Panaji, 20th August, 2020 (Sravana 29, 1942)
SERIES II No. 21
557
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 Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies
No. 14/1/98/Credit/ARCS/CZ/98-99/609
Read: Show Cause Notice No. 14/1/98/Credit/
/ARCS/CZ/98-99 dated 24-02-2020.
A Show Cause Notice referred to hereinabove
was issued to all the Directors on the Board of
Station Workshop EME Defence Civilian Empl.
Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Bambolim-Goa to Show
Cause as to why the deemed disqualification of
the board should not be confirmed and as to
why the affairs of the society should not be
wound up.
The hearing in the matter was fixed on 17-03-2020
at 3.30 p.m. However, the Secretary of the society
appeared and filed reply. Further he has submitted
that the audit of the society is in process and by
March, 2020 they will submit the report. Further it
is submitted that the Army establishment of the
Station Workshop EME has been disbanded and
work of the society has to be stopped for last one
year. Hence he wage to take the society into
liquidation.
From the above facts and circumstances,
inference can be drawn that no purpose will be
served if the society is allowed to continue further
and therefore being satisfied that this is fit case
for winding up the affairs of the society, I am
inclined to pass the following interim order:
Order
In exercise of powers vested in me under
sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Goa
Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 read with Rule 127
of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003, I,
P. S. Sawant, Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Central Zone, Panaji, hereby direct and
order that the Station Workshop EME Defence
Civilian Empl. Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Bambolim-
Goa registered under Code Symbol No. ARCS/CZ/
Credit/8(a)/105/Goa dated 10-2-1998 be wound up.
Further, in exercise of the powers vested in
me under Section 93(1) of the Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001 read with Rule 129, I hereby
apoint Smt. Smita S. Salgaonkar, Jr. Auditor,
Co-operative Societies, Central Zone, Panaji as the
Liquidator of the Station Workshop EME Defence
Civilian Empl. Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Bambolim-
-Goa of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.
P. S. Sawant, Asst. Registrar (Co-operative
Societies) (Central Zone).
Panaji, August, 2020.
________
No. 14/23/99/ARCS/CZ/2000-2001/598
Read: Show Cause Notice No. 14/23/99/ARCS/CZ/
/2000-2001/1562 dated 14-02-2020.
A Show Cause Notice referred to hereinabove
was issued to all the Directors on the Board of
Dr. T. B. Cunha Government Higher Secondary
School Staff Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Panaji-Goa
to Show Cause as to why the deemed
disqualification of the board should not be
confirmed and as to why the affairs of the society
should not be wound up.
Note:-
There are two Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 20 dated 13-08-2020
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 17-08-2020 from pages 551
to 554 regarding Notification from Department
of Elections.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 18-08-2020 from
pages 555 to 556 regarding Notification from
Department of General Administration.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
558
The hearing in the matter was fixed on 28-02-2020
at 3.30 p.m. However, neither the Directors
remained present for the hearing in person nor
submitted their written reply, which gives scope
to believe that they have nothing to say in the
matter. Moreover, from the documents available
with this office it is clear that the society has not
complied with the statutory requirement from last
many years and also the functioning of the society
is standstill.
From the above facts and circumstances,
inference can be drawn that no purpose will be
served if the society is allowed to continue further
and therefore being satisfied that this is fit case
for winding up the affairs of the society, I am
inclined to pass the following interim order:
Order
In exercise of powers vested in me under
sub-section (1) of Section 92 of the Goa
Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 read with Rule 127
of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003, I,
P. S. Sawant, Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Central Zone, Panaji, hereby direct and
order that Dr. T. B. Cunha Government Higher
Secondary School Staff Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.,
Panaji-Goa registered under Code Symbol No. ARCS/
/CZ/8(a)/49/Goa dated 22-05-1989 be wound up.
Further, in exercise of the powers vested in
me under Section 93(1) of the Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001 read with Rule 129, of the Goa
Co-operative Societies, Rules, 2003, I hereby apoint
Shri Albert Almeida, Jr. Auditor, Co-operative
Societies, Central Zone, Panaji as the Liquidator
of the Dr. T. B. Cunha Government Higher
Secondary School Staff Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.,
Panaji-Goa.
P. S. Sawant, Asst. Registrar (Co-operative
Societies) (Central Zone).
Panaji, 4th August, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Finance
Revenue & Expenditure Division
Directorate of Accounts
__
Office Order No. 1290
No. DA/Admn./45-3(Part)/19-20/257/TR-2736
Government is pleased to promote the following Accountants under the Common Accounts Cadre of
the Directorate of Accounts to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer (Group “B” Gazetted) in Level 7
of the Pay Matrix (i.e. Pay Band PB-2 Rs. 9,300-34,800, Grade Pay 4,600/- pre-revised) on regular basis from
the date of taking over charge of the post.
Sr.
Name of the officer
No.
1
2
1.
Shri Eleuterio D. Fernandes (PH).
2.
Shri Bablo Chandrakant Naik.
3.
Smt. Vidhya Laximan Kholkar alias
Vidhya Pundalik Khorjuvekar.
4.
Smt. Usha S. Narvekar.
5.
Kum. Sonia R. S. Kunkolienkar.
6.
Kum. Lynett Savia De Souza.
7.
Kum. Kay Marlynn D’Souza.
8.
Smt. Bernadette Mary Castelino.
9.
Shri Savio Fernandes.
10.
Shri Shankar Bhau Sawant.
11.
Kum. Pinky Naracinv Kunkolienkar.
12.
Smt. Medha Kishor Petkar.
13.
Kum. Kenlee Merces Ferrao.
14.
Shri Sarvesh Sudhakar Naik.
15.
Shri Shivraj Anant Kapdi.
16.
Shri Anthony Fernandes.
17.
Shri Nilesh A. Raikar.
18.
Shri Babuso G. Kurtikar.
19.
Shri Ramesh B. More (SC).
20.
Kum. Christina Isabela Pereira (ST).
21.
Shri Deepak Gopal Velip (ST).
22.
Shri Harish M. Shirodkar.
23.
Shri Arjun Ladu Parab.
24.
Shri Siddhesh Baban Naik.
25.
Shri Vidyesh Bapu Mhamal.
26.
Smt. Zarina Cintiana Da Costa e Dias.
27.
Shri Richard Simoes (ST).
The above mentioned officers shall be on
probation for a period of two years as per the Office
Memorandum No. 12/14/89-PER(Part) dated
12-08-2014 of the Department of Personnel,
Government of Goa.
1
2
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
559
Government is further pleased to order the posting of the following Assistant Accounts Officers under
the Common Accounts Cadre in the Department shown against their names:-
Sr.
Name of the Accountant
Place of present posting
Proposed place of posting on
No.
as Accountant
promotion to the post of
Assistant Accounts Officer
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Eleuterio D. Fernandes
State Council of Education, Research
Department of Environment,
(PH)
and Training, Porvorim-Goa with
Porvorim-Goa thereby relieving
additional charge in the O/o the
Shri Sunil Raut, AAO of the
Principal, District Institute of Technical
additional charge.
Education, Porvorim-Goa
2. Shri Bablo Chandrakant
Sub-District Hospital, Ponda-Goa with
O/o the Principal Chief Conser-
Naik
additional charge in the O/o the
vator of Forests, Panaji-Goa
Executive Engineer, Works Division III,
thereby relieving Shri Devendra
WRD, Ponda-Goa
Arlekar, AAO of the additional
charge.
3. Smt. Vidhya Laximan
Directorate of Agriculture, Tonca,
O/o the District Registrar-cum-
Kholkar alias Vidhya
Caranzalem-Goa with additional
-Head of Notary Services,
Pundalik Khorjuvekar
charge in the O/o Executive Engineer,
Panaji-Goa.
Soil Conservation Division, Directorate
of Agriculture, Tonca, Caranzalem-Goa
4. Smt. Usha S. Narvekar
Goa Medical College, Bambolim
Goa Medical College, Bambolim.
5. Kum. Sonia R. S.
Directorate of Industries, Trade
Directorate of Accounts,
Kunkolienkar
and Commerce, Panaji-Goa
Panaji-Goa.
6. Kum. Lynett Savia
O/o the Curator, Central Library,
Directorate of Higher Education,
De Souza
Panaji-Goa with additional charge in
Porvorim-Goa thereby relieving
the Goa State Information Commission,
Shri Deepak Velip, AAO of the
Panaji-Goa (on deputation)
additional charge.
7. Kum. Kay Marlynn
Government Printing Press, Panaji-Goa
Goa Education Development
de Souza
with additional charge in the Depart-
Corporation, Porvorim-Goa
ment of Information and Publicity,
(on deputation).
Panaji-Goa
8. Smt. Bernadette Mary
Department of Animal Husbandry &
Directorate of Education,
Castelino
Veterinary Services, Panaji-Goa with
Porvorim-Goa.
additional charge in the Directorate
of Prosecution, Panaji-Goa
9. Shri Savio Fernandes
Directorate of Accounts, Panaji-Goa
Directorate of Accounts,
Panaji-Goa.
10. Shri Shankar Bhau Sawant
Goa Forest Development Corporation,
Directorate of Printing &
Panaji-Goa (on deputation) with
Stationery, Government Printing
additional charge in the O/o the
Press, Panaji-Goa thereby
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
relieving Smt. Navita Bhatiker,
Forest Department, Panaji-Goa
AAO of the additional charge.
11. Kum. Pinky Naracinv
O/o the Executive Engineer, Div. VI,
General Administration
Kunkolienkar
WRD, Bicholim-Goa with additional
Department, Secretariat,
charge in the Ravindra Bhavan,
Porvorim-Goa.
Sankhali-Goa
12. Smt. Medha Kishor Petkar
Directorate of Technical Education,
Directorate of Accounts,
Porvorim
Panaji-Goa.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
560
13. Kum. Kenlee Merces
Government College of Commerce
O/o the Superintending
Ferrao
& Economics, Margao-Goa with
Engineer-II, Electricity
additional charge in the O/o the
Department, Panaji-Goa.
Asst. Director of Education, South
Education Zone, Margao-Goa
14. Shri Sarvesh Sudhakar
O/o the Inspector General of Prisons,
Directorate of Technical
Naik
Collectorate (North), Panaji-Goa with
Education, Porvorim-Goa.
additional charge in the Directorate
of Women & Child Welfare, Panaji-Goa
15. Shri Shivraj Anant Kapdi
Goa College of Home Science, Campal, Goa State Council for Science
Panaji-Goa with additional charge in
& Technology (GSCST), Saligao-
the Goa College of Music, Altinho,
Goa (on deputation).
Panaji-Goa
16. Shri Anthony Fernandes
O/o the Executive Engineer, Works
Goa University (on deputation).
Division XX, PWD, Margao-Goa
with additional charge in the
O/o the Executive Engineer, WD XIII,
WRD, Gogal, Margao-Goa
17. Shri Nilesh A. Raikar
Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs,
Directorate of Art & Culture,
Panaji-Goa with additional charge in
Patto, Panaji-Goa.
the NSS Cell of Directorate of Sports,
Panaji-Goa
18. Shri Babuso G. Kurtikar
Directorate of Art & Culture,
Directorate of Accounts,
Panaji-Goa
Panaji-Goa.
19. Shri Ramesh B. More (SC)
O/o the Executive Engineer, Division X,
Goa State AIDS Control Society,
Electricity Department, Ponda-Goa
Panaji-Goa (on deputation)
thereby relieving Shri Naresh
Mangueshker of the additional
charge.
20. Kum. Christina Isabela
O/o the Executive Engineer, Div. XI,
Directorate of Accounts,
Pereira (ST)
Electricity Department, Vasco-Goa
Panaji-Goa.
21. Shri Deepak Gopal Velip
O/o the Deputy Director of Transport,
National Health Mission (NHM),
(ST)
Margao-Goa
Directorate of Health Services,
Panaji-Goa (on deputation)
thereby relieving Smt. Swati
Pednekar, AAO of the additional
charge.
22. Shri Harish M. Shirodkar
O/o the Executive Engineer, Division I,
Department of Information and
Electricity Department with additional
Publicity, Panaji-Goa thereby
charge in the Department of Sainik
relieving Shri Paulo Rodrigues,
Welfare, Rajya Sainik Board, Panaji-Goa AAO of the additional charge.
23. Shri Arjun Ladu Parab
OSD in the O/o the Hon’ble Chief
Directorate of Accounts,
Minister, Government of Goa,
Panaji-Goa.
Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa
24. Shri Siddhesh Baban Naik
Government College of Arts & Commerce,
Department of Information
Pernem-Goa with additional charge
Technology, Altinho, Panaji-Goa.
in the O/o the Executive Engineer,
Division VII, WRD, Dhargal, Pernem-Goa
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
561
25. Shri Vidyesh Bapu Mhamal
O/o the Executive Engineer, Works
O/o the Chief Engineer, Water
Division XIII, PWD, Mapusa-Goa
Resources Department,
Porvorim-Goa.
26. Smt. Zarina Cintiana Da
O/o the Superintendent of Police,
Directorate of Accounts, South
Costa e Dias
South, Margao-Goa with additional
Branch, Margao-Goa.
charge in the South Goa P.D.A.,
Margao-Goa (on deputation)
27. Shri Richard Simoes (ST)
O/o the Dy. Conservator of Forests,
O/o the Commissioner of Excise,
South Goa Division, Margao-Goa with
Panaji-Goa.
additional charge in the O/o the
Executive Engineer, Works Division
XXI (PHE), PWD, Fatorda, Margao-Goa
The newly promoted Accountants to the post of Assistant Accounts Officers shall however continue
to hold the charge and additional charge of the post of Accountant held by them prior to their promotion
until further orders.
Further, the Government is also pleased to order the transfer of the following Assistant Accounts
Officers under the Common Accounts Cadre in the Department as shown against their names in public
interest:-
Sr.
Name of the Assistant
Place of present posting
Proposed place of posting
No.
Accounts Officer
1
2
3
4
28. Shri Prashant Salkar
Goa Medical College, Bambolim-Goa
Directorate of Accounts,
Panaji-Goa.
29. Smt. Filomena L. D’Cruz
Directorate of Panchayats, South
Directorate of Urban Development,
Rodrigues (ST)
Branch, Margao-Goa
Panaji-Goa.
30. Smt. Ursula Pereira
Directorate of Urban Development,
Directorate of Panchayats,
Panaji-Goa
South Branch, Margao-Goa.
31. Shri Bernard Devassy
Goa University (on deputation)
Goa Dental College & Hospital,
Bambolim-Goa.
32. Shri Harish Kamat
Department of Information Technology,
Directorate of Accounts,
Altinho, Panaji-Goa
Panaji-Goa.
33. Shri Deepak K. Velip
Goa Education Development Corpora-
Directorate of Art & Culture,
(ST)
tion, Porvorim-Goa (on deputation)
Patto, Panaji-Goa.
The above promoted officers may exercise an option for fixation of pay under F.R. 22(1)(a)(i) within one
month from the date of promotion.
The deputation of the Officers at Sr. No. 31 and 33 stands curtailed from the date of being relieved
by the respective Autonomous Bodies/Corporations.
The posting of Officers at Sr. Nos. 7, 15, 16, 19 and 21 will be on deputation basis initially for a
period of one year. They shall be governed as per the standard terms of deputation contained in the
O.M. No. 13/4/74-PER dated 20-11-2013 of the Personnel Department, Government of Goa. The Organization/
/Agency shall be liable to pay to the Government leave salary and pension/employer contribution in
respect of these Officers at the prescribed rates. On expiry of the deputation period, the Officers shall
necessarily be relieved to report back to the parent Department, unless the deputation period is extended
by the competent authority. Overstayal for any reason whatsoever, shall render them liable for disciplinary
action.
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
562
The above mentioned officers who will be promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer shall
join their promotional posts or convey the acceptance of the promotional post within 15 days of issue
of the promotion order.
On joining their promotional/new post, the officers shall send their CTC/Joining report immediately
to this Directorate.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
P. R. Pereira, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Accounts).
Panaji, 10th February, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
—
Order
No. 28/41/2019-LAB/906
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s. Topline Writing
Instruments Private Limited, Plot No. L-70 and
L-71, Phase II-D, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa,
and it’s workmen, represented by the Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena, in respect of the matter specified in
the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the
“said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby
refers the said dispute for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted
under Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Topline Writing Instruments Private
Limited, Plot No. L-70 and L-71, Phase II-D,
Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa, in not
conceding the following demands raised by
the General Secretary, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena,
Prafullban Society, R. K. Vaidya Road,
Dadar(P.), Mumbai-400028, is legal and
justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
Demand No. 1. Flat Rise/Fitment:- Each worker be
given a flat rise of Rs. 5000/- in the basic salary as
on 30th June, 2017. After adding the above flat rise
the revised basic salary so arrived at will be then
fitted in the Pay Scale in the respective grades at
appropriate step. If there is no corresponding step
in the revised salary pay, the workers shall be fitted
in the next higher step. The basic scales of new
employees taken on probation/confirmation shall
be fitted in the new basic scales in respective
grades and will be paid all allowances attached to
the grades.
Demand No. 2. Grades and Scale of Pay:-
Grade I
- Operators - 9000-700-12500-800-16500-
-900-21,000-1000-6000-1100-31,500.
Grade II
- Operators - 8000-650-11250-750-15000-
-850-19250-950-24000-1050-29250.
Grade III - Operators/Management Associates-
-7000-600-10000-700-13500-800-17500-
-850-21750-950-26500.
Demand No. 3:-
(a) Dearness Allowance:- With effect from 01 st
April 2018, each workman should be paid fixed
Dearness Allowance at Rs. 35% of the revised basic.
(b) Variable Dearness Allowance:- With effect
from 01st April, 2018, each workman should be
paid Variable Dearness Allowance at Rs. 25/- per
point rise over and above base 269 points
(AICPI-1982=100). The Variable Dearness
Allowance should be revised once every quarter.
For the purpose of calculation of VDA, the AICPIF
for the period of October to December of the
previous year shall be the basic for the payment of
VDA with effect from 01st April, 2018. Similar
calculations should be made for the following
quarters for the payment of VDA.
Demand No. 4. Allowances:-
(A) House Rent Allowance (HRA):- All the
workmen should be paid additional House Rent
Allowance of Rs. 4000/- per month over and above
the existing HRA.
(B) Leave Travel Allowance:- Each workman
should be entitled to Leave Travel Allowance at
one gross salary once in a year.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
563
(C) Education Allowance:- All the workman
should be paid Education Allowance at Rs. 1000/-
per month over and above what is paid now.
(D) Medical Allowance:- Each workman should
be paid Rs. 1000/- per month as Medical Allowance
irrespective of whether a workmen is covered under
the Employees State Insurance Act or not.
(E) Shift Allowance:- Each workman should be
paid shift allowance of Rs. 150/- per month for 2nd
shift and Rs. 200/- per month for 3rd shift
respectively.
(F) Washing Allowance:- Each workman should
be paid washing allowance at Rs. 500/- per month
over and above what is paid as on 31st March,
2018. The workmen also demands that the company
should provide 6 soap Nirma cakes of 100 grams
and 4 Lifebuoy cakes of 100 grams per per month
for use in factory.
(G) Monsoon Allowance:- An amount of
Rs. 1000/- per annum should be given as monsoon
allowance to each workman and/or should be
provided raincoats and gumboots of good quality
every year.
(H) Festival Allowance:- Each workman should
be granted festival allowance of Rs. 15,000/- per
year to be recovered in easy instalments at
Rs. 1500/- per month.
(I) Maintenance Allowance:- Maintenance
allowance of Rs. 500/- per month should be given
to the technicians who are working in Engineering
Department.
(J) Canteen Facility:- The Company should
provide subsidized food to the workers on duty.
Demand No. 5. Leave facilities:-
(A) Privilege Leave:- All the workmen should
be given following privilege leave every year.
(a) For first 240 days : 30 days paid leave.
(b) After 240 days
: for every 5 working days,
one day paid leave with a
right to accumulate for
three years & balance
paid leave should be
allowed to be encashed.
(B) Casual Leave:- All the workmen should be
given 15 days Casual Leave in a year with a full
pay. Unavailed Casual Leave should be allowed to
be encashed.
(C) Sick Leave:- All the workmen should be
given 15 days Sick Leave in a year with full pay.
(D) Paid Holidays:- All the workmen should be
given 15 days Paid Leave in a year.
(E) Special Leave:- Special Leave should be
granted for chronic illness which is sanctioned by
doctor till the fitness of patient.
Demand No. 6. Loan:- Each unionized worker should
be given interest free Personal Loan of Rs. 1 Lakh
to be recovered in 100 installments at Rs. 1,000/-
per month.
Demand No. 7. Punching Card:- Provision of
punching card should be made near the Security
Gate.
Demand No. 8. Shift times:- In case of three shift
working, the shift timing should be,–
1st Shift time
- 08.00 to 16.00 hrs.
2nd Shift time - 16.00 to 12.00 hrs.
3rd Shift time
- 00.00 to 08.00 hrs.
Two times tea break in each shift to be given to
each workman.
Demand No. 9. Transport:- Transport should be
provided in all the shifts free of cost. The buses
which are transporting the workers from factory to
the schedule drop point shall start within 10
minutes of the schedule shifts timings.
Demand No. 10. Bonus and ex-gratia:- All the
workmen should be given 20% bonus on basic DA,
VDA, and HRA and 20% ex-gratia of their total
annual emoluments every year.
Demand No. 11. Service reward:- Company should
give Service Reward to the workmen who have
completed 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and 20 years
service at the rate of Rs. 5000/-, Rs. 10,000/-,
Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, respectively.
Demand No. 12. Welfare, Medical Scheme:-
(a) All the workmen who are out of Employees
State Insurance Scheme should be given
unlimited amount for treatment for self,
spouse and two dependent children up to
the age of 25 years.
(b) Normal day-to-day medical bills should be
settled after submission of bills.
(c) Such workmen are insured for mediclaims
and for workmen’s compensation liabilities.
Demand No. 13:-
(1) Company should give time for Union to take
meetings in the premises every 3 months.
(2) Company should allow short leave or late
reporting to all the Union members in case
of any emergency.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
564
(3) Seniority increment in basic salary to the
seniors be given and those, who have
completed 10 years, 15 years and above,
should be given 2 increments, 3 increments,
respectively.
(4) The Company should give acting allowance
of Rs. 80% per day and Rs. 60% per day to the
workers who are called upon to perform the
work in Grade A by the workers in Grade B
and in Grade B by the workers in Grade C
respectively.
(5) In case of job rotation in the same grade for
any union workers, intimation letter should
be given to the workers stating type of work
and period duly signed by union leader,
President and the rotated employee.
(6) Presently the ventilation facility in the
production and the other areas is not
sufficient. The management shall provide
fans for all machines, exhaust fans to be
increased.
(7) The management should also arrange to
clean the water tank every week, provide
the facility of cooler, heater, etc., to the
workers.
(8) The management should also provide new
lockers to the workers for safe keeping of
their cloths and other belongings. That both
keys of the lockers should be given to the
workers and/or when duplicate key is kept
by the management, additional facility of
putting lock by the workers be produced to
the locker.
(9) The Union has been informed by the
workman that though the workers are
working with the Company for last many
years, the date of joining of the some of the
workers is wrongly recorded in the Provident
Fund and other records. The management
should correct the dates in the records.
(10) The workmen demanded that the gratuity
to the workmen be revised at 45 days for
each year of completed service.
(11) The workers who had joined the Union
during the tenure of settlement dated
06-02-2018 during the operation period that
is 01-04-2014 to 30-06-2017 and thereafter
shall be classified in Grade-III and scale of
pay applicable to the said Grade-III be given
to them.
(12) Period of settlement should be 36 months
effective from 01-04-2018 to 30-03-2021.
Demand No. 14. Retrospective effect:- All the above
demands should be given with Retrospective Effect
from 1st April, 2018.
Demand No. 15. Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand
only/-) be granted to each of the workers with
effect from 01-04-2018 by way of Interim Relief
pending finalization of the Charter of Demand.
Demand No. 16:- In the night shift, the management
should give 15 minutes rest after every hour of
working with a reliever operator during the said
period.
(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 7th August, 2020.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-I/909
The following Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
21-07-2020 in reference No. IT/20/14 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, 10th August, 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/20/14
Workmen,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
G-5, Macedo Apartment,
Tisk, Ponda, Goa-403401.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s Swanson Plastics (India)
Pvt. Ltd.,
Honda, Bhuipal,
Satari, Goa-403530.
… Employer/Party II
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
565
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 21st day of the month
of July, of the year 2020)
By Order dated 4-08-2014, bearing No. 28/19/
/2014-LAB/420, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to the Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management
of M/s. Swanson Plastics (India) Private
Limited, Honda, Bhuipal, Satari, Goa, in not
conceding the following demands raised by
the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, Ponda, Goa,
is legal and justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
Demand No. 1. Pay Scales:
Grades
Scales
I
3200-160-4000-180-4900-200-5900-220-
-7000-240-8200-260-9500-280-10900-300-
-12400.
II
3000-145-3725-165-4550-185-5475-205-
-6500-225-7625-245-8850-265-10175-
-11600.
III
2250-125-2875-140-3575-160-4375-180-
-5275-200-6275-220-7375-240-8575-260-
-9875.
Demand No. 2. Flat Rise:
Union demands that all the workers shall be
given the flat rise at the rate of Rs. 3500/-. This
amount shall be added to the existing basic and
thereafter fitted in the revised pay scale in the
higher stage.
Demand No. 3. Fixed Dearness Allowance:
Union demands that all the workmen shall be
paid FDA at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month as the
existing FDA is very less.
Demand No. 4. Variable Dearness Allowance:
Union demands that the VDA shall be paid at
the revised rate of Rs. 3/- per point rise beyond
3500 points (1960=100) the computation of VDA
shall be made quarterly based on the average
consumer price index of preceding quarter. The
amount of VDA up to 1770 points shall be merged
in the Basic and the VDA up to 3500 points shall
be merged in the Basic.
Demand No. 5. House Rent Allowance:
Union demands that HRA should be paid at the
revised rate of 30% of Basic and Dearness
Allowance, as the cost of accommodation is very
high in Goa due to Tourist State.
Demand No. 6. Children Education Allowance:
The Union demands that all workmen an amount
of Rs. 1500/- per month shall be paid towards
Children Educational Allowance.
Demand No. 7. Conveyance Allowance:
Union demands that all the workmen shall be
paid conveyance allowance @ Rs. 1500/- per month.
Demand No. 8. Transport Facility:
Union demands that the free transport facility
should be provided to those workmen who are
presently required in shifts.
Demand No. 9. Paid Holidays:
Union demands that all the workmen shall be
granted paid holidays at rate 15 days per year.
Demand No. 10. Leave:
Union demands that all the workers should be
given leave on the following basis:
(A) Earned Leave: Union demands that all the
workmen should be given earned leave at
the rate of 30 days E.L. per year with
accumulation up to 90 days and leave shall
be allowed to take 10 times in a year. It is
further demanded that weekly off days
failing in between the leave shall be
excluded from the leave.
(B) Casual Leave: Union demands that all the
workmen should be given casual leave at
the rate of 12 days per year with encashment
facility.
(C) Sick Leave: Union demands that all the
workmen should be given sick leave at the
rate of 15 days per year and accumulation
up to 60 days.
Demand No. 11. Leave Travel Assistance:
Union demands that LTA should be paid at the
revised rate of one month gross wages instead of
present practice of fixed amount, with minimum of
four earned days leave. The amount shall be paid
one week before the commencement of leave.
Demand No. 12. Festival Allowance:
Union demands that all the workmen shall be
paid festival allowance @ Rs. 5000/- once in a year
at the time of festival to meet the additional
expenses incurred by him for such festival as
present wage is insufficient to meet such
incidental expenses.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
566
Demand No. 13. Bonus/Ex-gratia:
Union demands that all the workers shall be
paid Bonus/Ex-gratia at the rate of 20% of gross
wages every year before Diwali.
Demand No. 14. Canteen Subsidy:
Union demands that all the workers shall be
paid canteen allowance @ Rs. 1200/- per month
per workmen.
Demand No. 15. Shift Allowance:
The Union demands that all the workmen
who works in the third shifts shall be paid shift
allowance @ Rs. 150/- per third shift and Rs. 125/-
per second shift.
Demand No. 16. Dinner/Lunch Allowance:
The Union demands that those workers working
for overtime beyond his normal shift, shall be paid
Lunch/Dinner allowance @ Rs. 150/- per day
worked.
Demand No. 17: The Union reserves the right to
amend, add, delete any demands during the time
of negotiation.
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in
the negative, then, what relief the workmen
are entitled to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/20/14 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
the Party I filed a Claim Statement at Exhibit 4. The
Party II filed a Written Statement at Exhibit 6.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II is engaged in manufacturing of Plastic
products for multinational company and is doing
huge profit every year. There is however no
settlement and the employer has refused to give
annual increase in January, 2014 and therefore all
the workers have decided to join the union and
held general body meeting in which it was resolved
to submit Charter of demands through the union.
The Party I thereafter raised the dispute before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Panaji, however
the matter ended in a failure. The demands raised
by the Party I are genuine and reasonable and
therefore the same may be allowed and suitable
order/award be passed.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II has inter-
alia contended that the present claim of the
workmen is not an industrial dispute and the
reference is not maintainable. The demands raised
by the union are not justified and the grievances
made therein are far from truth and imaginary and
as such should not be given any consideration.
The financial position of the company is very bad
and for the last many years, they have incurred
heavy losses and therefore the reference be
dismissed.
5. In the rejoinder at Exhibit 10, Party I denied
the contention of the Party II as stated in the
written statement.
6. Issues came to be framed at Exh. 13.
7. In the course of the proceedings, the Party I
and Party II through their representatives have
jointly filed an application at Exh. 46 colly
alongwith a copy of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 15-07-2020 signed between the parties under
Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 stating therein that the parties
to the reference have signed the settlement with
the union on the subject matter of Charter of
demands and prayed that reference be disposed of
as not pressed.
8. The terms of settlement are reproduced here-
in-below:
(i) It is agreed by union that they shall
withdraw Charter of demands matter
IT/20/2014 pending before Industrial
Tribunal by making appropriate application
before Tribunal for asking not pressing said
demands in view of the settlement.
(ii) It is further agreed between the parties
that union shall make application before
Industrial Tribunal for disposing application
No. A-IT/24/15 in view of this settlement.
(iii) It is agreed by the workmen/union that
Mr. Gopal Paryekar shall make an
application before Hon’ble Labour Court for
disposal of reference IT/19/14 for not
pressing the reference in view of this
settlement.
(iv) In view of union agreeing to dispose of all
three matters
referred to above by filing
joint consent application, it is agreed by
the management that the company shall
pay a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine
Lakhs only) to Mr. Krishna Gurudas Malik
and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
only) to Mr. Gopal Paryekar who is
concerned in reference IT/19/14 and it is
further agreed by the union i.e. Gomantak
Mazdoor Sangh shall be paid Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand only) towards the
service rendered to the workmen.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
567
(v) It is agreed by the company that agreed
amount as per settlement shall be trans-
ferred to respective accounts by online
transfer. After receipt of the money, Hon’ble
Court shall be informed that money has
been transferred/paid to workman/union
and thereafter to dispose of the matter as
per the settlement.
(vi) It is agreed by Mr. Krishna Gurudas Malik,
Mr. Gopal Paryekar and the union shall not
interfere in any way directly or indirectly
with the affairs of the company.
9. The above Memorandum of Settlement is
signed by Shri Puti Gaonkar, General Secretary on
behalf of the Party I, so also Shri Nilesh Parab,
Administration Manager on behalf of the Party II.
I have gone through the terms of the settlement
filed as above, which in my view, are just and fair
and in the interest of both the Workmen/Party I as
well as Employer/Party II and hence, the same are
accepted.
10. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i)
The reference at the instance of Workmen/
/Party I, stands disposed of in view of the
Memorandum of Settlement filed by both
theparties at Exhibit 46 colly.
(ii)
No order as to costs.
(iii)
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-II/910
The following Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
07-07-2020 in reference No. IT/28/99 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, 10th August, 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/28/99
Shri Anthony Dias,
H. No. 534, Muxer Bandora,
Ponda, Goa.
… Workman/Party I
V/s
The Sr. General Manager,
M/s. M.R.F. Limited,
P.O. Box No. 1,
Ponda, Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri V.
Menezes.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G.
K. Sardesai.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 7th day of the month
of July of the year 2020)
By Order dated 12-04-1999, bearing No. IRM/
/CON/P/(243)/1998/2102, the Government of Goa
in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The
Act), has referred the following dispute to the
Tribunal for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of M/s MRF Ltd., Usgao,
Ponda-Goa, in terminating the services of
their workman, Shri Anthony Dias, with effect
from 31-10-1997, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/28/99 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 4 and
Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 5.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party I has been appointed as Trainee Engineering
Workman (MECH.) since 9-5-1995 and has been in
continuous and uninterrupted service of the
company till 31-10-1997 when his services were
illegally terminated. The Party II under the guise of
calling the workman a trainee issued various letters
starting from 1-11-1995 till the date of termination
of services i.e. 31-10-1997. The company offered the
workman each time employment for three months
and thereafter gave a fresh letter of extension of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
568
training period for another three months till the
date of termination and has kept the workman as
trainee illegally and treated him as temporary
workman when in fact on completion of 240 days
of continuous service with the company, he is
entitled to permanency of service as well as all the
benefits under the Act. The company terminated
the services without holding any enquiry for
assigning any reason for the same. The termination
of the Party I workman is illegal and in violation of
the provision of Industrial Disputes Act and also
an act of unfair labour practice under Schedule V
of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. The Party I vide letter dated 18-7-1998
demanded that he be reinstated in service and
paid compensation. The said letter has not been
replied to by the company. The workman thereafter
approached the office of the Labour Commissioner
to take the matter in conciliation. The conciliation
proceedings however ended in failure and as such
the Conciliation Officer submitted a report of
failure of conciliation to the Appropriate
Government. The company has committed unfair
labour practices and victimization. The termination
of the Party I is illegal, improper, unjustified and
malafide. Hence, the dispute.
5. In the Written statement, the Party II has
claimed that the termination of a trainee is not an
industrial dispute. The Party I was employed vide
letter dated 9-5-1995 and was engaged as a trainee
for a period of six months only with stipend of Rs.
42/- per day w.e.f. 9-5-1995 subject to Certified
Standing Orders and the rules and regulation made
by the company whose terms and conditions were
governed by provisions of Apprentice Act, 1961.
The company did not guarantee any automatic
confirmation in service at the end of the training
period. The performance of Party I was
unsatisfactory during the period of training. The
Party II in order to give opportunity to improve
upon his performance extended the period of
training vide letter dated 1-11-1995. The Party I
again failed to show any improvement in his
performance and he was afforded one more
opportunity and extended the training period vide
letter dated 1-2-1996 for three months. However,
despite the above opportunity, the Party I failed to
show any improvement in his performance however,
his training period was extended vide letter dated
1-5-1996 for a period of three months.
6. The performance of Party I continued to be
unsatisfactory however the Party II instead of
terminating the training period afforded yet another
opportunity and gave extension of the training
period for further period of three month vide
letter dated 1-8-1996. The Party II despite the
unsatisfactory performance was allowed to
continue his training period for three months which
was extended vide letter dated 4-10-1997 till
31-10-1997. The Party I however declined to accept
the said letter despite the fact that his training
period was allowed to continue, although found
unsatisfactory. The Party I at no stage during the
training period made any efforts to improve his
performance and therefore was left with no other
option then to terminate his services as per
Clause 1 of the trainee appointment letter. The
termination of the Party I was in accordance with
Clause XXV at Para 2 of the Certified Standing
Orders of the company. The Party II is not obliged
to confer status of permanency on the Party I
workman more so as the work performance of Party
I was unsatisfactory despite several opportunities
were afforded to him and therefore, his termination
is legal and justified.
7. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exh.6 denying
the case put forth by Party II in the written
statement.
8. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 7 are as
follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the
termination of his service by the Party II is
by way of unfair labour practice?
(2) Whether the Party I proves that termination
of his services by the Party II w.e.f. 31-10-97
is illegal and unjustified?
(3) Whether the Party II proves that the dispute
referred is not an industrial dispute and
hence the reference is bad?
(4) Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?
(5) What Award?
9. It is a matter of record that an additional issue
was framed on 10-7-2002 at Exh. 16. It is as follows:
1A) Whether the Party I proves that he was a
permanent workman and hence is entitled
to all the protection available to a
permanent workman under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947?
10. The Party I, Shri Anthony Dias examined
himself and produced on record a copy of Trainee
appointment letter dated 9-5-1995 at Exh. W-1, a
copy of termination letter dated 2-4-1990 at
Exh. W-2, a copy of provisional national
apprenticeship certificate dated 29-6-1990 at
Exh. W-3, a copy of extension of training period
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
569
dated 1-11-1995, 1-2-1996, 1-5-1996 and 1-8-1996 at
Exh. W-4 colly, a copy of punch card and travel
permit at Exh. W-5 colly, a copy of pay slips at
Exh. W-6 colly, a copy of termination letter dated
31-10-1997 at Exh. W-7, a copy of letter dated
18-7-1998 issued to Party II at Exh.8, a copy of
complaint dated 2-12-1998 along with encl. to ALC,
Ponda at Exh. W-9 colly, a copy of justification
statement at Exh. W-10, and a copy of failure report
dated 3-3-1999 at Exh. W-11. On the other hand,
Party II examined Shri Kenneith D’Souza as
witness No. 1 and produced on record a copy of
confirmation order dated 1-6-1992 at Exh. E-1, a
copy of pay slip for the month of June 1997 of
Gopal Naik at Exh. E-2, a copy of certified standing
orders at Exh. E-3, copies of performance review
forms at Exh. E-4 colly, copies of letters dated
1-11-1995, 1-2-1996, 1-5-1996, 1-8-1996 and 4-10-1997
at Exh. E-5 colly. The Party II also examined
Shri Govind Mapari as second witness and
produced on record an extract of certified standing
orders at Exh. 27, a copy of pay slips of Party I at
Exh. 28 colly, copies of pay slips of Rohidas Naik,
Juze Andrade, Subhash Naik and Krishnanath
Mulley for the month of July, 1997 at Exh. 29 colly,
an extract of settlement dated 20-11-1991 at
Exh. 30, a copy of statement of trainee stipend
payable to Party I at Exh. 31, a copy of increment
letter dated 27-2-1995 at Exh. 34, a copy of inter
office memorandum dated 13-3-1997 at Exh. 35 and
closed its case.
11. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by Party I
as well as Party II.
12. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My findings to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 4
…
As per final order.
Issue No. 5
…
As per final order.
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
Issue No. 1A …
In the Affirmative.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 1A:
13. Learned Advocate Shri V. Menezes for the
Party I has submitted that the Party I workman is
covered by the definition ‘workman’ under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act even
though his services were engaged by the Party II
as Trainee Engineering Workman (Mech), and was
in continuous and uninterrupted services with
Party II since 9-5-1995 to 31-10-1997 when his
services were illegally terminated. He further
submitted that under the guise of calling Party I
a trainee issued various letters starting from
1-11-1997 till 31-10-1997 when his services were
illegally terminated, each letter extending his
purported training period for another three months
and that by this process, the management has
committed unfair labour practices under Fifth
Schedule of the Act though the workman has been
in continuous service with Party II and is entitled
to full protection under the Industrial Disputes Act
in force, as the Party I was performing all duties of
a regular permanent workman in the mechanical
department.
14. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for
the Party II has submitted that the Party I was
engaged as ‘Trainee Apprentice’ w.e.f. 9-5-1995,
however, the performance of the workman was
unsatisfactory and inspite of extension of periods,
he had not shown any marked improvement and
hence the training period was terminated in
accordance with Certified Standing Orders of the
company as deposed by Shri Kenneth D’Souza. The
Appraisal Forms at Exh. E-4 colly clearly indicate
that the performance and attendance of Party I
workman was not found satisfactory. There is
nothing on record that the termination of his
services was by way of malafide, victimization and
unfair labour practice. It has to be seen whether
the termination of the workman during training
period amounts to retrenchment so also whether
the apprentice or a trainee is a workman under
Industrial Disputes Act or not and whether his
service period from the date of his appointment as
apprentice or trainee is liable to be counted or not
for the purpose of Section 25-F. The termination of
service of Party I is not a retrenchment as the
Party I being a trainee or apprentice was not
employed and there was no master-servant
relationship. The appointment letter did not
guarantee him any automatic confirmation in
service at the end of training period nor was any
order of confirmation passed by the management
and was paid stipend as per terms and conditions
of his appointment. Moreover, he has not raised
any objection for showing him as a trainee but
continued to work with the company. No inference
can be drawn that on completion of 240 days of
continuous service, a trainee is entitled to
permanency. The termination of workman is in
accordance with terms of the appointment and
therefore legal and proper.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
570
15. Discernibly, the Party I workman has claimed
that he has been in continuous and uninterrupted
service of the company since 9-5-1995 till
31-10-1997 when his services were illegally
terminated by the Party II and that he has been
illegally and in malafide manner continued to be
termed as a trainee and treated him as a temporary
worker when in fact on completion of 240 days of
continuous service with the company, he is entitled
to permanency of service under the law as well as
all the benefits available to a permanent workman.
In short, the Party I claims to be a workman as
defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, while it is
the case of the Party II that the Party I was engaged
as Trainee workman in accordance with certified
standing orders of the Company and was paid
stipend and that he was purely a trainee engaged
to undergo training as per the terms and condition
of his trainee appointment letter. In short, it is
claimed by Party II that the Party I was a trainee
as per the appointment letter. The dispute therefore
is whether the Party I is a workman under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act or
whether he is a trainee in terms of the appointment
letter.
16. The short point for determination is whether
the Party I is a trainee/apprentice or is a workman
under Industrial Disputes Act and whether
termination of his services is as per the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act.
17. Discernibly, the ‘workman’ is defined under
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, unlike
the trainee and to decipher whether the person
employed is a ‘workman’ or merely a ‘trainee’ one
should not go by nomenclature attached to the
post, but the nature of the job, which is material.
The definition of workman in the Act of 1947 is an
inclusive definition. Every person employed in an
industry for a consideration would be considered
as a workman for the purposes of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 save and except the categories
of persons specified to be exempted from the
purview of such Section. To come within the
definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a person has to
establish that there is a relationship of master and
servant or in other words ‘Employer-Employee’
relationship. Such relationship must be for a
consideration. The consideration may be paid in
cash or in kind and the workman concerned should
be engaged in an industry. The nomenclature and
the period of the appointment are also immaterial.
All that a person needs to establish is that, an
employer-employee relationship or a master and
servant relationship coupled with a consideration.
18. Whereas, a ‘trainee’ on the other hand is
understood to mean that, an employee is taken
into employment for the purpose of such person
being trained in any trade or profession or calling.
User of the word ‘trainee’ does not take away
anything from an Employer-Employee relationship
existing between the trainer and the trainee. The
issue as to whether a trainee can be considered as
a workman within the provisions of Section 2(s)
was considered in the case of The Management of
Tungabhadra Sugar Works (P) Ltd., vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court and Anr. 1983 LAB. I. C.
1185. It has been held that any person including
a trainee or apprentice can be regarded as a
workman, if he is employed in any industry to do
any skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory,
technical or clerical work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment are express or
implied. In view of the above position of law and
the evidence led by the parties, the Party I is
required to establish that he was employed in the
industry to do any skilled or unskilled, manual,
supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or
reward and whether there was relationship of
employer-employee between him and the Party II.
19. The Party I, Shri Anthony has examined
himself and has claimed that he joined the services
of the Party II as mechanic w.e.f. 9-5-1995 and was
appointed by trainee appointment letter which is
at Exh.W-1. He claimed that the terms and
conditions mentioned in his trainee appointment
letter and the terms and conditions of the
appointment letter issued to the permanent
workers were the same. He also stated that initially
he was appointed as apprentice under
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 in the trade of fitter which
stood terminated w.e.f. 2-4-1990 and was issued
certificate for having successfully completed the
course of apprenticeship. He also claimed that he
was not given any training in the factory of the
Party II and was doing the work individually of
repairing the tyre building machines, curing press,
maintaining banner cutter, flap machines and was
also doing the work of moulds, repairing damaged
moulds and was doing some other maintenance
job of Banbury mills. He also claimed that the
permanent mechanics working with the Party II
were also doing the same work as was being done
by him which was of permanent nature. He also
stated that he was working in shifts and was being
paid shift allowance and was travelling by bus
provided by Party II and was issued travel permit
in terms of documents at Exh. W-5.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
571
20. The Party I, Anthony also stated that the
regular employee of the Party II were also issued
the punch cards and travel permits as issued to
him and was paid monthly salary from the time he
joined the services which are at Exh. W-6 colly. His
monthly salary was being paid on piece rate basis
like regular workers and was paid overtime wages,
paid holidays, shift allowance, canteen subsidy and
special allowance like permanent workers. He was
also given festival advance as was being given to
the permanent workers and deductions were being
made towards E.S.I contribution, canteen, bus from
his salary and has been working with the Party II
continuously without any break. He claimed that
his services were terminated without citing any
reasons and was not paid one month wages nor
given one month notice nor paid retrenchment
compensation at the time of termination of his
service nor issued any show cause notice or charge
sheet at any time nor any disciplinary proceedings
were held against him for any misconduct. In the
cross examination, he admitted that he applied for
the post of mechanic with the Party II and was
reporting to Mr. Bhonsle or Mr. Usgaonkar. He
admitted that as per appointment letter, his
training was for a period of six months and during
that time his services can be terminated without
any notice or without assigning any reason. He
also admitted that no amount was being deducted
from his salary towards Provident Fund.
21. The management examined Shri Kenneth
D’Souza, Manager (Mechanical Engineering). He
stated that the Party I was appointed as trainee in
terms of Certified Standing Orders of the Party II
and was required to undergo training in
mechanical section and as per the appointment
letter on completion of the training period, the
services of the Party I as a trainee would stand
automatically terminated. The performance of the
trainee is reviewed periodically by the officers
concerned. He claimed that the training period of
the Party I was extended from time to time as his
performance was not found satisfactory. The
Party I was governed by the terms and conditions
of the appointment letter and was communicated
the reasons for terminating his services. He claimed
that the services of the Party I were terminated
when he was a trainee which he was undergoing
in different departments in various jobs. In the cross
examination, he admitted that he does not know
whether the appointment of the Party I was under
Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and whether between
1995 and 1997 there were more than 200 employees
designated as employees. He claimed that the
company does not maintain separate records of
the employees appointed or designated as trainees
and that apart from extension letters, no other
letter was given to the Party I informing him that
his performance was not satisfactory. He claimed
that during the training period, the Party I worked
with several supervisors. He admitted that during
May, 1995 to October, 1995, the Party I had not
remained absent from duties and was not issued
any charge sheet either for absenteeism or for
unsatisfactory work.
22. Shri Kenneth also claimed that the Party I
was required to do job of mechanical maintenance
of the machines in the departments he was allotted
work. He admitted that there are no documents
that senior mechanics had imparted training to
the Party I and that he was holding a certificate
issued by ITI. He claimed that the Party I had not
undergone any training under Apprenticeship Act,
which belies documents produced on record at
Exh E-2. He however admitted that as per the pay
slip, he was paid on piece rate basis and that the
only permanent workers are paid on piece rate
basis according to the settlement. He also admitted
that the Party I sometime put on night shift and
that as per the pay slip, he was getting the benefit
of ESI Scheme and was using canteen as well as
transport facility provided by the Party II. He also
admitted that as per the settlement, the permanent
employees get subsidy on the company canteen
and transport facility provided by the Party II. He
also admitted that the tyre building machines,
curing presses, banner cutter, flap machines are
used by employees in different departments for
production of tyres and the Party I was working on
these machines as a trainee mechanic and that all
permanent as well as trainees were issued punch
cards. He claimed that the Party I was not paid one
month pay at the time of termination and no
enquiry was held against him.
23. The Party II also examined Shri Govind
Mapari, supervisor in Accounts Department who
claimed that the Party I is a trainee and was paid
in accordance with pay structure applicable to
him. He stated that the Party I was paid stipend of
Rs. 42/- in 1995 and thereafter Rs. 65/- in 1997. He
also stated that the amount shown in the pay slip
against piece rate is the stipend that is applicable
to him and that the Party I was also entitled to
paid holiday benefits, shift allowance and canteen
subsidy and that the piece rate system of the
payment applicable to the confirmed workmen is
not applicable to the trainee workmen. In the cross
examination, he admitted that the management
had not issued any documents to the trainees
regarding their entitlement for overtime, shift
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
572
allowance and canteen subsidy and that
contribution towards ESI is deducted in accordance
with the provisions as shown in the pay slip. He
admitted that the ESI was also deducted in respect
of regular employees. He also admitted that the
trainees are paid overtime which is double the
stipend per shift and that as per the settlement,
the permanent workers are paid shift allowance at
the same rate and the shift allowance which is
paid to the trainee is the same which is paid to the
regular employee as per the settlement. He also
admitted that as per the settlement, regular
employees are entitled for overtime which is double
their wages. He admitted that the department had
not sent to him the performance report of any
trainee based on which the amount payable to the
trainee was reduced and was not told to pay less
amount to the trainees, if the performance was not
satisfactory. He admitted that the Party I was
appointed on 9-5-1995 and he worked continuously
till the date of his termination on 31-10-1997. The
evidence of above witness in no way assists the
Party II in establishing that Party I is a trainee,
although they tried to fill the lacunae.
24. Be that as it may, the Party I categorically
stated in his testimony that his service is
continuous and uninterrupted from 9-5-1995 till
31-10-1997, completing in each year more than 240
days of continuous service since his first date of
appointment and that he had worked along with
other workers doing the same work as they did
independently without supervision and being paid
on piece rate, attending all the shifts in a
continuous process of manufacturing of tyres and
was issued bus pass and canteen subsidy like all
other permanent workmen and that he was paid
shift allowance and overtime wages and issued
pay slips similar to that given to the permanent
workmen, besides contributing towards ESI. It is
also well settled in the case of Sandeep Metalcraft
(Private) Ltd., vs. Suresh D. Zanzad and another,
1994 (II) LLN 523 that when the workman has
sufficiently proved that he has been working in
the company for more than 240 days, his
appointment should be permanent and not
probationer or trainee. There is no dispute that
Party I was working continuously and
uninterruptedly from 9-5-1995 till 31-10-1997
completing in each year more than 240 days and
therefore, he cannot be termed as trainee or
apprentice as claimed by Party II.
25. There is no dispute that the Party I workmen
prior to his appointment had undergone
apprenticeship training for a period of three years
as a fitter in terms of Exh. W-2 and on successful
completion of the training, he was issued a
certificate dated 29-6-1990 by Party II which is at
Exh. W-3. It is therefore clear that the services of
workman were engaged first under the
Apprenticeship Act as a trainee which training
period was ended on 2-4-1990 and therefore the
Party I workman cannot be construed as an
apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act after that
period as claimed by Party II at Para 15(2) in the
written statement where it is stated that he was
engaged as a trainee workman and was a learner
who was paid a stipend and whose terms and
conditions were governed by the provisions of
Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The appointment letter
does not state that he was appointed under
Apprenticeship Act. The services of the Party I
were neither engaged as a trainee nor as an
apprentice as incorrectly claimed by the Party II.
26. It is settled in the case of Trambak Rubber
Industries Ltd. vs. Nashik Workers Union and
Others, (2003) 6 SCC 416 that where production
activities was carried out by the trainees for more
than one and half year and in the absence of
trainers, the trainees have to be termed as
workman. In the instant case also, the Party I was
not an apprentice and could not be a trainee under
the Certified Standing Orders of the company since
such persons according to Certified Standing
Orders are those who are permanent workmen
undergoing training in a higher post. Mr. Kenneth
D’Souza has also admitted that there are no
documents to show that senior mechanics had
imparted training to the Party I. He also admitted
that the Party I required to do job of mechanical
maintenance of machines in the departments he
was allotted work. The Party I was put on night
shift and that he was working in different
department for production of tyres during his
tenure in the factory of more than three years. He
also admitted that Party I was paid on piece rate
basis and that only permanent workers are paid on
piece rate basis in accordance with the settlement
and was getting benefits of ESI scheme, besides he
was using canteen as well as transport facility
provided by the Party II just like permanent
workmen. The evidence adduced on record by the
parties therefore shows that the Party I was neither
an apprentice, nor a trainee but a regular workman
employed in the industry for consideration by the
Party II.
27. The Apex Court in the case of Devinder
Singh vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011
SC 2532 has held that part-time employee,
contractual employee, temporary or casual
employee are all workman. It is also held in the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
573
above case that the provisions contained in Section
25-F(a) and 25-F(b) are mandatory and termination
of services of the workman not following the
provisions of the Act amounts to an illegal
termination of services. No notice of retrenchment
was given to the workman nor any charge sheet or
show cause notice for alleged act of misconduct
was issued and therefore the action on the part of
the Party II is clearly illegal. It is also held in
the case of State Bank vs. N. S. Money, AIR 1976
SC 1111 that even though intermittent breaks are
given to the workman but when he answered the
test of continuous service under Section 25-F, he
cannot be retrenched without following the
procedure under the said provision. There is no
dispute that the Party I worked for more than 240
days since his initial appointment and therefore
covered by the definition ‘continuous service’ under
the Act. The Party I is neither an apprentice nor a
trainee but was working as a regular workman in
continuous service of the Party II without any break
and therefore his termination is illegal for not
following the mandatory provisions of the law.
28. Moreover, the action on the part of the Party
II would constitute ‘Unfair Labour Practices’ as
defined under Fifth Schedule of Industrial Disputes
Act read with Section 2(ra) of the Act, more
particularly under item V(b) and item 10 of the
Fifth Schedule where the employer is prohibited
from engaging workers on temporary basis and
keep them on such basis in service depriving them
the status and the privilege of permanent workers.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan
Lever vs. Ashok Kate, AIR 1996 SC 285, has
formulated the question before it as to the
jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide whether
the management has committed an unfair labour
practices under the Act and the Apex Court in
combined reading of Para 11 to 13, 18, 24 and 36
concluded that the Industrial Disputes Act
prohibits unfair labour practices of the nature in
such case and such ground can be taken up before
the Tribunal as a challenge to the illegal order of
termination and decide upon. The Party I has
sufficiently proved that the Party II has committed
unfair labour practices by depriving the workers
including Party I the status and privileges of
permanent workers. It is therefore the termination
of service by Party II is by way of unfair labour
practices and therefore entitled for protection
available to the workmen under the Industrial
Disputes Act. Hence, the issue No. 1 and 1A are
answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
29. Needless to mention, the Party I has proved
that the action of the Party II in terminating his
service with effect from 31-10-1997 is illegal and
unjustified and that the termination is by way of
unfair labour practice. It is therefore the above
issue No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 3:
30. It is claimed by the Party II that the
termination of services of a trainee is not an
industrial dispute and hence the reference is bad,
however it has been held that the Party I is not the
trainee/apprentice and that he is a permanent
workman as stipulated by law. There is no evidence
on record adduced by the Party II that the
termination of services of trainee is not an industrial
dispute. The management has however relied upon
the Award passed by the predecessor of Industrial
Tribunal in Ref. No. R-IT/9/78, between
Shri Sakharam M. Sawant vs. M/s. Madras Rubber
Factory Ltd., dated 18-07-2002 in support of its
contention that the termination of Party I is in
accordance with terms of appointment letter and
that the predecessor has upheld their contention
in the said case. However, the issues involved in
the said case referred above and that of the present
case are not the same. Moreover, it is an admitted
fact that the said Award was challenged before
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa and
settled. It is therefore the above Award will not
assist the Party II in any way. The Party II has failed
to prove that the termination of Party I is not an
industrial dispute and therefore, reference is bad.
Hence, the above issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No. 4 and 5:
31. The question therefore is what reliefs the
Party I is entitled to, once it is held that the
termination is illegal, whether the Party I is entitled
for re-instatement with full back wages and
continuity in service with consequential benefits
attached to the post or not.
32. Ld. Adv. Shri V. Menezes for the Party I has
submitted that the main controversy in the dispute
is whether there is violation of the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submitted
that in cases in which the Tribunal finds that the
employer has acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions or principles of natural justice
or is guilty of victimization of the employee, then
Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment
of full back wages with reinstatement and
consequential benefits since the termination is in
the nature of an illegal retrenchment without any
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
574
charge sheet and not for any misconduct. Per
contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for the Party II
has submitted that the Party I is not entitled for
any reliefs nor the provisions of Section 25-F is
applicable to the Party I as he was merely an
apprentice or a trainee, who is not a workman nor
there was any employer-employee relationship and
therefore, he is not entitled for any reliefs.
33. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidhylaya (D.ED)
& Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 324, the Division Bench of
Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in Para 33 as
follows, which is extracted hereunder:-
“33. The propositions which can be culled out
from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service,
reinstatement with continuity of service and
back wages is the normal rule.
ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that
while deciding the issue of back wages, the
adjudicating authority or the Court may take
into consideration the length of service of the
employee/workman, the nature of misconduct,
if any, found proved against the employee/
workman, the financial condition of the
employer and similar other factors.
iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose
services are terminated and who is desirous
of getting back wages is required to either
plead or atleast make a statement before the
adjudicating authority or the Court of first
instance that he/she was not gainfully
employed or was employed on lesser wages. If
the employer wants to avoid payment of full
back wages, then it has to plead and also lead
cogent evidence to prove that the employee/
workman was gainfully employed and was
getting wages equal to the wages he/she was
drawing prior to the termination of service.
This is so because it is settled law that the
burden of proof of the existence of a particular
fact lies on the person who makes a positive
averments about its existence. It is always
easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a
negative fact. Therefore, once the employee
shows that he was not employed, the onus
lies on the employer to specifically plead and
prove that the employee was gainfully
employed and was getting the same or
substantially similar emoluments.
iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/
/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under
Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and finds that even though the enquiry
held against the employee/workman is
consistent with the rules of natural justice
and/or certified standing orders, if any,
but holds that the punishment was
disproportionate to the misconduct found
proved, then it will have the discretion not to
award full back wages. However, if the Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the
employee or workman is not at all guilty of
any misconduct or that the employer had
foisted a false charge, then there will be ample
justification for award of full back wages.
v) The cases in which the competent Court or
Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in
gross violation of the statutory provisions
and/or the principles of natural justice or is
guilty of victimizing the employee or workman,
then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be
fully justified in directing payment of full back
wages. In such cases, the superior Courts
should not exercise power under Article 226
or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with
the award passed by the Labour Court, etc.,
merely because there is a possibility of forming
a different opinion on the entitlement of the
employee/workman to get full back wages or
the employer’s obligation to pay the same.
The Courts must always be kept in view that
in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of
service, the wrongdoer is the employer and
sufferer is the employee/workman and there is
no justification to give premium to the
employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him
of the burden to pay to the employee/workman
his dues in the form of full back wages.
vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have
interfered with the award of the primary
adjudicatory authority on the premise that
finalization of litigation has taken long time
ignoring that in majority of cases the parties
are not responsible for such delays. Lack of
infrastructure and manpower is the principal
cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For
this the litigants cannot be blamed or
penalized. It would amount to grave injustice
to an employee or workman if he is denied
back wages simply because there is long lapse
of time between the termination of his service
and finality given to the order of
reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind
that in most of these cases, the employer is in
an advantageous position vis-à-vis the
employee or workman. He can avail the services
of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
575
the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman,
who can ill afford the luxury of spending
money on a lawyer with certain amount of
fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be
prudent to adopt the course suggested in
Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v.
Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private
Limited (supra).
vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd.
v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement
the employee/workman cannot claim
continuity of service as of right is contrary to
the ratio of the judgments of three Judge
Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot
be treated as good law. This part of the
judgment is also against the very concept of
reinstatement of an employee/workman.
34. It has been established by Party I that the
action of the management of Party II in terminating
the services of the Party I workman, Shri Anthony
Dias with effect from 31-10-1197 is illegal and
unjustified. There is nothing on record that he was
gainfully employed after his illegal termination.
Needless to mention, the Party I has proved
violation of provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act. It is also well settled that in cases of wrongful
termination of service, reinstatement with
continuity of service and back wages is a normal
rule. The company is functioning and is carrying
on business of manufacturing of tyres at Usgao.
The Party I workman was not at all guilty of any
misconduct. It is evident that the Party II has foisted
a false charge against him in order to terminate
him and also acted in gross violation of the
statutory provisions and/or principles of natural
justice and also guilty of victimizing the Party I
workman. The Party I was 36 years of age at the
time of his deposition in the year 2001. He would
be of the age of 55 years now and therefore has few
more years in service. The Party I having proved
that the employer has terminated his services
illegally and that the termination is motivated and
found to be invalid and that the employer has taken
away his right to work, contrary to the relevant
law and has deprived him of the earnings, it would
amount to grave injustice to the Party I, if he
is denied the reliefs claimed including the
re-instatement, full back wages and continuity of
service including the benefits of all the settlements.
Hence, the above issues are answered accordingly.
35. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands allowed.
(ii) It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s MRF Limited, Usgao,
Ponda-Goa, in terminating the services of
the workman, Shri Anthony Dias, with
effect from 31-10-1997, is illegal and
unjustified.
(iii) The Party II is directed to reinstate the
Party I, workman Shri Anthony Dias in
service with immediate effect and shall pay
him an amount equivalent to full back
wages for the period from the date of
termination i.e. 31-10-1997 till date along
with all consequential benefits including
all the benefits of the settlements.
(iv) The Party II is directed to deposit the
aforesaid amount before the Tribunal
within 60 days of the publication of the
Award, failing which the Party II shall pay
an interest @ 9% per annum.
(v) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
———u———
Inspectorate of Factories & Boilers
__
Order
No. 2/05(Part)/ADM-IFB/2017/1079
Read: Memorandum No. 2/05(Part)/ADM-IFB/
/2017/21 dated 16-04-2020.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide letter
No. COM/I/5/19(1)2017/19 dated 17-04-2018 and
upon acceptance of the offer of appointment issued
vide above cited Memorandum, Government is
pleased to appoint Shri Santosh Narayan Shinde to
the post of Chemist (Group “B” Gazetted) in the
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers, Altinho,
Panaji, Goa in Level 6 of the Pay Matrix of The CCS
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 from the date of joining
the post on the terms and conditions contained in
the Memorandum cited above.
1. He shall be entitled to all other allowances
as admissible under the rules.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
576
2. The above candidate shall be on probation
for a period of two years from the date of his
joining.
3. The above candidate has been medically
examined and declared fit by the Medical
Board, Goa Medical College, Bambolim-Goa.
4. Character and antecedents of the above
candidate have been verified by the District
Magistrate, South Goa District, Margao
through the Police Department and nothing
adverse has come to the notice of the
Government.
5. The expenditure towards pay and other
allowances shall be debited to the Budget
Head 2230–Labour and Employment;
01–Labour; 102–Working Condition and
Safety; 01–Strengthening of Factories and
Boilers Inspectorate; 01–Salaries (Non-Plan).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vivek P. Marathe, Chief Inspector & ex officio
Joint Secretary (Factories and Boilers).
Panaji, 13th August, 2020.
________
Order
No. CIF/096/S-II/IFB/2020/1083
Whereas, considering the current crisis on
account of COVID-19 pandemic as ‘force majeure’,
the Government of Goa has considered extension
of validity of factory license and deferment of
payment of license fees as under:
(i) The validity of the factory license will be
extended upto December, 2020 without
inspection and the payment of license fees
will also be deferred till December, 2020
without interest.
(ii) For the extension of validity of factory
license upto December, 2021, the applicant
shall submit the application along with the
proof of payment of deferred license fees.
After conducting the routine inspection as
per the prevailing rules in force, the validity
of factory license will be extended upto
December, 2021 without payment of license
fees, which will be deferred upto December,
2021 without interest.
(iii) Registration of new factories shall be dealt
with in accordance with the prevailing rules
in force.
This issues with the concurrence of Finance
(Revenue & Control) Department vide U.O. No.
1400074191 dated 03-08-2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vivek P. Marathe, Chief Inspector & ex officio
Joint Secretary (Factories and Boilers).
Panaji, 13th August, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
—
Order
No. 7/11/2018-PER/1833
Read: 1. Order No. 7/11/2018-PER dated
05-11-2018.
2. Letter No. 13019/4/2019-IES dated
13-07-2020.
The Governor of Goa is pleased to extend the
deputation of Smt. Nidhi Amit Satija, IES:2012, Joint
Secretary (Budget), Government of Goa, for a further
period of two years from 03-09-2020 to 02-09-2022.
The deputation shall be governed by standard
terms of deputation.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 11th August, 2020.
________
Order
No. 7/27/2015-PER/1894
Read:
Order No. 7/13/2014-PER/1209 dated
15-04-2016.
Government is pleased to relieve Dr.
N. Palanikanth, IFS (AGMUT: 2009), Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Headquarters from the State
Administration w.e.f. 31-08-2020 (a. n.), to join the
deputation post of Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Institute of Wood Science and Technology,
Bengaluru, under Indian Council for Forestry
Research and Education.
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change, Government of India has granted
cadre clearance, vide letter No. 23024/2/2020-
-IFS-I(AGMUT) dated 16-07-2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 17th August, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
577
Order
No. 7/5/2019-PER/1771
Read: 1. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/1618 dated 20-07-2020.
2. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/1621 dated 21-07-2020.
In supersession of all Orders issued in this regard, the standing arrangement for disposal of work
relating to the Departments under the charge of Secretary during the absence of the concerned Secretary
shall be as under:
Sr.
Name & designation
1st Link Secretary
2nd Link Secretary
No.
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Parimal Rai, IAS (1985),
Shri Puneet Kumar Goel, IAS
Shri Daulat A. Hawaldar, IAS
Chief Secretary
(1991)
(2003)
1. Vigilance/Chief Vigilance
Principal Secretary (Power)
Commissioner & Secretary
Officer
(Mines and Geology).
2. Home
3. Personnel
4. ARD
5. PWD
6. Civil Aviation
2. Shri Puneet Kumar Goel, IAS
Shri Daulat A. Hawaldar, IAS
Smt. Nila Mohanan, IAS
(1991), Principal Secretary
(2003), Commissioner &
(2007), Secretary (Education).
(Power)
Secretary (Mines and Geology)
1. Power
2. Finance
3. Non-Conventional Energy
4. Forest
3. Shri Daulat A. Hawaldar, IAS
Shri Puneet Kumar Goel, IAS
Shri P. S. Reddy, IAS
(2003), Commissioner & Secretary
(1991), Principal Secretary
(2003), Secretary (Ports).
(Mines and Geology)
(Power)
1. Mines and Geology
2. Planning & Statistics
3. Town & Country Planning
4. Shri P. S. Reddy, IAS
Shri Daulat A. Hawaldar, IAS
Smt. Nila Mohanan, IAS
(2003), Secretary (Ports)
(2003), Commissioner & Secretary
(2007), Secretary (Education).
1. Ports
(Mines and Geology)
2. River Navigation
3. Fisheries
4. Legal Metrology
5. Shri S. K. Bhandari, IAS
Shri Sanjay Gihar, IAS
Shri Kuldeep Singh Gangar, IAS
(2004), Secretary, Social Welfare
(2008), Secretary (Water
(2009), Secretary (Agriculture).
1. Social Welfare
Resources)
2. Women and Child
3. Tribal Welfare
6. Smt. Nila Mohanan, IAS
Shri Sanjay Kumar, IAS
Shri Daulat A. Hawaldar, IAS
(2007), Secretary (Education)
(2008), Secretary (Revenue)
(2003), Commissioner & Secretary
1. Education
(Mines & Geology).
2. Industries, Trade & Commerce
3. Health
4. Handicrafts, Textile & Coir
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
578
7. Shri Sanjay Kumar, IAS
Shri Amit Satija, IAS
Smt. Nila Mohanan, IAS
(2008), Secretary (Revenue)
(2008), Secretary (Urban
(2007), Secretary (Education).
1. Revenue
Development)
2. NRI Affairs
3. Information Publicity
4. Information Technology
5. Labour & Employment
8. Shri Amit Satija, IAS
Shri Sanjay Kumar, IAS
Smt. Nila Mohanan, IAS
(2008), Secretary
(2008), Secretary (Revenue)
(2007), Secretary (Education).
1. Urban Development
2. Transport
3. Environment
4. Science & Technology
5. Factories & Boilers
6. CEO, Entertainment
Society of Goa
7. Nodal Officer SBM (U),
PMAY (U)
9. Shri J. Ashok Kumar, IAS
Shri Sanjay Kumar, IAS
Shri Amit Satija, IAS
(2008), Secretary to Chief Minister
(2008), Secretary (Revenue)
(2008), Secretary, Urban Develop-
1. Secretary to Chief Minister
(except Sr. No. 1)
ment (except Sr. No. 1).
2. Sports & Youth Affairs
3. Tourism
4. PPP Division
10. Shri Chokha Ram Garg, IAS
Shri Sanjay Gihar, IAS
Shri Kuldeep Singh Gangar, IAS
(2008), Secretary (Art & Culture)
(2008), Secretary (Water
(2009), Secretary (Agriculture).
1. Art & Culture
Resources)
2. Skill Development &
Entrepreneurship
3. Archaeology
4. Achives
5. Co-operation
6. Law & Judiciary and
Legislative Affairs
11. Shri Sanjay Gihar, IAS
Shri Chokha Ram Garg, IAS
Shri Kuldeep Singh Gangar, IAS
(2008), Secretary (Water Resources)
(2008), Secretary (Art & Culture)
(2009), Secretary (Agriculture).
1. Water Resources
2. Provedoria
3. Rural Development
4. Panchayats
5. Housing
6. Official Language
7. Nodal Officer SBM (R),
PMAY (R)
12. Shri Kuldeep Singh Gangar, IAS
Shri Sanjay Gihar, IAS
Shri Chokha Ram Garg, IAS
(2009), Secretary (Agriculture)
(2008), Secretary (Water Resources) (2008), Secretary (Art & Culture).
1. Agriculture
2. Animal Husbandry &
Veterinary Services
3. Public Grievances
4. Secretary, Goa State
Commission for Protection
of Child Rights
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
579
13. Ms. Isha Khosla, IAS
Shri Amit Satija, IAS
Shri Sanjay Kumar, IAS
(2011)
(2008), Secretary, Urban
(2008), Secretary (Revenue).
1. Secretary (General
Development
Administration)
2. General Administration
3. Civil Supplies
4. Goa Gazetter
5. Printing & Stationary
6. Museums
7. Protocol
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 4th August, 2020.
________
Order
No. 5/1/2018-PER/1823
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
Additional charge
No.
posting of the officer
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Premraj Shirodkar,
Under Secretary
—
Deputy Director (Admin.),
(Expenditure), Finance
Higher Education
Department
2.
Shri Pranab Bhat, Under
Under Secretary (Revenue
Under Secretary (Budget-I)
Secretary (Expenditure)
Control), Finance
and (Budget-II-DMU), Finance
Department
Department.
3.
Shri Rohit Kadam, Dy.
Assistant Commissioner of
—
Collector, Quepem
Commercial Taxes
4.
Shri Nilesh Dhaigodkar,
Dy. Collector and SDM,
—
Under Secretary-I (Home)
Quepem
with additional charge
of Under Secretary-II
(Home)
5.
Shri Pritidas Upasso
Under Secretary-I (Home)
Under Secretary-II (Home).
Gaonkar, Assistant
Commissioner of
Commercial Taxes
6.
Shri Rohan Kaskar, Chief
Dy. Director (Admin.),
OSD, Goa Investment Promotion
Officer, Bicholim
Directorate of Industries,
and Facilitation Board.
Municipal Council with
Trade and Commerce
additional charge of
OSD, Goa Investment
Promotion and
Facilitation Board
7.
Shri Uday Prabhudesai,
Dy. Collector (Revenue),
Assistant Commissioner
South Goa
of Commercial Taxes
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
580
8.
Smt. Neha Panvelkar,
Assistant Commissioner
—
Deputy Registrar, Goa
of Commercial Taxes
Engineering College,
Farmagudi with additional
charge of Member Secretary,
Rajiv Kala Mandir, Ponda
9.
Shri Aleixo Vaz, Assistant
Deputy Registrar, Goa
Member Secretary, Rajiv Kala
Commissioner of
Engineering College,
Mandir, Ponda.
Commercial Taxes
Farmagudi-Goa
10.
Shri Tushar Halarnkar,
Deputy Director
—
Assistant Commissioner
(Administration), Higher
of Commercial Taxes
Education
11.
Shri Tipanna S. Maddimani,
Administrative Officer,
—
Dy. Collector (Revenue),
Hospicio Hospital,
South Goa with
Margao
additional charge of
Administrative Officer,
Hospicio Hospital,
Margao
12.
Shri Chandresh C. Kunkalkar,
Assistant Commissioner of
Dy. Collector, Revenue (North) Commercial Taxes
13.
Shri Sohan Uskaikar,
Deputy Director (Admn.),
General Manager (IDC).
awaiting posting
DFDA
14.
Shri Gauresh Pilgaonkar,
Assistant Commissioner
—
awaiting posting
of Commercial Taxes
15.
Shri Sagar Babuli Gaude,
Dy. Collector (Revenue),
Dy. Collector (DRO), North.
Dy. Collector (DRO), North
North
Shri Deepak Vaingankar, Dy. Collector and SDM, Bicholim and Member Secretary, Ravindra Bhavan,
Sankhali shall hold additional charge of Chief Officer, Bicholim Municipal Council.
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, 10th August, 2020.
———uuu———
1
2
3
4
Department of Planning
Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation
—
Addendum
No. DPSE/IV/Population Census-2021(Part)/
/2019-20/641
Read:
Notification No. DPSE/IV/Population
Census-2021/2019-20/912 dated 14th June,
2019.
In the above referred Notification, the following
new member is added at Sr. No. 2 i.e. Principal
Secretary (Finance), Government of Goa. The
remaining contents of the Notification remain the
same.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Dr. Y. Durga Prasad, Director & ex officio
Joint Secretary (Planning).
Porvorim, 14th August, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
581
Department of Public Assistance
(Provedoria)
Institute of Public Assistance (Provedoria)
—
Notification
No. 2-3-96/2020/Prov./676
In exercise of the power conferred by Article 16
of the Legislative Diploma No. 1984 dated
14-4-1960 and all other powers enabling it in that
behalf and in supersession of the Government of
Goa’s earlier Notification No. 2-3-96/2011-12/Prov/
/1566 dated 5th September, 2012 hereby:-
(i) Appoints the persons specified in the
schedule below to be the Chairman and
members of the Council of Provedoria; and
(ii) Directs that the persons specified at serial
numbers (2) (3) and (4) of the Schedule
below to hold the Office of members of the
Council of Provedoria during the pleasure
of the Government and they shall be paid
allowance for each day of sitting of the
Council from the funds of Provedoria at the
rate fixed by the Government.
SCHEDULE
1.
Secretary, In-charge of
— Chairman.
Provedoria
2.
Shri Guruprasad Pawaskar
— Member.
Socorro, Alto Porvorim,
Bardez-Goa
3.
Shri Bipin Pandurang
— Member.
Natekar, Socorro, Alto
Porvorim-Goa
4.
Mr. Ashish Karmali,
— Member.
Kakoda, Curchorem-Goa
5.
Director of Provedoria
— Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sanjay Gihar, IAS, Secretary (Provedoria).
Panaji, 21st July, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
—
Order
No. 8/8/88-I/PHD/2957
Government is pleased to accept the notice of
voluntary retirement dated 06-07-2020 tendered by
Dr. Doreen Noronha, Chief Medical Officer under
Directorate of Health Services under Rule 48-A of
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to relieve her from
the post of Chief Medical Officer under Directorate
of Health Services with effect from 06-10-2020 (a.n.).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 10th August, 2020.
________
Order
No. 23/20/2014-I/PHD/Part IV/2993
Government hereby notifies the health facility
viz. the premises of Sub District Hospital, Ponda as
the 2nd dedicated COVID-19 Hospital, for the State
of Goa with effect from 08-08-2020 wherein only
suspects or confirmed COVID cases shall be
admitted and treated.
Consequently, the Hospital admissions, O.T.,
Labour room services shall be stopped. The dialysis
services shall continue on the 4th floor with
separate route for the movement of these patients.
The Medical Store Depot, Laboratory, Office, Primary
Health Centre, Ponda etc. will continue at the other
side of the building.
The Casualty and OPD services; and
immunization are accordingly shifted to the
“Dilassa” Health Centre run by IMA-Ponda Branch.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 14th August, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Social Welfare
Directorate of Social Welfare
—
Notification
No. 50-415-2017-18-HC/PART/1861
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
72 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (Central Act 49 of 2016) read with Rule 14 of
the Goa Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules,
2018, the Government of Goa hereby constitutes
the committee on Disability for South Goa District
consisting of the following persons, namely:-
1. District Collector (South Goa)
— Chairperson.
2. Civil Surgeon or Chief Medical — Member.
Officer or Medical Superinten-
dent, Hospicio Hospital,
Margao
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
582
3. Psychiatrist of the Hospicio
— Member.
Hospital, Margao
4. Public Prosecutor nominated — Member.
by Directorate of Prosecution
5. President, Chetna Education — Member.
Society, School and Rehabili-
tation centre for Special
Children, Curchorem-Goa
6. Shri Agnelo Fernandes,
— Member.
H. No. 38, Sirvoi, Pimpolcotto,
Quepem-Goa
7. Deputy Director (Social
— Member
Welfare), Directorate of
Secretary.
Social Welfare
This Notification shall come into force on the
date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Social Welfare).
Panaji, 13th August, 2020.
______
Notification
No. 50-415-2017-18-HC/PART/1862
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
72 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (Central Act 49 of 2016) read with Rule 14 of
the Goa Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules,
2018, the Government of Goa hereby constitutes
the committee on Disability for North Goa District
consisting of the following persons, namely:-
1. District Collector (North Goa)
— Chairperson.
2. Civil Surgeon or Chief Medical — Member.
Officer or Medical Superinten-
dent, Asilo Hospital, Mapusa
3. Psychiatrist of the Asilo
— Member.
Hospital, Mapusa
4. Public Prosecutor nominated — Member.
by the Directorate of Prosecution
5. Shri Makarand Kamat, Manager,— Member.
Keshav Seva Sadhana, School
for Special Children, Bicholim
6. Shri Vishant Nagvekar,
— Member.
R/o C-49, Government
Quarters, Altinho, Panaji
7. Deputy Director (Adminis-
— Member
tration), Directorate of Social
Secretary.
Welfare
This Notification shall come into force on the
date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Social Welfare).
Panaji, 13th August, 2020.
______
Notification
No. 50-415-2017-18-HC/PART/1864
In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 of the Goa
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018, the
Government of Goa hereby constitutes the
governing body to manage the State Fund for
Persons with Disabilities consisting of the following
members, namely:-
1. Secretary (Social Welfare)
— Chairperson.
2. Additional Secretary (Finance) — Member.
3. Director of Higher Education
— Member.
4. Director of Health
— Member.
5. Shri Prasad Joshi, General
— Member.
Secretary, Goa Association
of the Deaf
6. Shri Victor Fernandes,
— Member.
businessman, R/o Siolim
7. Director of Social Welfare
— Convener
and Chief
Executive
Officer.
This Notification shall come into force on the date
of its publication in the Official Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Social Welfare).
Panaji, 13th August, 2020.
________
Notification
No. 81-2-97-SDB/PART-III/1886
Government is pleased to constitute District
Committees of Nasha Mukt Bharat Campaign for
North Goa District consisting of the following
members to advise on effective and co-ordinate
implementation of the Nasha Mukt Bharat
Campaign at District Level and to perform such
other functions in relation to Nasha Mukt Bharat
Campaign at the District Level as may be specified
by the Government.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
583
District Level Nasha Mukt Bharat Campaign
Committee
North Goa District
1.
District Collector (North)
Chairperson.
2.
Superintendent of Police
Member.
(Crime Branch)
3.
District Legal Services
Member.
Authority–Representative
of District Judge
4.
Medical Superintendent/Senior Member.
Psychiatrist, District Hospital
5.
Dy. Director, Higher Education
Member.
6.
Dy. Director, School Education
7.
Probation Officer of Women
Member.
and Child Development
8.
Mr. Aneesh V. Suresh–
Member.
Co-ordinator of Project
Monitoring Unit (PMU)
(Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment,
(Government of India)
9.
Kripa Foundation, Anjuna
Member.
Bardez
10. Shri Satyawan G. Bhivshet,
Member.
Ex. G. C. S. Officer
11. Shri Omprakash Kudtarkar,
Member.
Ex. Superintendent of Police
12. Kripa Foundation, Papdy Vasai,
Member.
Dist-Palghar, Taluka-Vasai (W)
13. Sahayta, Mapusa-Goa
Member.
14. District Welfare Officer (North)
Member
Secretary.
Terms of reference of the Committee
is as follows:
1.
Ensuring formulation and implementation
of the District Nasha Mukt Bharat Campaign.
2.
Conducting awareness generation progra-
mmes in all schools and colleges in the
districts for students, teachers and parents.
3.
Formulation of students clubs in colleges to
discuss and spread awareness.
4.
Identification of victims and users and taking
them to Rehabilitation Centre/Hospitals for
counselling and treatment.
5.
Monitoring of counselling and treatment
facilities in the districts.
6.
Ensuring strict implementation of ban on sale
of cigarettes within 100 meters of any
educational institution (Rule refers).
7.
Obtaining information on the availability/sale
of drugs and review the action taken on such
information.
8.
Visit institutions, hospitals who are providing
services.
9.
Conducting training programmes for the
service providers at district level and below
district level.
10.
To increase community participation and
public co-operation.
11.
Having a social media strategy for district
campaign and implementation of the
same.
12.
Feedback on the progress to the State
Level Campaign Committee and to the
Ministry.
13.
Identifying volunteers in the community,
giving them ID card/badge, training them as
a community peer for spreading awareness in
the community (online training module would
be supplied by the Ministry).
District Nasha Mukt Campaign Committee will
meet atleast once in a month.
This notification shall come in force with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary
(Social Welfare).
Panaji, 14th August, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Water Resources
Office of the Chief Engineer
__
Order
No. 3/25-5/87/WR/Adm.I/480
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide confidential letter
No. COM/II/11/27(1)/2019/533 dated 12-06-2020, Government is pleased to order the promotion of the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
584
following Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in Water Resources Department on
regular basis in the Pay Matrix Level No. 7 and post them against the place indicated in Column
No. 4:-
Sr.
Name of promotee
Present designation
Designation and
Remarks
No.
and place of posting
place of posting
on promotion
1
2
3
4
5
1. Shri Anil Ramchandra
Junior Engineer,
Assistant Engineer,
Promotion.
Fadte
O/o Assistant Engineer,
O/o Assistant Engineer,
Sub-Div-VI, Works
Sub-Div-I, Works Div-V,
Div-VIII, WRD, Bicholim
WRD, Keri, Satari
2. Smt. Rashmi R. Kadam
Junior Engineer,
Assistant Engineer,
Promotion.
O/o Assistant Engineer,
O/o Assistant Engineer,
Sub-Div-II, Works
Sub-Div-V, QC Works
Div-VII, WRD, Dhargal
Div-VIII, WRD, Bicholim
and on working
vice Shri Varde Shantaram
arrangement in the
transferred
O/o SE, Circle-II,
Karaswada
The Government is also pleased to transfer the below mentioned Assistant Engineer (Civil), in WRD
in view of the above posting of the promotee Officers in Water Resources Department.
Sr.
Name of the officer
Present designation
Designation and
No.
and place of posting
place of posting
on transfer
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Varde Shantaram
Assistant Engineer, O/o Assistant
Assistant Surveyor of Works,
Engineer, Sub-Div-V, QC Works
O/o Executive Engineer,
Div-VIII, WRD, Bicholim
Works Div-XII, WRD, Gogal,
Margao in the existing
vacancy.
The promoted Officers at Sr. No. 1 and 2 shall be on probation for a period of two years as specified
in Column No. 9 of the Recruitment Rules notified in the Official Gazette, Extraordinary, Series I No. 28
dated 11-10-2001.
This is issued vide Government approval No. 4712/F dated 05-08-2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
S. D. Patil, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (WR).
Porvorim, 10th August, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Women and Child
Development
Directorate of Women and Child Development
—
Notification
No. 2-1293-SLTF-MSK-2020-DWCD/2180
The Government of Goa is pleased to constitute
the State Level Task Force under the Mahila Shakti
Kendra Scheme instituted by the Ministry of Women
and Child Development, Government of India and
shall consist of the following members as under:-
Sr.
Name of the Committee
Designation
No.
Member
1
2
3
1.
The Secretary, Women and
Chairperson.
Child Development,
Secretariat Complex,
Porvorim-Goa
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 21
20TH AUGUST, 2020
585
2.
The Director General of
Member.
Police, Police Headquarters,
Azad Maidan, Panaji-Goa
3.
The Director, Directorate
Member.
of Panchayats, 3rd lift,
3rd floor, Junta House,
Panaji-Goa
4.
The Director, Directorate
Member.
of Education, Porvorim-Goa
5.
The Director, Directorate
Member.
of Health Services, Campal,
Panaji-Goa
6.
The Director, Directorate
Member.
of Skill Development, Patto
Centre, Panaji-Goa
7.
The Director, Directorate of
Member
Women and Child
Secretary.
Development, Panaji-Goa
The State Level Task Force to undertake the
overall guidance, supervision and review the
working of State Resource Centre for Women
(SRCW), District Level Centres for Women (DLCW)
and Block Level Mahila Shakti Kendras. The State
Task Force to monitor, co-ordinate, review and
course correct the functioning of SRCW, DLCWs
and MSKs. The State Level Task Force Team to
periodically report the same to the Ministry of
Women and Child Development, Government of
India.
The State Task Force to ensure that necessary
recruitment/engagement of human resource under
the scheme at various levels (SRCW, DLCW and
MSK-Block Level) for effective implementation of
the scheme.
Non official members are entitled for an
honorarium as per the norms of the Government.
This issues with Government approval vide
U.O. No 240 dated 29-07-2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary
(Women & Child Development).
Panaji, 11th August, 2020.
1
2
3
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 29.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—159/120–8/2020.