Panaji, 21st January, 2021 (Magha 1, 1942)

SERIES II No. 43

1017

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

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2021-23

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Animal Husbandry &

Veterinary Services

—

Order

No. 15-34/AH/PART/2020-21/5848

Government of Goa is pleased to constitute

with immediate effect Technical Management

Committee for the State of Goa for implementing

the National Programme for Bovine Breeding and

Dairy Development (NPBBDD) with the following

members:-

1. Secretary (AH)

—

Chairman.

2. Director (AH)

—

Member.

3. GoI representative — DADF

—

Member.

4. Department of Planning

—

Member.

5. Department of Finance

—

Member.

6. Project Directorate DRDA

—

Member.

7. Managing Director —

—

Member.

Goa Dairy

8. Managing Director—

—

Member.

SUMUL

As per the guidelines of the scheme, in order to

implement the scheme in the State of Goa a

Technical Management Committee has to be

constituted and the meeting of the Technical

Management Committee (TMC) shall be organized

after every 6 months (September & March) and a

minimum of 05 members are required to form the

quorum.

Technical Management Committee (TMC) is

formed to review progress of Technical, Physical

and Financial parameters and remove any

bottlenecks quickly.

This Notification comes into force with

immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Santosh V. Desai, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (A.H.).

Panaji, 15th January, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

—

Order

No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TS-II/PZ/2017/RCS/Suppl/

/3334

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

21-04-2017.

2. Circular No. 6-13-81/EST/RCS/Part V/5833

dated 06-03-2020.

3. This office order No. 3/3/Urban Credit/

TS-II/PZ/2017/RCS/Suppl./1450 dated

04-08-2020.

4. Letter No. VPK/HO/Dec-20/5372 dated

07-12-2020.

Whereas, vide Order read at Sr. No. 3 above, late

Adv. Satyawan Gunlo Palkar, Ponda-Goa was

appointed as the Registrar’s Nominee from the

panel constituted vide Order read at Sr. No. 1 above

to adjudicate the disputes referred to him by The

VPK Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,

Mardol-Goa.

And whereas, the Society vide its letter read at

Sr. 4 above has informed that the society in its

board meeting held on 29-10-2020 has resolved to

appoint Adv. Sagar R. Parab, Ponda-Goa as

Registrar’s Nominee in place of Adv. Satyawan

Gunlo Palkar, who was expired recently.

Note:- There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official

Gazette, Series II No. 42 dated 14-01-2021 namely,

Extraordinary dated 18-01-2021 from pages 1015

to 1016 regarding Notification from Department

of Elections.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1018

Therefore, in view of above, in partial

modification to the office order read at Sr. No. 3

above and in exercise of powers conferred under

Section 123B of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001, Adv. Sagar R. Parab is hereby authorised by

the undersigned in place of Late Adv. Satyawan

Gunlo Palkar to entertain all the disputes referred

to him in the matter or recovery of loan overdues

by the VPK Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,

Mardol-Goa.

When a purported dispute is referred by the

society, the above named nominee is authorised to

first decide under Section (1) of Section 86 of the

Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 whether the

matter referred by the society involves a dispute

and pass appropriate orders under Section (1) of

Section 86 of the Act. Before admitting the dispute

the Registrar’s Nominee shall ensure that the

concerned society deposits the prescribed fees with

the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

Arbitration and Execution, North Goa District,

Ponda-Goa.

Only upon the nominee satisfying that there

exists a dispute he shall proceed to adjudicate the

same and give award accordingly. The nominee

shall abide by the terms and condition on which

he was originally appointed as nominee vide order

to be read as Sr. No. 1 above.

This appointment shall come into force with

immediate effect and shall valid for one year unless

renewed and in subject to withdrawal/being

revoked at any stage without assigning any reasons.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar (Co-operative

Societies).

Panaji, 11th January, 2021.

________

Order

No. 2020-11-Sanjivani/Misc/TSII/RCs(Part)/3415

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

Section 67 A of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001,

I, Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar of Co-op. Societies,

Government of Goa hereby appoint Shri Chintamani

B. Perni, Dy. Director of Agriculture (Horticulture),

Department of Agriculture as Administrator to

manage the affairs of the Sanjivani Sahakari Sakhar

Karkhana Ltd., D’nagar Tisk, in absence of elected

Board of Directors.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar (Co-operative

Societies).

Panaji, 14th January, 2021.

Office of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative

Societies

—

Notification

No. 5-1908/2020/ARSZ/HSG

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

sub-section (1) of Section 8 of Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001, “Magnolia Co-operative

Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Gauliwada,

Fatorda, Salcete-Goa” has been registered under

Code Symbol No. HSG (d)-1189/South Goa/2020.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 14th December, 2020.

Certificate of Registration

“Magnolia Co-operative Housing Maintenance

Society Ltd., Gauliwada, Fatorda, Salcete-Goa” is

registered on 14-12-2020 and it bears registration

Code Symbol No. HSG(d)-1189/South Goa/2020

and it is classified as “Housing Society” under

sub-classification No. 7(d) as “Co-operative

Housing Maintenance Society” in terms of

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Rules, 2003.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 14th December, 2020.

________

Notification

No. 5-1916/2020/ARSZ/HSG

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

sub-section (1) of Section 8 of Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001, “Queeny Residentials

Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Nagvaddo,

Betalbatim, Salcete Goa” has been registered under

Code Symbol No. HSG (b)-1190/South Goa/2020.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 15th December, 2020.

Certificate of Registration

“Queeny Residentials Co-operative Housing

Society Ltd., Nagvaddo, Betalbatim, Salcete Goa”

is registered on 15-12-2020 and it bears registra-

tion Code Symbol No. HSG (b)-1190/South Goa/2020,

and it is classified as “Housing Society” under

sub-classification No. 7 (b) as “Co-partnership

Housing Society” in terms of sub-rule (1) of

Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 15th December, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1019

Notification

No. 5-1905/2020/ARSZ/HSG

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

sub-section (1) of Section 8 of Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001, “The Aman Fortune

Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd.,

Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa” has been

registered under Code Symbol No. HSG(d)-1191/

/South Goa/2020.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 17th December, 2020.

Certificate of Registration

“The Aman Fortune Co-operative Housing

Maintenance Society Ltd., Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-

-Gama, Goa” is registered on 17-12-2020, and it

bears registration Code Symbol No. HSG(d)-1191/

/South Goa/2020, and it is classified as “Housing

Society” under sub-classification No. 7(d) as

“Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society” in

terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 17th December, 2020.

________

Notification

No. 5-1907-2020/ARSZ/HSG

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

sub-section (1) of Section 8 of Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001, “Blue Sapphire Co-operative

Housing Society Ltd., Colmorod, Navelim, Salcete-

-Goa” has been registered under Code Symbol No.

HSG (b)-1192/South Goa/2020.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 17th December, 2020.

Certificate of Registration

“Blue Sapphire Co-operative Housing Society

Ltd., Colmorod, Navelim, Salcete-Goa” is registered

on 17-12-2020 and it bears registration Code

Symbol No. HSG (b)-1192/South Goa/2020 and

it is classified as “Housing Society” under

sub-classification No. 7(b) as “Co-partnership

Housing Society” in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8

of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 17th December, 2020.

Notification

No. 5-1893/2020/ARSZ/HSG

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

sub-section (1) of Section 8 of Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001, “Gogol Classic Co-operative

Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Margao-

Curtorim Road, Near Chowgule College, Gogol,

Margao-Goa” has been registered under Code

Symbol No. HSG (d)-1193/South Goa/2020.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 23rd December, 2020.

Certificate of Registration

“Gogol

Classic

Co-operative

Housing

Maintenance Society Ltd., Margao-Curtorim Road,

Near Chowgule College, Gogol, Margao-Goa” is

registered on 23-12-2020, and it bears registration

Code Symbol No. HSG (d)-1193/South Goa/2020,

and it is classified as “Housing Society” under

sub-classification No. 7(d) as “Co-operative Housing

Maintenance Society” in terms of sub-rule (1) of

Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

P. A. Parab, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op. Societies),

South Zone.

Margao, 23rd December, 2020.

________

Notification

No. 5-1878/2020/ARSZ/HSG

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001, “Karma Emerald (Block-’C-1’)

Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd.,”

Sancoale, Mormugao Goa” has been registered under

Code Symbol No. HSG (d)-1194/South Goa/2020.

Sd/- (P. A. Parab), Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), South Zone.

Margao, 23rd December, 2020.

Certificate of Registration

“Karma Emerald (Block-‘C-1’) Co-operative Hou-

sing Maintenance Society Ltd., Sancoale,

Mormugao Goa” on 23-12-2020 and it bears

registration Code Symbol No. HSG (d)-1194/South

Goa/2020, and it is classified as “Housing Society”

under sub-classification No. 7(d) as “Co-operative

Housing Maintenance Society” in terms of

sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Rules, 2003.

Sd/- (P. A. Parab), Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), South Zone.

Margao, 23rd December, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1020

Notification

No. 42/4/2002/TS/RCS/3351

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001, and in supersession of the

Government Order No. 42/4/2002/TS/RCS/4624

dated 07th January, 2020, the Government of Goa

hereby appoints Biju Naik to be the Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, for the State of Goa for the

purpose of the said Act from 07-10-2020 i.e. with

effect from the date on which she took over the

charge of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

Panaji-Goa.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Chokha Ram Garg, I.A.S., Secretary (Co-operation

Department).

Panaji, 08th January, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Notification

No. 28/2/2020-LAB/04

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

16-12-2020 in reference No. IT/07/11 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, 06th January, 2021.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR

COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/07/11

Shri Sandip Tanaji Borkar,

H. No. 150, Behind Alfina

Guest House, Aquem, Alto,

Margao-Goa.

… Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s Parle Agro Refreshing India,

Parle International–A Unit of Parle

Agro Pvt. Ltd. Western Express

Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai,

H. No. 460, Aquem Baixo,

PO, Navelim, Salcete, Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Mrs.

Harsha Naik under legal aid.

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

Chawdikar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 16th day of the month

of December of the year 2020)

By Order dated 6-4-2011, bearing No. 28/6/2011-

-LAB, 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 Shri Sandip Tanaji Borkar can be

construed as a ‘workman’ as defined under

clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial

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

(2) If the answer to the issue No. (1) above is

in the affirmative, then, whether the action

of the management of M/s. Parle Agro

Refreshing India (Parle International, a Unit

of Parle Agro Private Limited), having it’s

registered office in Mumbai and local office

in Aquem-Baixo, Goa, in terminating the

services of Shri Sandip Tanaji Borkar with

effect from 25-11-2009, is legal and

justified?

(3) If the answer to issue No. (2) above is in

the negative, then, to what relief the work

person is entitled?

2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/07/11 came

to be registered and notices were issued to both

the parties under registered A.D. post. Upon their

appearance, Party I filed a Claim statement at

Exh. 7 and Party II filed a Written statement at

Exh. 8.

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

appointed by the company as a Pilot Salesman and

initially posted at Ponda and was working in the

field for promotion of sale of product of the company

but he was not issued any letter of appointment.

The Party I after putting about 8-10 months of

service was appointed in regular employment with

designation as Growth Promoter as per letter dated

12-1-2007 and his services was thereafter confirmed

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1021

vide letter dated 23-7-2007 based on performance.

He was thereafter re-designated as Growth Officer,

however the nature and type of duties were not

changed and was working as salesman for sales/

/marketing of the goods of the company. The

Party I was performing duty of a workman and it

was neither managerial, supervisory nor

administrative in nature and therefore the

provisions of Sales Promotion Employees

(Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 is not applicable

to him.

4. The head office of the Party II is at Mumbai,

however the local office is at Aquem Baixo, Navelim

and the depot is at Davorlim, Margao. There are

local Officers/Managers/Supervisors/In-charge of

Party II within the Goa depot for overall supervision,

promotion of sales, marketing, etc. The salesmen

are required to follow instructions of those Officers

and report to them and the said authorities are

supervising, controlling and monitoring the

activities of the salesmen working within Goa. The

products of the company are distributed through

the dealers appointed by Party II and their working

and performance are monitored and controlled by

local Officers in-charge of the company. The

Party I was working sincerely, dedicatedly and

devotionally and putting up his efforts for growth

of the sale of the Party II by distributing the

incentives and benefits of various schemes to

the retail dealers, however the local Officers/

/Managers/Supervisors were not happy with the

action of the Party I of giving the benefits of various

schemes of the company to the retail dealers.

5. The Party I therefore from 5-5-2009 onwards

was not allowed to go in the market by the local

Officers and their Distributors were also told by

them not to allow the Party I to board on their

vehicles to go to the market for sales purpose and

accordingly the Party I was prohibited to go on the

field. The Party I was however continuously

reporting at the said designated place of the dealer.

The Party I was covered under the provision of

Employees State Insurance Act and the relevant

forms were taken by local Officers, however the

said forms were not forwarded deliberately to the

concerned authority as a result of which the

monthly contribution although deducted was not

credited to the ESI Authority and therefore the

family of the Party I was deprived from ESI benefit

including medical treatment. The Party I was also

not paid salary, travelling, daily allowances and

other reimbursement from February, 2009. The Party

I made various representations to the Party II for

releasing the payment of salary and also allowing

him to report for duties, however no positive

response was getting from the Party II.

6. The Party I is a sole earning member and his

family fully depends on the daily earnings of the

Party I. The family of the Party I is facing severe

financial crunch and since the Party I was not

allowed to report for work and not paid the salary,

he filed an application dated 7-10-2009 before the

Authority under Payment of Wages Act. The

Party II falsely alleged that he remained absent

un-authorizedly without prior approval from

5-5-2009 till date and that as per the terms of

contract his services stood terminated. The Party I

had not received any show cause notice, charge

sheet nor conducted any enquiry. The Party I has

not been paid the retrenchment compensation and/

/or notice pay as per provision under Section 25-F

of the Industrial Disputes Act. The termination of

the Party is therefore not maintainable. The refusal

of employment/termination of services is illegal,

bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case.

The Party I was drawing salary of Rs. 8,093/- along

with travelling allowance and daily allowance

before refusal of employment. The Party I tried his

level best to seek employment however, he could

not succeed in getting any employment. The

Party I is therefore entitled for reinstatement, full

back wages and continuity in service and

consequential benefits.

7. In the Written statement, the Party II stated

that the reference is bad in law, misconceived and

untenable. The Party I was employed as a Growth

Officer and as such he is not a workman as

contemplated under Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act. It was duty of the Party I as a Growth

Officer to attend to Distributors and/or approach

the area Growth Manager and/or company with

regard to the work carried out by him and he is

required to ensure primary and secondary sale of

the product of the company through the

Distributors, certifying/settling the claim of the

Distributor, co-ordination, supply of products, etc.

The Party I was employed in management

Grade–MXII and unless the Party I certifies the

claim of the distributor, the same could not be

settled by the company. The services of the Party I

was terminated by letter dated 25-11-2009 as he

was continuously failing to report for duties

since 5-5-2009. The Party I has approached the

Tribunal with unclean hands. The Party I had not

attended the duties from 5-5-2009 to 25-11-2009.

The Party II has a sales office at Goa and engages

about 10 employees for carrying out activities of

sale of the product of the company. He was initially

appointed a Growth Promoter and required to

achieve the coverage of the market area and

basically focus on sale of the company product in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1022

the territory allotted to him. He was thereafter

promoted/re-designated as Growth Officer. The

Party I though continued to approach the

Distributors, the same was only for the sake of

coordinating primary and secondary sale of product

and upon promotion, it was a duty of the Party I to

settle the case of the Distributors and coordinate

the supply of products.

8. The Party I started remaining un-authorizedly

absent without any intimation and on account of

his absence, it was impossible for the sales office

at Goa to carry out its normal functions and the

sales of the company was adversely affected. The

Party I was never appointed as Pilot Salesman nor

worked as a salesman. The Party I is not a workman

and was carrying out supervisory and managerial

duties controlling and monitoring the sales

activities carried out at Goa being employed as

Growth Officer. The Party I had filed an application

before the Hon’ble Authority under the Payment of

Wages Act. The contract for employment of Party I

being terminable, the termination of service of the

Party I is legal and proper. The Party I is not entitled

for re-instatement, full back wages and continuity

in service. The Party I is gainfully employed. No

case is made out for grant of any reliefs and

therefore the reference be dismissed.

9. In the rejoinder at Exh. 9, the Party I denied

the case put forth by Party II in Written statement.

10. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 12 are

as follows:

(1)

Whether the Party I proves that he is

squarely covered under the provisions of

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947?

(2)

Whether the Party I proves that from

5-5-2009 onwards, all of a sudden he was

not allowed to go in the market by the

local officers/managers/supervisors/in-

charge of Party II and accordingly he was

prohibited to go on field?

(3)

Whether the Party I proves that his entire

family was deprived of all the E.S.I. benefits

including the medical treatment?

(4)

Whether the Party I proves that the Party

II has not paid him the earned salary and

traveling, daily allowances and other

reimbursements commencing from May

2009/February 2009?

(5)

Whether the Party I proves that the Party

II terminated his services by violating the

principles of natural justice and following

the unfair labour practice and hence the

same is bad in law and contrary to the

facts of the case?

(6)

Whether the Party II proves that he

Party I is gainfully employed?

(7)

What Relief? What Award?

11. In support of his claim, the Party I Shri Sandip

Borkar examined himself and produced on record

a copy of offer of appointment by Party II dated

12-1-2007 at Exh. 19, a copy of letter of appointment

dated 22-1-2007 at Exh. 20, a copy of letter dated

1-10-07 of my re-designation as Growth Officer

at Exh. 21, a copy of confirmation letter dated

23-7-2007 at Exh. 22, a copy of leave note signed by

Party I stating that he was on leave from 2-5-2009

to 5-5-2009 at Exh. 23, copies of Market reports

at Exh. 24 colly, a copy of Stock position as on

1-6-2009 given by supplier at Exh. 25, Copies of

four pay slips of January 2007, February 2007,

March, 2009 and April, 2009 at Exh. 26 colly, letters

dated 10-6-2009 and 10-8-2009 making claim of the

salary and allowances along with copies of A.D.

cards at Exh. 27 colly, copies of declaration form for

the purpose of ESIC along with photos as annexures

at Exh. 28 colly, a copy of letter dated 18-1-2010

addressed by Party I to the Regional Director, ESIC

at Exh. 29, letter dated 4-2-2010 by Deputy Director,

ESIC to Party II with a copy to Party I at Exh. 30, a

copy of letter dated 8-2-2010 by the Manager ESIC

to the Party I at Exh. 31, a copy of letter dated

8-3-2010 by the Party I to ESIC at Exh. 32, a copy

of letter dated 26-4-2010 by the ESIC to the

Party I at Exh. 33, a copy of letter of termination

dated 25-11-2009 by the Party II to him at Exh. 34,

a copy of letter dated 18-1-2010 raising dispute

before the competent authority of Party II at

Exh. 35, a copy of letter dated 3-2-2010 by Party II

to the Party I at Exh. 36, a copy of letter dated

20-3-2010 by Party I to Party II at Exh. 37, a copy of

application dated 15-2-2010 raising industrial

dispute before Dy. Labour Commissioner at

Exh. 38, a copy of failure report dated 19-1-2011 at

Exh. 39, a copy of application dated 7-10-2009 filed

before the Authority appointed under the Payment

of Wages Act, claiming the wages at Exh. 40. The

Party I also produced a copy of letter dated

22-1-2007 issued by Party II to Party I as a Growth

Promoter at Exh. 56, a copy of confidential

agreement signed on 10-3-2007 at Exh. 57, a copy

of Form No. 16 dated 30-4-2007 and Form No. 16

dated 30-4-2008 at Exh. 58, a copy of letter dated

01-07-2008 issued by Party II to Party I as a Growth

Officer along with correction letter and

continuation sheet at Exh. 59 colly. In the cross

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1023

examination, the Party II produced through Party I

a copy of claim process sheets submitted on

08-12-2008 and 12-11-2008 and damaged stock

claims dated 05-11-2008 and 08-10-2008 along with

details of products at Exb. 60 colly, a copy of the

letter dated 10-8-2009 at Exh. 61.

12. On the other hand, the Party II examined

Shri Dilip Borkar as witness and produced on record

a copy of claim process along with damaged stock

signed and verified by Party I for the period from

1-10-2008 to 31-10-2008 at Exh. 62 colly, a copy of

claim process along with damaged stock signed

and verified by Party I for the period from 1-9-2008

to 30-9-2008 at Exh. 63 colly, a copy of letter dated

10-8-2009 addressed by Party I to Party II at Exh. 64,

a copy of Pay Order No. 026600 dated 18-2-2010 for

an amount of Rs. 29,637/- along with the letter of

termination and encl. at Exh. 65 colly, copies of

document showing payment of ESI contributions

during the period from 1-10-2006 to 30-9-2009 at

Exh. 66 colly, copies of 4 letters addressed by

Shri Marketing Services during the period from

May 2009 to Sept. 2009 at Exh. 67 colly, a copy of

application for employment duly signed by the

Party I dated 26-10-2007 at Exh. 68 colly, a copy of

credit note, claim processing sheet in respect of

Prissie at Navelim for the period from 1-10-2008

along with its supporting accompaniments at Exh.

69 colly, a copy of credit note, claim processing

sheet in respect of Prissie at Navelim for the month

of Sept. 2008 along with its supporting

accompaniment at Exh. 70 colly, a copy of

reimbursement of expenses paid to the Party I by

the company during the period from Jan. 2008 to

Feb. 2009 at Exh. 71 colly, a copy of letter dated

22-2-2010 addressed by the Party II to the ESI

Authorities at Goa at Exh. 72, a copy of letter dated

4-2-2010 addressed by the ESI Authorities, Goa to

the company at Exh. 73, a copy of daily sales

monitoring format stockiest wise-Quepem 2009

along with a copy of monthly secondary claim for

the month of May 2009 at Exh. 74 colly, copies of

e-mails at 75 colly, a copy of Resolution appointing

as Authorized Person at Exh. 76. The Party II also

examined Shri Avinash Velgekar as second witness

and produced on record a copy of Board of

Resolution passed at the meeting of the Board of

Directors of Party II held on 7-10-2019 at Exh. 79

and closed their case.

13.

Heard

arguments

through

Video

conferencing. Notes of Written arguments came to

be placed on record by Party I as well as Party II.

14. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My answers to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 1

…

In the Negative

Issue No. 2

…

In the Negative

Issue No. 3

…

In the 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.

REASONS

Issue No. 1:

15. Learned Advocate Mrs. Harsha Naik for the

Party I has submitted that the Party I was initially

appointed as a Pilot Salesman and was posted at

Ponda and that he was working in the field for

promotion of sale of product of the company and

thereafter he was appointed in regular employment

with a designation as Growth promoter as per

appointment letter and his services were confirmed

based on his performance and re-designated as a

Growth officer. However, though he was promoted

as Growth officer, the nature and type of duties

performed by him were not changed and he was

working as salesman and was working for sales/

/marketing of the company’s products. The Party I

was performing duties of a workman category and

it was neither managerial, supervisory or

administrative nature and therefore he was

squarely covered under the provisions of Section

2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence the

provisions of Sales Promotion Employees

(Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 are applicable to

the Party I besides, the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act. The salesmen are required to follow

the instructions of those officers and report to them

and they are supervising, controlling and

monitoring the activities of salesmen working

within Goa. The Party I was sincerely working for

the growth of sale of Party II by distributing the

incentives, benefits of various schemes to the retail

dealers and therefore the above issue be answered

in the affirmative.

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

Party II has submitted that the Party I was employed

as the Growth officer in the managerial cadre. The

Party I has admitted that he was appointed as

Growth promoter in Grade M-XII with effect from

22-1-2007 and that the said Grade is applicable to

the employees who are working in the management

cadre of the organization and that the daily sales

report is prepared by him as regards to the

products which he markets and that he signs and

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1024

submit DSR to his seniors during monthly meeting

including suppliers’ report and therefore the above

admission of the Party I shows that he was

employed in the managerial cadre and hence

cannot be covered under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act. He also submitted that

the Party I has failed to prove that he is a workman

as mandated under Industrial Disputes Act as he

was employed mainly in the managerial and

administrative capacity.

17. It is well settled in the case of H. R.

Adhyanthya and Others V. Sandoz (India) Limited

and Others, (1994) 5 SCC 737 that the person to

be a workman has to fall in one or the other category

as stipulated in the main part of Section 2(s) of the

Act and it is not enough that he is not covered by

either of the four exceptions. It is also well settled

in the case of C. Gupta vs. Glaxo-Smithkline

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 171, that the

definition of the workman as prevailing on the date

of dismissal should be taken into account and when

the workman is dismissed, it is the date of

dismissal, the employer must act according to the

provision of law. In the case of Berger Paints India

Limited vs Chandrakant N. Raut and Anr.,

(2001) III LLJ 850 Bom, the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay has held whether it was or was not the

part of duty of a person to promote the Company’s

product and canvass the same for the purpose of

increasing the sales, which would be the deciding

factor whether the said person would or would not

be covered by the definition of workman given in

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Having regard to the above law, it is incumbent

upon the Party I to prove that he is a workman as

defined under the Act.

18. The Party I has claimed that he was working

as a Salesman and therefore the provisions of Sales

Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act,

1976 are applicable. The Party I however has not

placed on record any material to suggest that the

provisions of the said Act is applicable to him. A

bare perusal of Section 1(4) of the Act would

indicate that it shall apply in the first instance to

every establishment engaged in pharmaceutical

industry or any notified industry. It is also to be

noted that Ministry of Labour and Employment

issued a Notification dated 31-1-2011 thereby listing

the industries including Cosmetics, soaps,

household cleaners and disinfectants, readymade

garments, soft drink manufacturing industries etc.

The Party I was not engaged by the aforesaid

industries. There is no dispute that the Party I was

appointed on 12-1-2007 and was terminated on

25-11-2009. The above Notification came into force

from 31-1-2011 and therefore the provisions of Sales

Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act,

1976 is not applicable to the Party I and therefore

the contention of Party I that the provisions of

Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service)

Act, 1976 are applicable to him cannot be accepted

having any merits.

19. The Party I also claimed that the provisions

of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act are

applicable to him as he asserted that he was initially

appointed as Pilot salesman and that his salary

and other benefits were paid by cash through the

vouchers, however no documents have been

produced on record in support of the above claim.

He also claimed that he was thereafter appointed

in regular employment as Growth promoter as per

appointment letter and subsequently re-designated

as Growth officer, however, the nature of duties

which were performed by him were not changed

and he was working as a salesman and was

working for the sales/marketing of the company’s

goods/products and the duties performed by him

were of workman category and it was neither

managerial, supervisory or administrative in nature.

The Party I however has nowhere specified the

nature of duties performed by him as a salesman

prior to his termination.

20. Be that as it may, it is to be noted that the

terms of employment and the purposes for which

the Party I was appointed have got to be seen and

it has to be noted as to what was the principal

expectation from him and what was the

predominant work the party was providing on

behalf of the management. The Party I has produced

on record the letter of offer dated 12-2-2007 at

Exh. 19 by which he was designated as Growth

Promoter with gross proposed salary of Rs. 7032/-

in Grade M-XII. He has also produced on record a

letter of appointment dated 22-1-2007 at Exh. 20

appointing him as Growth Promoter in Grade

M-XII and in terms of clause 5, it was obligatory on

the part of Party I to submit the management the

daily sales, weekly sales reports and other reports

such as itinery, monthly reports, dealer books, tour

programme etc. periodically as required from time

to time and in terms of clause 16, he had agreed to

discharge the duties entrusted to him faithfully,

diligently, honestly, etc. and if any question of

interpretation of any terms and conditions of the

employment arises, the company decision shall be

final. There is no dispute that the Party I was

confirmed in his services in the company w.e.f.

23-7-2007 as Growth promoter vide Exh. 22 and

was re-designated as Growth officer w.e.f.

1-10-2007 as per Exh. 21.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1025

21. The Party I has admitted in the cross

examination that as a Growth Promoter, he was

visiting every retailer who was distributing

products of Party II like Frooty tetra pack, Appy

tetra pack, etc. and that he used to explain to the

dealers the various schemes relating to the

products and that he was taking products from the

dealers and if the salesman of the distributor is

available with him on a particular day, he used to

immediately supply those products to the dealers

and that in the event the salesman of the distributor

is not available with him, he used to personally

take the orders from all the dealers on behalf of the

Party II and submit to the distributors with

instructions to supply the products as early as

possible. He also admitted that it was his

responsibility to ensure that there is growth in the

sale of product of the Party II and that he was

convincing the distributors to put more efforts to

sell more and more company’s products. He also

admitted that as a Growth officer, one of his

responsibilities was to maintain stock level. He

also admitted his signatures on the process sheets

submitted on 8-12-2008 and 12-11-2008 and

damaged stock claims dated 5-11-2008 and

8-10-2008 and acknowledged that the documents

have been written by him except the stamps and

that the above claims were prepared and verified

by him which was thereafter approved by Area

General Manager during every monthly meetings

and thereafter sent to Head office, Mumbai for

further process of payment.

22. The Party I also admitted that the salary

claimed for the month of February, March and April,

2009 was prepared by him. He also admitted that

there were two persons who were supervising,

managing and overall in-charge of the Party II and

both of them are their Area Sales Manager. He also

stated that as a Growth officer, he was visiting the

distributors and used to verify the stock and inform

them about availability of the respective products

and inform the salesmen to ask the loader to load

available products and explain the schemes of the

company to the salesmen. He also admitted that

the pilot salesman is working under the Growth

Officer. He also admitted that the daily sales report

is prepared by him as regards to the products

which he markets and he signs and submits DSR

to his seniors during monthly meeting including

supply report. He also admitted that he ensures

that schemes of the company are implemented

which are allotted to him. He also admitted that he

used to handle complaints from the dealers

regarding quantity, quality and expiry of products

and when there is a complaint of limited stock,

dealers used to handle it independently, however

if the stock is substantial, dealers used to bring to

his notice and he used to follow the claim process

through him and higher ups. He also admitted that

whether the claims are proper or not have to be

verified by him and during monthly meeting, it is

confirmed once he verifies the same.

23. The Party II has examined Shri Dilip Borkar,

Area Growth Manager of Party II. He claimed that

Party I was initially employed as a Growth promoter

and in that capacity, he was required to achieve

the coverage of the market area and basically focus

on the sale of the company’s products in the

territory allotted to him and that he was thereafter

promoted/re-designated as Growth officer

whereupon he was carrying out duties such as to

attend to the distributors and or to approach the

Area Growth Manager and he was required to

ensure primary and secondary sale of products of

the company through the distributors, certifying/

settling the claims of the distributors, coordination,

supply of the products, etc. The above duties have

not been denied by the Party I. Party I Shri Sandip

Borkar has admitted in the cross examination that

he was appointed as a Growth promoter in Grade

M-XII and he has read terms and conditions of

letter of appointment at Exh. 20. He also

categorically admitted that Grade M-XII is

applicable to those employees who are working in

management cadre of the organization. The Party

I in Para 3 of the affidavit has categorically stated

that he was working in the field for promotion of

sale of the product of company. The primary duty

of Party I as evident from above is meeting different

distributors to promote sale of product of the

company and therefore is the master of the work

assigned to him as the manner of performing the

work was solely in the discretion of the Party I. It

is well established that a person engaged to do

the work of sales promotion by canvassing

company’s product is not a workman under the

Act. This being the position, the Party I does not

fall in one or the other category as stipulated in

the main part of Section 2(s) of the Act and

therefore cannot be termed as workman under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

24. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the

Party I was promoted as Growth officer w.e.f.

1-10-2007 and was drawing salary of Rs. 13,300/-

per month inclusive of incentives which clearly

establishes that he was getting wages more than

Rs. 10,000/- mensem. There is no dispute that in

terms of Section 2(s) of the Act under clause (iv),

a person being employed in a supervisory capacity

draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1026

mensem is eliminated from being a workman under

the Act. There is no dispute that total monthly

emoluments at the time of his retrenchment was

Rs. 13,300/- approximately per mensem including

incentives, besides he was doing managerial

duties. He also admitted that he was an employee

under the category of management staff in Grade

M-XII. It is therefore the amount of wages earned

by him, designation as well as the duties and the

powers conferred upon him clearly proves that he

was a part of managerial process of the company

in so far as his work was used as tool and aid by

the management for a proper conduct of the

business of the company in order to secure the

interest of the company. The Party I is therefore not

covered under Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act and would stand excluded from the

definition of the term ‘workman’ under Section 2(s)

of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Party I therefore

failed to prove that he is squarely covered under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Hence, the issue No. 1 is answered in the negative.

Issue No. 2:

25. It is claimed by the Party I that from 5-5-2009

onwards, all of a sudden, he was not allowed to go

in the market by the local officers/managers/

/supervisors/in-charge of the Party II and

accordingly, he was prohibited to go into the field.

There is no dispute that Party I was terminated

vide letter of termination dated 25-11-2009 at

Exh. 34 wherein it is stated that it is observed from

the record that he was absent unauthorizedly

without prior approval from 5-5-2009 till date and

in that respect they have not received any

intimation from his side and since he was not

attending duty, they assume that he is not

interested in continuing with their organization.

The Party I has not led any evidence that he was

not allowed to go in the market by local officers,

but on the contrary, he has admitted that as per

the termination letter, he was informed that he

was absent unauthorizedly without prior approval

from 5-5-2009 till 25-11-2009. He also admitted that

he worked till June, 2009 and subsequently he had

not worked. He thereafter corrected himself that

he worked till 1-6-2009 and had not applied for any

sort of leave from 2-6-2009 till 25-11-2009. It is

therefore clear that the Party I was not prevented

from reporting for duty but has failed to attend his

duties from 2-6-2009 till the date of termination.

Hence, the issue No. 2 is answered in the negative.

Issue No. 3:

26. The Party I has claimed that his entire family

was deprived of all the ESI benefits including the

medical treatment. The Party I has produced on

record a letter dated 18-1-2010 addressed to the

Regional Director, ESIC, Panaji complaining about

refusal of giving benefit under ESI. The letter dated

4-2-2010 at Exh. 30 by ESIC brought to the notice

of the Party II about the discrepancies and

requesting to submit declaration form including

insurance number of the employee. However, the

said grievances of the Party II are unrelated and

cannot be considered for adjudicating the present

claim. It is therefore, the above issue is answered

accordingly.

Issue No. 4:

27. The Party I has claimed that he has not been

paid the earned salary and travelling, daily

allowances and other reimbursement commencing

from May, 2009/Feb., 2009. However, the Party I has

failed to prove that he had worked with the

Party II during that said period as according to him

he was not allowed to go in the market by the local

officers, which he again failed to prove. Moreover,

the issue of non-payment of wages is pending with

the Authority appointed under Payment of Wages

Act, 1936 in case No. CLE/(PWA-4)/2009 and

therefore the above claim cannot be entertained in

the present proceedings. The Party I has also

admitted that he has not attended the work from

2-6-2009 till the date of termination and therefore

the case of the Party I that he has not been paid

the earned salary and travelling, daily allowances

and other reimbursement commencing from May,

2009/Feb., 2009 fails. It is therefore, the issue No. 4

is answered in the negative.

Issue No. 5:

28. The Party I has also claimed that the Party II

has terminated his services by violating the

principles of natural justice and following unfair

labour practices and therefore it is bad in law. The

Party I has also stated so in his affidavit in

evidence. It has come on record that the Party I

was employed in the management cadre and

therefore is not required to follow the procedure as

laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act. There is

no dispute that the services of the Party I were

terminated in view of contract of employment being

terminable in terms of the letter of appointment at

Exh. 20. Clause (3) of the said appointment letter

clearly states that if the management finds Party I

incapable of performing the job assigned to him

inspite of best efforts on its part, the company will

be at liberty to terminate the contract of

employment at any time on giving him one month

notice or salary in lieu of such notice. Clause (8) is

pertaining to the notice of termination by which

the services could be terminated by either side

giving a notice period of one month by paying

compensation equivalent to salary for the notice

period.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1027

29. It therefore reveals that the management is

within the right to terminate the services of the

Party I based on the contract of the Party I which

is signed by both the parties. There is no dispute

that the services of the Party I were terminated on

the ground of unauthorized absence from May, 2009

till date of termination which fact has not been

denied. It is also an admitted fact that the legal

dues of the Party I was issued to him but the same

was not accepted by the Party I. It is submitted by

Ld. Adv. Mrs. Harsha Naik that the letter of

termination is illegal as the person who has signed

the same has no authority nor there is a seal of the

company on the said letter. The said termination

letter is at Exh. 34 and the appointment letter is at

Exh. 20. If one peruses both the letters, the

signature on the said letters is of the same person.

The Party I also has not raise any objection in the

pleadings regarding the above submission. It is

thus clear that the authorized representative of

the company who has appointed Party I by issuing

appointment letter has terminated his services by

issuing termination letter. It is therefore the above

submission of Ld. Adv. Mrs. Harsha cannot be

accepted having any merits. The Party I has thus

failed to prove that the Party II terminated his

services by violating the principles of nature justice

and following unfair labour practice and therefore

it is bad in law. Hence, the above issue is answered

in the negative.

Issue No. 6:

30. The Party II in the written statement at Para

20 has stated that the Party I is gainfully employed.

The Party I in the rejoinder denied stating that the

contents of Para 8 to 22 are false without any

substance and contrary to the facts of the case.

The Party II has never stated as to where the Party

I was gainfully employed. The Party II has claimed

that the Party I is doing the job of motorcycle pilot

at Margao KTC stand and ferrying passengers to

their location on payment of specific fare. The

Party I in the cross examination has stated that if

his friends call him to drop to a particular place, he

used to oblige them and they pay him petrol

expenses. He admitted that he has a Hero Honda

Motorcycle, Make 1999 which is used by him for

dropping his children to school. He however

admitted that he used to get Rs. 100/- per day

sometimes Rs. 200/- and sometimes nothing. He

also admitted that the criminal case was initiated

against him before the Additional Session Judge

bearing No. 5/2018 as he was carrying one lady on

his motorcycle who was involved in prostitution

and that he was acquitted on benefit of doubt.

Needless to mention, there is no clear evidence

that the Party I was gainfully employed after his

termination. It cannot be also said that he would

remain unemployed since 2009 till date without

any job as admittedly he has a family to maintain.

The Party II has thus failed to prove the above

issue.

Issue No. 7:

31. Needless to mention, the Party I was unable

to prove that he was workman as defined under

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and that

his services were illegally terminated by violating

the principles of natural justice, on the contrary it

was come on record that the Party I at the time of

termination was working in managerial capacity

as Growth Officer with Party II and that his services

were terminated vide letter dated 25-11-2009 as he

has continuously failed to report his duties since

5-5-2009 in terms of the letter of appointment

containing terms of service. The Party I therefore is

not entitled for any relief as claimed for.

Nonetheless, the Party II while terminating the

service of the Party I issued a Pay Order No. 026600

dated 18-2-2020 at Exh. 65 colly to clear his dues

of Rs. 29,637, which amount was not received by

the Party I. The amount has not been disputed

which is equivalent to one month salary. The

Party I at the most is entitled for the said amount

of Rs. 29,637/- which admittedly was not received

by him. Hence, the above issue is answered

accordingly.

32. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i)

It is hereby held that the Party I, Shri Sandip

Tanaji Borkar is not a ‘workman’ as defined

under clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial

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

(ii)

It is also held that the action of the

management of M/s. Parle Agro Refreshing

India (Parle International, a Unit of Parle

Agro Private Limited), having it’s registered

office in Mumbai and local office in Aquem-

Baixo, Goa, in terminating the services of

Shri Sandip Tanaji Borkar with effect from

25-11-2009, is legal and justified.

(iii)

The Party II is however directed to pay an

amount of Rs. 29,637/- (Rupees twenty nine

thousand six hundred thirty seven only)

towards wages in lieu of one month salary.

(iv)

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1028

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

—

Order

No. 9-18-2004-LD(Estt.)Part-II(10)/89

Whereas, the Government vide Notification

No. 9-18-2004-LD(Estt.)/Part-II(l0)/608 dated

04-06-2009, published in the Official Gazette,

Series II No. 10 dated 04-06-2009, appointed

Mr. Mukund Vassant Pai, Advocate (hereinafter

referred as the “Applicant”) as a Notary for period

of five years with effect from 20-05-2009 for the

area of Tiswadi Taluka;

And whereas, the Government vide Certificate

of Practice dated 20-08-2014 has certified that the

Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary

for a period of one year from 20-05-2014 and

20-05-2015 for the area of Tiswadi Taluka;

And whereas, the Government on the request of

the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of

Practice as a Notary for subsequent 02 terms and

the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice

in the Endorsement dated 24-04-2015 issued to the

Applicant, expired on 20-05-2020;

And whereas, the Applicant has failed to renew

his Certificate of Practice six months prior to expiry

of the period of validity of the said Certificate of

Practice until his period expired on i.e. 20-05-2020,

as required under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of

the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952) and

sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 B of the Notaries Rules, 1956

(hereinafter referred as the “said Act” and “said

Rule”);

Now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of

Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa

hereby removes the name of Applicant entered as

a Notary from the Register maintained by it under

Section 4 of the said Act.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 08th January, 2021.

________

Order

No. 8-14-2016-LD(Estt)/120

Ex-post facto sanction of the Government is

hereby accorded for the following completed work

by CDAC, Pune:-

(i) for execution of Agreement of Annual

Maintenance Contract of an amount of

Rs. 53,88,667/- (Rupees Fifty-three lakhs

eighty-eight thousand six hundred and sixty

seven only) including GST, for the period from

6th November, 2017 to 30th September, 2019

during period of migration from GAURI to

NGDRS.

(ii) for expenditure sanction for payment of

Annual Maintenance Contract of an amount

of Rs. 53,88,667/- (Rupees Fifty-three lakhs

eighty-eight thousand six hundred and sixty

seven only) including 18% GST, for the period

6th November, 2017 to 30th September, 2019

to CDAC, Pune.

This issues with the approval of the Council of

Minister’s vide its decision taken in its XXXIXth

meeting held on 06-01-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 13th January, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

—

Order

No. 5/1/2018-PER/71

On the recommendation of the Goa Services

Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint

Shri Ramesh Gaonkar, Junior Scale Officer of Goa

Civil Service under transfer, as Officer on Special

Duty in Imagine Panaji Smart City Development

Ltd., in public interest, with immediate effect.

The officers shall joint the posting immediately

and submit compliance.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Meghana Shetgaonkar, Joint Secretary.

Porvorim, 07th January, 2021.

________

Order

No. 5/19/2013-PER/93

Read: Order No. 5/19/2013-PER/5283 dated

02-12-2020.

The Governor of Goa is pleased to accept the

notice of voluntary retirement tendered vide letter

dated 13-11-2019 by Smt. Anuja P. Faldessai, Junior

Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service on completion of

15 years of qualifying service in terms Rule 48A of

the C.C.S. (Pension) Rule, 1972 and as per provisions

of the O.M. No. to 12/1/89/Fin (R&C) dated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1029

29-11-1989 and is permitted to retire from service

voluntarily with effect from 11-03-2020 (a.n.).

Smt. Anuja P. Faldessai, Junior Scale Officer of

Goa Civil Service shall stand relieved from

Government service with effect from 11-03-2020

(a.n.).

This is issued in supersession to the order read

in preamble.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 06th January, 2021.

________

Order

No.7/22/2020-PER/128

Read: Letter No. 14023/04/2020-UTS.I dated

03-11-2020.

In pursuance to the Order No. 14023/04/

/2020.UTS-I dated 29-10-2020, issued by Ministry of

Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi;

Shri Mekala Chaitanya Prasad, IAS (AGMUT:2015)

has joined the State Administration on 02-11-2020

(b.n.).

Shri Mekala Chaitanya Prasad, IAS, shall draw

Pay and Allowance with effect from 13-10-2020

(f. n.) till 29-10-2020 (a.n.) as “Awaiting Posting”

period.

Shri Mekala Chaitanya Prasad, IAS, is allowed

joining time from 30-10-2020 to 01-11-2020.

Shri Mekala Chaitanya Prasad, IAS, shall draw

the salary against the vacant post of State

Deputation Reserve w.e.f. 13-10-2020, until further

orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 12th January, 2021.

________

Order

No. 7/21/2017-PER/109

Read:

Order No. 14020/01/2020-UTS.I dated 17-12-2020.

Order No. 14020/01/2020-UTS.I dated 05-01-2021.

The Governor of Goa is pleased to relieve the following officers from this Administration to join their

new assignment in pursuance to Ministry of Home Affairs orders read in the preamble.

Sr.

Name and Batch

Designation

Transferred to

Date of

No.

of the Officer

Relieving from Goa

(Shri/Smt./Ms.)

1. Shri Amit Satija, IAS

Secretary (Urban

Lakshadweep

31-01-2021 (a.n.).

(AGMUT:2008)

Development)

2. Shri Rupesh Kumar Thakur,

Secretary (General

Delhi

31-01-2021 (a.n.).

IAS (AGMUT:2006)

Administration)

3. Smt. R. Menaka,

Collector (North)

Delhi

31-01-2021 (a.n.).

IAS (AGMUT:2011)

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

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 11th January, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

—

Order

No. 44/66/2018-I/PHD/120

Government is pleased to accept the technical

resignation tendered vide letter dated 29-12-2020

by Dr. Mongressa Valeska Monteiro, Medical Officer,

Asilo Hospital, Mapusa working under Directorate

of Health Services w.e.f. 29-12-2020 (a.n.), as she

joined the post of Senior Respiratory Chest

Physician at Asilo Hospital Mapusa under

Directorate of Health Services on 30-12-2020 (b.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 14th January, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1030

Order

No. 4/3/2017-IV/PHD/86

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II//12/14(3)/2013/853 dated 18-12-2020,

Government is pleased to declare satisfactory

completion of probation period of one year by

Dr. Pooja N. Mandrekar, Lecturer in Oral &

Maxillofacial Surgery under Goa Dental College &

Hospital, Bambolim and also to confirm her against

the said post.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim, 22nd December, 2020.

________

Order

No. 4/3/2017-IV/PHD/87

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II//12/14(2)/2015/854 dated 18-12-2020,

Government is pleased to declare satisfactory

completion of probation period of one year by

Dr. Siya Gajanan Dukle, Lecturer in Pedodontics &

Preventive Dentistry under Goa Dental College &

Hospital, Bambolim and also to confirm her against

the said post.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim, 13th January, 2021.

________

Order

No. 4/3/2017-IV/PHD/88

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II/12/14(1)/2013/857 dated 18-12-2020,

Government is pleased to declare satisfactory

completion of probation period of one year by

Dr. Mayuri M. Naik, Lecturer in Conservative

Dentistry & Endodontics under Goa Dental College

& Hospital, Bambolim and also to confirm her

against the said post.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim, 13th January, 2021.

________

Order

No. 44/14/2008-I/PHD/92

Government is pleased to accept the technical

resignation tendered vide letter dated 17-12-2020

by Dr. Poornima Rajkumar Naik, Medical Officer,

Hospicio Hospital, Margao working under

Directorate of Health Service w.e.f. 25-03-2010 (a.n.)

as she joined the post of Junior Gynaecologist under

Directorate of Health Services on 26-03-2010 (a.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 13th January, 2021.

________

Corrigendum

No. 25/18/2019-I/PHD/77

Read: Order No. 25/18/2019-I/PHD/3425 dated

23-10-2020.

In the Government Order dated 23-10-2020

referred above, the details shown against Sr. No.

28, the name shall be corrected to read as “Dr.

Vinda Aditya Nagarsenkar” instead of “Dr. Vinda

Vidhyadhar Arlekar”.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 11th January, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Public Works

Office of the Principal Chief Engineer

—

Order

No. 34/4/2020/PCE-PWD-Tech.Cell/144

Government is pleased to promote the following Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works

(Civil) to the post of Executive Engineer/Surveyor of Works (Civil) on ad-hoc basis in Public Works

Department, Group “A”, Gazetted in Level 11 in the Pay Matrix under 7th Pay Commission with immediate

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1031

effect till the date of regularization or till the date of retirement on Superannuation whichever is earlier,

and post them in the places shown against their names in Column No. 4 below:

Sr.

Name of the

Present place of

Place of posting

No.

officers

posting

on transfer

1 Shri Euclides F. E.

Assistant Surveyor of Works II, in Div.

As Surveyor of Works, Circle

de Souza

XXV, PWD, Fatorda, Margao-Goa

Office VIII, PWD, Margao-Goa

thereby Smt. Chitra Dessai, E.E.

relieved from additional charge.

2. Shri Eduardo J.

Assistant Engineer in S.D. I, Div. VII,

As Executive Engineer, Division

Pereira

PWD, Patto, Panaji-Goa

V, PWD, Panaji-Goa vice

Shri Atmaram Gaude, E.E.

transferred.

3 Smt. Cyd Maria Ferrao

Assistant Surveyor of Works in SW-II,

As Executive Engineer, Division

(WSS), Design Cell, SSW’s Office,

XI (QC), PWD,Panaji-Goa thereby

PWD, Altinho, Panaji-Goa

Smt. Deepa Jamble, EE relieved

from additional charge.

4. Shri Shambu S.

Assistant Surveyor of Works in SW-I

As Executive Engineer, Division

Malvankar

(R&B), Design Cell, SSW’s Office,

XVII, PWD, Porvorim-Goa vice

PWD, Altinho, Panaji-Goa

Shri Nitin V. S. Neurekar, E.E.

transferred.

5. Shri Gaurish K.

Assistant Surveyor of Works in E.O.’s

As Surveyor of Works, Circle

Nadkarni

Section, PCE’s Office, PWD, Altinho,

Office III, PWD, Altinho, Panaji-

Panaji-Goa

Goa in the existing vacancy.

6. Shri Sandip K. P.

Assistant Engineer on deputation

As Executive Engineer on

Chodankar

to GSIDC, Panaji-Goa

deputation to GSIDC, Panaji-Goa.

7. Shri Vishwamber J.

Assistant Engineer in S. D. V, Div. IX,

As Executive Engineer, Division

Bhende

PWD, Verna-Goa

IX, PWD, Margao-Goa in the

existing vacancy.

8. Shri Dattaprassad

Assistant Surveyor of Works in

As Executive Engineer, Division

Shripad Kamat

Div. XVIII, PWD, Ponda-Goa

XIV, PWD, Margao-Goa vice Shri

L. B. Naik, E.E. transferred.

The above ad-hoc promotion will not bestow on the promoted officer any claim for regular promotion

nor the service rendered on ad-hoc in the grade will be counted for purpose of seniority in that grade

for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.

Their pay shall be fixed at the minimum of Level 11 in the Pay Matrix under 7th Pay Commission in

relaxation of Government of India Order (2) below F. R. 35.

The deployment of the Officer at Sl. No. 6 on deputation to GSIDC, Panaji-Goa is for the period of one

year and shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the Government O.M. No. 13/4/74-PER dated

12-02-1999 and 11-01-2007 as amended from time to time of the Department of Personnel, Secretariat,

Porvorim.

Further, the Government is pleased to order the transfers of the below mentioned Executive Engineers/

Surveyor of Works and post them in the places shown against their names in Column No. 4 below with

immediate effect in public interest:

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1032

Sr.

Name of the

Present place of

Place of posting

No.

officers

posting

on transfer

1. Shri L. B. Naik

Executive Engineer, Div. XIV, PWD,

As Executive Engineer, Division

Margao-Goa

XVIII, PWD, Ponda-Goa in the

existing vacancy.

2. Shri Atmaram Gaude

Executive Engineer, Div. V, PWD,

As Executive Engineer, Div. VII,

Panaji-Goa

PWD, Panaji in the existing

vacancy.

3. Shri Nitin V S.

Executive Engineer, Division XVII, PWD, As Executive Engineer,

Neurekar

Porvorim-Goa

Division XXIV, PWD, Bicholim-

Goa in the existing vacancy.

This is issued with the approval of the Government.

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

Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).

Panaji, 7th January, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Sports and Youth Affairs

Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs

Order

No. 1/05/Youth Award/SLCC/DSYA/13-14/2020/1651

Government is pleased to constitute a State Level Co-ordination Committee consisting of the following

member’s in order to advise the Government in the matter of National/State Youth Awards and for the

selection of the Best Youth for various State/Inter State/National/International Youth Programmes for a

period of three years from the date of the order coming into force.

State Level Committee

Sr.

Name of the members

Designation

No.

Shri J. Ashok Kumar, IAS

Secretary (Sports)

—

Chairperson.

Shri D. Carthigueane

Youth Officer, Head NSS Regional

—

Member.

Centre Pune

Shri Pramod Hinge

Zonal Director NYKS, Mumbai

—

Member.

Shri Sanjeev Shirodkar

NSS Co-ordinator Goa University

—

Member.

Shri Mahesh Gaonkar

President Sports Journalist of Goa

—

Member.

Smt. Kajal Kerkar

Representative from Voluntary Organisation

—

Member.

(North)

Smt. Malisa Zemira Simoes

Representative from Voluntary Organisation

—

Member.

(South)

Shri Shashank Mani Tripathi,

Director of Sports & Youth Affairs

—

Ex officio

IAS

—

Member

Secretary.

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

Shashank Mani Tripathi, IAS, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Sports & Youth Affairs).

Panaji, 17th November, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

21ST JANUARY, 2021

1033

Department of Urban Development

Directorate of Municipal Administration/Urban Development

Notification

No. 10/671/2015-DMA/4830

The Government has constituted a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in the name and style of Imagine

Panaji Smart City Development Limited (IPSCDL) for operationalizing the Smart City Projects with Board

of Directors (BoD) vide Notification No. 10/671/2015–DMA/658 dated 9th June, 2016, Notification No. 10/

/671/2015–DMA/2170 dated 26th October, 2017, Notification No. 10/671/2015–DMA/3683 dated 08th

March, 2019 and Notification No. 10/671/2015–DMA/4858 dated 14th October, 2020. The Government of

Goa hereby re-constitutes the Board of IPSCDL with, Ex officio members as per designation given in

column (2) in Table A below and, Non Ex officio members as given in Table B below:

TABLE A

Sr.

Designation

Name

IPSCDL Board

No.

Designation

Chief Secretary, Government of Goa

Shri Parimal Rai, IAS

Chairman.

Secretary (Finance), Government of Goa

Shri Puneet Kumar Goel, IAS

Director.

Secretary (Urban Development),

Shri Amit Satija, IAS

Director.

Government of Goa

Director/Joint Secretary (Urban Development)

Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS

Director.

Government of Goa

Collector, North Goa

Smt. R. Menaka, IAS

Director.

Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Panaji

Shri Sanjit Rodrigues

Director.

Principal Chief Engineer, PWD,

Shri Uttam Parsekar

Director.

Government of Goa

TABLE B

Sr.

Name

IPSCDL Board

No.

Designation

Shri Ravi Dhawan, IAS

Managing Director &

CEO, IPSCDL

Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, Director (Estate-II), Ministry of Housing &

Director.

Urban Affairs, Government of India

Shri Antanasio Monserrate, MLA, Panaji Constituency

Director.

Shri Uday Madkaikar, Mayor, Corporation of the City of Panaji

Director.

The Department of Urban Development/Directorate of Municipal Administration will issue notifications

reconstituting the board in respect of Ex-officio Members of the Board as and when there is a change

of the incumbents holding the posts.

This is issued in supersession of all earlier Notifications issued in this regard.

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

Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Municipal Administration/Urban

Development).

Panaji, 14th January, 2021.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 17.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—322/160–1/2021.