Panaji, 18th March, 2021 (Phalguna 27, 1942)

SERIES II No. 51

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative

Societies

—

Notification

No. AR/NZ/SSCHMSL/2020

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

Section 8(1) of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001,

“Sol Sienda Co-operative Housing Maintenance

Society Ltd., Verem, Reis Magos, Bardez-Goa”, has

been registered under Code Symbol No. ARCS/NZ/

/HSG/509(d)/Goa.

M. N. Kalangutkar, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), North Zone.

Mapusa, 18th February, 2021.

Certificate of Registration

Sol Sienda Co-operative Housing Maintenance

Society Ltd., Verem, Reis Magos, Bardez-Goa has

been registered on 18-02-2021 and it bears

registration Code Symbol No. ARCS/NZ/HSG/

/509(d)/Goa. It is classified as “Co-operative

Housing Maintenance Society” in terms of Rule

8(1)(7) and sub-classified as “Co-operative Housing

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

1569

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

Maintenance Society” under sub-rule 7(d) of

Rule 8(1) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules,

2003.

M. N. Kalangutkar, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), North Zone.

Mapusa, 18th February, 2021.

________

Notification

No. AR/NZ/MAFVCHSL/2020

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

Section 8(1) of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001,

“Mother Agnes Field View Co-op. Housing Society

Ltd., Mainavada, Aldona, Bardez-Goa,” has been

registered under Code Symbol No. ARCS/NZ/HSG/

/508(b)/Goa.

M. N. Kalangutkar, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), North Zone.

Mapusa, 11th February, 2021.

Certificate of Registration

Mother Agnes Field View Co-op. Housing Society

Ltd., Mainavada, Aldona, Bardez-Goa, has been

registered on 11-02-2021 and it bears registration

Code Symbol No. ARCS/NZ/HSG/508(b)/Goa. It is

classified as “Housing Society” in terms of Rule

8(1)(7) and sub-classified as “Co-partnership

Housing Society” under sub-rule 7(b) of Rule 8(1)

of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

M. N. Kalangutkar, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), North Zone.

Mapusa, 11th February, 2021.

________

Notification

No. AR/NZ/KEPCHSL/2020

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

Section 8(1) of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001,

Note:-

There are three Extraordinary issues to the

Official Gazette, Series II No. 50 dated 11-03-2021

as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 12-03-2021 from pages

1559 to 1560 regarding Notification from

Department of Finance.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 15-03-2021 from

pages 1561 to 1566 regarding Order from

Department of Home.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 16-03-2021 from

pages 1567 to 1568 regarding Order from

Department of Urban Development.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1570

“Kamat Exotic Palms Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,

Ganeshpuri, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa” has been

registered under Code Symbol No. ARCS/NZ/HSG/

/507(b)/Goa.

M. N. Kalangutkar, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), North Zone.

Mapusa, 27th January, 2021.

Certificate of Registration

“Kamat Exotic Palms Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,

Ganeshpuri, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa” has been

registered on 27-01-2021 and it bears registration

Code Symbol No. ARCS/NZ/HSG/507(b)/Goa. It is

classified as “Housing Society” in terms of Rule

8(1)(7) and sub-classified as “Co-partnership

Housing Society” under sub-rule 7(b) of Rule 8(1)

of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

M. N. Kalangutkar, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), North Zone.

Mapusa, 27th January, 2021.

________

Notification

No. AR/NZ/MPCHSL/2020

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

Section 8(1) of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001,

“Monarch Palms Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,

Baman Vado, Candolim, Bardez-Goa” has been

registered under Code Symbol No. ARCS/NZ/HSG/

/510(b)/Goa.

M. N. Kalangutkar, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), North Zone.

Mapusa, 2nd March, 2021.

Certificate of Registration

“Monarch Palms Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.,

Baman Vado, Candolim, Bardez-Goa” has been

registered on 02-03-2021 and it bears registration

Code Symbol No. ARCS/NZ/HSG/510(b)/Goa. It is

classified as “Housing Society” in terms of Rule

8(1)(7) and sub-classified as “Co-partnership

Housing Society” under sub-rule 7(b) of Rule 8(1)

of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

M. N. Kalangutkar, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.

Societies), North Zone.

Mapusa, 2nd March, 2021.

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Technical Education

Administration Section

—

Order

No. DTE/ADMN/3-2/PF(AAS)/Pt. File/V/2992

Government is pleased to accept the notice of

Voluntary Retirement dated 01-01-2021 tendered

by Smt. Anjali A. Sardessai, System Analyst of

Directorate of Technical Education under Rule

48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and relieve her

from the post of System Analyst of Directorate of

Technical Education w.e.f. 01-04-2021 (b.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio

Additional Secretary (Technical Education).

Porvorim, 4th March, 2021.

———u———

Directorate of Art & Culture

—

Order

No. DAC/CL/RRRLF-COM/2020-21/3828

Government of Goa is pleased to extend the

tenure of committee from 12-08-2020 consisting of

following members to deal with various schemes of

Raja Rammohun Roy Library Foundation (RRRLF),

Kolkata for Krishnadas Shama Goa State Central

Library, Patto, Panaji-Goa.

1. Secretary (Art & Culture)

—

Chairman.

2. Director, Directorate of Art

—

Member.

& Culture

3. Director, Raja Rammohun

—

Member.

Roy Library Foundation

(RRRLF), Kolkata or his

representative

4. Nominee of the Chairman

—

Member.

of Raja Rammohun Roy

Library Foundation (RRRLF)

5. Smt. Pia Rodrigues

—

Member.

(President of State Library

Association)

6. Director, Directorate of

—

Member.

Education or his

Representative

7. Shri Jayesh Arjun Raut,

—

Member.

(Educationist)

8. Curator, Krishnadas Shama

—

Convener.

Goa State Central Library

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1571

The committee shall meet as and when required

to scrutinize the proposals, select and recommend

the various schemes to Raja Rammohun Roy Library

Foundation (RRRLF), Kolkata.

The non-officials members of the committee

shall be entitled for TA/DA as per the Government

Rules.

The Government has extended the approval

of Committee for further tenure of 3 years

w.e.f. 12-08-2020.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shri Sagun R. Velip, Director (Art & Culture).

Panaji, 09th March, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/132

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

26-02-2021 in Ref. No. IT/44/13 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.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 12th March, 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/44/13

Shri Dattahas Tilve

& 141 Others,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Apartment,

Tisk, Ponda-Goa (403401)

…

Workmen/Party I

V/s

The Managing Director,

M/s GKB Hi-Tech Lenses Pvt. Ltd.,

Tivim Industrial Estate,

Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa. …

Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.

Gaonkar.

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

K. Sardessai.

AWARD

(Delivered on this 26th day of the month

of February of the year 2021)

By Order dated 21-11-2013, bearing No. 28/21/

/2011-LAB/776, the Government of Goa in exercise

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to the Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s GKB Hi-Tech Lenses Private Limited, Plot

No. 50, Tivim Industrial Estate, Tivim,

Karaswada, Mapusa–Goa in terminating the

services of 142 workmen shown in Annexure

hereto with effect from 06-09-2013, is legal

and justified?

(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/44/13 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Upon appearance, Party I filed

a Claim statement at Exh. 3 and Party II filed a

Written Statement at Exh. 8.

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

Workmen were working with Party II since last

several years and are in continuous employment.

However, the Employer has not been implementing

provisions of labour laws, such as Factory Act,

Payment of Bonus Act, etc. and they have been

forced to work as bonded labourers without

payment of overtime allowance. The Party I in order

to secure justice joined the Union namely;

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh in the month of June,

2013 which was conveyed to the Management vide

their letter dated 23-06-2013 along with list of

workers. The name of the local committee duly

elected by the workers was also sent to the

Management. There are three more Units of the

same establishment in the Tivim Industrial Estate

and the workers of other three Units have

submitted the Charter of Demands on behalf of the

workers in the year 2010 and the dispute is pending.

The said dispute is covering the workers working

in this Unit as the Balance Sheet and other services

including management are common, so also the

services of the said workers are governed by one

Certified Standing Order.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1572

4. The reference of Charter of Demands raised

by the Union is pending and in order to get the

clarity and avoid confusion, the Workmen and the

union had resolved to submit the resolution

adopting the same demands submitted by the

Union and adding them in the reference which

was informed to the Management vide their

Demand Letter dated 25-06-2013. The Union

thereafter raised Charter of Demands before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner vide letter dated

10-07-2013 and on receipt of the Intervention Letter

dated 10-07-2013, the ALC called both the parties

for conciliation vide its notice dated 23-07-2013.

However, as the Employer did not attend the

conciliation proceedings, it was adjourned. On

receipt of the formation of the Union, the

Management started harassing the workers who

became their members and started implementing

various unfair labour practices including the

formation of Management sponsored Union and

giving them financial assistance. The Management

also started threatening the Members of Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh and also gave threats of shifting

the machinery in the last week of July, 2013 and

also shifted a running machine on 11-08-2013. The

workers therefore unanimously resolved to stay

outside the gate peacefully on paid holidays and

weekly off days to protect the interest which

decision was taken only after the Management

refused to attend the conciliation proceedings and

discuss with the Union and their representative.

The workers were in peaceful agitation on

15-08-2013 in front of the Gate, however, in order

to victimize and terrorize the workers on

23-08-2013, the Management had illegally

terminated three workmen and suspended nine

other workmen including the Officer bearers of the

Union.

5. The Party I in protest against the illegal and

malafide action of the Management have resolved

to give 14 days’ notice of agitation/strike w.e.f.

07-09-2013 vide their notice dated 23-08-2013 and

on receipt of the said notice, the Management

started harassing the other workers and started

recruiting new workers on contract from outside

the State and also illegally dismissed all 142

workmen mentioned in the reference and on receipt

of the illegal dismissal order, the workmen had

submitted a demand letter 15-09-2013 stating that

the dismissal is illegal and bad in law. The

Management however, failed to withdraw the

dismissal order and therefore they had no other

option but to raise the dispute before the

Appropriate Authority. The Party II has not followed

the principles of natural justice before their

dismissal from service nor followed provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act. The Party II had not issued

any charge-sheets setting out the detailed charges

nor inquiry was conducted and has employed new

workmen in their place. The Party II has also

violated Clause 25 of Certified Standing Orders by

dismissing the workmen without conducting the

inquiry and without payment of 75% wages as

Subsistence Allowance. The Party I workmen are

unemployed and could not succeed in getting any

employment. The Party II had also not obtained

permission from Appropriate authority as their

Charter of Demands was pending and therefore

the dismissal order is illegal, unjustified and bad

in law. The Party I workmen are therefore entitled

for the relief claimed.

6. In the Written statement, Party II have stated

that all the workmen have accepted all their legal

dues arising out of termination in full and final

settlement. The reference has been made by

persons who are essentially performing supervisory

functions including Dattahas Tilve and others. The

Party II have not terminated the services of Bindiya

G. Mandrekar, Mithun G. Khorjuvekar and Smriti S.

Mayenkar. The Party II is a private limited company

having three manufacturing Units at Tivim

Industrial Estate manufacturing ophthalmic lenses

and allied products. The Company is manufacturing

in Plot No.17A where concerned employees were

employed where production of ophthalmic lenses

is based as per the prescription/requirements of

the customers and in case the Company fails to

give the delivery of the spectacles on the scheduled

date, there is every possibility of not only orders

getting cancelled but the Company losing the

customers as well as would suffer huge financial

loss. The Company has invested substantially in

machineries which includes expensive imported

machineries with a view to deal with demand. The

manufacturing of the plastic lenses needs to be

handled in an appropriate manner at a specific

temperature and even when the manufacturing is

not done on a holiday, the equipment and the

system are required to function continuously to

ensure maintenance of the temperature of the

varnish which can result into varnish getting

spoiled and hardened in the process. The Party II

is using online web based server for entering orders

and execution of the same and even if one of the

servers stops due to power failure or any sort of

mishap, the entire system would collapse and the

Company would come to a standstill and therefore,

the Party II has to maintain a constant vigil to

ensure that every member of the essential team

perform their duty at all time.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1573

7. The Party I workmen were perfectly aware of

the delicate and sensitive nature of the operations

and therefore used pressure and virtually used

blackmailing tactics of go-slow and acts of

indiscipline thereby creating a situation of

uncertainty and tensed atmosphere in the factory.

The Party II has always maintained highest ethical

standards including caring approach towards the

employees and that maximum benefits by way of

fair, just and reasonable wage structure and other

statutory benefits are extended to the workmen.

The Party II was however surprised that inspite of

maintaining cordial relationship, the workmen

intentionally and willfully slowed down production

from 13-04-2013 and as a result of go-slow,

the Company suffered huge financial losses. The

Party II informed the workmen by their notice dated

15-04-2013 that go-slow is a pernicious practice

and is a serious misconduct under the Certified

Standing Orders of the Company and were advised

to restore normal production immediately. The slow-

-down in production continued on 15-04-2013. The

Party II again by second notice dated 16-04-2013

displayed on the notice board advised Party I

workmen to restore normalcy in production and

also to give an undertaking recording their

willingness to discharge their duties faithfully. The

attention of the workmen were also invited to the

go-slow and were advised to restore production.

However, the workmen did not furnish any

undertaking and there was no normalcy but in fact

production was reduced. The Management

thereafter decided to appoint an Internal Inquiry

Committee to inquire into the go-slow resorted by

the workmen and identify their manner in which

the go-slow has been commenced and continued

and pinpoint the consequences thereof. The

Committee thereafter submitted its report.

8. The Management thereafter displayed a notice

inviting the attention of workmen to the findings

of the Inquiry Committee and advised the workmen

to restore normalcy but as there was failure to

restore normalcy the Management appealed to the

workers for co-operation. The go-slow continued

causing losses. The Management continued to be

patient. The Workmen commenced acts of

indiscipline by way of refusal to carry out the

instructions of the superiors. The workmen all of a

sudden on 15-08-2013 blocked the entry of the

essential staff through the factory gate of Nilesh

Pawar and others who were required to enter the

Factory for the purpose of carrying out their work.

The Officer namely, Nilesh Pawar requested the

Party I workmen not to obstruct their entry and

also invited their attention to the need and urgency

of the said staff in attendance of maintenance work.

The workmen however did not show any sign of

acceding to the request and continued with the

blockage thereby causing tense situation at the

factory as a result of which no employee of

Party II could enter the factory premises for the

whole day. The Party I again on 18-08-2013 repeated

their acts by blocking the gate and preventing the

entry of the essential personnel which incident

was reported to General Manager, Mr. Bhanu Naik

on the following day and the report to that effect

was submitted by the Supervisor. The Management

tried to convince Party I workmen not to repeat

such incidents but they showed no sign of

improvement.

9. There was a suspicious movement of Party I

workmen in the factory premises on 22-08-2013

and the Party II apprehended a mischief on the

part of Party I and therefore a complaint was

addressed to the Mapusa Police Station inviting

their attention and requested for police protection.

The Party I workmen gathered at the Factory on

22-08-2013 at 5.30 p.m. when the employees of the

second shift were to report for work. The Party I

workmen tried to block the entry of the workers

and also abused them with filthy language. The

Party I workmen are only growing aggressive by

each passing day. The Officer namely Bhanu Naik

invited attention of the workmen that their

activities are illegal and of criminal nature and

requested them to refrain from the said act,

however, inspite of repeated appeals there was no

normalcy. The Party I workmen stopped the first

shift work and thereafter resorted to illegal and

unjustified strike. The stoppage of production was

abrupt and without prior notice. The Party II by

notice dated 23-08-2013 displayed on the notice

board advised the workmen to restore work,

however the workmen squatted at the entrance of

the gate and started preventing other employees

from entering the Factory and also gheroaed the

Management personnel in their respective

chambers and hence the Management had no

option but to suspend the operation of the Plant as

there was likelihood of threat. A notice was

displayed on 24-08-2013 regarding suspension of

operation of the Plant. The Management however,

resolved to give another opportunity to them to

restore normalcy by notice dated 27-08-2013 and

revoked the suspension of operation and informed

the Workmen of commencement of normal operation

and advised to report for work however, they

continued with illegal strike.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1574

10. The Management also requested the

Workmen to resume duty by their letter dated

29-08-2013 and letter dated 30-08-2013, however,

there was no improvement in the situation of the

Factory. The Management therefore decided to

appoint One-Man Internal committee to investigate

into the misconduct committed by the workmen

and a detailed report was submitted indicting the

workmen. The Management considered the gravity

and seriousness of the charges which the Internal

Committee had held the workmen guilty and

decided to dismiss them from service and

accordingly a notice dated 06-09-2013 was

displayed. The Management also dispatched

dismissal letters to each of the workmen by

registered post and paid all legal dues of the

workmen in full and final settlement. The Party II

Company suffered huge losses and there was

drastic fall in the orders for the product so also the

Plant is operating at 15 to 20 percent capacity. The

termination of the workmen is legal and justified.

The workmen who are party to the reference are

not the members of the Union when the Charter of

Demands was raised. The Charter of Demands

dated 01-12-2010 raised by the Union was not on

behalf of the workmen of Plot No.17A. The Party I

Union adopted an approach that was not conducive

to the continuity of productive process. The

Party I Workmen are not entitled for any reliefs.

11. In the rejoinder at Exh. 6, the Party I denied

the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement.

12. Issues came to be framed at Exh. 24, which

are as follows:

(1) Whether the Party I proves that as a part of

victimization, the Management illegally

dismissed all 142 workmen mentioned in

the reference w.e.f. 6-9-13?

(2) Whether the Party I proves that before the

termination of the workmen, Party II did not

follow the provisions of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

(3) Whether the Party I proves that Party II has

violated Section 33 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?

(4) Whether the Party I proves that reference

made in the respect of Mr. Dattahas Tilve,

Mr. Janardan Prabhakar Sawal, Mr. Laxman

Kesarkar, Mr. Mahesh Arjun Ghadi,

Mr. Rupesh Shiva Mandrekar, Mr. Sagar

Vishnu Parab, Ms. Suchita S. Ajgaonkar,

Ms. Sanjyoti Naik, Mr. Santosh Govenkar,

Mr. Santosh Takarkar, Ms. Urvi Umesh

Bandodkar and Ms. Anadha Naik is not an

Industrial dispute as they were essentially

and predominately performing supervisory

functions?

(5) Whether the Party II proves that the Charter

of Demands dated 1-12-10 by Goa Trade and

Commercial Workers Union was not on

behalf of the workmen of Plant on Plot

No. 17A as the three units on Plot No. 50,

No. 12 and 13 and No. 17A are three separate

units having separate legal entity and

cannot be clubbed as single unit for any

statutory purpose?

(6) What relief? What Award?

13. An Additional Issue No. 3B was framed at

Exhibit 28.

3B. “Whether the Party I proves that Mr. Dattahas

Tilve, Mr. Janardan Prabhakar Sawal, Mr. Laxman

Kesarkar, Mr. Mahesh Arjun Ghadi, Mr. Rupesh Shiva

Mandrekar, Mr. Sagar Vishnu Parab, Ms. Suchita S.

Ajgaonkar, Ms. Sanjyoti Naik, Mr. Santosh Govenkar,

Mr. Santosh Takarkar, Ms. Urvi Umesh Bandodkar

and Ms. Anadha Naik are workmen under Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?”

14. In support of the case, Party II examined its

witness, Shri Neeraj Gupta, and produced on record

a copy of Charter of Demands dated 1-12-2010 at

Exh. 32, a copy of Order of reference dated

21-11-2013 at Exh. 33, a Copy of unionization of

workmen dated 16-1-2013 at Exh. 34, a Copy of

unionization of workmen dated 7-2-2013 at Exh. 35,

a Copy of resignation letters at Exh. 36 Colly, a

Copy of letter dated 23-06-2013 along with joining

letters of workmen, at Exh. 37 Colly, copy of

intimation letter dated 23-6-2013 of newly elected

committee for the year 2013-14 at Exh. 38 Colly,

copy of Notice dated 15-4-2014 at Exh. 39, Copy of

Notice dated 16-04-2013 sent to individual

employees at Exh. 40 Colly, Copy of Notice dated

16-4-2013 at Exh. 41 Colly, copy of Notice dated

20-4-2013 at Exh. 42 Colly, Copy of Notice dated

7-5-2013 at Exh. 43, Copy of Notice dated 16-8-2013

at Exh. 44, copy of letter dated 16-8-2013 addressed

to the HR Manager at Exh. 45, Copy of letter dated

16-8-2013 addressed to the HR Manager at Exh. 46,

Copy of complaint dated 16-8-2013 addressed to

Mapusa Police Station at Exh. 47, Copy of complaint

dated 16-8-2013 along with Photographs at Exh. 48

Colly, Copy of letter dated 19-8-2013 addressed to

the HR Manager at Exh. 49, Copy of letter dated

20-8-2013 at Exh. 50, Copy of complaint dated

22-8-2013 with photographs at Exh. 51, copy of

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1575

notice dated 23-8-2013 at Exh. 52, copy of notice

dated 24-8-2013 at Exh. 53, copy of notice dated

27-08-2013 at Exh. 54, Copy of notice dated

30-8-2013 at Exh. 55 Colly, copy of machinery

imported for 2012-13 at Exh. 56, copy of invoice

dated 7-11-2012 at Exh. 57, Copy of Invoice dated

4-3-2013 at Exh. 58, copy of invoice dated 8-3-2012

at Exh. 59.

15. The Party II also produced a Copy of Invoice

dated 21-3-2013 at Exh. 60, Copy of Invoice of

machinery purchased dated 28-6-2013 at Exh. 61,

Copy of invoice dated 8-7-2013 at Exh. 62, Copy of

invoice dated 12-7-2013 at Exh. 63, Copy of invoice

dated 1-8-2013 at Exh. 64, Copy of Engineers report

dated 25-8-2013 along with travel details at

Exh. 65 Colly, Copy of chartered engineers report

dated 17-4-2013 at Exh. 66, Copy of monthly

production report for the period 1-11-2012 to

1-1-2014 at Exh. 67 Colly, Copy of customer’s

complaints at Exh. 68, Copy of letter of appointment

dated 17-4-2013 at Exh. 69, Copy of report dated

19-4-2013 at Exh. 70, Copy of letter of appointment

dated 30-8-2013 at Exh. 71, Copy of report dated

31-8-2013 at Exh. 72, Copy of Director’s Report dated

2-9-2013 at Exh. 73, Copy of last and final request

letter dated 29-8-2013 addressed to Sushila

Revodkar and her reply dated 2-9-2013 at Exh. 74

Colly, Copy of last and final request letter dated

29-8-2013 addressed to Suchita Ajgaonkar and her

reply dated 2-9-2013 at Exh. 75 Colly, Copy of last

and final request letter dated 29-8-2013 addressed

to Rupesh Raul and his reply dated 4-9-2013 at

Exh. 76 Colly, Copy of last and final request letter

dated 29-8-2013 addressed to Sushant Naik and his

reply dated 2-9-2013 at Exh. 77 Colly, Copy of last

and final letter dated 29-08-2013 addressed to

Vishwanath Raul at Exh.78 Colly, Copy of last and

final request letter dated 29-8-2013 addressed to

Pramod Dhuri and his reply dated 4-9-2013 at

Exh. 79 Colly, Copy of last and final request letter

dated 29-8-2013 addressed to Pritesh Naik and his

reply dated 4-9-2013 at Exh. 80 Colly, Copy of last

and final request letter dated 29-8-2013 addressed

to Laxman Kesarkar and his reply dated 5-9-2013 at

Exh. 81 Colly, Copy of last and final request letter

dated 29-8-2013 addressed to Anand Nagvekar and

his reply dated 2-9-2013 at Exh. 82 Colly, Copy of

last and final request letter dated 29-8-2013

addressed to Dattahas Tilve at Exh. 83, Copy of

reply of Dattahas Tilve dated 2-9-2013 at Exh. 84.

16. The Party II also produced on record a copy

of dismissal letter dated 6-9-2013 at Exh. 85, Copy

of full and final settlement letter dated 8-10-2013

along with copy of cheque at Exh. 86 Colly, Copy

of reply of Dattahas Tilve dated 28-10-2013 at Exh.

87 Colly, Copy of letter issuing gratuity cheque to

Dattahas Tilve dated 30-10-2013 at Exh. 88 Colly,

Copy of last and final request letter dated

29-8-2013 addressed to Krishna Dabholkar to

resume duty at Exh. 89, Copy of reply of Krishna

Dabholkar dated 2-9-2013 at Exh. 90, Copy of

dismissal letter dated 6-9-2013 at Exh. 91, Copy of

full and final settlement letter dated 8-10-2013

along with cheque at Exh. 92 Colly, Copy of reply

of Krishna Dabholkar dated 28-10-2013 at Exh. 93,

Copy of letter of issuing gratuity cheque to Krishna

Dabholkar dated 30-10-2013 at Exh. 94, Copy of

statement of full and final settlement at Exh. 95,

Copy of Bank statement of Axis Bank at Exh. 96, 10

Photographs along with two CDs, one containing

video footage and other with photos at Exh. 97

Colly, Copy of customer’s prescription at Exh. 98,

copy of list of chemicals used in making lenses at

Exh. 99, copy of process involved in manufacturing

of lenses at Exh.100, copy of process involved in

manufacturing of lenses at Exh. 101, copy of notice

displayed on notice board along with annexure at

Exh. 102 Colly, copy of notice U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI

Act, 2002 dated 25-9-2015 from SBI at Exh.103 and

a copy of notice to the Borrowers/Guarantors from

SBI dated 11-10-2014 at Exh. 104.

17. The Party II examined its second witness

Shri Girish Dabholkar and produced on record a

copy of Production Process Flowchart at Exh.119,

Copy of leave intimation form approved by Santosh

Govekar dated 8-12-2009 at Exh.120, Copy of leave

intimation form approved by Santosh Thakarkar

dated 16-12-2009 at Exh. 121, Copy of overtime slip

approved by Santosh Thakarkar at Exh. 122, Copy

of e-mail dated 19-4-2011 requesting enter earned

leave approved by Mahesh Ghadi at Exh.123, Copy

of e-mail dated 17-5-2012 at Exh. 124, Copy of

e-mail dated 2-2-2013 at Exh. 125, Copy of e-mail

dated 9-2-2013 at Exh. 126, Copy of e-mail dated

17.8.2012 from Dattahas Tilve at Exh.127, Copy of

e-mail dated 2-11-2012 from Dattahas Tilve at

Exh.128, Copy of e-mail dated 12-11-2012 from

Dattahas Tilve at Exh. 129, Copy of e-mail dated

13-2-2013 at Exh.130, Copy of stock transfer notes

at Exh.131 Colly, Copy of e-mail dated 14-12-2012

at Exh.132, Copy of e-mail dated 8-10-2012 at

Exh. 133, Copy of material out gate pass dated

13-5-2013 at Exh. 134.

18. The Party II also produced copies of tax

invoices approved by Laxman Kesarkar at Exh. 135

Colly, Copy of e-mail dated 26-10-2012 at Exh. 136,

Copy of e-mail dated 30-12-2012 at Exh. 137, Copy

of e-mail dated 25-4-2012 at Exh. 138, Copy of

e-mail dated 13-12-2012 at Exh. 139, Copy of e-mail

dated 16-4-2011 at Exh. 140, Copy of email dated

19-5-2011 at Exh. 141, Copy of e-mail dated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1576

24-5-2011 at Exh. 142, Copy of e-mail dated

17-6-2011 at Exh. 143, Copy of e-mail dated

22-12-2011 at Exh. 144, Copy of e-mail dated

2-7-2012 at Exh.145, Copy of summary report of

cycle count at Exh.146, Copy of e-mail dated

1-3-2011 at Exh.147, a copy of appointment letter of

Milinda Haldankar @ Urvi Bandodkar dated

24-10-1996 at Exh.148 (in cross), a copy of

appointment letter of Dattahas Tilve dated

1-9-2001 at Exh. 149 (in cross), a copy of

appointment letter of Anadha Naik dated 1-4-2000

at Exh.150 (in cross), a copy of appointment letter

of Trupti Samant dated 14-3-1998 at Exh. 151 (in

cross) and a copies of original e-mails downloaded

from the system of Exh. 123 to 130, 132, 133, 136

to 145 and 147 at Exh. 152 Collywere produced.

The Party II also examined its third witness

Ms. Swarnalata Rokkamand produced on record a

copy of appointment letter dated 1-8-2007 marked

as Exh. 157 (in cross), photographs at Exh. 158 Colly

(in cross) and a copy of Suit for Injunction, reply,

written statement and order on temporary

Injunction dated 23-8-2013 at Exh. 159 Colly

(in cross). The Party II also examined its fourth

witness, Shri Nilesh Pawar and produced on record

copy of handwritten letter dated 31-8-2018 at

Exh. 171, copy of handwritten letter dated

15-9-2018 at Exh.172, copy of letter dated 25-8-2018

issued to Nilesh Pawar by Party II at Exh. 173, copy

of letter dated 31-10-2018 issued to Nilesh Pawar

by Party II at Exh. 174, copy of attendance cards of

entire month of August, 2013 of all the workmen at

Exh. 175 Colly. The Party II examined its fifth witness

Shri Yogesh Sawal and produced on record copy of

handwritten letter at Exh. 179, Copy of letter dated

25-8-2018 at Exh.180 and a copy of letter dated

31-10-2018 at Exh.181.

19. The Party I examined its witness, Shri Puti

Gaonkar and produced on record copy of joining

letters dated 23-6-2013 at Exh. 185 Colly, Copy of

formation of union dated 23-6-2013 at Exh. 186,

Copy of letter dated 23-6-2013 mentioning list of

local committee at Exh. 187, Copy of Charter of

demands dated 25-6-2013 at Exh. 188, Copy of letter

to ALC, Mapusa dated 10-7-2013 at Exh. 189, Copy

of notice from ALC, Mapusa dated 23-7-13, 5-8-13,

13-8-13 & 15-1-14 at Exh.190 Colly, Copy of notice

dated 16-8-2013 at Exh.191, Copy of reply dated

19-8-2013 to the above notice at Exh. 192, Copy of

notice of agitation dated 23-8-13 at Exh. 193, Copy

of letter to Labour Commissioner dated 25-8-13 at

Exh.194, Copy of letter to ALC, Mapusa dated

25-8-13 at Exh. 195, Copy of letter of dismissals

dated 6-9-13 at Exh.196 Colly, Copy of letter to

Labour Commissioner for intervention for illegal

dismissal at Exh. 197, Copy of demand letter dated

15-9-2013 of all workers at Exh. 198 Colly, Copy of

letters dated 8-10-13 from the management to all

the workers at Exh. 199 Colly, Copy of reply to the

above letters dated 28-10-2013 at Exh. 200 Colly,

Copy of order dated 23-10-08 along with certified

standing orders of the company at Exh. 201 and a

copy of dismissal letter of Mrs. Saachi S. Bhonsle

at Exh. 202, a copy of Constitution and Rules

(Bye-laws) of the union at Exh. 203 (in cross) and

a copy of the list of workmen who were

re-employed after the Order of Hon’ble High Court

dated 21-11-2017 at Exh. 204 Colly (in cross). The

Party I also examined its second witness Ms. Rashmi

Dhargalkar and its third witness Shri Jivan

Mainekar and produced on record a copies of letters

of dismissal dated 6-9-2013 of the workmen at

Exh. 210 Colly (in cross).

20. Heard arguments. Notes of Written

arguments came to be placed on record by Party I

as well as Party II.

21. 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 Affirmative

Issue No. 2

…

In the Affirmative

Issue No. 3

…

In the Affirmative

Issue No.3-B

…

In the Affirmative

Issue No. 4

…

In the Affirmative

Issue No. 5

…

In the Negative

Issue No. 6

…

As per final order.

REASONS

Issue No. 3 and 4.

22. The above two issues are taken up prior to

other issues as the Party II has alleged that the

above named workers are not the workmen under

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

they are Supervisors. It is therefore in such

circumstances the Party I workmen are required to

prove that the persons named in Issue No. 3B and

Issue No. 4 are the workmen as stipulated u/s 2(s)

of the Act.

23. Learned Advocate Shri G. K. Sardessai has

submitted that Party II in the Written Statement

has stated that out of 142 workmen, the workmen

namely; Bindiya Govind Mandrekar, Mithun

Gurudas Khorjuvekar and Smruti S. Mayenkar were

not terminated. The witness of Party II Shri Girish

Dabholkar has stated that among 139 terminated

employees, the employees namely; Mr. Dattahas

Tilve, Mr. Janardan Prabhakar Sawal, Mr. Laxman

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1577

Kesarkar, Mahesh Arjun Ghadi, Mr. Rupesh Shiva

Mandrekar, Mr. Sagar Vishnu Parab, Ms. Suchita S.

Ajgaokar, Ms. Sanjyoti Naik, Mr. Santosh Govenkar,

Mr. Santosh Takarkar, Ms. Urvi Umesh Bandodkar

and Anadha Naik were employed as Supervisors

and were essentially and predominantly performing

supervisory functions and their nature of duties

were shift handling and assignment of work

schedule, etc. Shri Dabholkar has also identified

the signatures of the workmen on leave intimation

form and the e-mails to prove that they are not

workmen. The Party I workmen have not led any

evidence to show that they were workmen under

the Act and in support thereof, he relied upon the

cases of (i) Premier Automobile v/s Employees

Union, 1994(3) LLJ 1048 and (ii) Vinayak Banurao

Shinde v/s S. R. Shinde, Member Industrial Court,

Thane and two others, 1985 I CLR 318.

24. Per contra, Learned Advocate Shri S. P.

Gaonkar has submitted that the nature of the duties

has been specifically mentioned in Para 6 and 9 of

the Rejoinder filed by Party I and that the Party I

workmen were doing the work of Machine

Operators and none had supervisory or managerial

powers. Learned Advocate Shri Gaonkar has also

submitted that Mr. Girish Dabholkar who has been

examined by the Management has admitted that

from June, 2010 till May, 2014 he was posted in

South India operations of Party II at Bangalore and

that he deposed that some of the workmen were

employed in supervisory category and listed their

nature of duties. However, on the date of their

dismissal on 06-09-2013 he was working at

Bangalore and therefore his evidence cannot be

considered. He further submitted that for a

workman to be a Supervisor, he must supervise the

work of another worker and no evidence with

regards to the same has been led by Party II and

not a single workman who had worked under these

workmen has deposed to show the same and

therefore, the above two issues have to be answered

in the negative.

25. Needless to mention, issue No. 3B and 4 have

to be proved by the Party I workmen. The Party I

have claimed that they are the workmen within

the definition of Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, while it is the case of the Party II

that they were working as Supervisors, which

means to oversee, that is, to look after the work

done by the persons. The essence of supervising

consists in overseeing by one person over the work

of others. The witness of the Management Shri

Girish Dabholkar has stated in para 15 of his

Affidavit the nature of duties performed by the

above persons including shift handling and

assignment of work schedule, training and

implementation of charges, evaluating weekly

production activity, monthly meetings, etc. In his

cross-examination, he admitted that all the

employees mentioned in Para 15 were working in

Plot No.17A and he was not working in the said

plot in the month of June, 2010 to May, 2014. He

stated that he does not know in which Department

the workers mentioned in Para 15 of the Affidavit

were working and what work they were doing.

26. Shri Dabholkar also admitted that Santosh

Govekar was doing the work of CNC Operator. He

also admitted that workmen mentioned in Para 15

were not given any managerial duties. He claimed

that he does not know whether duties stated by

him in Para 15 are mentioned in the Appointment

Letters of the workers. He admitted that none of

the e-mails produced by him, it is recorded that

they are the Supervisors. He further admitted that

the duties mentioned in Para 15 of his Affidavit are

not reflected in the Appointment letters of the

workers mentioned in Para 15 of his Affidavit and

that he cannot say anything to the suggestion that

none of the Appointment Letters give the

designation of the Party I workers as Supervisors.

When shown the Appointment Letter of Milinda

Haldankar alia Urvi Bandodkar and Anadha Naik

at Exh.148 and 150 respectively, he stated that

they were appointed as Data Entry Operators and

when Appointment Letter of Dattahas Tilve was

shown at Exh.149, he admitted that he was

appointed as Operator. He also admitted that Trupti

Sawant was appointed as Packer as per the

Appointment Letter at Exh.151. It is also admitted

by him that in the Department where Urvi Umesh

Bandodkar was working, Tulsidas Dabholkar was

the Departmental Head and that one Nikhil Moye

was working as Shift In-charge in Coating

Department and that under Shift In charge, there

were Supervisors and that below supervisors, there

are operators. He also admitted that the persons

mentioned in Para 15 have to physically and

manually carry out the work mentioned in Para

15h. He also admitted that persons mentioned in

Para 15 have to physically and manually do the

work mentioned in para 15i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r,

s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, aa, bb, cc, dd, ee, ff, gg, hh of his

affidavit.

27. The evidence of the above witness therefore

clearly shows that the above workers were doing

the work physically and that they were never

supervising any workmen as they were doing the

work of Machine Operators, Computer Operators,

such as feeding entry in the Computer, preparing

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1578

invoices and other clerical work of the Store and

Dispatch Department. None of the workmen had

any supervisory or managerial powers. The witness,

Shri Dabholkar was working in Bangalore from June,

2010 to May, 2014 and was not working with Party

II at the time of dismissal of Party I workmen. He

also admitted that none of the workmen who they

have alleged to be Supervisors were given

Appointment Letters to that effect. The

Appointment Letters produced by the witness in

the cross-examination do not show that they have

been assigned the duty of a Supervisor. It is well

settled that for a workman to be a supervisor, he

must supervise the work of another workman and

no evidence with regard to the same has been led

by Party II. Not a single workman who worked

under the above workmen has been examined and

therefore, it has been sufficiently proved by

Party I that the workmen mentioned in Issue

No. 3B and 4 are the workmen as defined u/s 2(s)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the contrary,

the Party II has failed to rebut the said issues. The

reliance placed on the above citations are therefore

not applicable to the case at hand. The Party I

having proved that persons mentioned in Issue

No. 3B and 4 are the workmen in terms of the Act,

Issue No. 3B and 4 have to be answered in the

affirmative.

Issue No. 1 and 2

28. The above issues are taken up together as

they are inter related as Party I workmen have

alleged that Party II illegally dismissed the Party I

workmen mentioned in the reference w.e.f.

06-09-2013 and that they have violated Section 33

of the Industrial Disputes Act and have not followed

the provisions of the Act. It is claimed by Party II

in its Written Statement that the action of Party II

in removing the workmen mentioned in the

reference w.e.f. 06-09-2013 of dismissal is on

account of misconduct and that they could not

conduct domestic inquiry at the relevant time on

account of prevailing situation. Needless to

mention, no show cause notice, charge-sheet or

inquiry was conducted by Party II regarding the

misconducts alleged against the Party I workmen

and it is in such circumstances, the Party II have

led evidence before the Court prior to the evidence

of Party I workmen in order to prove the

misconducts alleged against the Party I workmen

and during the course of the evidence the Party II

have examined Shri Neeraj Gupta, the Director of

Party II, Shri Girish Dabholkar, Manager, Production,

Ms. Swarnalata Rokkam, Sr. Manager, HR, Shri

Nilesh Pawar, Manager-Operations and Shri Yogesh

Sawal, Assistant Manager-Logistics.

29. Needless to mention, the Party II is required

to frame specific charges or plead specifically

charges in order to prove the misconduct, however,

no specific charges have been alleged against the

individual workman generally or vaguely. The

allegations are against the body of workmen which

is not sufficient to prove misconduct unless

individual actions are attributed to them. The

allegations as per the Written Statement of Party II

are (i) go-slow tactics due to which Company

suffered financial losses, (ii) refusal to carry out

the instructions of the Supervisors and

disobedience, (iii) blocking the entry of the Officers

of Party II on 15-08-2013, 18-08-2013, 22-08-2013 and

23-08-2013 and (iv) resorting to illegal and

unjustified strike.

30. The alleged misconducts are first (i) go-slow

tactics due to which Company suffered financial

losses: The Director of the Company Shri Neeraj

Gupta has stated in his Affidavit that the Company

is engaged in the production of ophthalmic lenses

and that inspite of maintaining cordial and

harmonious relationship with the workers, the

Party I workmen intentionally, deliberately and

willfully slowed down production from 13-04-2013

and as a result of go-slow, the Company suffered

huge financial losses and by notice dated

15-04-2013, the workmen were informed that the

Company has suffered huge financial losses

which continued till 15-04-2013 and were advised

to discharge the duty faithfully and diligently.

He has produced the report dated 19-04-2013 at

Exh. 70 of one Mr. Amit Mehta (GM-Operations) to

show that there was go-slow tactic adopted by the

workmen. However, the author of the report Shri

Amit Mehta has not been examined to prove the

said report. Nonetheless, the report states that he

has been monitoring production for five days after

15-04-2013 but the report is itself dated 19-04-2013

which shows that he prepared the report even

before five days.

31. Moreover, said Shri Amit came to be

appointed only on 17-04-2013 as per Exh. 69. The

said report is based on daily production report

dated 13-04-2013 which has not been produced by

Party II. The report has also no data whatsoever of

what the production was before the alleged

go-slow and what it became on account of alleged

go slow. Moreover, the report as well as the

evidence of Neeraj Gupta does not make reference

as to which workmen concerned in the reference

did what and how their actions amounted to

misconducts of go slow. No specific allegations

have been made against any individual workmen

out of 143 workmen and therefore in the absence

of any evidence with respect to allegation of

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1579

go-slow it cannot be said that Party I workmen

were responsible for tactics of go slow and that

the Company has suffered any losses on such

account. The other witness examined by Party II,

Shri Girish Dabholkar is completely silent on the

aspect of any misconducts including go-slow. He

had also admitted that he was posted in South

India during the relevant time from June, 2010 to

May, 2014 and therefore his evidence does not

support the Party II with respect to alleged

misconduct of go-slow.

32. The witness Ms. Swarnalata also has not

stated anything with respect to the alleged go-

slow. She has however stated in her Affidavit that

the Management decided to appoint an Internal

Inquiry Committee to inquire into the go-slow

resorted to by the workmen and identify the manner

in which the go-slow has been commenced and

continued and pin point the consequences thereof

and that the inquiry committee submitted a report

indicating go-slow in the production and that the

Management displayed on the Notice Board in the

Factory and invited the attention of the workmen

to the findings of the Inquiry Committee and

advised the workmen the necessity of restoring

the normalcy. In the cross-examination, she

however admitted that they had not issued any

show cause notice for go-slow and that workmen

were not personally called before the Internal

Committee to conduct the investigation. The

witness, Shri Nilesh Pawar has nowhere stated with

regard to the misconduct of go-slow and therefore

his evidence has no relevance. The last witness

Shri Yogesh Sawal has also nothing to say about

the go-slow tactics allegedly resorted by the

workmen, individually or collectively and therefore

the said allegation fails.

33. The second and third alleged misconducts

are (ii) refusal to carry out the instructions of the

Supervisors and disobedience, and (iii) blocking

the entry of the Officers of Party II on

15-08-2013, 18-08-2013, 22-08-2013 and 23-08-2013:

It is also alleged by Party II that the Party I workmen

have refused to carry out the instructions of the

Supervisors and disobedience and blocking the

entry of the Officers of Party II on 15-08-2013,

18-08-2013, 22-08-2013 and 23-08-2013. The Director

of Party II Shri Neeraj Gupta has claimed in his

Affidavit that on 15-08-2013 his car was blocked

when he was on the way to his Unit at Plot No.17A

for some urgent and important work and when he

reached there around 9.40 a.m., he saw Party I

workmen blocking the Main Gate and when they

saw his car, they blocked and gheroaed his car and

started shouting slogans and giving abusive words.

He even saw Party I workmen blocking the entry

of the essential staff through the Factory Gate and

saw them blocking entry of Mr. Nilesh Pawar, Shri

R. N. Shanbhag, Shri Nandukumar Jha, Shri Shankar

Subhaji and Shri Yogesh Sawal who were required

for the purpose of carrying out their work. The said

Shri Nilesh Pawar requested Party I workmen and

their members not to obstruct their entry and also

invited their attention to the need and urgency in

attendance of maintenance work but they

continued with the blockade thereby creating a

tense situation.

34. Shri Neeraj has also stated that a

representation to that effect was submitted by

Nilesh Pawar and others, so also by Supervisor

Shri Nitin Kumar. He also stated that on

18-08-2013, the workers blocked and prevented the

entry of said Shri Nilesh Pawar, R. N. Shanbhag and

others which incident was reported to Shri Bhanu

Naik. He also claimed that on 22-08-2013, it was

reported to him by Swarnalata Rokkum that there

was suspicious movements of Party I workmen in

the Factory premises and that Bhanu Naik

complained to the police, so also at around 5.00

p.m. he was informed that Party I workmen tried to

block the entry of workmen in the second shift. He

also claimed that on 23-08-2013 at around 5.00 p.m.

second shift employees along with employees on

illegal strike gheroaed the Company’s senior

personnel inside their respective chambers and

prevented them from moving out for five hours.

Shri Neeraj Gupta in his cross-examination was

shown the photographs at Exh. 97 Colly, however,

none of those photographs show that the car of

Neeraj was blocked or gheroaed or stopped. The

said photographs also show no sign of forceful

blocking of the Gate by the workmen but they

show that the workers had gathered outside the

Gate and that it was raining. Even none of the

workers in the photographs have been identified

by any of the witnesses or specifically named. Shri

Neeraj Gupta has admitted that there was

provision of CCTV camera in Plot No.17A where

alleged incident had taken place and that the

photographs at Exh. 97 Colly are obtained from

CCTV footage and that he has not produced any

photographs showing the workers obstructing his

vehicle. If it is his case that workers had blocked

the car at the Gate, the Party II could have produced

on record CCTV footage of the same.

35. Shri Neeraj Gupta also admitted that he has

not named any of the workmen of the Company in

the complaint filed before police and that there

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1580

are no names of the workmen in the notice dated

16-08-2013 at Exh. 44 and the notice dated

23-08-2013 at Exh. 52. He also admitted that he has

not mentioned the specific abuses and filthy words

in his Affidavit-in-Evidence or in the notices at

Exh. 44, 52 and 53. He also admitted that they had

not issued any charge-sheet to the Party I workmen

nor conducted a departmental inquiry nor the

workmen were called during the internal inquiry.

He also admitted that Clause 25(b) of the Certified

Standing Orders states that no order under sub-

clause (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) shall be made unless

the workman concerned has been informed in

writing of alleged misconduct and given an

opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged

against him. However, in the entire pleadings and

the evidence of Party II, no specific charges have

been alleged against Party I workmen individually

or collectively nor they have been issued a charge-

-sheet or conducted departmental inquiry. It

therefore can be safely said that the Party II has

failed to prove the alleged charges leveled against

Party I workmen.

36. The second witness, Shri Girish Dabholkar,

Sr. Manager-Production has nowhere stated

anything with respect to the above alleged

incident. He was also not admittedly present

during the relevant time. His Affidavit is completely

silent over the aspect of any misconduct and

therefore his evidence pales into insignificance.

The third witness, Ms. Swarnalata Rokkum has

alleged that on 15-08-2013 the workmen all of a

sudden blocked the entry of the essential staff

namely Nilesh Pawar and others and that no

employee of Party II could enter the Factory

premises. She also alleged that on 18-08-2013 the

workmen repeated their acts. Similarly, on

22-08-2013 there was suspicious movement of the

Party I workmen and at around 5.30 p.m. they

gathered at the Factory and tried to block the entry

of the workers. Similarly, on 23-08-2013 the second

shift employees along with employees on illegal

strike gheroaed the Company personnel and

prevented them from moving out. In the cross-

-examination, she admitted that 15-08-2013 was a

public holiday and that she was not present on

that day being a holiday. She also stated that she

had not worked on 18-08-2013 being Sunday which

is her weekly off and whatever she has stated in

Para 14 of her Affidavit is based on information but

she had not received the information from any

particular person but from the records of the

Department.

37. Ms. Swarnalata also stated that she does not

have any record to show that Party I workmen

assembled in front of the gate for full day on

12-08-2013, 13-08-2013, 16-08-2013 and 17-08-2013.

She also admitted that the CCTV footage of Shri

Nilesh Pawar and other as stated by her in Para 12

and 13 of her Affidavit are not available with them.

When shown the photographs at Exh. 97 Colly and

identified the persons namely; Nilesh Pawar, R.

Shanbhag, Nandukumar Jha, she admitted that all

are standing near the gate and Mr. Pawar was

discussing with the workers and the workers

seemed to be moving in photograph No. 6. She also

admitted that as per the photographs at Exh. 97

Colly, people are seen with umbrellas. She also

admitted that workers were not personally called

before the Internal Committee which conducted

the investigation. The evidence of above witness

does not show any complicity of the Party I

workmen. The other witness namely; Nilesh Pawar

states about the incident on 15-08-2013 and

specifically named the workmen blocking his entry

and other personnel, so also of the incident of

18-08-2013, 22-08-2013 and 23-08-2013 in his

Affidavit in Evidence. However, in the cross-

-examination, he admitted that there is a CCTV

camera at Plot No. 17A and that people going inside

and outside the factory is recorded in the camera.

38. When shown the photographs at Exh. 97

Colly, Nilesh Pawar has admitted that he is seen

discussing with the workers and that on 18-08-2013

being Sunday all the workers had a duty off. He

also admitted that on 15-08-2013, being a paid

holiday the workers were not on duty. Shri Nilesh

therefore admitted that workers were not in the

Company on 15-08-2013 and 18-08-2013 being off

days. He also has not identified the Party I workmen

in the CCTV photographs at Exh. 97 Colly nor the

photographs

show

any

incriminatory

circumstances against the workmen, on the

contrary he has admitted that in the photographs

he is seen discussing with the workers. No other

witnesses have named the workmen except for the

first time in his evidence by Nilesh Pawar which is

nothing but an afterthought. The last witness, Shri

Yogesh Sawal although has stated about the

incident on 15-08-2013, 18-08-2013, 22-08-2013 and

23-08-2013 and has named the workmen for the

first time regarding their complicity in the incident,

he admitted that he is not seen in the photograph

at Exh. 97 Colly and that he has not produced

any document to show that he was on duty on

15-08-2013 and that he has not typed the police

complaint at Exh. 51 Colly. He also admitted that

he was at Plot No. 4 while on duty and not at the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1581

place of the incident. It is therefore clear that

Management has failed to adduce any evidence

linking the workmen individually or collectively to

the alleged incident nor the misconducts are spelt

out against each workman as rightly pointed out

by Learned Adv. S. P. Gaonkar for Party I and

therefore the Party II has failed to prove the above

misconducts.

39. The fourth alleged misconduct is (iv)

resorting to illegal and unjustified strike: The

witness, Shri Neeraj Gupta has alleged that the

indiscipline of Party I workmen reached its peak

on 15-08-2013 and that they blocked the entry of

the Officials and thereafter on 18-08-2013,

22-08-2013 and 23-08-2013 and that the activities

of workmen are illegal and are of criminal nature.

He also stated that inspite of belligerent attitude

of the workmen, the Party II decided to give an

opportunity to them to restore normalcy and

thereafter revoked suspension of operation by

notice dated 27-08-2013 and informed the workmen

of commencement of normal operation from

27-08-2013 and advised them to report for work

however, none of the workmen reported for work

and continued with the illegal and unjustified

strike. The Management also requested the

workmen to resume duties and copy of the letter

dated 29-08-2013 was sent by registered A/D to

individual workmen however, the workmen replied

by their letter dated 2-9-2013 but the Management

vide their letter dated 30-08-2013 displayed on the

notice board advised the workmen to resume duties

however the workmen failed to comply. Shri Neeraj

Gupta in his cross-examination has however

admitted that no workmen were called during the

internal inquiry and that no charge-sheet have

been issued to the workmen. He also admitted that

no names of the workmen referred in the reference

are mentioned in the Inquiry Report at Exh.72 and

that they have not named any workmen of the

company in the charge sheet by the police. It is

not understood why their names are not reflected

if they had resorted to illegal and unjustified strike.

The alleged misconduct therefore remains

unproved. The above evidence therefore clearly

shows that the Management has failed to prove

any misconducts against the Party I workmen. The

Party I has thus proved that their termination from

services was without following provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act so also they have been

dismissed illegally as part of victimization by the

management. It is therefore, issue No.1 and 2 are

answered in the affirmative.

Issues No. 3 and 5.

40. Learned Advocate Shri S. P. Gaonkar has

submitted that the action of the Management in

illegally dismissing the Party I workmen without

holding a departmental inquiry during the

pendency of the industrial dispute is bad-in-law.

He submitted that there is clear violation of Section

33 of Industrial Dispute Act which renders the

entire dismissal ab initio void. There is no dispute

that the Charter of demands bearing IT 40/12 filed

by the Union with respect to wage revision of all

the workmen of Party II was pending before the

Tribunal on the date of dismissal of Party I workmen

on 06-09-2013. The Charter of demands dated

01.12.2010 at Exh.32 was raised by the Goa Trade

and Commercial Workers’ Union for all the three

manufacturing Units of Party II including Plot 17A.

The Party II at Para 44A onwards of the amended

Written Statement has admitted that Charter of

Demands resulted in a reference IT No.40/12 and

was pending since 2012. The workmen concerned

in the reference will be also workmen concerned

in the Charter of demands reference as Charter of

demands was raised by the workers of all the three

Units and all the three Units are considered as one

by the Management as the Certified Standing

Orders cover all the three Units. Moreover, the

witness of Management, Shri Neeraj has admitted

that the notices at Exh. 43 Colly for go-slow pertain

to all the plots including Plot No.17A. Needless to

mention, Party II has not shown any document nor

adduced any evidence that Unit at Plot No.17 is

different and distinct from other Units.

41. Moreover, the Union of Party I, Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh had written to the Employer that

they are adopting the same Charter of demands as

raised by the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’

Union as seen from Exh. 188. There is no dispute

that by virtue of Section 17 and 18 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, any Award which will be passed in

the Charter of demands reference namely IT 40/12

will be applicable to all the workmen of the

Party II. Moreover, the Charter of demands dated

25-06-2013 at Exh.188 was raised on behalf of

Party I and was pending before Conciliation Officer

at the time of dismissal of Party I workmen.

Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act mandates that

if there is violation of the said provision, the entire

dismissal becomes void ab initio. Section 33

mandates that service conditions must remain

unchanged during pendency of industrial dispute

and under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, if there is

any misconduct not connected with the pending

dispute, then application for approval needs to be

filed. The Management has clearly violated Section

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1582

33 of the Act as Charter of demands dated

25-06-2013 was pending before the Conciliation

Officer.

42. It is, therefore, the action of Party II in

dismissing the Party I workmen w.e.f. 06-09-2013

when the matter of Charter of demands was

pending before the Tribunal and before the

Conciliation Officer is in clear violation of Section

33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi

Vikas Bank Ltd vs Ram Gopal Sharma and others,

(2002) 2 SCC 244 has clearly laid down that if the

Employer violates Section 33, then its action is

clearly void ab initio and the employees are deemed

to be in service. It is therefore Party I has proved

that Party II has violated Sec. 33 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The Party II however, has failed

to prove that the Charter of Demands dated

01-12-2010 by Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’

Union was not on behalf of the workmen on Plot

No.17A as the three Units on Plot No. 50, 12, and

13 and Plot No. 17A are three separate Units having

separate legal entity and therefore cannot be

clubbed as single Unit for any statutory purpose,

hence Issue No. 3 is answered in the affirmative

and Issue No. 5 is answered in the negative.

Issues No. 6.

43. Needless to mention, the Party I has proved

that the Party II in violation of Section 33 of

Industrial Disputes Act and without following the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act have illegally

dismissed all the 142 workmen mentioned in the

reference w.e.f. 06-09-2013 and that action of the

Management of M/s GKB Hi-Tech Lenses Pvt. Ltd.,

Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada in terminating

the services of the Party I workmen is illegal and

unjustified and that in terms of constitutional

Bench in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank

Ltd, supra once the dismissal is found to be violated

of Section 33 of the Act, the workmen would be

deemed to be in service and are entitled for

reinstatement with full back wages and continuity

in service. However, it is a matter of record that the

Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 170 of 2015

dated 21-11-2017 between Dattahas Tilve and 141

Ors. v/s M/s GKB Hi-Tech Lenses Private Limited

and Anr. in which by consent of the Parties, the

workmen were given an offer for fresh employment

to 75 workmen and out of which 28 workmen had

accepted the offer and joined their duties. It is also

a matter of record that another 25 workmen have

subsequently joined the Company. It is thus a total

of 53 workmen have joined the Company as per

Exh. 204 Colly and that only 89 workmen are before

the Tribunal. Be that as it may, the Party I workmen

including those workmen who have joined the

Company are all deemed to be in service from the

date they were dismissed w.e.f. 06-09-2013 and

therefore all the workmen are entitled for re-

instatement with full back wages and continuity

in service w.e.f. 06-09-2013. They are therefore

entitled for the relief claimed.

44. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) It is hereby held that the action of the

management, M/s GKB Hi-Tech Lenses

Private Limited, Tivim Industrial Estate,

Tivim, Karaswada, Mapusa-Goa in

terminating the services of 142 workmen

w.e.f. 06-09-2013 is illegal and unjustified.

(ii) The Party I/Workmen are entitled for

re-instatement in service with full back

wages and continuity in service w.e.f.

6-08-2013.

(iii) No order as to costs.

(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

Notification

No. 14/16/2019-LD (Estt.)/586

The following letter No. HCB/GOA/REG-09/2021

dated 04-02-2021 which has been issued by the

High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji, is hereby

published for general information of the public.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 09th March, 2021.

______

High Court of Bombay

at Goa, Panaji-Goa

Ref.: HCB/GOA/REG-09/2021

As approved by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice,

High Court of Bombay, the Court working hours of

the High Court of Bombay at Goa are changed since

1st February, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1583

The Court working hours is as per the chart

given below:

Court working hours (Dais timing)

1st Session

09.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m.

Break

12.00 p.m. to 12.30 p.m.

2nd Session

12.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

The staff working hours is in two batches as per

charts given below:

Batch I – The staff which are required for

functioning of Court

Batch I Timings

(For Group A-C)

(For Group D)

08:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

08:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

12:30 p.m. to 03:30 p.m.

12:30 p.m. to 03:45 p.m.

12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Break

Batch II Timings

(For Group A-C)

(For Group D)

10:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m.

09:30 a.m. to 01:00 p.m.

02:00 p.m. to 05:30 p.m.

02:00 p.m. to 05:45 p.m.

01:00 p.m. to 02:00 p.m.

Break

You are requested to kindly take note of this

and inform all concerned.

Dinesh R. Shetty, Registrar (Admin.).

Panaji, 4th February, 2021.

________

Addendum

No. 2-3-2020-LD(Estt.)/574

Read: i) Order No. 2-3-2020-LD(Estt)/1772 dated

03-11-2020.

ii) Corrigendum No. 2-3-2020-LD(Estt)/366

dated 15-02-2021.

In the above read Order, the following lines shall

be added to the 3rd Para in the 6th line after fourth

word:-

“The officers promoted on regular basis to Civil

Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrar are entitled for pay and

allowances from the date of accepting the

promotion in terms of F.R. 17 (1)” i.e. the date from

which they assumed their duties.”.

All the remaining contents in the above read

Order shall remain unchanged.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 09th March, 2021.

Department of Personnel

—

Order

No. 6/13/2017-PER/683

On the recommendation of the Goa Services

Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to transfer

and post Shri Dipak M. Bandekar, Director of

Industries, Trade & Commerce as Joint Secretary

(Protocol), with immediate effect, in public interest

thereby relieving Shri Shivaji B. Dessai, Director of

Public Grievances of the additional charge.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 09th March, 2021.

________

Order

No. 7/3/2019-PER/684

Read: Order No. 14020/01/2020-UTS.I dated

05-01-2021.

The Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint

Ms. Swetika Sachan, IAS (AGMUT 2014) as Director

of Industries, Trade & Commerce with immediate

effect.

Ms. Swetika Sachan, IAS has reported to the

State Administration on 04-03-2021 (b.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 09th March, 2021.

________

Order

No. 4/4/2018-PER/723

Read: Government Order No. 7/4/2017-PER/2859

dated 19-09-2018.

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide its letter No. COM/

/II/12/18(1)/2021/965 dated 23-02-2021, the

Governor of Goa is pleased to declare successful

completion of probation period of Shri Krupashankara

Mysore Sethuram, Principal/Head of the Institute

in Goa College of Engineering w.e.f. 12-11-2018 to

11-11-2019 and to confirm his services in the post.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 12th March, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1584

Notification

No. 7/3/2019-PER/685

Read: 1. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/2347 dated

06-10-2020.

2. Notification No. 7/21/2017-PER/299 dated

29-01-2021.

3. Notification No. 7/21/2017-PER/302 dated

29-01-2021.

In partial modification of Notifications referred

in the preamble, the Governor of Goa is pleased to

order the allocation of work/Departments amongst

the Secretaries to the Government as follows with

immediate effect:-

Sr.

Name & Designation

Department

No.

1. Shri Sanjay Gihar, IAS

1. Water Resources.

(2008), Secretary

2. Provedoria.

(Water Resources)

3. Rural Development.

4. Panchayats.

5. Housing.

6. Official Language.

7. Nodal Officer SBM (R)

and PMAY (R).

8. Art & Culture.

9. Tribal Welfare.

10. Civil Supplies.

2. Shri Ravi Dhawan, IAS

1. General Administra-

(2011) Secretary

tion.

(General Administration) 2. Health.

3. Social Welfare.

4. Women and Child

Development.

5. Goa Gazetter.

6. Printing and

Stationery.

7. Museum.

8. Protocol.

9. MD & CEO Imagine

Panaji Smart City

Development Ltd.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 09th March, 2021.

________

Notification

No. 7/3/2019-PER/730

Read: 1. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/2347 dated

06-10-2020.

2. Notification No. 7/21/2017-PER/299 dated

29-01-2021.

3. Notification No. 7/21/2017-PER/302 dated

29-01-2021.

4. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/685 dated

09-03-2021.

5. Order No. 7/3/2019-PER/539 dated

22-02-2021.

In partial modification of the Notifications

referred to in the preamble, the Governor of Goa is

pleased to order the allocation of work/Departments

to Shri Chokha Ram Garg, IAS Secretary to the

Government as follows with immediate effect:-

1. Shri Chokha Ram Garg, 1. Law & Judiciary and

IAS (2008), Secretary

Legislative Affairs.

(Law & Judiciary and

2. Skill Development

Legislative Affairs)

& Entrepreneurship.

3. Archeology.

4. Archives.

5. Co-operation.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 15th March, 2021.

________

Corrigendum

No. 6/13/2017-PER/700

Read: Order No. 6/13/2017-PER/683 dated

09-03-2021.

In the order referred to in preamble, the words

‘Joint Secretary (Protocol)’ shall be substituted to

read as ‘Additional Secretary (Protocol)’.

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

Porvorim, 10th March, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

—

Order

No. 8/26/91-IV/PHD/528

Ex-post facto approval of the Government is

hereby conveyed to accept the notice of voluntary

retirement dated 10-12-2020 tendered by Dr. Jyoti

R. Rao, Professor & Head, Department of

Periodontics under Goa Dental College & Hospital,

Bambolim, Goa under Rule 48 (A)(1) of CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972 and to relieve her from the post of

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1585

Professor & Head, Department of Periodontics under

Goa Dental College & Hospital with effect from

16-03-2021 (a.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 15th March, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Social Welfare

Directorate of Social Welfare

—

Order

No. 13-225-2015-16-ADMN/Part V(i)/5208/A

Subject: Right to Information Act, 2005.

As envisaged under Section 5(2) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 the following officer/official

of District Welfare Office South Goa, Margao are

hereby designated as Public Information Officer

and Assistant Public Information Officer of District

Welfare Office of Directorate of Social Welfare at

South Goa, Margao with immediate effect.

1. Annet Veena Sequeira — Public Information

e Gomes

Officer.

2. Chitragandha B. Dessai, — Assistant Public

UDC

Information Officer.

Umeshchandra L. Joshi, Director & ex officio

Joint Secretary (Social Welfare).

Panaji, 26th February, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Urban Development

(Municipal Administration)

Order

No. LSG/MUN/3182/68-C/PW&UD/5682

Read: Order No. LSG/MUN/3182/68-C/PW&UD/

/5036 dated 29-01-2021.

In pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 71 of

the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (Act 7 of 1969),

I, Shri Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director of Urban

Development hereby withdraw the Order No. LSG/

/MUN/3182/60-C/PW&UD/5036 dated 29-01-2021

published in the Official Gazette Series II

No. 45 dated 4th February, 2021 with immediate

effect.

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director (Urban

Development).

Panaji, 12th March, 2021.

Notification

No. LSG/MUN/3182/68-C/PW&UD/1342

Read: Government Notification No. LSG/MUN/

/3182/68-C/PW&UD/4061 dated 18th

March, 2021.

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 71 of the Goa

Municipalities Act, 1968 (Act 7 of 1969) (hereinafter

called the ‘said Act’), and in supersession of the

Government Notification No. LSG/MUN/3182/68-C/

/PW&UD//4061 dated 18-03-2020, published in the

Official Gazette Series II No. 52 dated 26-03-2020,

the Government of Goa hereby appoints Shri Clen

Madeira as the Additional Director of Urban

Development, for the purposes of the said Act, with

effect from 06-08-2020.

He shall have jurisdiction over the whole of the

State of Goa and shall exercise all the powers of the

Director of Urban Development during the absence

of the Director.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amit Satija (IAS), Secretary (Urban Development).

Panaji, 27th August, 2020.

———uuu———

Government Printing Press

Subscription Rates

N o t i c e

The subscribers to the Official Gazette are kindly

reminded that their present subscription term ends

on the 31st March, 2021, being the end of financial year.

In case they wish to continue to be subscribers for the

ensuing financial year 2021-2022 they have to renew their

subscriptions from 1st April, 2021.

Subscriptions also can be opened for half year

i.e. from 1st April or 1st October or for any quarter,

beginning on 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January.

Renewal of subscription from 1st April should be

effected on or before 31st March, 2021 in order to avoid

interruption in the despatch of copies of the Gazette.

It should be noted that, in case the subscription is not

opened/renewed before the commencement of the period

to which it refers, the subscribers will be entitled to receive

copies of the Gazette only from the date the subscription

is actually opened/renewed.

Official Gazette is now available through e-mail

for an annual subscription of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two

hundred only).

The subscription charges are accepted either in cash,

postal order, demand draft or cheques (subject to

clearance) drawn only on State Bank of India, Panaji, in

favour of the Director, Printing and Stationery,

Panaji-Goa.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 51

18TH MARCH, 2021

1586

SUBSCRIPTION RATES

(Within the Union of India)

All 3

Series

III

Rs. P.

Rs. P. Rs. P.

For any quarter ..................

1200.00

600.00

500.00 300.00

(Postage) ...........................

60.00

15.00

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 18.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—407/160–3/2021.

For half year ........................

2300.00 1200.00 1000.00 600.00

(Postage) ...........................

60.00

30.00

For any period exceeding

6 months up to one year... 4350.00 2300.00 1850.00 1150.00

(Postage) ............................

110.00

60.00

All 3

Series

III