Panaji, 17th September, 2020 (Bhadra 26, 1942)

SERIES II No. 25

627

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

Order

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2020-21/Part(II)/810

On recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public

Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/

/11/2 (1)/2020/580 dated 15-07-2020, Government

is pleased to promote Shri Shivdas Gaonkar,

Agriculture Officer, Group ‘B’ Gazetted posted as

Farm Superintendent, Kalay to the post of Assistant

Director of Agriculture, Group ‘A’ Gazetted, in the

Directorate of Agriculture under Scheduled Tribe

Category on regular basis in the Pay Matrix at

Level-10 of the 7th Pay Commission with immediate

effect.

On promotion he is posted as below:

Sr.

Name of the

Place of posting on

No.

Agriculture Officer

promotion on regular

basis

Shri Shivdas Gaonkar

Against the post of

(ST)

Assistant Director of

Agriculture (FT),

Farmers Training

Centre, Ela, Old Goa

vacated by Shri Anant

Hoble on transfer.

Shri Shivdas Gaonkar shall exercise his option

within one month from the date of promotion to fix

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

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 10th September, 2020.

Order

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2020-21/Part(II)/812

On recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public

Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/

/11/2 (2)/2018/581 dated 15-07-2020, Government

is pleased to promote Shri Sandesh Jiva Raut

Dessai, Assistant Agriculture Officer to the post of

Agriculture Officer, Group ‘B’ Gazetted, in the

Directorate of Agriculture on regular basis in the

Pay Matrix of Level-7 of the 7th Pay Commission

with immediate effect.

On promotion he shall continue at the same

place of his posting as shown below:

1) Shri Sandesh Jiva Raut Dessai, Zonal

Agriculture Officer, Zonal Agriculture Office,

Quepem.

Shri Sandesh Jiva Raut Dessai shall exercise his

option within one month from the date of promotion

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

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 10th September, 2020.

________

Order

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2020-21/Part(II)/808

On recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public

Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/

/11/2 (3)/2011/579 dated 15-07-2020, Government

is pleased to promote Shri Vithal Joshi, Assistant

Director of Agriculture (INM) to the post of

Dy. Director of Agriculture, Group ‘A’ Gazetted, in

the Directorate of Agriculture on regular basis

in the Pay Matrix at Level-11 of the 7th Pay

Commission with immediate effect.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

628

On promotion he is posted as below:

Sr.

Name of the

Place of posting on

No.

officer

promotion on regular

basis

Shri Vithal Joshi

Against the vacant Dy.

Director of Agriculture

(Crops & PP), Directorate

of Agriculture, Tonca,

Caranzalem by relieving

Shri Shivanand Wagle

of additional charge.

Shri Joshi shall also hold

additional charge of

District Agriculture Office,

North thereby relieving

Shri Sanjeev Mayekar of

additional charge.

Shri Vithal Joshi shall exercise his option within

one month from the date of promotion to fix his pay

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

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 10th September, 2020.

________

Order

No. 2/9/95-AGR/2020-21/Part(II)/811

On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public Service

Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/2(1)/2020/580 dated 15-07-2020, Government is pleased to

promote and appoint the following Agriculture Officers, Group ‘B’ Gazetted to the post of Assistant

Director of Agriculture, Group ‘A’ Gazetted on officiating basis in the Pay Matrix at Level-10 of the

7th Pay Commission with immediate effect until further orders or till the post is filled on regular basis

whichever is earlier.

Shri Dattaprasad Dessai.

Shri Anil A De Noronha.

On promotion on officiating basis, they shall be posted as below:

Sr.

Name of the officer and

Place of posting on

Budget Head

No.

place of posting

officiating basis

Shri Dattaprasad Dessai,

As Assistant Director of Agriculture (Hort.),

2401-00-109-05-01.

Agriculture Officer on

Directorate of Agriculture, Tonca, Caranzalem

deputation to Goa State

vacated by Shri Pradeep Malik on transfer

Horticulture Corporation

Ltd., against the post of

Manager (Farms)

Shri Anil A De Noronha,

Against the vacant post of Subject Matter

2415-01-150-01-01.

Agriculture Officer on

Specialist (Horticulture), Krishi Vigyan Kendra,

deputation to Agriculture

South, by relieving Shri Chandrahas Dessai

Technology Management

of additional charge

Authority (A.T.M.A.), North

against the post of

Dy. Project Director

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

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 10th September, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

629

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Order

No. 3/9/Urban Credit/TS-II/PZ/2018/

/RCS/Suppl/1908

Read: 1. Circular No. 6-13-81/EST/RCS/Part V/5833

dated 06-03-2020.

2. Order No. 48-8-2001-TS-RCS-III/311 dated

21-04-2017.

3. Letter No. 1/2009-10/Dispute/AR(Dairy)/

399 dated 24-06-2020.

4. Letter No. PUCCS/ARCS/20-21/25 dated

15-06-2020 from The Ponda Urban Co-op.

Credit Society Ltd., Ponda-Goa.

In exercise of powers under Section 123(B) of

Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, I, the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, hereby appoint

Adv. Reena D. Naik Rasaikar, Ponda-Goa as

Registrar’s Nominee (hereinafter referred to as the

nominee) from the existing list of empanelled

Registrar’s Nominee to adjudicate the disputes

referred to her by The Ponda Urban Co-operative

Society Ltd., Ponda-Goa.

Once any dispute is referred by the above

mentioned society to the above named Nominee is

also authorised under Section 86(1) to first decide

the issue if the matter referred involves a dispute

requiring arbitration.

Only upon the nominee being satisfied that there

exists a dispute she is authorised to arbitrate on

the same and give his award.

This order is subject to the following conditions:-

1. The Nominee appointed is required to

maintain all the case files in terms of civil

manual issued by the Hon’ble High Court for

the guidance of all the subordinate courts

keeping in view the provisions of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act & Rules.

2. The Nominee shall refrain herself from

representating before any other Registrar’s

Nominee/Board of Nominee as a legal

practitioner of a party to the dispute under

the provisions of Goa Co-operative Societies

Act, 2001.

3. Arbitration fee shall be charged as per Order

No. 41-3-85/TS/RCS/516 dated 24-05-2010.

4. This order shall remain in force for one year

unless extended, the Order can also be

withdrawn at anytime without assigning any

reasons by the undersigned.

Vikas S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative

Societies).

Panaji, 7th September, 2020.

________

Order

No. 50/3(238)/Elec/BOD/ECHS/RCS/NZ/18/1913

Read: Letter No. AR/NZ/ELEC/GEN/2020/266

dated 29-06-2020 received from Asstt.

Registrar of Co-op. Societies, North Zone,

Mapusa-Goa to fill one vacant post of

Directors.

In exercise of powers conferred under Section

126A of the Goa Co-operative Societies, Act, 2001,

the Government is pleased to grant relaxation on

applicability of sub-section 4 of Section 59 to

Eternia Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Shetyevaddo,

Mapusa-Goa, for the period 2018 to 2023.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vikas N. Gaunekar, Registrar & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 09th September, 2020.

________

Addendum

No. 15-99-88-ADT/RCS(Suppl)/1911

Read: Order No. 15-99-88/ADT/RCS(Suppl)/1368

dated 29-07-2020.

In exercise of the powers conferred under

Section 74(2) of the Goa Co-operative Societies

Act, 2001, Government is pleased to include

the name of the below mentioned Chartered

Accountant in the Panel of Auditor under “Class

A” in the order read above as under.

Sr.

Name & address

Tel./Mobile

Firms

No.

of Chartered

No.

Registration/

Accountant

/Membership

No.

136. Shri Lilesh Shital

9326102254

Member-

Prabhu Nasnodkar, Email

ship No.

Chartered Accoun- lilesh.nasnodkar 133454

tant,

@gmail.com

L. S. Prabhu Nasnodkar

& Co., 207 Govinda

Building, Mahatma

Gandhi Road,

Panaji-Goa 403001

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

630

All other terms and conditions mentioned in the

order read above remains the same for this inclusion

also.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Secretary (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 09th September, 2020.

———u———

Office of the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative

Societies

No. 13/51/86/New India/ARCZ/824

Read: Show Cause Notice No. 13/51/86/New India/

/ARCZ dated 15-01-2020.

A show cause notice referred to hereinabove

was issued to all the Directors on the Board of the

New India Assurance Co-operative Credit Society

Ltd., Patto, BSNL Bldg., 7th Floor, Panaji to Show

Cause as to why the affairs of the society should

not be wound up.

The hearing in the matter was fixed on

14-07-2020 at 11.00 a.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 not submitted

the status as regards to the functioning of the

society.

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

therefore, inclined to pass the following interim

order:

Order

In exercise of the 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 New India Assurance Co-operative Credit

Society Ltd., Patto, BSNL Bldg., 7th Floor, Panaji

registered under Code Symbol No. ARCS/CZ-

-3(b)-3/Goa dated 17-11-1982 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 appoint

Smt. Sushila Bandodkar, Sr. Auditor, Co-operative

Societies, Central Zone, Panaji as the Liquidator

of the New India Assurance Co-operative

Credit Society Ltd., Patto, BSNL Bldg., 7th Floor,

Panaji.

P. S. Sawant, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

Cental Zone.

Panaji, 7th September, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Forest

—

Order

No. 4/2/2001-02/FOR(Part)/170

On recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa

Public Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/

/11/22(1)/2011/616 dated 21-08-2020, the Governor

of Goa is pleased to promote Shri Paresh C. Porob,

Range Forest Officer (RFO) to the post of Assistant

Conservator of Forest (ACF), Group “B” Gazetted

in the pay scale of PB-2 Rs. 9,300-34,800+Grade Pay

4,600 (level-7 of the 7th Pay Commission) on regular

basis, in the Office of the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Panaji,

with immediate effect.

The above officer shall be on probation for a

period of 02 years.

The above officer shall exercise the option for

fixation of pay within one month from the date of

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

The pay of officer on promotion shall be fixed as

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

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Forests).

Porvorim, 09th September, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

631

Goa State Information Commission

Order

No. GSIC/Admn/O.O/2020/547

In pursuance to Clause 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “The said

Act”), the following officers/officials are hereby appointed as Public Information Officer/Assistant Public

Information Officer and First Appellate Authority for the office of Goa State Information Commission, to

deal with the application received from the public under the said Act.

Sr.

Name & designation of the

Name & designation of

Designation of the

Jurisdiction

No.

Public Information Officer

the Assistant Public

First Appellate Authority

Information Officer

Smt. Alexandrina Vaz,

Smt. Arlene D. Cunha,

Under Secretary-cum-

State of

Sr. Steno Grade I

LDC

-Registrar

Goa.

The above designated officers/officials shall exercise and perform the powers/functions laid down

under the RTI Act, 2005.

This order supersedes all the earlier order issued in this regards and shall come into force with

immediate effect.

Shri Vinesh Arlenkar, Secretary (Goa State Information Commission).

Panaji, 10th September, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

—

Notification

No. 28/2/2020-LAB/944

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

07-08-2020 in reference No. IT/19/94 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.

Fatima S. De Souza, Under Secretary (Labour)

(Link).

Porvorim, 07th September, 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/19/94

Workmen,

Represented by the

General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

Kamakshi Krupa, Gr. Floor,

Ponda-Goa.

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Dupont Sportswear Ltd.,

Plot No. 82-85, Bicholim

Industrial Estate,

Bicholim-Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Adv. S. P. Gaonkar

along with Shri P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.

Chawdikar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 7th day of the month

of August of the year 2020)

By Order dated 16-08-1993, bearing No. 28/33/

/93-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise of

powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the dispute

for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa,

Daman and Diu at Panaji, Goa, constituted under

Section 7-A of the said Act.

(1)

Whether the action of the management of

M/s Dupont Sportswear Ltd., Bicholim, in

refusing to provide employment to the

following 52 workmen mentioned in

Schedule-I below, with effect from 11-01-1993

by demanding individual explanation from

each one of them even after the Union had

informed the management that the strike

has been called off, is legal and justified and

whether this amounts to lock-out?

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

632

SCHEDULE – I

1. Bharati Tari.

2. Anjani Parab.

3. Lalita Parrakar.

4. Rakha Ghadi.

5. Mangal Valvaikar.

6. Suvarna Vadkar.

7. Gomati Mandrekar.

8. Aruna Korbatkar.

9. Maya Chandi.

10. Geeta Shirodkar.

11. Shevanti Naik.

12. Mahananda Ghadi.

13. Manda Vadkar.

14. Revati Kubal.

15. Manda Tari.

16. Shital Parab.

17. Shilpa Naik.

18. Sushma Gawas.

19. Alka Gaonkar.

20. Maya Vaigankar.

21. Sugandha Arondekar.

22. Pushpalata Parab.

23. Chaya Mapari.

24. Pravina Pilgaonkar.

25. Vasanti Mandrekar.

26. Pramavati Gawandi.

27. Gulabi Gad.

28. Kalpana Falkar.

29. Pushpa Shirodkar.

30. Anita Shirodkar.

31. Archana Pilgaonkar.

32. Sumati Kamat.

33. Kusum Zalmi.

34. Sarita Gad.

35. Rupa Rawal.

36. Sarita Kubal.

37. Milan Gawandi.

38. Tanuja Gaonkar.

39. Shaila Gaonkar.

40. Maya Gosawi.

41. Seema Naik.

42. Swapna Karbhatkar.

43. Ujwala Salgaonkar.

44. Shevanti Salgaonkar.

45. Sharmila Sakhalkar.

46. Sandhya Mandaikar.

47. Escolao Rodrigues.

48. Sushma Bale.

49. Shevanti Shirodkar.

50. Ujwala Chodankar.

51. Vanita Ghadi.

52. Veena Gaonkar.

(2)

If not, to what relief the above workmen are

entitled?

(3)

Whether the demand of the Union

representing the above 52 workmen for full

wages from 11-01-93 onwards is justified?

(4)

If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/19/94 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim Statement at Exhibit 3 and

Party II filed a Written Statement at Exhibit 5.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that all the

workers were working with the Party II since 1987

onwards and all the workman have worked

continuously for more than 240 days before the

refusal of employment. The Party II is limited

company registered under Companies Act engaged

in manufacturing of readymade Garments under

the name “Wrangler” Jeans in collaboration with

multinational company. The Party II was paying

very meager wages to the workers and as such the

majority of the workmen have joined the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh in the year 1991. The Union vide

their letter dated 09-10-1991 informed Party II that

majority of workmen have joined their union and

thereafter, on behalf of the workmen submitted the

Charter of Demands vide dated 18-10-1991. After

the formation of the Union, the management

started implementing unfair labour practices, and

started the management sponsored Union. It is also

claimed by the Party I that after the formation of

new management sponsored minority Union, the

Party II started harassing the members of Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh and refused to discuss the Charter

of demands submitted by Party I. The Party II has

failed to initiate the negotiations and as such the

workmen and the Union raised a dispute of Charter

of demands before the Conciliation Officer, however

the Party II did not attend the meetings and

entered into a 2(p) settlement with the minority

Union without determining the majority character

of the Union.

4. The Party I also claimed that in order to secure

the justice, the majority workmen initiated an

agitation and after the intervention of Labour

Commissioner, the management signed a 12(3)

settlement dated 28-04-1992 with their Union and

after the settlement, the members commenced

their work sincerely. The State Government vide

their Notification dated 16-07-1992 introduced the

minimum wages to the Garment Industry and on

the publication of the said Notification, the

workmen and the union requested the management

for immediate implementation of minimum wages

and also the terms of the settlement dated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

633

28-04-1992. However, till December, 1992 they

remained quiet and in order to get the justice, the

Party I initiated agitation w.e.f. 22-12-1992 and after

the intervention of the Labour Commissioner, the

strike was withdrawn w.e.f 10-01-1993. After the

withdrawal of the strike, all the workmen went to

resume the duty. However, the Party II refused to

allow them to resume the duty. The workmen are

regular workmen of the company and have worked

more than a year continuously before their

termination. Party II has failed to comply the

provisions of law and did not offer any dues nor

any retrenchment compensation paid at the time

of termination of the services. The Party II did not

obtain any permission from the State Government

for retrenchment of the workmen. The termination

of the Party I workmen is illegal unjustified and

bad in law. All the workmen are unemployed after

the termination and are suffering hardship and

facing financial constraints due to unemployment.

It is therefore necessary relief be granted.

5. In the written statement, the Party II has

claimed that the present proceedings are

misconceived, baseless and vague. The Party I has

no locus standi to initiate proceedings against Party

II as there is no dispute of any kind existing in the

establishment, neither there was any lockout nor

was any strike in the establishment of the Party II

and it was functioning normally from time of its

inception till date without any obstruction,

disturbance or agitation for all these years. The

Party II has no collaboration of any kind to any

multinational company. The Party II has recognized

union i.e. Dupont Sportswear Employees Union as

sole bargaining agent as regards to welfare and

other amenities of its workers are concerned. The

Party II has therefore held deliberations and

discussions as regards to payment of wages and

other demands with the union considering all their

charter of demands and signing the settlement.

The Dupont Sportswear Employees Union was

formed by its majority of its employees and was

representing majority union. The Party I have no

relation of any kind with Party II as there was only

one union with the Party II and entered into

settlement for three years with the said union and

as such the dispute raised by the Party I by

submitting charter of demands is unfair. The Party

II has implemented minimum wage in toto to all

the workmen from 16-7-1992. The Party II has

neither taken any action nor terminated the

services of any of its workmen as falsely alleged.

The Party I therefore are not entitled for any reliefs.

6. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 6

denying the case put forth by Party II in the Written

Statement.

7. Issues framed at Exhibit 7 are as follows:-

(1) Whether Party I proves that Party II

terminated the services of 52 workmen

named in the reference by refusing

employment to them w.e.f. 11-01-1993?

(2) Whether Party I proves that the Party II

failed to pay the retrenchment compensation

nor offered legal dues to the 52 workmen

named in the reference at the time of

termination of their services and hence the

termination is illegal, unjustified and bad in

law?

(3) Whether Party I proves that Party II failed to

obtain permission from the Government for

retrenchment of the 52 workmen named in

the reference before termination of their

services and hence the termination is illegal,

unjustified and bad in law?

(4) Whether Party I proves that the refusal of

employment by Party II to 52 workmen

named in the reference w.e.f. 11-01-1993

amounts to lock-out?

(5) Whether Party II proves that Party I has no

locus standi to espouse the dispute on behalf

of the workmen of Party II as it is not a Union

representing majority of its workmen and

also as no industrial dispute existed between

the Party II and its workmen?

(6) Whether Party II proves that it was

compelled to sign the settlement with Party

I by the Government machinery and Labour

Minister by use of threat?

(7) Whether Party I is entitled to any relief?

(8) What Award?

8. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined

Shri Puti Gaonkar as witness and produced on

record a copy letter dated 9-10-1991 at Exh. W-1, a

copy of letter dated 18-10-1991 along with Charter

of demands at Exh. W-2 colly, a copy of complaint

dated 25-3-1992 addressed to the Secretary (Labour)

at Exh. W-3, a copy of settlement dated 28-4-1992

at Exh. W-4, a copy of letter dated 10-1-1993

withdrawing the strike at Exh. W-5, a copy of letter

dated 25-11-1991 issued to the Party II regarding

one day token strike. The Party I also examined Ms.

Bharati Dattaram Tar. On the other hand, Party II

examined Shri Mahesh Vaman Dharwadkar and

produced on record a copy of charge sheet filed

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

634

against workmen by the police at Exh. E-1, a copy

of Registration Certificate of Dupont Sportswear Ltd.

Employees Union at Exh. E-2, a copy of letter dated

29-4-1992 by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh to the

Labour Minister at Exh. E-3, a copy of letter dated

4-12-1992 by Dupont Sports wear Ltd. Employees

Union at Exh. E-4, a copy of letter dated 29-04-1992

by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh at Exb. E-5, a copy of

Settlements dated 14-03-1992 and 12-12-1992 at

Exh. E-6 colly, a copy of acceptance letters dated

14-03-1992 given by 18 employees at Exh. E-7 colly,

a copy of Pay Sheets dated 18-12-1992 at Exb. E-8

colly, a copy of attendance register for the month

of Oct, 1994 at Exh. E-9, copies of the letters dated

01-01-1992 to General Secretary of Party I Union at

Exh. E-10 colly, copies of letter dated 1-11-1991

issued by Office of Commissioner, Labour alongwith

enclosures at Exh. E-11 colly, a copy letter dated

18-5-1998 issued by Commissioner, Labour to Party

II at Exh. E-12. The Party II also examined Shri

Atmaram Naik. The Party II also re-examined Shri

Mahesh Dharwadkar who produced on record

resignation letters of workers at E-12 colly.

9. Heard arguments. Notes of written arguments

came to be placed on record by the Party I and

Party II.

10. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My answers with their findings and reasons thereof

are as follows.

Issue No. 1

…

Partly in the Affirmative.

Issue No. 2

…

Partly in the Affirmative.

Issue No. 3

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 4

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 5

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 6

…

In the Negative.

Issue No. 7

…

As per final order.

Issue No. 8

…

As per final order.

REASONS

Issue No. 1, 2, 3 and 4:

The above issues are taken up together for

discussion as they are inter-related.

11. Learned Advocate Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the

Party I has submitted that it is an admitted position

that the workmen were not allowed to resume their

duties w.e.f. 11-1-1993 after the strike was called

off by the union on 10-1-1993 which itself proves

that the workers were locked out and hence

amounts to lockout without complying with the

provision of law and the same is unjustified and

bad in law which is confirmed by the settlement

signed before the Labour Commissioner at

Exh.W-4. The employer has failed to prove that the

workers were absenting themselves whereas the

workers were agitating for implementation of

minimum wages and terms of settlement. The

Settlement dated 14-3-1992 at Exh. E-6 shows that

there were 138 workmen which is also admitted by

the employer and therefore Chapter V-B of

Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the

establishment of the Party II which employer has

failed to comply and therefore, the termination of

the workers mentioned in the schedule of reference

is illegal and bad-in-law.

12. Ld. Adv. Shri Gaonkar has further submitted

that the resignation letters produced on record

reveal their falsity and that the said letters have

not been proved by the management by examining

the authors of the said documents. He further

submitted that the resignation letters were mostly

written by one person and signed by the Manager

and not given voluntarily. The said letters were

emerged in the year 2002 through Shri Dharwadkar.

There is no explanation why the said letters were

produced after delay of 6 years. The management

has taken a stand that the workers have abandoned

their services in 1993 and therefore their

resignation letters do not help them in any way

and if the termination is under challenge, no worker

would give resignation letters. In any event, the

management had not conducted any enquiry before

refusing employment on the basis of abandonment

as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of G. T. Laad vs. Chemical and Fibers of

India Ltd., (1979) 1 SSC 590 and therefore

resignation letters have no bearing on the matter

of refusal of employment.

13. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for the

Party II has submitted that the management was

forced to sign the settlement dated 28-4-1992 at

Exh. W-4 due to compulsion and pressure from

Government agency. The said settlement before

the Commissioner was objected and opposed by

all the employees of Party II by submitting a

Memorandum/protest letter to Party II and therefore

not binding upon them. The Party II started

functioning from 1987 and at the relevant time the

total number of employees was about 35 and

subsequently on later stage, it increased to

around 95. It is also submitted that out of 52

workers mentioned in the reference, 41 workers

have resigned and taken their full and final

settlement and left their services, five workers have

joined their duties and only six workmen have

neither reported for work nor taken their full and

final settlement and therefore they are not entitled

for any compensation. He further submitted that

the Party II has closed the factory on 19-9-2002 due

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

635

to the circumstances prevailing at that time and

that the Tribunal has held that the action of Party

II in closing down the factory is legal and justified.

The Union has no locus standi as no documents

have been produced to prove its claim of

registration/recognition as representative union on

behalf of the workers in the reference or authority

to represent the workers in the present case.

14. Be that as it may, out of 52 workmen whose

names has been found mentioned in the reference,

41 workmen have resigned and taken their full and

final settlement and left the services. The

resignation letters at Exh.12 colly clearly show that

41 workmen as mentioned therein have tendered

their resignation in full and final settlement. None

of the workmen have deposed that their

resignations were not voluntary or that they have

not tendered the resignation. The management has

produced on record the said resignation letters

which have not been challenged by the workmen

concerned. The resignation letters at E-12 colly

therefore clearly show that the 41 workmen out of

52 workers have tendered their resignation and

taken full and final settlement and left the services.

There is also no dispute that 5 of the workmen

have already joined the duties and they are

Shaila Gaonkar, Tanuja Gaonkar, Gulabi Gad,

Shevanti Salgaonkar and Meena Gaonkar and the

workers who have neither joined duties nor

accepted the settlement are Bharati Tari, Premavati

Gawande, Sumati Kamat, Maya Ghadi, Megha

Ghadi and Seema Naik. Shri Puti Gaonkar, the

witness of the Party I has admitted that the persons

who joined the services did not take his advice

before joining the services of the Party II but the

fact that five of them have joined the duty and six

have not joined the duty is an admitted fact and

therefore, 46 workmen out of 52 workmen whose

names are mentioned in the reference have no

concern of whatsoever nature in respect of present

reference.

15. It is claimed by the Party I that the settlement

dated 14-3-1992 at Exh. 6 colly shows that there

were more than 100 workmen employed before

termination which was w.e.f. 1-11-1993 and even

Shri Atmaram Naik, witness of Party II has admitted

that even in the year 1991, there were more than

100 workers and therefore Chapter V-B of Industrial

Disputes Act applies and hence permission for

retrenchment under Section 25-N is mandatory. Ld.

Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar has also submitted that

since the said permission is not sought, the action

for refusal for employment was void and the

workmen were entitled for full back wages. He

also submitted that the provisions of Section 25-N

of Industrial Disputes Act is imperative in

nature and prior permission of the appropriate

Government is mandatory and in support thereof,

he relied upon the case of Oswal Agro Furane and

another Ltd. vs. Oswal Agro Furane workers

Union and others., (2005) 2 SCC 224.

16. Admittedly, Chapter V-B of the Act pertains

to special provisions relating to lay-off,

retrenchment and closure in certain establishment.

Section 25-K relates to industrial establishments

(not being an establishment of seasonal character

or in which work is performed only intermittently)

in which not less than one hundred workmen were

employed on an average per working day for

preceding twelve months. Section 25-N pertains to

conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.

Section 25-N(b) states that no workman shall be

retrenched by the employer without prior

permission of appropriate Government. Section

V-B of the Act applies to an industrial

establishment if number of employees employed in

the establishment on an average calculated for

twelve months preceding that day on the basis of

each working day is more than one hundred. In the

instant case, the date preceding twelve months

from the alleged date of refusal of employment is

11-1-1992 to 11-1-1993. Exh. E-6 colly is the

Memorandum of settlement dated 14-3-1992

produced by Party II signed by Dupont Sportswear

Limited Employees Union and Party II wherein

annexure shows list of 138 workers. However, there

is no record of the workmen employed on an

average working day preceding twelve months

from 11-1-1993 or the number of workmen employed

by Party II on each of the days from 11-1-1992 to

11-1-1993 or the total number of workmen

employed by Party II during the said period and in

the absence of the said evidence, the reliance of

the said Settlement at Exh. E-6 colly will be an

exercise in futility.

17. The Party I could have produced on record

the copies of returns of Provident Fund and ESI for

the said period or the attendance register

indicating the number of workmen employed by

Party II during the said period. The Memorandum

of settlement dated 12-12-1992 at E-6 colly produced

by Party II signed by Dupont Sportswear Limited

Employees Union and Party II with respect to

implementation of minimum wages for category II

and III workers however shows list of 59 workers.

Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for the Party II has

submitted and rightly so that the Party I has not

produced any documents to show that there were

more than 100 workmen on an average per working

day for the preceding 12 months of the alleged

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

636

retrenchment of the workmen. Shri Puti Gaonkar

has categorically stated that at the time when the

workers of Party II became the members of their

union, there were in all 90 workers working with

Party II and 78 of them have become the members

of their union. The second witness of the Party I,

Bharati Tari has also stated that there were in all

90 workers working with the Party II out of which

78 were the members of the union. Shri Atmaram

Naik has nowhere stated that at the time of

retrenchment or the closure of company there were

more than 100 workmen working with the Party II.

He, however claimed that about 100 workers were

working in the factory of Party II in the year 1991,

which is not sufficient in the absence of any

documents. There is nothing on record that more

than 100 workers were employed at any time in

the establishment of Party II. It is therefore, Party

I has failed to prove that there were more than 100

workmen employed before termination of their

services which was w.e.f. 1-11-1993 and as such,

reliance on the case of Oswal Agro Furane and

another Ltd., supra is improper considering the

facts of the present case.

18. It is also claimed by the Party II that the

management of Party II closed the establishment

w.e.f. 19-9-2002. The Party II has produced on record

the Award dated 29-8-2013 passed by my

predecessor in reference No. IT/24/07 between one

Swati Kerkar, President of Dupont Sportswear and

Manager of Dupont Sportswear Ltd. as the said

union had raised the industrial dispute claiming

that the closure is an illegal process and it was

decided by my predecessor on 29-8-2013 holding

that the action of the management of M/s. Dupont

Sportswear Pvt. Ltd. at Bicholim Industrial Estate

in closing down their factory w.e.f. 19-9-2002 is

legal and justified and that the Party I workmen

are not entitled to any relief. The above said fact

has not been denied. It is not the case of the

Party I that the factory has not been closed from

19-9-2002. The union represented by other workers

had filed the said dispute in which the Court held

that the establishment has been closed. The said

Award is therefore binding on the parties as far as

the closure of the establishment is concerned.

There is nothing on record that the said

establishment is still functional after 19-9-2002. The

Party I also cannot take a stand of illegal closure

of the factory as my predecessor has specifically

held that the closure is legal in the Award dated

29-8-2013 and the said award has attained finality

as it has neither been challenged by the parties in

the said reference nor the parties in the present

reference.

19. The Party I therefore has established that

out of 52 workmen, only six workmen named above

have neither joined the services nor tendered

resignation by accepting full and final settlement

by refusing employment to them w.e.f. 11-1-1993

and the same is unjustified and bad in law which

is confirmed by the settlement signed before the

Labour Commissioner at Exh.W-4. The Party I have

also proved that the Party II failed to pay the

retrenchment compensation nor offered legal dues

to the above six workmen named in the reference

at the time of termination of their services and

therefore, their termination is illegal and bad-in-

law and that it amounts to lock-out. However, it

has failed to prove that there were more than 100

workmen employed before termination which was

w.e.f. 1-11-1993 and therefore was required to

obtain permission from the appropriate Government

for retrenchment of 52 workmen named in the

reference. It is therefore, issue No. 1 and issue

No. 2 are partly answered in the affirmative and

issue No. 3 and 4 are answered in the negative.

Issue No. 5:

20. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for the Party II has

admitted that the Party I has not produced on

record any documents to prove their claim of

registration/recognition as representative union on

behalf of the said workers in the reference of the

Party II and in the absence of the valid documents,

the claim put forth by the Party I deserves no

consideration. He also submitted that the union

has not produced any documents showing that it

is a majority union and therefore the Party I union

has no locus standi to represent the said workers.

The Party II since its inception was representing

the workers in the factory through Dupont

Sportswear Limited Employees Union which was

registered in the Registrar of Trade Unions in the

year 1992 and therefore, the above issue be

answered in the affirmative. However, as rightly

submitted by Learned Advocate Shri S. P Gaonkar

for Party I the technical points raised by the

Party II are not tenable in view of Section 2-A of

the Industrial Disputes Act which makes all

disputes in relation to termination of service, a

deemed industrial dispute irrespective of whether

it is supported by a trade union or not, as held in

the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank vs. General

Secretary, Grindlays Bank Employees Union,

(2001) 3 Mah LJ 422. It is therefore contention

raised by the Party II with respect to locus-standi

of Party I union to espouse the dispute on behalf

of the union is preposterous. Hence, the above issue

is answered in the negative.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

637

Issue No. 6:

21. It is claimed by Party II that they were

compelled to sign the settlement with Party I with

Government machinery and Labour Minister by

use of threat with respect to settlement entered

under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act

executed through Labour Commissioner, Panaji.

Shri Mahesh V. Dharwadkar has also stated that

the said settlement was signed under pressure from

the Government machinery in view of letter dated

24-9-1992 written by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh to

the Labour Minister, however there is nothing on

record produced by Party II that there was

compulsion and pressure from the Government

machinery through Labour Commissioner, Panaji.

The Party II has also not challenged the said

settlement nor filed any written complaints against

the said settlement before any higher authority

and therefore, the above issue has to be answered

in the negative.

Issue No. 7 and 8:

22. Ld. Adv. Shri S.P. Gaonkar for Party I has

submitted that the action of Party II in refusing

employment and terminating their services is illegal

and unjustified. The Party I workmen are therefore

entitled to reinstatement in service with full back

wages, continuity in service and other benefits.

On the converse, Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar for

Party II has submitted that the Party I workmen are

not entitled for reliefs as claimed by Party I in the

claim statement and as such claim filed by Party I

be dismissed.

23. The question therefore is what reliefs the

Party I/workmen are entitled to, once it is held that

the refusal/termination is illegal, whether they are

entitled for re-instatement with full back wages

and continuity in service with consequential

benefits attached to the post or adequate monetary

compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back

wages.

24. Needless to mention, only six Party I workmen

mentioned above are entitled for the reliefs as they

neither tendered their resignation nor joined the

services. There is nothing on record that the six

workmen have resigned or they have also been

offered joining of services like other workmen. The

Party I have sufficiently proved that the refusal of

the services of the above six workmen was illegal

and without following the principles of natural

justice w.e.f. 11-1-1993. The Party I workmen are

claiming Minimum wages in terms of Notification

dated 16-7-1992 issued by the appropriate

Government to the garment industry and

implementation of the terms of settlement dated

28-4-1992, which they are entitled to. There cannot

be any dispute that Party II closed its factory on

19-9-2002. There is nothing on record that

Party II is still functioning and is carrying on

business at Goa. They are therefore not entitled

for reinstatement in service, however in lieu of

re-instatement, six workmen of Party I mentioned

above are entitled for compensation from date of

refusal of services till closure of the establishment

of Party II in terms of Section 25-F of Industrial

Disputes Act.

25. There is also no dispute that Party I have

been demanding minimum wages in terms of

Notification dated 16-7-1992 issued by the

appropriate Government to the garment industry

and implementation of the terms of settlement

dated 28-4-1992. The Party II has also entered into

other settlements at E-6 colly. The Party II has also

claimed that they have implemented minimum

wages in toto to all the workmen from 16-7-1992.

There is no dispute that no retrenchment

compensation was paid nor offered legal dues to

the above six workmen named in the reference at

the time of refusal/termination of their services

and that they are entitled for the said compensation

in terms of Section 25-F of the Act from date of

refusal/retrenchment

till

closure

the

establishment and minimum wages as per the said

Notification and other benefits as per the above

settlements. It would therefore be just and proper

and in the interest of justice to award the six

workers mentioned above compensation in lieu of

reinstatement along with back wages in

consonance with the Notification dated 16-7-1992

along with other consequential benefits to be

calculated on the basis of above Notification and

settlements from the date of refusal/retrenchment

till closure of the establishment, which would be

just, proper and equitable in the facts and

circumstances of the case. Hence, the above issues

are answered accordingly.

26. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i)

The reference stands partly allowed.

(ii)

It is hereby held that the action of the

management of M/s. Dupont Sportswear

Ltd., Bicholim, in refusing to provide

employment to the six workmen mentioned

above, namely

Bharati Tari, Premavati

Gawande, Sumati Kamat, Maya Ghadi,

Megha Ghadi and Seema Naik, with effect

from 11-01-1993 is illegal and unjustified.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

638

(iii)

The Party II is directed to pay compensation

to above mentioned six workmen from date

of refusal of services till closure of the

establishment of Party II in terms of Section

25-F of Industrial Disputes Act in lieu of

reinstatement as well as back wages along

with other consequential benefits from the

date of refusal of service till the date of

closure of the establishment to be

calculated on the basis of above Notification

and Settlements.

(iv)

The Party II is directed to deposit back

wages along with other consequential

benefits as stated above 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.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 7/18/2020-PER/2037

The Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint

Shri R. Mihir Vardhan, IAS (AGMUT:2003), as

Secretary to the Government of Goa, with

immediate effect.

Shri R. Mihir Vardhan, (IAS) joined this

administration on 20-08-2020 (f. n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shashank Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 03rd September, 2020.

________

Order

No. 7/7/2017-PER/2047

Read: Government Order No. 7/7/2017-PER/3352

dated 29-11-2019.

The Governor of Goa is pleased to repatriate

Shri Raghuvir G. Keni, Chief Electrical Engineer,

Electricity Department, Government of Goa with

effect from 21-09-2020 (a.n.) from the State

administration to Mormugao Port Trust.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 11th September, 2020.

_______

Notification

No. 7/3/2019-PER/2044

Read: Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/1618 dated

20-07-2020.

Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/1621 dated

21-07-2020.

In partial modification of the Notifications

referred in the preamble, the Governor of Goa is

pleased to transfer and order the allocation

of work/Departments amongst the Secretaries to

the Government as follows with immediate effect:-

Sr.

Name & Designation

Department

No.

1. Shri R. Mihir Vardhan, 1. Secretary to

IAS (AGMUT: 2003)

Governor.

Secretary to Governor

2. Shri Kunal, IAS

1. Chief Electoral

(AGMUT:2005)

Officer.

Secretary (Elections)

2. Secretary (Elections).

& Chief Electoral

3. Power.

Officer

4. Environment.

3. Shri Rupesh Kumar

1. General Adminis-

Thakur, IAS

tration

(AGMUT:2006)

2. Civil Supplies.

Secretary (General

3. Goa Gazetter.

Administration)

4. Printing and

Stationery.

5. Museum.

6. Protocol.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 10th September, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

Order

No. 7/3/91-1/PHD/3114

Read: Memorandum No. 7/3/91-I/PHD dated

24-4-2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

639

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/I/5/56(1)/2019/403 dated 25-2-2020,

Government is pleased to appoint the following

Drugs Inspectors (Group “B” Gazetted) in Level 7

of Pay Matrix [Pay Band-2 of Rs. 9,300-34,800 with

Rs. 4,600 Grade Pay (pre-revised)] under the

Directorate of Food & Drugs Administration with

immediate effect as per the terms and conditions

contained in the Memorandum cited above:

Mr. Samuel Soares.

Ms. Swati Dattatraya Bhende.

Ms. Saipriyanka Vishnu Gauns.

Ms. Bindia Umakant Naik Dessai.

They shall be on probation for a period of two

years with effect from the date of their joining.

They have been declared medically fit by the

Medical Board. Their appointment is made subject

to their verification of character and antecedents.

In the event of any adverse matter being noticed

by the Government on verification of their character

and antecedents, their services shall be terminated.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 08th September, 2020.

________

Order

No. 23/20/2014-I/PHD/PART IV/3093

Dr. Rajesh Patil, Associate Professor in Surgery

and Dr. Sunanda Amonkar, Associate Professor in

Medicine, Goa Medical College are appointed as

Nodal Officers for the new South Goa District

Hospital for management of COVID-19 patients.

Both the Doctors will be on rotation basis and will

manage the activities of the South Goa District

Hospital (COVID Hospital) under the Dean, Goa

Medical College.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 09th September, 2020.

________

Order

No. 23/20/2014-I/PHD/Part IV/3092

Dr. Deepa Correia, Senior Surgeon who is holding

the charge of Medical Superintendent-cum-Dy.

Director of Hospicio Hospital, Margao, shall also

look after the responsibilities of new South Goa

District Hospital, Margao with immediate effect.

Dr. Deepa Correia shall follow the similar

arrangement existing in ESI Hospital for the new

South Goa District Hospital, Margao.

Dr. Deepa Correia shall also co-ordinate with

the Nodal Officers at the new South Goa District

Hospital, Margao as well as ESI Hospital, Margao

in providing medicines which are required for the

above Hospitals that are available with the

Directorate of Health Services in consultation with

the Dean, Goa Medical College alongwith the

Nodal Officers and Director of Health Services.

The medicines that are not available with the

Directorate of Health Services will be provided by

the Goa Medical College and Hospital.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 09th September, 2020.

________

Memorandum

No. 10/5/94-I/PHD/3095

Read: 1. Memorandum No. 10/5/94-I/PHD/2242 dated 04-10-2019.

2. Memorandum No. 10/5/94-I/PHD/2407 dated 24-10-2019.

Whereas, this Department vide Memorandum read at preamble (1) had shown the name of Dr. Iona

A. Barreto, Junior Physician with the remarks that the Directorate of Vigilance vide Order No. 5/59/2009-

-VIG/2392 dated 10-09-2019, had ordered major penalty of dismissal from service which shall ordinarily

be a disqualification for future employment under the Government was imposed on Dr. Iona A. Barreto,

Junior Physician.

And whereas, this Department vide Memorandum read at preamble (2) issued final seniority deleting

the name of Dr. Iona A. Barreto, from the seniority list in the grade of Junior Physician.

And whereas, the Appellate Authority/Hon. Chief Minister vide Order No. 5/59/2009-VIG/3004 dated

30-10-2019 modified the Order dated 10-09-2019 with regards to the ‘dismissal from service’ in respect

of Dr. Iona A. Barreto.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

640

And whereas, a tentative seniority calling for objections to the seniority assigned therein if any was

circulated vide Memorandum dated 19-08-2020.

Now therefore, since no objections have been received within the time limit, the final seniority list

of the Officers is drawn in the grade of Junior Physician under the Directorate of Health Services, as

under:-

Sr.

Name of the Doctor

Date of

Date of birth

Qualification

No.

Appointment Order

joining

Dr. Iona A. Barreto

27-09-2005

28-09-2005

21-02-1972

MBBS, MD, DNB

Med XCPC Medicine.

Dr. Damodar alias

11-01-2013

13-03-2013

08-08-1983

MBBS, MD (Internal

Swapnil Subhash

Medicine).

Arsekar

Dr. Hubert Viegas

10-05-2018

21-05-2018

04-03-1977

MBBS, DGM, PG,

Diebetology.

Dr. Swapnil Madhav

10-05-2018

14-05-2018

07-01-1986

MBBS, MD (Medicine).

Naik

Dr. Saphallya Vishal

15-05-2020

16-07-2020

28-11-1990

MBBS, MD (Medicine).

Sardesai

Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 08th September, 2020.

________

Memorandum

No. 10/3/94-I/PHD/3108

A tentative seniority list of the Officers in the grade of Junior Ophthalmic Surgeon under the

Directorate of Health Services was circulated vide Memorandum No. 10/3/94-I/PHD/2983 dated

14-08-2020.

Since no objections have been received, the final seniority list of the Officers is drawn in the grade

of Junior Ophthalmic Surgeon under the Directorate of Health Services, as under:-

Sr.

Name of

Date of appoint-

Date of

Qualification

Remarks

No.

the Doctor

ment order

joining

birth

Dr. Rhuta R. Shevade

19-05-2016

01-09-2016

31-07-1982

MBBS, DNB

Seniority stands

(Ophthal-

finalised vide

mology)

Order dated

08-05-2018.

Dr. Valerie Menezes

10-10-2019

02-01-2020

13-11-1987

MBBS, MS

(Ophthal-

mology)

Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 10th September, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

641

Memorandum

No. 46/1/2009-I/PHD/3121

A tentative Seniority list of the Officers in the grade of Junior Orthopaedic Surgeon under the

Directorate of Health Services was circulated vide Memorandum No. 46/1/2009-I/PHD/2998 dated

17-08-2020.

Since no objections have been received, the final seniority list of the Officers is drawn in the grade

of Junior Orthopaedic Surgeon under the Directorate of Health Services, as under:-

Sr.

Name of the Doctor

Date of

Qualification

No.

appointment

joining

birth

order

Dr. Ismail Shaikh

16-05-2018

16-07-2018

20-01-1985

MBBS, MS

(Orthopaedics).

Dr. Bansi Vasudev Naik

12-09-2018

25-09-2018

21-08-1989

MBBS, MS

Khaunte

(Orthopaedics).

Dr. Prajyot Gurudas

27-05-2020

08-06-2020

14-05-1987

MBBS, MS

Kandolkar

(Orthopaedics).

Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 10th September, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Social Welfare

Directorate of Social Welfare

Notification

No. 81-2-97-SDB/PART-III/2238

Government is pleased to constitute State Level

Committee of Nasha Mukt Bharat Campaign for

the State of Goa. State consisting of the following

members to advise the Government on effective

and co-ordinate implementation of the Nasha Mukt

Bharat Campaign at State level and to perform such

other functions in relation to Nasha Mukt Bharat

Campaign in the State as may be specified by the

Government.

State Level Nasha Mukt Bharat Campaign

Committee

1. Secretary (Social Welfare)

— Chairperson.

2. Representative of DG Police

— Member.

3. Secretary (Health)

— Member.

4. Representative of Narcotics

— Member.

Control Bureau

5. Director of Higher Education — Member.

6. Director of School Education — Member.

7. Director of Women & Child

— Member.

Welfare

8. Director of Information &

— Member.

Publicity

9. Kripa Foundation, Anjuna

— Member.

Vagator Road, Bardez-Goa

10. Shri S. V. Naik,

— Member.

Retired Civil Servant

11. Shri Mohan Naik,

— Member.

Retired Civil Servant

12. Shri Narayan Navthi,

— Member.

Retired Civil Servant

13. Mr. Aneesh V. Suresh–State

— Member.

Co-ordinator of Project

Monitoring Unit (PMU) of

Social Justice, Government

of India

14. Director of Social Welfare

— Member

Secretary.

Terms of reference of the Committee is as

follows:-

1. Formulating a State Campaign Activity

under Nasha Mukt Bharat Campaign.

2. Ensuring formulation, guiding, over seeing

and implementation of District Level Nasha

Mukt Campaigns in identified vulnerable

districts in the State.

3. Conducting training programmes for the

service providers at State, District and below

District Level.

4. Visit to the institutions, hospitals for

assessment of preparedness and implemen-

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2020

642

tation and ensuring strict implementation

of ban on sale of cigarettes with 100 meters

of any educational institution (Rule refers).

5. Obtaining information on the availability/

/sale of drugs and review the action taken

on such information.

The non-official members shall be entitled for

honarium of Rs. 1,500/- for sitting.

The State Level Nasha Mukt Campaign

Committee would meet once in two months.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Umeshchandra L. Joshi, Director & ex officio

Joint Secretary (Social Welfare).

Panaji, 10th September, 2020.

———uuu———

Department of Town and Country Planning

Office of the Chief Town Planner (Administration)

Order

No. 17/01/TC-UD/TCP/2015-17/1404

The following transfers of officers in the Town and Country Planning Department is issued in public

interest as detailed below:

Sr.

Name of the officer

Present posting

Proposed posting

No.

and designation

Shri Ritesh Shirodkar,

Town & Country Planning

Dy. Town Planner

Department (HQ), Panaji

Department, Tiswadi Taluka

office.

Shri Shivprasad P. Murari,

Town & Country Planning

Dy. Town Planner

Department, Tiswadi Taluka

Department (HQ), Panaji.

office

The officers are hereby directed to join their new place of posting with immediate effect without

availing joining time. The officer at Sr. No. 1 shall move first.

This is issued as per the direction of the Government under reference No. 1722 dated 07-09-2020.

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

James Mathew, Chief Town Planner (Administration).

Panaji, 08th September, 2020.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 16.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—187/160–9/2020.