violation of Section 9-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The workmen had submitted their
representation informing the management not to
reduce their basic wage but inspite of written
request, the management continued to implement
and paid the reduced payment and the action of
the management in reducing the wage has caused
financial loss to the employees. In the cross
examination, he admitted that the settlement which
expired on 30-6-1999 was not signed by his union
and the union has not signed any settlement with
the Bank. He has also not sent the list of members
of his union along with the Charter of demands. He
admitted that the members of his union by their
individual letter at Exh. 63 colly, informed the
management that they are accepting the revised
salary under protest and that they are receiving
and claiming all the benefits under settlements at
Exh. 48 and Exh. 49. He also admitted that based
on the settlement, Basic and DA were merged and
converted into new basic. He claimed that because
of that there is reduction in basic wages, which is
contrary to the above admission. He also admitted
that on account of revision of wages after the
settlement, new fitment has been shown in the
statement attached to the settlement. He also
admitted that reduction in basic wages is not part
of Charter of demands and similarly violation of
Section 9-A is not part of reference and that there
is no averment in the claim statement about
violation of Section 9-A by the Party II.
31. The Party II examined Shri Kishor Amonkar,
Chief Executive Officer and designated as
Managing Director of the Party II. He deposed that
after formation of Employees’ union, the
management and the said union signed their first
wage revision settlement on 28-8-1980 and in 1984,
the Officers of the Bank who were not eligible to
be the members of the trade union formed Bank
Officers’ Association and since the signing of the
settlement in 1980 and thereafter in 1984, the Bank
has executed five wage settlements as per the
Charter of demands raised by employees through
their recognised union and officers through their
recognised union. He also stated that after expiry
of previous settlement dated 30-6-1997, the
management received a fresh Charter of demands
and after negotiations with the union and the
Association, amicable settlement was arrived. The
Party II never recognised the Party I and there was
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
904
no scope to entertain or negotiate at any time with
the Charter of demands. All the employees of the
Bank have accepted in totality all the benefits and
facilities including those monetary benefits and
therefore no dispute survive. In the cross
examination, he admitted that those persons who
were designated as Jr. Officers were doing the
duties of clerical nature. He also stated that in the
same branch where there is no clerk, the Jr. Officers
are doing the duties of clerical nature. He also
admitted that if the Basic was higher, the workmen
would be entitled for higher HRA instead of SCP.
32. Needless to mention, the settlement in
dispute was signed on 18-10-2002 and the benefit
of the said settlement was extended to each and
every employee of the Bank from the month of Oct,
2002 including Party I workmen. There is also no
dispute that the Party II entered into two
settlements in October, 2002, one with Madgaum
Urban Co-op. Bank Employees Union and the other
with Madgaum Urban Co-op. Bank Officers’
Association. It is therefore clear that the two
settlements arrived at by the Party I and the Union/
/Association have not been challenged by any of
the employees. There is nothing on record that
there is alteration in wage structure nor it is a
dispute before the Court. The Annexure produced
by Shri P. Gaonkar at Exh. 73 showing the difference
is an afterthought, which was never relied by it
earlier. The Party I have failed to prove by way of
evidence that there is a change in pay structure
by way of settlement signed between the Bank
and Union/Association. It is therefore the
submission of Learned Adv. Shri Gaonkar that the
employer was required to give notice of change
under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act
since by way of settlement the wage structure has
been changed and the reliance placed on the
above citations pales into insignificance. Needless
to mention, the Party I has failed to prove that the
demands raised by it vide letter dated 13-7-1997
are legal and justified, on the contrary, the Party II
has sufficiently shown that the settlement dated
18-10-2002 is fair and legal and that it is binding
on the Party I Union as benefits of the said
negotiated settlement were extended to all the
employees including Party I workmen, moreover it
is not challenged by any of the Party I workmen
and therefore, the above issue No. 1 is answered in
the negative and the issue No. 1-A is answered in
the affirmative.
Issue No. 2 and 2-a:
33. Shri K. V. Nadkarny for the Party II has
submitted that the Party I union is a minority union
however they have neither submitted the names of
the workers nor submitted the actual number of
workers enrolled as members of the union. He
further submitted that the witness of the Party I,
Shri Nagvekar has stated that as on the date of
submission of Charter of demands, the Party I union
was representing around 30-35 employees and that
he does not remember whether the list of members
of the Party I was submitted to the Party II and that
some of the members have retired. He also admitted
that he does not recollect whether any resolution
was taken in a meeting to submit Charter of
demands nor he was able to produce the Minutes
Book of the year 1999. The witness has also not
produced the membership receipts to show that
he is the member of the union or the membership
register. The witness also admitted that there is no
specific provision in the bye-laws which empower
the union for raising the Charter of demands asking
for wage revision and other service benefits. He
also admitted that in the order of reference, the
names of the employees who have raised the
dispute are not mentioned and therefore it is
incomplete and bad in law and therefore the Court
has no jurisdiction.
34. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the
Party I has submitted and rightly so that it is settled
law that even a minority union can raise an
industrial dispute as held in the case of Tata
Chemicals vs. workmen, 1978 (3) SCC 42 and
therefore the contention of Shri Nadkarny that the
reference is not maintainable as the Party I union
is the minority union cannot be accepted. However,
with reference to issue No. 2-A, Shri Nagvekar has
admitted on page 12 of the cross examination that
except Subhash Dessai, Shri S. J. Amonkar, Anil
Saudagar, Chandan Naik, Shripad Pinge and himself
were all officers of the Bank. Admittedly, settlements
were entered into by two sets of workforce, one by
the Bank and the Union and the other by the Bank
and the Officers as seen from the settlements at
Exh. 48 and 49 respectively and the said settlements
have worked well for the benefits of the workers
and also the Officers of the Bank. The evidence
clearly shows that the witness of the Party I, Shri
Nagvekar was an officer of the Bank and not the
workman. The Party I have not examined any of the
workmen before the Court to prove its case. It is
therefore, the Party II has failed to prove that the
reference is not maintainable but is able to prove
that Shri Nagvekar along with others are not
workmen as defined under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the issue
No. 2 is answered in the negative and issue No. 2-A
is answered in the affirmative. The Party I having
failed to prove issues cast on them, they are not
entitled for any reliefs.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
905
35. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) It is hereby held that the demands
mentioned in the Schedule raised by the
Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank
Workers’ Organization vide letter dated
13-7-1999 before the management of M/s.
The Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Madgaum-Goa, are illegal and
unjustified.
(ii) The Party I/Workmen are therefore not
entitled to any reliefs.
(iii) No order as to cost.
(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/136
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
24-01-2020 in reference No. IT/24/99 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, 18th February, 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/24/99
1. Workmen,
Rep. by the President,
Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union,
Velho Bldg., 2nd Floor, Panjim-Goa.
2. Workmen,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
G-5, Macedo Apartment,
Tisk, Ponda,
Goa-403 101.
… Workmen/Party I
[Party I(2) is added vide
order dated 18-2-2004]
V/s
1. M/s. Atlantic Spinning &
Weaving Mills Ltd.,
Xeldem, Quepem-Goa.
… Employer/Party II(1)
2. IDBI Bank Limited,
IDBI Tower,
WTC Complex,
Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai-400 005.
… Employer/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.
Gaonkar along with Shri P. Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
M. S. Bandodkar.
Employer/Party II(2) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
M. V. Pai.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 24th day of the month
of January, of the year 2020)
By Order dated 10-3-1999, bearing No. IRM/CON/
/SG/(42)/98/1429, the Government of Goa in
exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The
Act), has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Atlantic Spinning and Weaving Mills
Limited, Xeldem, Quepem, Goa in refusing
to concede the following demands of the
workmen represented through the Goa Trade
and Commercial Workers Union, is legal and
justified?
Demand No. (1): Pay Scales: That each worker should
be graded and designated correctly. The pay scale
shall be as follows:
Grade
Designation
Pay scales
1
2
3
I
Doffer, Sweeper,
1225-100-1725-120-2325
M/Cleaner, Feedman
5
5
II
Slider, Tenter,
1750-125-2375-170-3225
M/Helper, Winder, 5
5
Tapeman
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
906
III
Assistant Fitter,
2250-150-3000-200-4000
Jobber Helper,
5
5
Assistant Welder,
Checker, Buffer
IV
Turner, Fitter,
3000-200-4000-275-5375
Jobber Electrician, 5
5
Mesien Carpenter
Demand No. (2): Flat Rise and Basic Salary:
That each worker be paid a sum of Rs. 500/- as
flat rise over and above the existing salary as on
1-1-1998. The total consolidated salary as on
1-1-1998 plus flat rise of Rs. 500/- per month be
placed in the pay scales given above and fitted in
the appropriate pay scales as per their grade and
nature of work to be applicable as Basic Pay of
each worker with effect from 1-1-1998.
Demand No. (3): House Rent Allowance (HRA):
That each worker be paid a House Rent
Allowance at the rate of 10% on the Basic+FDA+ DA
salary with effect from 1-1-1998.
Demand No. (4): Fixed Dearness Allowance (FDA):
That each worker be paid a Fixed Dearness
Allowance (FDA) at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month
with effect from 1-1-1998.
Demand No. (5): Variable Dearness Allowance
(VDA):
That with effect from 1-1-1998, each worker be
paid a Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) at the
rate of Rs. 2/- per point rise over and above base
All India Consumer Price Index 1200 points base
(1960=100).
The VDA shall be revised every quarter.
Demand No. (6): Travelling Allowance:
That with effect from 1-1-1998, each worker be
paid Rs. 10/- per day towards travelling allowance.
Demand No. (7): Uniform and Washing Allowance:
That each worker be issued two sets of uniform
and, further, each worker be paid Rs. 100/- per
month towards washing allowance with effect from
1-1-1998.
Demand No. (8): Shift Allowance: That each worker
be paid shift allowance @ Rs.10/- per shift for 2nd
shift worked; and Rs. 20/- per shift for work done
in 3rd shift, with effect from 1-1-1998.
Demand No. (9): Overtime: That whenever a worker
is required to work on overtime beyond 8 hours of
normal duty, he/she should be paid double the
rate of wage PLUS one compensatory off within 10
days of such work.
Demand No. (10): Leave Facilities: That each worker
be eligible to the following leave facilities:-
Privilege leave
…
30 days per annum.
Casual leave
…
20 days per annum.
Sick leave
…
10 days per annum.
Holidays
…
12 days per annum.
Demand No. (11): Canteen facilities:
That each worker at M/s. Atlantic Spinning
and Weaving Mills Limited should be provided with
a subsidized canteen facility with immediate effect
to the extent of 75%.
Demand No. (12): Lockers, restroom and eating
room:
Should be provided to each workperson.
Demand No. (13): Separate Restroom for Ladies:
Should be provided.
Demand No. (14): Safety Shoes and Umbrellas/Rain
Coats:
Should be issued to all workers without any
discrimination.
Demand No. (15): Tea and snacks during night
shift:
That the management should supply two cups
of tea and snacks during each shift.
Demand No. (16): First aid box:
Medicines for first aid facilities should be
provided.
Demand No. (17): Water Cooler: That the
management should install a water cooler inside
the factory.
Demand No. (18): Bonus: That each worker be paid
bonus @ Rs. 20%.
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/24/99 was
registered. Notices were issued to both the parties
under registered post, upon which both the parties
were served. Party I thereafter filed a Claim
statement at Exh. 4 and the Party II(1) filed a
Written statement at Exh. 8.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II(1) is engaged in the manufacturing process
of spinning and weaving and it employs more than
600 workmen in the above factory. There were
however no proper facilities and service conditions
made available to the above workmen in the said
factory and were paid a very low wage packet
unlike the salaries paid to the workers in similar
mills and factories in other parts of the country.
The salary paid to the workers does not take care
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
907
of rising cost of living index and is highly
disproportionate. The Party II(1) company is making
huge profit every year and has diverted its
unaccounted profits to their various other factories
in other parts of the country. If the workmen are
made to work on the existing wage packet which
is below minimum wage, it would not take care of
the cost of living index and they would not be able
to maintain the individual workmen and their
families. The Party II is discriminating while paying
the wages to the unionized workers and the
workers of the rival group of the union are being
paid more wages as compared to unionized workers.
The Party II(1) has entered into agreement before
the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Margao with the rival
union. The workers are transferred from one
department to another department, from one
position to another position and from one grade to
another grade and due to the above act, the workers
were put to tremendous harassment. The Party I
workers are not designated and graded properly
nor proper pay scale is paid.
4. The company continued flouting the general
and mandatory provision laid down under the
statute and are made to work according to whims
and fancies of the management and due to adamant
attitude of the employer, all the workmen got
themselves unionized under the banner of Goa Trade
and Commercial Workers Union and soon thereafter
the Party II(1) resorted to various illegal and unfair
labour practices in order to harass and victimize
the workmen. The management illegally locked out
the mill on 18-4-1996. The Party I raised the dispute
on 5-7-1997. The Chief Minister of Goa managed to
bring the employer on the negotiating table and
minutes of understanding were recorded, however
the management did not allow 35 maintenance
workers to report for work. The union thereafter
raised the objection. The Party I were put to lot of
hardships on account of failure on the part of
management to implement the minutes. The State
machinery tried to bring employer for discussions
and an agreement was signed between the union
and the management on 20-8-1997 according to
which the management was provided employment
to all the workers. New workers however have been
recruited and the unionized workers were denied
employment opportunities.
5. The Party I workmen made several written
communication not to harass and victimize the
workers, however the Party II(1) continued with its
illegal activities and made all efforts to break the
unity among the unionized workers. The
harassment and victimization continued and were
targeted by issuing them false and fabricated
charge sheets, show cause notice and memos to
the active committee members. Enquires were
initiated but no subsistence allowance were paid.
The Party I therefore placed their demands dated
2-7-1998 before the company but it failed to resolve
the said demands and as such the Party I sought
intervention of the office of the Dy. Labour
Commissioner, Margao and it intervened and
several notices were issued to the company. The
Party II(1) was negligent and was not ready
to discuss and settle the issues. The Party I
thereafter raised a dispute before the Dy. Labour
Commissioner and the matter was admitted in
conciliation but it ended in a failure. The demands
raised by the Party I are fair and proper. The action
of the management in not considering their
demands is illegal and aimed towards victimization
and harassment to the workers and therefore, the
Party II(1) be directed to concede said Charter of
demands.
6. In the written statement, the Party II(1) has
contended that the Party I is not a recognised union
in the establishment of the Party II(1) and the
majority of the union are the members of National
Textile Union. The majority of the union have signed
a settlement with the Party II(1) on the wage
revision and other demands of the workmen under
Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The company started somewhere in
1988-89. The mill was earlier belonging to
Chowgule Group who had closed the mill due to
labour agitation and the Party II(1) subsequently
purchased the assets of the said mill and invested
huge amounts. All the workmen of the mill are
being represented by National Textile Employees
Union with whom the company has signed several
settlements improving the service conditions of
the workmen. The workmen were misguided by
the union, some of whom resorted to strike and
also assaulted and manhandled the Vice President
of the mill and ransacked his office and destroyed
the property of the company and resorted to illegal
and unjustified strike which continued and various
unfair labour practices and violent activities at the
instigation of the Party I union. The textile union
submitted Charter of demands in respect of revision
of wages and service conditions of the workmen.
The Party II(1) entered into negotiations and after
various meetings, signed the settlement on
19-8-1997 giving substantial rise in the wages and
other conditions of service. The said settlement
was accepted by overwhelming majority of the
workmen. There is no justification of the demands
whatsoever in the statement filed by the Party I.
The Union has not made out any case for grant of
the demands. The Charter of demands therefore be
rejected.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
908
7. In the rejoinder at Exh. 42, the Party I has
denied the case set up by the Party II(1) in the
written statement.
8. It is a matter of record that the Party I has
filed an application for addition of IDBI Bank to the
present proceedings and vide order dated 3-1-2018,
the IDBI Bank was added as Party II(2) to the
present proceedings. The Party II(2) thereafter filed
a written statement at Exh. 50 inter-alia contending
that the Party I has no locus standi to implead the
Party II(2) since the Party I is a stranger to the
business loan availed by the Party II(1) which was
secured against mortgaged assets of Party II(1).
The Party II(2) always help the clients of the Bank
including Party II(1) in all four corners and round
the ways within the frame work of rules and
procedures of banking business. All the legal
enforceable debts under different accounts of the
Party II(1) due and payable in respect of business
loan account along with interest account are
outstanding dues payable to Party II(2) Bank being
public money and is entitled to recover the same
by auctioning the mortgaged property and in the
interest of justice, the Party I in no way entitled to
interrupt in the normal course of action of the Bank
in the course of banking procedure under
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 and also without intervention of the Court
which is a Central Act enacted by the Parliament
to safeguard and to recover the public money of
the Bank and therefore the reference be dismissed.
9. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 43 are
as follows:
(1)
Whether the Party I proves that the
demands raised by it are just, fair and
proper?
(2)
Whether the Party I proves that the action
of Party II in not considering the demands
raised by it is high handed and aimed
towards victimization and harassment to
its workers?
(3)
Whether the Party II proves that it
had permanently closed its factory/
/establishment and therefore they are not
liable to meet the demands?
(4)
What Relief? What Award?
10. In support of his claim, Party I examined
Shri P. Gaonkar as witness and produced on record
a copy of order dated 2-2-2018 of Labour
Commissioner at Exh. 56, copies of order of
references dated 4-6-2001, 12-6-2002 and 20-7-2005
representing the workmen against the Party II(1)
at Exh. 57 colly. The Party I also examined Shri
Raghuvir Sheldekar as second witness and
produced on record a copy of attendance card
issued by Party II for the month of April, 1996 at
Exh. 61, a copy of identity card issued by the
ESI Corpn. at Exh. 62, a copy of letter dated
27-6-2006 from the Party II to the Party I at Exh. 63,
a copy of letter dated 24-2-2007 from the Party II to
the Party I at Exh. 64, copy of Official Gazette
No. GR/RNP/GOA/32 dated 30-4-2003 at Exh. 65, a
copy of Official Gazette No. 1244 dated 15-3-2007
at Exh. 66 and a copy of notice dated 1-12-2011 at
Exh. 67.
11. On the other hand, the Party II(1) examined
Shri Dayanand Naik as witness and produced on
record a copy of list 45 workmen along with the
dues paid at Exh. 71, a copy of closure notice at
Exh. 72, copies of receipts at Exh. 73 colly, copies
of Annual report for the year 1996-97, 1997-98 and
1998-99 at Exh. 74 colly, a copy of Balance Sheet as
on 31-3-2001 and Profit and Loss account at Exh.
75, a copy of Balance Sheet as on 31-3-2002 and
Profit and Loss Accounts at Exh. 76, a copy of
Balance Sheet as on 31-3-2003 and Profit and Loss
Accounts at Exh. 77, a copy of Balance Sheet as on
31-3-2008 and Profit and Loss Accounts at Exh. 78
and a copy of letter dated 4-6-2013 addressed to
IDBI Bank at Exh. 79. The Party II(2) examined Shri
Ashish Aggarwal as witness and produced on
record a copy of letter dated 06-10-2005 addressed
to the Chief Manager, Panaji Branch at Exh. 86, a
copy of letter dated 06-10-2005 addressed to the
Chief Manager, Panaji Branch at Exh. 87, a copy of
postal acknowledgment slip addressed to Shri V.
K. Jain along with copy of legal notice dated 04-09-
2009 addressed to the Managing Director, Atlantic
Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., Secunderabad,
etc. at Exh. 88 colly, a copy of Possession Notice
dated 9-4-2010 at Exh. 89, a copy of order dated
9-10-2018 at Exh. 90, a copy of Authority letter
dated 15-1-2019 at Exh. 91.
12. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by the
Party I, Party II(1) as well as the Party II(2).
13. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
… In the Negative.
Issue No. 2
… In the Negative.
Issue No. 3
… In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4
… As per final order.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
909
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 2:
14. Learned Advocate S. P. Gaonkar for the
Party I has submitted that the Party I is restricting
its claim with respect to the amount to be paid in
accordance with statutory minimum wages as the
Party II(1) till the time it was operational had not
been paying wages in accordance with minimum
wages as prescribed under Minimum Wages Act,
1948. The witness of the Party I has deposed that
though there was settlement dated 10-10-2001, the
wages therein are below the statutory minimum
wages and that the company was manufacturing
cotton and synthetic yarn. The Minimum Wages
Notification for the year 2003 and 2007 produced
by the Party I in respect of the Scheduled industry
is pertaining to thread yarn spinning including
handloom
weaving.
The
employer
was
manufacturing cotton and synthetic yarn but was
also engaged in the activity of thread yarn spinning
which was covered by the above Notifications. The
witness of the Party I, Shri Raghuvir has
categorically deposed that the Party II(1) was
engaged in thread yarn spinning and that there
were more than 100 workers working in the
company in the year 2000. It is thus clear that the
Party II was engaged in thread yarn spinning and
it was part of manufacturing process and therefore
the minimum wage Notification is applicable to
the Party II(1) and therefore the Party II(1) be
directed to pay the workmen the statutory
minimum wages from the date of reference till the
date of closure and in support thereof, he relied
upon the case of M/s. Crown Aluminum Works
vs. their Workmen, AIR 1998 SC 330.
15. There cannot be any dispute that the
Government of Goa vide order dated 10-3-1999 made
reference before the Tribunal in connection with
Charter of demands raised by Goa Trade and
Commercial Workers Union pertaining to revision
of service conditions of the workmen. No evidence
has been led pertaining to the said demands. There
are also no averment made in the statement of
claim that the Party II(1) is not paying minimum
wages to its workmen nor the demand was made
to pay minimum wages. The Party II in the written
statement has claimed that the wages paid were
reasonable and the settlement was signed with
the committee and that the company has been
making losses and therefore there is no case for
revision of service conditions. Curiously enough,
the Party I have not led any evidence on the
demands namely revision of pay scales and other
demands reflected in the schedule of the order
dated 10-3-1999. No justification has been shown
for revision of service conditions as stated in the
Charter of demands. There is absolutely no
evidence on record that the revision of service
conditions of the workmen as stated in the Charter
of demands can be granted or that the action in
not considering the demands is high handed and
aimed towards victimization and harassment to its
workers.
16. The Party I is now demanding minimum
wages as per Notifications dated 30-4-2003 and
14-3-2007 issued by the Government of Goa at
Exh 65 and 66 respectively in connection with the
‘Employment in cotton textile, cotton spinning,
cotton pressing, manufacture of cotton fibre, thread
yarn spinning and weaving including handloom
weaving’. The witness of Party I, Shri Puti Gaonkar
for the first time in the affidavit filed on 2-8-2018
has stated that the settlement dated 10-10-2001
relied upon by Party II cannot be effected as the
wages mentioned therein are less than Minimum
Wages Notification prevalent at the time of
weaving industry and the said Notification and
the subsequent revisions will have to be taken
into consideration. Shri Raghuvir Sheldekar
thereafter claimed that the State of Goa by
Minimum Wage Notifications had regularly
increased the wages but the employer never
honoured the Notifications and used to pay below
the statutory minimum wages. He produced the
above Notifications. The said Notifications pertain
to cotton textiles. There is no evidence on record
that the company is manufacturing cotton textile.
Shri Dayanand Naik has categorically stated that
the company was manufacturing synthetic yarn
and never manufactured cotton yarn or any
product of cotton and therefore the said
Notifications are not applicable to the case at hand.
The Court has also no jurisdiction to go into the
applicability of the said Notifications unless the
matter is specifically referred to. The reference does
not speak that the Tribunal should enquire into
the validity of the Notifications and therefore it is
beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to go into
the validity of the said Notifications as rightly
submitted by Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for the
Party II(1).
17. Moreover, the Authority for issuance of the
above Notifications under Minimum Wages Act,
1948 for the State of Goa is the Commissioner of
Labour. The Competent authority held by order
dated 25-3-2004 that the said Notification is
applicable to the Party II(1) under Section 20(2) of
the Minimum Wages Act and the claim filed by the
Labour Inspection is legal and justified and the
employees mentioned therein are entitled to the
difference claimed under the Minimum Wages Act,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
910
1948. The order was challenged by the Party II(1)
before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa
and the Hon’ble High Court has observed that the
question of applying the provisions of Minimum
Wages Act to the Party II(1) does not arise and that
the competent authority has failed to appreciate
the evidence in accordance with law and that there
is no discussion that the thread yarn mentioned in
the Notification would also include synthetic yarn
and therefore the order was quashed and set aside
and the Authority was directed to decide the case
afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with
the law.
18. There is nothing on record that the said
Authority has decided the matter as directed by
the Hon’ble High Court and therefore the said
Notification cannot be made applicable to the case
at hand. There are also no pleadings in the
statement of claim about non-payment of minimum
wages to the workers. There is also no evidence
that the Party II(1) was paying its workers less
than the minimum wages applicable to the
company and that they are entitled for the
difference. No evidence has been led to show the
amount due on account of non-payment of minimum
wages. Mere statement by witness of the Party I,
Shri Puti Gaonkar that the wages mentioned in the
settlement dated 10-10-2001 are less than the
Minimum Wage Notification prevalent at that time
is not sufficient as admittedly he was never
employed in the company and that he has no
personal working knowledge in the company. The
witness Shri Raghuvir Sheldekar who claims that
all the wages of the workmen were below the
statutory minimum wages, has not produced
any documents to show that he was being paid
Rs. 62/- per day in 2005 for semi skilled work or
that they have been paid less than minimum wages.
The reliance placed by Party I on the case
M/s. Crown Aluminum Works, supra is not
applicable to the case at hand as that Party I has
failed to prove issues cast on it nor it is shown that
Notifications are applicable to them. The Party I
have thus failed to prove that the above
Notifications are applicable to the company or that
its claim of payment of wages as per the said
Notifications is justified or that the demands raised
by it are just, fair and proper and that the action
of the Party II(1) in not considering the demands
raised by it is high handed and aimed towards
victimization and harassment towards its workers.
It is therefore the above issues are answered in the
negative.
Issue No. 3:
19. Learned Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for the
Party II(1) has submitted that it is admitted by
Shri Puti Gaonkar in the affidavit that the
undertaking was closed in 2011. The company had
issued the closure notice and thereafter all the
workers employed with the Party II were paid their
legal dues as seen from the receipts at Exh.73 colly.
There were only 45 workmen at the time of closure.
No evidence has been adduced by the Party II(1) as
to how the provision of Section 25-FFA and Section
25-O are applicable to the case at hand as the
witness, Shri Dayanand has admitted in the cross
examination that there are no documents that the
company was functioning after 2-12-2011 and
therefore, the above issue be answered in the
affirmative. As against that, Learned Adv. Shri S. P.
Gaonkar for the Party I has submitted that there
were more than 100 workers employed with Party
II(1). The factum of closure is a subsequent event
and the burden to prove the same is upon the
employer. The Party II(1) has not followed the
provisions of Chapter V-B and has not obtained
permission under Section 25-O of the Industrial
Disputes Act. The witness, Shri P. Gaonkar has
deposed that in the year 2010 there were more
than 100 workers. The management has produced
on record a list of 45 workers and has contended
that only 45 people were employed before the
closure. The witness however had not seen the
appointment letters and salary slips of the said
workers and had not seen the muster roll before
preparing the list. There were clearly more than 45
workers in 2011 but the witness had deliberately
suppressed the fact. He further submitted that the
Apex Court in the case of Mackinnon Mckenzie
Ltd. vs. Mackinnon Employees Union, 2015(4) SCC
544 has held that the closure in violation of
statutory provisions like 25-FFA and Chapter V-B is
void ab initio and therefore, the above issue be
answered in the negative.
20. Admittedly, Section 25-FFA and Section 25-O
of Chapter V-B of Industrial Disputes Act is
applicable if the company has employed more than
100 workers at the time of closure of the company.
The Party II(1) has produced on record a list of 45
employees at Exh. 71. There is no counter list
produced by the witnesses of the Party I. Shri Puti
Gaonkar has claimed that the company employed
more than 100 workers during the year preceding
the alleged closure and therefore it was mandatory
on the company to obtain permission under Section
25-O of the Act and hence the closure is not
the closure in the eyes of law and under Section
25-FFA, the employer has to give an advance notice
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
911
of 60 days before effecting any closure and that no
such notice has been given and as such the alleged
closure is void and the liability towards the workers
still continues. Shri Puti Gaonkar in Para 5 of the
affidavit has stated that the company has
mentioned that it has closed down its undertakings
w.e.f. 2-12-2011 and that the said closure is illegal,
which clearly shows that the Party I has admitted
the closure of the company. In the cross
examination also, he has admitted that he does not
have any documents to show that the company
was functioning after 2-12-2011 and that he has
not filed any complaint to the Government that
the company has violated Section 25-FFA of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
21. The witness, Shri Raghuvir Sheldekar
although claimed that there were about 100
workmen working after 2007 in the company was
unable to produce the list of the workers working
in the said company. He was also unable to give
their names although he claimed that in 2000 also,
there were more than 100 workmen nor produced
any documents in support thereof. He however
admitted that he was suspended in the year 2005
and terminated in the year 2007 and that he raised
the dispute and the matter was settled. He also
admitted that he was not in service in 2008 and
does not know what transpired in the company in
2011 and do not know if the company was closed
in the year 2011 or that the notice dated 1-12-2011
was displayed in the notice board and the copies
were sent to the authorities concerned. Exhibit 67
is the notice of closure to all the workers/staff,
copies of which was sent to the authorities
concerned.
22. Exh. 73 colly are the receipts of the amount
paid to the 45 workers of the company who
confirmed having received the cheques in full and
final settlement of their claims arising out of their
employment/closure of the factory at Xeldem and
that they have no claim of whatsoever nature
against the management. None of the workmen
have been examined by the Party I to prove its
case. No documentary evidence has been produced
by the Party I as to how the provision of
Section 25-FFA and Section 25-O is applicable.
There is also no dispute that the entire
establishment has already been taken over by the
Party II(2). The witness of the Bank viz. Ashish
Agrawal has clearly stated that on account of
non-compliance of the legal demand notice
and non-payment of legal enforceable debt by
Party II(1), Possession Notice dated 9-4-2010 was
issued to the Party II(1) attaching the possession of
the mortgaged/hypothecated property and
therefore, the evidence on record clearly shows
that there were 45 workmen working in the
company and that they have accepted the legal
dues after closure of the establishment on
1-12-2011. It is therefore, the issue No. 3 is answered
in the affirmative.
Issue No. 4:
23. The Party I has impleaded Party II(2), IDBI
Bank Ltd., who has attached the property of the
Party II(1) as per the provisions of SARFAESI
Act, 2002. No reliefs against the Party II(1) or
Party II(2) can be granted in view of the fact that
the Party I had not proved any issues cast on it.
The Party I have also failed to prove that the action
of the management of M/s. Atlantic Spinning and
Weaving Mills Ltd., Xeldem, Quepem in refusing to
concede the demands of the workmen is illegal
and unjustified and that the Party II(1) has not
been paying wages as prescribed under Minimum
Wages Act in terms of Notification for the year
2003 and 2004, so also that the closure of Party II(1)
establishment was illegal as no permission had
been taken in terms of Section 25-FFA and Section
25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore,
no relief as claimed by the Party I can be granted.
24. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s. Atlantic Spinning
and Weaving Mills Limited, Xeldem,
Quepem, Goa in refusing to concede the
demands of the workmen represented
through the Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers Union, is legal and justified.
(ii) The Party I/Workmen are therefore not
entitled to any reliefs.
(iii) No order as to cost.
(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 5/9/2018-PER-A/599
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/42(1)/
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
912
/2019/383 dated 17-02-2020, the Governor of Goa is
pleased to promote and appoint under Rule 17 of
Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, read with Rule 8 (b)
of the said Rules, the following Officers holding
the posts included in Schedule-II of the said Rules
to Junior Scale post of Goa Civil Service, Group ‘A’
Gazetted, in the Level 10 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016
with immediate effect:-
1. Shri A. S. Mahatme.
2. Shri Ramesh P. Naik.
3. Smt. Darshani Samir Dessai.
4. Shri Bala T. Korgaonkar (SC).
5. Shri Amir Yeshwant Parab.
6. Shri Raju Rogunath Dessai.
7. Shri Antonio Savio Lourenco.
8. Shri A. V. Redkar.
9. Shri Ulhas N. Kadam.
10. Shri Tipanna S. Maddimani.
11. Smt. Ashweta A. Redkar.
12. Smt. Sandra De Souza.
13. Smt. Asha Harmalkar.
14. Smt. Swati Dalvi.
15. Smt. Deepali D. Naik.
16. Shri Aleixo Francisco Vaz.
17. Smt. Violet B. Gomes.
18. Shri Shrikant K. Mahalunkar.
19. Smt. Chandrawa Bhandari.
20. Smt. Begum Lobo.
21. Shri Rajesh S. Ajgaonkar.
22. Smt. Seema Salkar @ Veera Nayak.
23. Shri Satish R. Prabhu.
24. Shri Madhu G. Narvekar (ST).
25. Shri Ravishekhar G. Nipanikar.
26. Shri Joao B. Fernandes (ST).
27. Smt. Fatima Saldina de Souza.
28. Shri Pandurang T. Talgaonkar.
29. Shri Dinesh Pawar.
30. Shri Deepak Pandharinath Vaingankar.
31. Smt. Sapna S. Naik Bandodkar.
32. Smt. Isha Mayur Sawant.
33. Shri Abhir Chandrakant Hede.
34. Shri Ramesh N. Gaonkar (ST).
The Officers shall be on probation for a period
of two years from the date of their joining. The
Officers shall exercise their option for fixation of
pay in promotional grade in terms of F.R. 22 (I)(a)
(1), within a period of one month from the date of
issue of the order. The option once exercised shall
be final.
On promotion, the Officers shall continue to hold
the post presently held by them until further orders.
The instructions for drawing of salary of the officers
at serial No. 4 & 21 to 34 are being issued
separately.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 19th February, 2020.
_________
Order
No. 6/11/2019-PER/606
Read: Order No. 6/11/2019-PER/596 dated
19-02-2020.
Approval of the competent authority is accorded
to draw the salary of below mentioned Officers
promoted to Senior Scale of Goa Civil Service vide
order read in the preamble, from the date of their
joining/acceptance of the order of promotion in
relaxation to F.R. 17(1):
Sr.
Name of the
Salary to be drawn against
No.
officer
the post of
1
2
3
1. Shri Umakant N.
Director, Handicrafts, Textile
Korkankar
& Coir.
2. Smt. Fransquinha
Additional Director of
Oliveira
Vigilance-I.
3. Shri Paresh Fal
Superintendent of Jails.
Desai
4. Shri Sudhir S.
Commissioner of Depart-
Kerkar
mental Inquiries.
5. Shri Shankar B.
Joint Director, ICDS,
Gaonkar
Directorate of Women &
Child Development.
6. Smt. Triveni Paik
Joint Secretary to
Velip
Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 19th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. 5/9/2018-PER-B/598
Read: Order No. 5/9/2018-PER-A dated
19-02-2020.
The salary of the Officers mentioned in
column 2 promoted to Junior Scale of Goa Civil
Service vide order read in preamble shall be drawn
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
913
against the Junior Scale posts mentioned in
column 3 with effect from the date of accepting
the promotion until further order in relaxation to
F.R. 17(1):-
Sr.
Name and feeder
Pending posting salary to be
No.
grade of the
drawn against the post of
promoted officer
1
2
3
1. Shri Bala T.
Deputy Director (Admn.),
Korgaonkar
AH & VS.
2. Shri Rajesh S.
Deputy Director (Admn.),
Ajgaonkar
Transport.
3. Smt. Seema Salkar Deputy Director (Admn.),
@ Veera Nayak
Printing & Stationery.
4. Shri Satish R.
Deputy Collector, South-1.
Prabhu
5. Shri Madhu G.
Deputy Director (Admn.),
Narvekar
Electricity.
6. Shri Ravishekhar
Deputy Registrar of Co-op.
G. Nipanikar
Societies (Admn.).
7. Shri Joao B.
Deputy Collector & SDO-II,
Fernandes
Salcete.
8. Smt. Fatima
Under Secretary, Budget-I.
Saldina de Souza
9. Shri Pandurang
Deputy Director, Labour &
T. Talgaonkar
Employment.
10. Shri Dinesh Pawar Deputy Director (Admn.),
Goa Dental College.
11. Shri Deepak
Deputy Director (Admn.),
Pandharinath
Panchayats.
Vaingankar
12. Smt. Sapna S.
Deputy Registrar of Co-op.
Naik Bandodkar
Societies (Tech.).
13. Smt. Isha Mayur
Deputy Collector, North-2.
Sawant
14. Shri Abhir
Administrative Officer,
Chandrakant
Hospicio Hospital, Margao.
Hede
15. Shri Ramesh N.
Assistant Commissioner of
Gaonkar
Excise-II.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 19th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. 6/13/2017-PER/579
On the recommendation of the Goa Services
Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the
transfer and posting of the following Officers of
Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with
immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name and present
Posted as
No.
posting of the officer
1. Shri G. P. Pilernkar,
Inspector General of
Additional Inspector
Prisons with additional
General of Prisons with charge of M. D., Goa
additional charge of
State SC & OBC
Superintendent of Jails
Finance Development
Corporation.
2. Shri Ashutosh Apte,
Additional Inspector
Inspector General of
General of Prisons with
Prisons with additional additional charge of
charge of M. D., Goa
Superintendent of Jails.
State SC & OBC Finance
Development Corporation
Shri S. V. Naik, M. D., Goa Education Development
Corporation shall also hold additional charge of
Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan.
Shri Prasanna Acharya, under transfer, shall draw
the salary from Leave and Training Reserve from
the date of relieving from the post of Additional
Collector (I), South, until further orders.
The officers shall complete handing over and
taking over process with immediate effect and
submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 18th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. 6/11/2019-PER/596
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/
/42(1)/2020/382 dated 17-02-2020, the Governor of
Goa is pleased to promote the following Junior
Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service to Senior Scale
of the Goa Civil Service (Group ‘A’ Gazetted), under
Rule 31 of Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, in Level 11
of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, with immediate effect:-
1. Smt. Aisha Amir Vaingankar.
2. Smt. Neetal P. Amonkar.
3. Smt. Sushama D. Kamat.
4. Smt. Maria Seomara De Sousa.
5. Shri Gourish J. Shankhwalkar.
6. Shri Arvind B. Khutkar.
7. Shri Pipi T. Murgaonkar.
8. Shri Sagun R. Velip.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
914
9. Shri Mahadev J. Araundekar.
10. Shri Harish N. Adconkar.
11. Smt. Sarita Sadashiv Marathe alias Gadgil.
12. Smt. Sangeeta S. Rawool alias Porob.
13. Shri Umakant N. Korkankar.
14. Smt. Fransquinha Oliveira.
15. Shri Paresh M. Fal Desai.
16. Shri Sudhir S. Kerkar.
17. Shri Shankar B. Gaonkar.
18. Smt. Triveni Paik Velip.
The Officers shall exercise their option for
fixation of pay in promotional grade in terms of
F.R. 22(I)(a)(1), within a period of one month from
the date of issue of the order. The option once
exercised shall be final.
On promotion, the Officers shall continue to
hold the post presently held by them until further
orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 19th February, 2020.
________
Notification
No. 7/3/2019-PER/608
Read: 1) Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/2346 dated
29-08-2019.
2) Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/2350 dated
30-08-2019.
3) Order No. 7/3/2019-PER/1453 dated
23-10-2019.
4) Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/3013 dated
04-11-2019.
In partial modification of the Notifications and
Order read in preamble, the Governor of Goa is
pleased to order allocation of work/Department to
the following Secretaries to the Government with
immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name & Designation
Department
No.
1
2
3
1. Shri S. K. Bhandari,
1. Transport.
IAS (2004), Secretary
2. Factories and Boilers.
(Transport)
3. Social Welfare.
4. Women and Child
Development.
5. Tribal Welfare.
2. Shri Sanjay Kumar,
1. Revenue.
IAS (2008), Secretary
2. NRI Affairs.
(Revenue)
3. Information Publicity.
4. Information
Technology.
5. Labour & Employ-
ment.
3. Shri Chokha Ram
1. Art & Culture.
Garg, IAS (2008),
2. Skill Development &
Secretary (Art &
Entrepreneurship.
Culture).
3. Archaeology.
4. Archives.
5. Co-operation.
6. Law & Judiciary and
Legislative Affairs.
4. Dr. Tariq Thomas,
Special Secretary
IAS (2011), Director
(Personnel, Home and
of Urban Development
Vigilance) in addition
to Director of Urban
Development.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 44/28/2017-I/PHD/341
Government is pleased to transfer the following
Health Officers under Directorate of Health
Services and post them at the places indicated in
Col. No. 4 against their names with immediate effect,
until further orders:-
Sr.
Name of the
Present place
Transferred and
No.
Health Officer
of posting
posted at
1
2
3
4
1. Dr. Cheryl D’Souza,
PHC,
Urban Health
Health Officer
Siolim
Centre, Mapusa
vice Dr. Sadhana
Shetye transferred.
2. Dr. Sadhana Shetye, UHC,
Primary Health
Health Officer
Mapusa Centre, Siolim
vice Dr. Cheryl
D’Souza transferred.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 14th February, 2020.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
915
Order
No. 45/3/2009-I/PHD/330
Read: Memorandum No. 45/3/2009-I/PHD/2578
dated 12-11-2019.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/24(3)/2016/1114 dated 15-10-2019,
Government is pleased to appoint Dr. Lynette Maria
Fernandes to the post of Junior Gynaecologist
(Group “A” Gazetted) in the Pay Matrix under Level
10 under the Directorate of Health Services with
immediate effect as per the terms and conditions
contained in the Memorandum cited above.
Dr. Lynette Maria Fernandes shall be on
probation for a period of two years from the date
of her joining.
Dr. Lynette Maria Fernandes has been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board and her
character and antecedents have been verified by
the District Magistrate, North Goa District, Panaji,
Goa.
Dr. Lynette Maria Fernandes is posted at Sub
District Hospital, Ponda against the vacant post of
Junior Gynaecologist occurred due to the
acceptance of voluntary retirement of Dr. Deelip
Kerkar vide Order No. 44/10/2009-I/PHD/2487
dated 28-9-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 14th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. 45/5/2009-I/PHD/337
Read: Memorandum No. 45/5/2009-I/PHD/2323
dated 14-10-2019.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/24(3)/2019/206 dated 20-9-2019,
Government is pleased to appoint Dr. Shekhar
Akarkar to the post of Senior Ophthalmic Surgeon
(Group “A” Gazetted) in the Pay Matrix under Level
11 under the Directorate of Health Services with
immediate effect as per the terms and conditions
contained in the Memorandum cited above.
Dr. Shekhar Akarkar shall be on probation for a
period of two years from the date of his joining.
Dr. Shekhar Akarkar has been declared medically
fit by the Medical Board and his character and
antecedents have been verified by the District
Magistrate, South Goa District, Margao, Goa.
Dr. Shekhar Akarkar is posted at Hospicio
Hospital, Margao against the vacant post of Senior
Ophthalmic Surgeon occurred due to the
acceptance of resignation of Dr. Uma Kamat vide
Order No. 44/15/2013-I/PHD/255 dated 21-1-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 13th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. 4/1/2020-II/PHD/457
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/30(1)/2020/330 dated 28-01-2020, the
Government is pleased to declare Shri Vivek
Prabhakar Vajarathkar, Lecturer in Occupational
Therapy, in the Department of Allied Health
Science Courses, Goa Medical College as having
satisfactorily completed his probation period of two
years w.e.f. 01-12-2016 to 30-11-2018, and to confirm
him in the post of Lecturer in Occupational
Therapy, in the Department of Allied Health
Science Courses, Goa Medical College, Bambolim,
with effect from the date of completion of his
probation period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health)/Link.
Porvorim, 18th February, 2020.
–––––––
Order
No. 4/1/2020-II/PHD/458
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/30(1)/2020/331 dated 28-01-2020, the
Government is pleased to declare Ms. Alisha Lilia
Gracias, Lecturer in Physiotherapy, in the
Department of Allied Health Science Courses, Goa
Medical College as having satisfactorily completed
her probation period of two years w.e.f. 29-11-2016
to 28-11-2018, and to confirm her in the post of
Lecturer in Physiotherapy in the Department of
Allied Health Science Courses, Goa Medical
College, Bambolim, with effect from the date of
completion of her probation period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health)/Link.
Porvorim, 18th February, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
916
Order
No. 4/1/2020-II/PHD/459
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/30(1)/2020/327 dated 28-01-2020, the
Government is pleased to declare Smt. Shweta
Bhushan Savaikar, Lecturer in Clinical Phychology,
in the Department of Allied Health Science
Courses, Goa Medical College as having satisfactorily
completed her probation period of two years w.e.f.
30-12-2016 to 29-12-2018, and to confirm her in the
post of Lecturer in Clinical Psychology in the
Department of Allied Health Science Courses, Goa
Medical College, Bambolim, with effect from the
date of completion of her probation period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health)/Link.
Porvorim, 18th February, 2020.
Order
No. 38/84/2016-I/PHD/354
Read:
Government Order No. 38/84/2016-I/PHD/
/2263 dated 09-10-2019.
Government is pleased to accept the resignation
tendered by Dr. Shashikant Shiolkar, Medical Officer
under Directorate of Health Services and he is
hereby relieved from the said post of Medical
Officer under Directorate of Health Services w.e.f.
21-10-2019 (a.n.).
This issues in supersession of the Order
No. 38/84/2016-I/PHD/2263 dated 09-10-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 20th February, 2020.
________
Order
No. 44/21/2017-I/PHD/Part-III/336
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/II/12/
/24(1)/19/319 dated 21-01-2020, the Government is pleased to declare the following Doctors under
Directorate of Health Services as having satisfactorily completed their probation period of two years with
effect from the date indicated against their names and to confirm them in the post of Medical Officer
with effect from the date of completion of their probation period:-
Sr.
Name of Doctor
Date of joining
Date of completion
No.
regular service as
of probation
Medical Officer
period
1.
Dr. Melinda Margarida Crasto e Costa
30-06-2012
29-06-2014.
2.
Dr. Nafisa Catherine Vaz
30-06-2012
29-06-2014.
3.
Dr. Umali A. Rohidas alias Kerkar
29-06-2012
28-06-2014.
4.
Dr. Rashmi Rama Gauns Dessai
09-07-2012
08-07-2014.
5.
Dr. Marina Denizia Fernandes
03-07-2012
02-07-2014.
6.
Dr. Trupti Arwind Saglani
30-06-2012
29-06-2014.
7.
Dr. Rima Pradeep Lawande
13-08-2012
12-08-2014.
8.
Dr. Romilda Rebelo
30-06-2012
29-06-2014.
9.
Dr. Subodh Somnath Naik
01-10-2012
30-09-2014.
10.
Dr. Amit Kantilal Sawant
03-07-2012
02-07-2014.
11.
Dr. Darshana Umesh Naik
01-10-2012
30-09-2014.
12.
Dr. Mithila Subhash Khandolkar
09-07-2012
08-07-2014.
13.
Dr. Deval Savalo Naik
14-09-2012
13-09-2014.
14.
Dr. Raksha Ratankumar Borkar
06-07-2012
05-07-2014.
15.
Dr. Siona Sweta Xavier
01-08-2012
31-07-2014.
16.
Dr. Arsy Rebello
05-07-2012
04-07-2014.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 14th February, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
917
Addendum
No. 22/4/2001-I/PHD/344
Read: Order No. 22/4/2002-I/PHD dated 02-06-2014.
In the first para of the Government Order read
at preamble, after the words “Shri Vasishtha D.
Kotecha” the following word shall be added:-
“(PH-Speech and motor function)”
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 14th February, 2020.
________
Corrigendum
No. 44/21/2017-I/PHD/Part-III/405
Read: Order No. 44/21/2017-I/PHD/Part-III/128
dated 16-01-2020.
In the Government Order dated 16-01-2020
referred above, the name shown against Sr. No. 2
read as “Dr. Ravin Noel Do Rosario Rego Liana”
shall be substituted and read as “Dr. Ravin Noel Do
Rosario Rego”.
Swati Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 24th February, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
__
Notification
No. 5/9/90-Tpt/2009
In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (xii) of
sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu
Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1974, the Government of
Goa hereby exempts vehicle registered under
Registration No. GA-08/U-5561 owned by Daddy’s
Home, Gogol, P.O. Fatorda, Opp. Mutt Complex,
Margao-Goa, from payment of tax due to this State,
from the date of registration of the motor vehicle
till cancellation of registration or transfer of
ownership.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Rajan Satardekar, Director & ex officio Jt.
Secretary (Transport).
Panaji, February, 2020.
Department of Urban Development
(Municipal Administration)
__
Notification
No. 1/7/UDD/2003/3770
Read: 1) Notification No. 1/7/UDD/2003/2484 dated
21-11-2018 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 34 dated 22-11-2018.
2) Notification No. 1/7/UDD/2003/3149 dated
21-01-2019 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 43 dated 24-1-2019.
3) Notification No. 1/7/UDD/2003/1684 dated
27-08-2019 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 23 dated 05-09-2019.
4) Notification No. 1/7/UDD/2003/2521 dated
06-11-2019 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 32 dated 07-11-2019.
In partial modification to the Notifications
referred above, the name of Shri Babu R. Shetye as
Member is deleted and the designation of Joint
Secretary (Finance) may be read as Additional
Secretary (Finance), in the General Body of the
Goa State Urban Development Agency.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Municipal Admn./Urban Development).
Panaji, 19th February, 2020.
________
Notification
No. LSG/MUN/3182/68-C/PW&UD/960
Read: Government Notification No. LSG/MUN/
/3182/68-C/PW&UD/2989 dated 09-01-2018.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (11)
of Section 2 read with sub-section (1) of Section 71
of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (Act 7 of 1969)
(hereinafter called the ‘said Act’), and in
supersession of the Government Notification
No. LSG/MUN/3182/68-C/PW&UD/2989 dated
09-01-2018, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 43 dated 25-01-2018, the Government
of Goa hereby appoints Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS as
the Director of Urban Development, for the purposes
of the said Act, with effect from 01-03-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
W. V. R. Murthy, Secretary (Urban Development).
Panaji, 27th June, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
27TH FEBRUARY, 2020
918
Notification
No. LSG/MUN/3182/68-C/PW&UD/961
Read: Government Notification No. LSG/MUN/
/3182/68-C/PW&UD/2988, dated 09-01-2018.
In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 71 of the Goa
Municipalities Act, 1968 (Act 7 of 1969) (hereinafter
called the ‘said Act’), and in supersession of the
Government Notification No. LSG/MUN/3182/68-C/
/PW&UD/2988 dated 09-01-2018, published in the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 43 dated 25-01-2018,
the Government of Goa hereby appoints
Shri Ramesh P. Naik as the Additional Director of
Urban Development, for the purposes of the said
Act, with effect from 25-06-2018 (a.n.).
He shall have jurisdiction over the whole of the
State of Goa and shall exercise all the powers of
the Director of Urban Development during the
absence of the Director.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
W. V. R. Murthy, Secretary (Urban Development).
Panaji, 27th June, 2019.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 30.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—376/160–2/2020.