Panaji, 7th May, 2020 (Vaisakha 17, 1942)
SERIES II No. 6
53
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Higher Education
__
Order
No. ACAD III/GC-04/CAS/50/2019/204
Read: Order No. ACAD III/GC-04/CAS/50/2019/6239 dated 16-10-2019.
On the recommendation of the Screening Committee, Government is pleased to grant of Senior Scale
(Pre-revised Rs. 10,000-325-15,200) (Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP Rs. 7,000), Stage 3 (Pre-revised
Rs. 12,000-420-18,300) (Revised Rs. 15,600-39,100+AGP Rs. 8,000) and placement as Associate Professor
as per the University Grants Commission guidelines, to Dr. Shashank Maktedar, Assistant Professor in
Vocal (holding additional charge of Officiating Principal), Goa College of Music, Altinho, Panaji with
effect from the date indicated against his name:-
Sr.
Name of the Lecturer
Date of eligibility for
Date of eligibility of
Date of
No.
Senior Scale
Stage 3 (Pre-revised
placement as
(Pre-revised Rs. 10,000-
Rs. 12,000-420-18,300)
Associate
-325-15,200)
(Revised Rs. 15,600-
Professor
(Revised Rs. 15,600-
-39,100+AGP Rs. 8,000)
-39,100+AGP Rs. 7,000)
1.
Dr. Shashank Maktedar,
01-07-2008
01-07-2013
01-07-2016.
Assistant Professor in Vocal
(holding additional charge of
Officiating Principal, Goa
College of Music, Panaji-Goa)
Dr. Shashank Maktedar, shall be designated as Associate Professor with effect from 01-07-2016 and
shall be placed in appropriate revised scale PB 4 Rs. 37,400-67,000 with AGP Rs. 9,000/-.
The pay shall be fixed as per the rules in force accordingly.
This order is issued in supersession to earlier Order No. ACAD III/GC-04/CAS/50/2019/6239 dated
16-10-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Premraj K. Shirodkar, Under Secretary (Higher Education).
Porvorim, 17th April, 2020.
Note:- There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 5 dated 30-04-2020 namely, Extraordinary
dated 05-05-2020 from pages 51 to 52 regarding Order from Department of Home.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
54
Notification
No. ADMN/APPT/CHAIRMAN/GEDC/36/2018/207
Read:1) Notification No. 2/23/Accts/DHE/09-10/
/PF-I/53 dated 06-04-2017.
2) Order No. ADMN/APPT./CHAIRMAN/
/GEDC/36/2018/5865 dated 27-02-2019.
In exercise of the power conferred under
sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Goa Education
Development Corporation Act, 2003 (Act No. 22 of
2003), the Government is pleased to extend the
term of the following Board of Directors upto
06-10-2020.
1. Shri Shripad @ Kanta K.
— Chairman.
Patnekar
2. Secretary (Higher Education)
— Director.
3. Director (Higher Education)
— Director.
4. Shri Gajanan P. Bhat
— Director.
5. Shri Uday Ballikar
— Director.
6. Managing Director, GEDC
— Ex officio
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Premraj K. Shirodkar, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 22nd April, 2020.
________
Certificate
No. ACAD III/SHEC/Filling of Posts/02/2019/
/Part-I/208
Read: ACAD III/SHEC/Filling of Posts/02/2019/
/Part-I/7915 dated 01-01-2020.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Shri Mahadev Anant Gawas appointed to the post
of Assistant Professor for Teaching, Learning and
Educational Technology for State Higher Education
Council (Group “A” Gazetted) under Directorate of
Higher Education vide above referred Order has
been verified by the Addl. Collector & ADM, North,
Office of the District Magistrate, North Goa,
Panaji-Goa and nothing adverse has come to the
notice of the Government.
Premraj K. Shirodkar, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 19th March, 2020.
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 28/9/2020-LAB/253/2
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Deccan Queen Transport
Company, Opp. D-Link, Verna Industrial Estate,
Verna, Goa, and it’s workman, Shri Gopinath S.
Naik, in respect of the matter specified in the
Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said
dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central
Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the
“said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers
the said dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7(1) of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1)
Whether Shri Gopinath S. Naik, overall
incharge of the Verna Branch of M/s. Deccan
Queen Transport Company and having
managerial and supervisory administrative
power could be construed as “Workman”
as defined under Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14
of 1947)?
(2) (a) If the answer to the above is in
affirmative, then, whether the action of
the management of M/s. Deccan Queen
Transport Company, Opp. D-Link, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa, in
terminating services of Shri Gopinath S.
Naik, with effect from 12-08-2019, is legal
and justified?
(b) If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 23rd April, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
55
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-I/243
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 14-02-2020 in Case
No. Ref. LC-II/IT/18/2017 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, 17th April, 2020.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/18/2017
Mrs. Shreya S. Gosavi,
C/o. Ramdas Anant Karbutkar,
Chinchbhat, Mayem,
Bicholim-Goa.
…
Workperson/Party I
V/s
Zantye Brothers,
Haturlim, Bicholim-Goa.
…
Employer/Party II
Workperson/Party I represented by Adv. Shri
Mandar Naik h/f Adv. Shri A. Prabhugaonkar.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Panaji, Dated: 14-02-2020.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 15-11-2017,
bearing No. 28/30/2017-LAB/782, referred the
following dispute for adjudication to this Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Zantye Brothers, Haturlim, Bicholim, Goa,
in refusing employment to Mrs. Shreya S.
Gosavi, Grader, with effect from 29-09-2016,
is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workperson is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/18/17 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Parties put in their
appearance. The Workperson/Party-I (for short
‘Workperson’), filed her Statement of Claim on
15-01-2018 at Exb-5. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workperson are that she was
appointed by the Employer/Party II (for short,
‘Employer’) as a ‘Grader’ in a grading department
from the year 2003. She stated that she worked for
a period of around 13 years with unblemished
records. She stated that the Employer never issued
her appointment letter inspite of repeated request,
though the same is mandatory in terms of law. She
stated that she is covered under the ESI as well as
E.P.F. under the respective Acts. She stated that
she proceeded on sanctioned maternity leave from
06-01-2016 to 04-05-2016. She stated that she
delivered a baby boy on 09-01-2016. She stated
that in order to take care of her new born baby, she
was on maternity leave which was sanctioned by
the manager of the Employer.
3. She stated that after completing the maternity
leave, she reported to the Employer’s office on
04-05-2016. She stated that due to ill health of her
infant baby and since no one was there to take
care of her baby, she decided to extend her
maternity leave. She stated that on 04-05-2016, she
had orally informed the supervisor of the Employer
namely, Shri Anand Naik that she will extend her
leave till 29-09-2016 due to ill health and take care
of the baby. She stated that the supervisor of the
Employer Shri Anand Naik has confirmed that her
leave is sanctioned/approved for the period from
04-05-2016 to 29-09-2016. She stated that she had
not received any show cause notice, warning letter
etc. from the Employer about the alleged
absenteeism even assuming and without admitting
that her leave is not sanctioned by the Employer.
She stated that since she has not received any
show-cause notice, warning letter or any other
written intimation from the Employer, justifies that
the Employer has sanctioned her maternity leave
as per her request.
4. She stated that after completing her extended
maternity leave period, she reported for her duties
as usual on 29-09-2016, but to her surprise, when
she reached the office, she was not allowed to
perform her duties in establishment. She stated
that she was shocked to hear that her services
were terminated by the Employer and that she
was informed that she was not supposed to report
for her duties. She stated that she had made an
application to the Manager of the Employer on
02-11-2016 and 21-11-2016 regarding refusal of her
employment and requested that she be permitted
to resume her regular duties, but the said request
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
56
did not yield any results. She stated that the
Employer did not issue her any show cause notice,
memorandum or any warning letter. She stated that
the Employer did not follow the principles of
natural justice even considering the fact that she
had worked for the Employer for more than 13 years.
She submitted that the Employer did not conduct
any domestic enquiry against her, which is
mandatory as per law. She submitted that after the
refusal of employment to her by the Employer, she
raised an industrial dispute before ALC, Mapusa,
Goa, which ended in failure.
5. The Workperson contended that the action of
the Employer in refusing employment to her is
blatantly illegal, unjust and malafide. She
submitted that she is unemployed from the date of
her refusal of employment till date and is facing
severe hardships. The Workperson therefore prayed
that the action of the Employer in terminating her
services is illegal, malafide and unjust and that the
Employer be directed to reinstate her back in
service with full back wages, other benefits,
continuity in services and other consequential
benefits.
6. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workperson by filing its written statement on
21-02-2018. The Employer, as and by way of its
preliminary objections, submitted that the
Government has not applied its mind while making
the reference and that the Workperson has not
raised any dispute against the Employer.
The Employer stated that it is a partnership firm,
having its office at Bicholim, Goa and factories at
Haturlim and Advoi. The Employer stated that it is
in the business of manufacture of cashew kernels
and cashew nut shell liquid at its factory. The
Employer stated that since it is also engaged in
the business of food products, it has a responsibility
to see that proper hygienic conditions are
maintained at the place of the factory. The Employer
stated that it has engaged workers in different
grades as per its seasonal requirement. The
Employer stated that its requirement of workforce
is programmed well in advance as per the
requirement of the work.
7. The Employer admitted that the Workperson
was appointed as a grader. The Employer admitted
that the Workperson is covered under the ESIC
Act, 1948 and was contributing to the said scheme.
The Employer stated that the Workperson
proceeded on maternity leave w.e.f. 02-01-2016 and
produced a certificate under the ESI Regulations,
1950 on 12-01-2016, wherein she was advised
absence from work from 02-01-2016 to 02-04-2016.
The Employer stated that the Workperson further
sent a certificate dated 06-04-2016, wherein she
was advised treatment attendance and
absenteeism from work on medical grounds for
“care and examination of lactating mother, low
back pain”. The Employer stated that the
Workperson thereafter sent another certificate
dated 03-05-2016 advising further absenteeism up
to 03-05-2016. The Employer stated that as per the
certificate dated 03-05-2016, the Workperson was
declared fit and was required to report for work
from 04-05-2016. The Employer stated that the
Workperson however, did not report for work from
04-05-2016 and remained absent unauthorizedly.
The Employer stated that the Workperson came to
the factory on 29-09-2016 to report for work and
was advised to produce the medical certificate from
ESIC for the period of her absence from 04-05-2016
to 28-09-2016 since the Workperson contended that
she was sick during the said period. The Employer
stated that the Workperson did not produce
any medical certificate or fitness certificate on
29-09-2016 and thereafter as advised and remained
absent again. The Employer stated that thereafter,
the Workperson sent a letter dated 19-10-2016 to
M/s. Narayan G.P. Zantey and Co., Bicholim
contending that the Workperson is working for the
said establishment for last 13 years and that after
her delivery, she could not join the duty due to her
new born baby and desires to join her duties. The
Employer stated that the Workperson also
requested to allow her to work at Haturlim factory
so that during the lunch break she could feed her
baby. The Employer stated that the Workperson
was never employed by the said establishment at
any time. The Employer stated that the Workperson
had also sent further letters dated nil on
02-11-2016 and dated 21-11-2016 to the said
establishment that after her maternity leave and
as soon as her leave was over, she went to join her
duties but the supervisor did not allow her to work.
The Employer stated that the Workperson also
requested the said establishment to allow her to
work at Haturlim factory. The Employer stated that
in reply to her letter, they sent a letter dated
25-11-2016 to the Workperson stating that neither
the Workperson had submitted the fitness
certificate nor informed the supervisor about her
absence and that she was called upon to bring a
letter from the concerned supervisor to that effect.
The Employer stated that the Workperson
thereafter did not report for work and raised a
dispute before the ALC, Mapusa, vide her
representation dated nil on 12-12-2016 against the
said establishment. The Employer stated that in
her letter dated nil, the Workperson has also
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
57
contended that she is an employee of M/s. Narayan
G.P. Zantye and Co., Bicholim factory from 2003 and
working as a grader at Haturlim branch. The
Employer submitted that the Workperson has not
made a demand against them directly or through
the conciliation officer. The Employer stated that
the Workperson did not report for work from
04-05-2016 though she was declared fit to resume
work from 04-05-2016 as per the final certificate
dated 03-05-2016 issued by the Insurance Medical
Officer of ESI dispensary. The Employer stated that
as per the birth certificate dated 09-02-2016, the
Workperson delivered a child on 09-01-2016 and
prior to that the Workperson was on maternity leave
from 02-01-2016 for a period of 12 weeks i.e. up to
30-03-2016. The Employer stated that the
Workperson was required to report for work from
31-03-2016 with the fitness certificate from the
Insurance Medical Officer of ESI dispensary. The
Employer stated that in terms of regulation 57 of
the Regulations, 1950, when the examination is
the first examination in respect of spell of sickness
or a spell of temporary disablement, the medical
certificate shall be only in respect of date of
examination. The Employer stated that the first
certificate produced by the Workperson is dated
06-04-2016 and the sickness disablement is of
04-04-2016. In terms of regulations 57, the
Workperson was sick on 04-04-2016 and was
required to report for work from 05-04-2016. The
Employer stated that the Workperson did not report
for work from 05-04-2016 as per the certificate dated
06-04-2016 issued by the Insurance Medical Officer
under the said Regulation. The Employer stated
that in terms of Regulation 59 of the Regulations,
if the final certificate is not issued within seven
days of the date of the first certificate i.e.
06-04-2016, the Workperson was required to submit
intermediate certificate at intervals not more
than seven days each commencing from the date
of the first certificate. The Employer stated that
the Workperson, however, did not submit an
intermediate certificates as required from
06-04-2016 till 03-04-2016. The Employer stated that
the Workperson was declared fit to resume
duties from 04-05-2016 as per the certificate dated
03-05-2016, but the Workperson did not attend work
from 04-05-2016. The Employer stated that if the
Workperson was sick even after declaring her fit to
report for work from 04-05-2016, she should have
sent periodical certificate from the IMO of the ESI
dispensary every week as required under
Regulation 59 of the Regulations. The Employer
stated that the Workperson has produced a
certificate dated 29-09-2016 as final certificate from
the IMO of the ESI dispensary, Bicholim, wherein it
has been mentioned that the Workperson will be
fit to resume work on 29-09-2016. The Employer
stated that the said certificate does not specify as
to when the first certificate or spell of sickness of
disablement had been issued to the Workperson
by the said IMO, ESI Dispensary. The Employer
stated that the said certificate dated 29-09-2016
also does not mention as to from what date the
Workperson was advised absenteeism from work
on account of her sickness. The Employer stated
that the said certificate dated 29-09-2016 appears
to have been issued mechanically by the IMO, ESI
Dispensary without any cause. The Employer stated
that the Workperson had remained absent
unauthorizedly w.e.f. 04-05-2016 and continued to
remain absent up to 29-09-2016. The Employer
stated that the Workperson came to report for work
on 29-09-2016 and when questioned by the
Manager, the Workperson informed that she was
sick. The Employer stated that they therefore
advised the Workperson to produce medical
certificate from IMO, ESI Dispensary covering the
period of her alleged sickness from 04-05-2016 to
28-09-2016 and final fitness certificate to work from
29-09-2016. The Employer stated that the
Workperson did not produce any certificate to that
effect and continued to remain absent. The
Employer stated that thereafter the Workperson,
vide her letter dated nil, received on or about
02-11-2016 contended that she was on maternity
leave before 09 months of 02-11-2016 and as soon
as her leave was over, she joined her duty, but the
supervisor had not allowed to work. The Employer
stated that the Workperson thereafter sent a
reminder dated nil on or before 21-11-2016 to them.
The Employer stated that in reply to the aforesaid
letter of the Workperson, they, vide their letter
dated 25-11-2016, informed the Workperson that
she had not submitted any fitness certificate for
joining the duties nor informed any supervisor
about her absence. The Employer stated that the
Workperson was also advised to bring a letter from
the concerned supervisor to whom she had
intimated before taking leave. The Employer stated
that the Workperson did not produce any certificate
from the concerned IMO of ESI dispensary, Bicholim
declaring the Workperson fit to work. The Employer
stated that the Workperson thereafter raised an
industrial dispute against the said establishment
before the Labour Inspector at Bicholim on
07-12-2016 and before the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa on 09-12-2016 alleging that
she had taken maternity leave by informing the
supervisor as per the senior’s instructions and after
finishing her leave, she went to report for duty and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
58
the Manager restrained her from joining the duties
on 29-09-2016. The Employer stated that the
contention raised by the Workperson in her various
letters are afterthought. The Employer stated that
the Workperson did not report for work from
04-05-2016 though she was declared fit to work
from 04-05-2016. The Employer stated that the
Workperson also did not send any letter to them
about her inability to report for work. The Employer
stated that during the conciliation proceedings
before the ALC, Mapusa, the Workperson was
instructed to report for work at its branch at Advoi,
but the Workperson refused to report at Advoi and
insisted that she should report only at its Haturlim
branch of the factory. The Employer stated that on
account of the continuous absence of the
Workperson from 02-01-2016 to 03-05-2016 being
on maternity leave as declared by the IMO, ESI
Dispensary, Bicholim and unauthorized absence
from 04-05-2016, they had to employ another grader
in place of the Workperson at Haturlim and as
such the Employer decided to accommodate the
Workperson at its other branch at Advoi. The
Employer stated that during the course of
the conciliation, the Workperson reply dated
10-05-2017 to ALC, Mapusa, wherein the
Workperson for the first time contended that she
had sent all the fitness certificate to them, though
she and her representative from time to time and
also informed Mr. Anand Naik, Supervisor to extend
her leave because of some medical emergencies.
The Employer stated that the Workperson also
contended that the extension of leave was because
of her infant baby and babies’ health and there is
no question of medical certificate in her case as
the leave was extended for the betterment of her
baby. The Employer stated that the said contention
of the Workperson were afterthoughts. The
Employer stated that the Workperson abstained
from work from 04-05-2016 without leave and
authorization till 28-09-2016 and continued to
remain absent thereafter and even after the
Workperson was offered employment at its other
branch at Advoi. The Employer submitted that its
action in not allowing the Workperson to report for
work in the absence of fitness certificate issued by
the ESI Dispensary is legal, just and proper and the
Workperson is not entitled to any relief. The
Employer denied the overall case as pleaded by
the Workperson and prayed for dismissal of the
present reference.
8. Thereafter, the Workperson filed the rejoinder
on 22-03-2018 at Exb. 9. The Workperson, by way
of her rejoinder, reiterates all the submissions and
averments made by her in her claim statement to
be true and correct and denies all the statements
and averments made by the Employer in their
Written Statement, which are contrary and
inconsistent with the statements and averments
made by her. The Workperson reiterated that she
never refused to join the services at any time and
she is still willing to join the services at the place
where she was working for last several years.
9. Based on the pleading filed by the parties
hereinabove, this court framed the following issues.
1. Whether the Workperson/Party I proves that
the action of the Employer/Party II in refusing
her employment w.e.f. 29-09-2016 is illegal
and unjustified?
2. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the reference is not maintainable in view of
the reasons stated in para 2 (a) and 2 (b) of
the written statement?
3. Whether the Workperson is entitled to any
relief?
4. What Order? What Award?
10. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1:
In the affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2:
In the negative.
(c) Issue No. 3 and 4:
As per final order.
I have heard the oral argument of Ld. Adv.
Shri Mandar Naik h/f Adv. Shri A. Prabhugaonkar,
appearing for the Workperson as well as Ld. Adv.
Shri P. J. Kamat, appearing for the Employer. Both
the parties also chose to file the synopsis of written
arguments respectively.
11.
Ld. Adv. Shri Mandar Naik, appearing for
the Workperson, during the course of his oral
arguments submitted that the Workperson was
appointed as grader in grading department by the
Employer from the year 2003. He submitted that
the Workperson was working for the Employer for
about 13 years till she was refused the employment
with effect from 29-09-2016. He submitted that the
Workperson was not issued any letter of
appointment inspite of her repeated request. He
submitted that the Workperson proceeded on
maternity leave from 06-01-2016 to 04-05-2016. He
submitted that the Workperson had delivered a
baby boy on 09-01-2016. He submitted that after
completing the maternity leave, the Workperson
reported to her duty on 04-05-2016. He submitted
that however, due to ill health of her infant baby
and as no one was there to take care of her baby,
the Workperson decided to extend her leave. He
submitted that on 04-05-2016, the Workperson had
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
59
orally informed the supervisor of the Employer,
Shri Anand Naik that she is extending her leave
till 29-09-2016 due to ill health of the baby and to
take care of her baby. He submitted that the
manager of the Employer, Shri Anand Naik has
confirmed that her leave was sanctioned/approved
for the period from 04-05-2016 to 29-09-2016. He
submitted that the Workperson had not received
any show-cause notice or any other intimation from
the Employer about the alleged unauthorised
absenteeism or to direct to report for duties. He
submitted that after completing her extended
leave, she reported for work on 29-09-2016, she was
not allowed to perform her duty and she was
shocked to hear that her services were terminated
by the Employer by informing that she is not
supposed to report for her duty. He submitted that
the Workperson made an application to the
Manager of the Employer on 02-11-2016 and
21-11-2016 pertaining to refusal of her employment
and requested to resume her regular duty but it
went in vain. He submitted that the refusal of
employment to the Workperson is in violation of
Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as such it is
illegal and unjustified. In support of his aforesaid
contention, he relied upon a judgment in the case
of Executive Engineer, HPSEBL v/s. Shri Jagdish
Chand, reported in 2018 3 CLR 807 of the Hon’ble
High Court of Himachal Pradesh. He submitted
that the Employer raised a preliminary objection
by alleging that the Government has not applied
its mind while making the reference and that the
Workperson has not raised any dispute against the
Employer. He submitted that the burden was cast
on the Employer to prove the said issue. He
submitted that the Employer in its letter dated
03-05-2017 addressed to the ALC, Mapusa stated
that the Workperson is an employee of M/s. Narayan
G. P. Zantye and Company, but she is the employee
of M/s. Zantye Brothers, Advoi/Haturlim, Bicholim,
Goa. He submitted that the letter of the Workperson
addressed to the ALC, Mapusa, Goa at Exb.18-colly
clearly indicates that the Workperson raised the
industrial dispute against the Employer. He
submitted that in case of wrongful termination of
service, reinstatement alongwith continuity in
service and full back wages is the normal rule. He
submitted that the Workperson was unemployed
from the date of her refusal till date. He therefore
submitted that the Workperson is entitled for
reinstatement with full back wages and continuity
in service. He submitted that during the course of
conciliation proceedings, the Workperson was
offered by the Employer to join the duty at its
Advoi branch on piece rate basis. He submitted
that the services of the Workperson were also
transferred by the Employer. He submitted that
the Workperson refused the said offer of joining
duty at its Advoi branch as the said offer is in
violation of the service conditions of the
Workperson prior to refusal of her employment. In
support of his oral contention he relied upon the
following judgments:
(a) In the case of Management of M/s. Rajasthan
Patrika Ltd. in writ petition No. 6621/2005 of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
(b) In the case of Max Flow Pumps India (P) Ltd.
v/s Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-
-cum- Labour Court III, Gurugram and Anr.,
reported in 2019 LLR 1209 of Hon’ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana.
(c) In the case of Uptron India Ltd. v/s. Shammi
Bhan and Anr., reported in (1998) 6 SCC 538
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
(d) In the case of Jasmer Singh v/s. State
of Haryana and Anr., reported in (1996) 11
SCC 77 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
12. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat,
representing the Employer, during the course of
his oral arguments submitted that the Workperson
was working with the Employer. He submitted that
the Workperson proceeded on maternity leave w.e.f.
02-01-2016. He submitted that the Workperson
produced on record ESI certificate dated
12-01-2016 (Exb. 27). He submitted that the said
ESI certificate on record indicates that the
Workperson was advised absence from work from
02-01-2016 to 02-04-2016. He submitted that the
Workperson also produced on record ESI certificate
dated 06-04-2016 (Exb. 13) wherein the Workperson
was advised treatment attendance and
absenteeism from work on medical grounds for care
and examination of lactating mother, low back pain.
He submitted that the Workperson also produced
on record an ESI certificate dated 03-05-2016
(Exb.14) advising further absence up to 03-05-2016
and was declared fit to resume work w.e.f.
04-05-2016. He submitted that the Workperson was
required to report for work w.e.f. 04-05-2016 as per
the medical certificate issued under ESI scheme.
He submitted that the Workperson has however,
did not report for work from 04-05-2016 and
remained absent unauthorizedly till 28-09-2016.
He submitted that the Workperson came to the
factory on 29-09-2016 to report for work and was
advised to produce a medical certificate from ESIC
for the period of her absence from 04-05-2016 till
28-09-2016 as the Workperson contended that she
was sick during the said period. He submitted that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
60
during the course of conciliation proceedings, the
Employer decided to accommodate the Workperson
at its another branch at Advoi and was given an
offer to work at Advoi branch which was refused
by the Workperson. He submitted that neither the
Employer refused the employment to the
Workperson nor they have terminated the services
of the Workperson on 29-09-2016 or at any time
thereafter. He submitted that the Workperson has
admitted that during the conciliation proceedings
she was told by the Manager of the Employer to
report at Advoi factory of the Employer and that
she insisted that she should be allowed to report
for work at Haturlim factory of the Employer. He
submitted that the behaviour of the Workperson in
this respect is not conducive and if the Workperson
was really in need of service, she should have
accepted the offer and joined at Advoi factory. He
submitted that since the Workperson has refused
to join the work at Advoi she is not entitled for
reinstatement as well as back wages. In support of
his oral contentions, he relied upon two judgments
of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, one in the case
of R.K. Kitchen Equipment’s, Mumbai v/s. M.Y.
Hurape and Anr., reported in 2003 II CLR 794
and another in the case of Raju Sankar Poojary
v/s. Chembur Warehouse Co. and Anr., reported
in 2003 (99) FLR 839, wherein the Hon’ble High
Court referred the case of Sonal Garments v/s.
Trimbak Shankar Karve, reported in 2003 (96)
FLR 498. He submitted that the employees of the
Employer are governed by Certified Standing
Orders. He submitted that clause 12 of the said
CSO provides for transfer of the workers of the
Employer. He submitted that having declined the
offer given by the Employer to the Workperson, she
is not entitled to reinstatement in service with or
without back wages. He relied upon three
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, one
in the case of Salem Erode Electricity v/s. Salem
Erode Electricity, reported in 1966 AIR 808,
second in the case of United Provinces Electricity
Supply Co. Ltd, Allahabad v/s. T.N. Chatterji and
Ors., reported in 1972 AIR 1201 and third in
the case of Agra Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v/s.
Shri Alladin and Ors., reported in 1970 AIR 512.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case including the synopsis of written
arguments filed by the respective parties. I have
also carefully considered the submissions advanced
before me.
REASONS
13. Issue No. 1:
In the case of Uptron India Ltd. (supra), before
the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Respondent
proceeded and remained absent till 29-01-1985 on
maternity leave and thereafter, she allegedly
remained absent w.e.f. 30-01-1985 to 12-04-1985
without any application for leave. The Petitioner
informed the Respondent that her services stood
automatically terminated in terms of clause 17 (g)
of the Certified Standing Orders. Respondent raised
‘industrial dispute’ which came for adjudication
before the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow. The
Tribunal, by its award dated 21-07-1992 held that
the termination of services of the Respondent
amounted to “Retrenchment within the meaning
of Section 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act and since all other
legal requirements had not been followed, the
termination was bad and consequently, she was
entitled to reinstatement as also 50% of back wages
from the date of termination till reinstatement. The
said award was challenged by the Petitioner in
writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Allahabad, which was dismissed by its judgment
dated 28-10-1997 and uphold the award of the
Tribunal. The Petitioner, therefore, filed special
leave petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The
Hon’ble Apex Court after relying upon its earlier
judgment in the case of D. K. Yadav v/s. J. M. A.
Industries Ltd., reported in (1993) 3 SCC 259,
dismissed the special leave petition filed by the
Petitioner.
14. In the case of Max flow Pumps India (P)
Ltd. (supra), before the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana, the Workperson was
appointed as Turner in the Petitioner Company on
01-08-1996. The services of the Respondent were
illegally terminated on 03-03-2012 without
issuance of notice, notice pay and payment of
retrenchment compensation or conducting
domestic enquiry. The Industrial Tribunal held that
the termination of services of the Workperson is
illegal and unjustified by observing that the
management had failed to prove the plea of
abandonment and therefore it was a case of illegal
retrenchment because prior to dispensing with the
services of Workperson mandatory provision of
Section 25-F of the I.D. Act has not been complied
with. Accordingly, the Workperson was held
entitled to reinstatement with consequential relief,
continuity in service and full back wages w.e.f. the
date of termination till reinstatement. The writ
petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court against
the order of the Tribunal was dismissed in limine.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
61
15. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh,
in its case of Executive Engineer, HPSEBL (Supra),
had relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay in the case of Ocean Creations v/s.
Manohar Gangaram Kamble, reported in (2013
SCC online 1537), In the case of Ocean Creations
(supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has
held as under:
“…..It is now well settled that even in the case of
the abandonment of service, the employer has to
give a notice to the workman calling upon him to
resume his duty and also to hold an enquiry before
terminating his service on that ground. In the
present case the employer has done neither. It was
for the employer to prove that the workman had
abandoned the service. ……………..it is therefore
difficult to believe that the workman who had
worked continuously for six to seven years, would
abandon his service for no rhyme or reason. It has
also to be remembered that it was the workman
who had approached the Government Labour Officer
with a specific grievance that he was not allowed to
join his duty. It was also his grievance that although
he had approached the company for work from time
to time, and the company’s partner Anand had kept
on promising him that he would be taken in service,
he was not given work and hence he was forced to
approach the Government Labour Officer. In the
circumstances, it is difficult to believe that he would
refuse the offer of work when it was given to him
before the Labour Officer……….”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as by the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana and Hon’ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in its aforesaid cases
respectively is well recognised and also applicable
to the case in hand.
16. In the instant case, indisputably, the
Employer is in the business of manufacture of
cashew kernels and cashew nut shell liquid at its
factory at Haturlim and Advoi. The Workperson is
a resident of Haturlim. The Workperson was
employed with the Employer as a Grader in grading
department at Haturlim from the year 2003 till she
was refused the employment w.e.f. 29-09-2016.
There is nothing on record to show that the past
records of the Workperson was blemished. The
Workperson went on maternity leave for the
period from 06-01-2016 to 04-05-2016 for 12 weeks.
According to the Workperson, she extended her
leave till 28-09-2016 by orally informing the
Supervisor, Shri Anand Naik by producing medical
certificate.
17. The Employer disputed that the Workperson
was on unauthorised leave from 04-05-2016 till
28-09-2016. The Employer, in para 7 of its letter
dated 03-05-2017, addressed to the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa, Goa at Exb. 20 stated that
as per Standing Orders, the Workperson shall be
deemed to have left the services of the Company
from the day she remained absent. The sole witness
of the Employer, Shri Raghunath Bordekar,
its Manager, during the course of his cross-
examination, admitted that the Workperson was
not communicated to report for duties by stating
that she remained absent unauthorizedly for the
aforesaid period, though she was from the same
village, where the Employer factory is located.
Neither the Workperson was issued any show-cause
notice or memo nor conducted an enquiry by
issuing a charge-sheet for her aforesaid
absenteeism. It is pertinent to note that the
Employer replaced the Workperson by another
worker. There is nothing on record to show that
the Workperson was issued notice or one months’
pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment
compensation as mandatorily required for
compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
The evidence on record indicates that on
29-09-2016, when the Workperson reported for work
at Haturlim factory of the Employer, she was told
to bring a fitness certificate and not allowed to
perform the duties. The Employer admitted that
the Workperson sent two ESI certificates at Exb.13
and Exb. 14 to them in its written statement filed
in the present proceedings. The said ESI
certificates one dated 06-04-2016 (Exb. 13) and
another dated 03-05-2016 (Exb. 14) produced by
the Workperson on record indicates that the
Workperson remained absent on account of taking
care and examination of lactating mother, low back
pain and care, examination of lactating mother
and that she will be fit to resume for duty
on 04-05-2016 respectively. The aforesaid ESI
certificates at Exb. 13 and Exb. 14 sent to the
Employer indicates that the Workperson remained
absent to take care and betterment of her baby.
The said certificates on record indicates that the
Workperson had informed the Employer about her
absenteeism for taking care and betterment of her
new born baby. The aforesaid facts on record clearly
indicates that the Workperson was refused the
employment by the Employer w.e.f. 29-09-2016 and
that the said refusal of employment to the
Workperson amounts to illegal termination of
services. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in
the affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
62
18. Issue No. 2:
The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objection submitted that the reference is not
maintainable as the Government has not applied
its mind while making the reference and that the
Workperson has not raised any dispute against
them. The burden was cast on the Employer to
prove the said issue No. 2.
The sole witness of the Employer, Shri
Raghunath D. Bordekar, its Manager stated on oath
that the reference is not maintainable as the
Government has not applied its mind while making
the reference and that the Workperson has not
raised any dispute against them. However, letter of
the Employer dated 03-05-2017 at Exb. 20,
addressed to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner,
Mapusa, Goa admitted that the Workperson was
its employee in reply to its letter dated 03-11-2016
and dated 21-11-2016. Further, the minutes of the
meeting held on 28-06-2017 before the ALC,
Mapusa, Goa (Exb. 23) as well as report on failure
of conciliation proceedings dated 09-10-2017
(Exb. 24) on record clearly indicates that the
Workperson raised an industrial dispute against
the Employer for refusal of her employment. Thus,
the aforesaid documentary evidence on record
clearly indicates that the Workperson had raised
an industrial dispute against the Employer for
refusal of her employment. Hence, it is held that
the Employer failed to prove that the reference is
not maintainable in view of the reasons stated in
para 2 (a) and 2 (b) of the written statement.
The Employer, in its written statement filed in
the present proceedings, contended that the
Workperson has not made any demand on the
Employer and as such the reference is not
maintainable. However, I am not in agreement with
the aforesaid submission of the Employer.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its
case of Shambu Nath Goyal v/s. Bank of Baroda,
Jullundar, reported in 1978 1 LLN 340, held that
“…………The Act nowhere contemplates that the
dispute would come into existence in any particular,
specific or prescribed manner. For coming into
existence of an industrial dispute a written demand
is not a sine qua non, unless of course in the case
of public utility service because Sec. 22 forbids going
on strike without giving a strike notice.”
“In this case the Tribunal completely misdirected
itself when it observed that no demand was made
by the workman claiming reinstatement after
dismissal. When the inquiry was held, it is an
admitted position, that the workman appeared and
claimed reinstatement. After his dismissal, he
preferred an appeal to the Appellate forum and
contended that the order of dismissal was wrong.
Unsupported by evidence and in any event, he
should be reinstated in service. If that was not a
demand for reinstatement addressed to employer
what else would it convey. That appeal itself is a
representation questioning the decision of the
Management dismissing the workman from service
and praying for reinstatement. There is further a
fact that when the Union approached the
Conciliation Officer the Management appeared and
contested the claim for reinstatement. There is thus
unimpeachable evidence that the concerned
workman persistently demanded reinstatement. If
in this background, the Government came to the
conclusion that there exists a dispute concerning
workman S.N. Goyal and it was an industrial dispute
because there was demand for reinstatement and a
reference was made, such reference could hardly be
rejected on the ground that there was no demand
and the industrial dispute did into come into
existence. Therefore, the Tribunal was in error in
rejecting the reference on the ground that the
reference was incompetent. Accordingly, this appeal
is allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is set
aside and the matter is remitted to tribunal for
disposal according to law………….”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid judgment is well settled and
squarely applicable to the case in hand. In the
instant case, the oral as well as documentary
evidence on record indicates that the Workperson
addressed a letter to the Employer for allowing her
to work in the factory of the Employer at Haturlim.
The evidence on record further indicates that the
Workperson also approached the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner, Mapusa, Goa and that the
management appeared and contested the claim
for reinstatement of the Workperson. Thus, the
contention of the Employer that there was no
demand by the Workperson is devoid of merits.
The issue No. 2 is therefore answered in the
negative.
20. Issue No. 3:
While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove, I
have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the action of the Employer in refusing employment
to the Workperson w.e.f. 29-09-2016 is illegal and
unjustified and that the said refusal of employment
to the Workperson amounts to illegal termination
of her services.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
63
21. Ld. Adv. Shri Mandar Naik, representing the
Employer submitted that the Workperson is
entitled for reinstatement with full back wages,
continuity in services and consequential benefits
and relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Jasmer Singh (Supra). In the said
case of Jasmer Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, after relying its earlier judgment in
the case of Anoop Sharma v/s. Executive
Engineer, Public Health Division reported in 2010
(3) SCT 319, in the case of Harijinder Singh v/s.
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, reported
in 2010 (3) SCC 192 and in the case of Deepali
Gundu Surwase v/s. Kranti Junior Vidhyalaya,
reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, in para 22 of its
judgment held as under:
“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to
the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury
suffered by a person, who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service
cannot easily be measured in terms of money.
With the passing of an order which has the
effect of severing the Employer employee
relationship, the latter’s source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee,
but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance.
The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to
borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
suffering continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The
reinstatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the
action taken by the Employer is ultra vires the
relevant statutory provisions or the principles
of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim
full back wages. If the Employer wants to deny
back wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the Employer would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the Employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back wages including
the emoluments.”
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its
recent judgment in the case of Jayantibhai
Raojibhai Patel v/s. Municipal Council Narkhed
and Ors., reported in 2019 SCC online 1071, after
relying upon its earlier decisions in the case of
Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v/s. Employees
(Hindustan Tin Works), Surendra Kumar Verma
v/s. Central Govt., Industrial Tribunal-cum-
-Labour Court and in the case of Deepali Gundu
Surwase (supra) reiterated the same principle and
held that
“13. Having due regard to the principles which
have been enunciated in Deepali Surwase by
this Court, the High Court was not, in our
view, justified in denying the back-wages to
the appellant altogether. Bearing in mind the
circumstances which have been noted above,
a lumpsum compensation should be directed
to be paid.
23. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid judgments is well settled and
binds a precedent upon me. In the case in hand,
the Workperson was in the employment of the
Employer from the year 2003 till she was illegally
terminated from her services w.e.f. 29-09-2016. The
oral evidence on record indicates that after
termination of her services, the Workperson is
unemployed from the date of illegal termination
w.e.f. 29-09-2016 till date. Neither the Employer
pleaded nor adduced any evidence to suggest that
the Workperson is gainfully employed from the date
of her illegal termination till date. In the
circumstances, the Workperson is entitled for
reinstatement in service with full back wages,
continuity in service and consequential benefits
thereof.
24. Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat, appearing for the
Employer, during the course of his oral arguments
relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay, one in the case of R. K. Kitchen
Equipments (Messrs.) Mumbai (supra) and another
in the case of Raju Sankar Poojary (supra), wherein
the Hon’ble High Court has held that if the
Employer offers the reinstatement to the
Workperson at any stage of the dispute or
proceedings and if the Workperson does not accept
the offer even without prejudice to his rights and
contentions, he will not be entitled to continue his
claim for reinstatement in the proceedings as well
as claim for back wages.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
64
25. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court is not applicable to the case in hand as the
offer to join the services were given to the
Workperson on piece rate basis, during the course
of conciliation proceedings before the ALC,
Mapusa, in the written statement as well as in the
cross-examination of the Workperson. The said offer
to join the services on piece rate basis is totally
different service condition than her earlier service
conditions. Thus, the said offer to join service on
piece rate basis violates her service conditions prior
to her illegal termination. Change in service
conditions can be effected by resorting to the
procedure under the I.D. Act. There is no material
advanced by the Employer that this procedure has
been complied with.
26. Ld. Adv. Shri Mandar Naik, appearing for
the Workperson during the course of his arguments
submitted that the Workperson was transferred to
Advoi factory from its Haturlim factory, which also
amounts to violation of her service conditions and
relied upon a judgment in the case of Management
of M/s. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. (supra) of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
However, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi is not applicable to the case in
hand as the facts of the said case are totally
different than the case in hand.
27. On the contrary, Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat,
representing the Employer submitted that the
Workperson is governed by the Certified Standing
Orders of the Employer irrespective of her joining
in the employment and relied upon a five bench
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
United Provinces Electric Supply Co. Ltd,
Allahabad (Supra), it has been held in para 9 of its
judgment as under:
“9. For the reasons given above this court held
that the Act was meant to enable Standing
Orders to be made to bind not only those who
were employed subsequent to their certification
but also those who were already in
employment. If any other result were to follow
there would be different conditions of
employment for different classes of workmen
which would render the conditions of their
service as indefinite and diversifies as before
the enactment of the Act. Support was derived
from the decision in Salem Erode Electricity
Distribution case (3) in which departure was
made from the view previously taken in the
case of Guest Keen Williams Pvt. Ltd. (1)”.
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its
case of Salem Erode Electricity (Supra), held that
“In dealing with this point, it is necessary to examine
the broad features of the Act and consider its main
purpose and object. The Act was passed in 1946
and its main object was to require the employers in
industrial establishments to which the Act applied,
to define formally the terms and conditions of
employment in their respective establishments. In
imposing this obligation on the employers, the Act
intended that the terms and conditions of Industrial
employment should be well-defined and should be
known to the employees before they accepted the
employment. As we will presently point out, one of
the objects of the Act was to introduce uniformity
of terms and conditions of employment in respect of
workmen belonging to the same category and
discharging the same or similar work under an
industrial establishment. Before the Act was passed,
employees in many industrial establishments were
governed by oral terms and conditions of service
which were not uniform and which had been entered
into on an ad hoc basis. The Act now requires that
terms and conditions of employment in relation to
matters specified in the Schedule must be included
in the Standing Orders and they must be certified.
It would at once be clear that by the operation of the
Act, all industrial establishments will have to frame
terms and conditions of service in regard to all the
matters specified in the Schedule, and that naturally
would introduce an element of uniformity inasmuch
as industrial employment in all establishments to
which the Act applied would, after the Act was
passed, be governed by terms and conditions of
service in respect of matters which are common to
all of them. That, in brief, is the object which the
Act intends to achieve.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid judgments is well settled and
also applicable to the case in hand.
29. In the instant case, the Employer has
produced on record the Certified Standing Orders
applicable to its workmen (Exb. 34). Clause 12 of
the said CSO at Exb. 34 provides for transfer and
it reads as under:
12. Transfer Etc:
“(i) In the interest of the Company, a
Workperson shall be liable to be transferred, at
the discretion of the Company, from one job to
another or from one department/section to
another, or from one unit or establishment to
another unit of the establishment (existing or
future) of the Company and on such transfer
he will be governed by the terms and conditions
of service applicable to that department/
/section, unit or establishment to which he is
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
65
transferred. Such transfer may be anywhere in
Goa. However with the consult of Workperson
he may be transfer outside Goa without any
extra remuneration.”
30. The said clause of transfer appearing in the
Certified Standing Orders of the Employer
empowers the Employer to transfer its workers in
any of its branches. Whilst, transfer is permissible
under the Certified Standing Orders. It is not that
transfer can be whimsical and in change of service
conditions specifically change in the remuneration
of the Workperson from monthly rated to piece rate
basis. The said change adversely affects the terms
of initial employment of the Workperson. Hence, I
do not find any merits in the submissions of Ld.
Adv. Shri Mandar Naik, appearing for the
Workperson.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the management
of M/s. Zantye Brothers, Haturlim, Bicholim,
Goa, in refusing employment to Mrs. Shreya
S. Gosavi, Grader, with effect from
29-09-2016, is illegal and unjustified.
2. The Employer, M/s. Zantye Brothers, is
hereby directed to reinstate the Workperson,
Mrs. Shreya S. Gosavi, Grader along with
full back wages, continuity in service and
consequential benefits thereof within a
period of 60 days of this order.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
__
Order
No. 5/40-7/89/LD(Estt)/744
Whereas, the Government vide Notification
No. 5/40-7/89/LD dated 16-05-1990, published
in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 9 dated
31-05-1990, appointed Mr. Mathew N. D’Sa,
Advocate (hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”)
as a Notary for period of three years with effect
from 16-05-1990, for the area of Salcete taluka;
And whereas, the Government vide Certificate
of Practice dated 16-05-1990 has certified that the
Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for
a period of three years from 16-05-1990 for the area
of Salcete taluka;
And whereas, the Government on the request of
the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of
Practice as a Notary for subsequent 07 terms and
the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice
in the Endorsement dated 30-04-2014 issued to the
Applicant, expired on 15-05-2019. However, vide
email letter dated 17-04-2019 addressed to the Law
Secretary, the applicant informed that he does not
wish to continue his practice as a Notary nor
desires to renew the Notarial Certificate of Practice;
And now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (a) of
Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa
hereby removes from the Register maintained by it
under Section 4 of the said Act, the name of
Applicant entered as a Notary.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.)
Porvorim, 27th April, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 7/3/2019-PER/390
Shri Shashank Mani Tripathi, IAS, Director of Sports
and Youth Affairs, shall also work as Additional
Collector (North), in addition to his own duties,
with immediate effect and until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Joint Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 26th March, 2020.
________
Order
No. 6/13/2017-PER/393
Read: Order No. 6/13/2017-PER/392 dated
26-03-2020.
Shri Sanjeev C. Gauns Dessai, GCS, Director
(Vigilance), shall also work as Additional Collector
(South), in addition to his own duties, with
immediate effect and until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Harish N. Adconkar, Joint Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 26th March, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
66
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 22/4/2001-I/PHD/679
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/24(1)/2020/431 dated 09-03-2020,
Government is pleased to promote Ms. Avita
Fernandes, Clinical Instructor to the post of
Assistant Professor in the Institute of Nursing
Education under Directorate of Health Services
on regular basis in the Level 10 of Pay Matrix
[Pay Band-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100+GP: Rs. 5400/-
(pre-revised)] and other allowances to be fixed as
per rules with immediate effect.
Ms. Avita Fernandes shall be on probation for a
period of two years with effect from the date of
joining.
The promotion is made against the vacancy
occurred due to retirement of Ms. Maria Helena
Crasto, Assistant Professor w.e.f. 01-01-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 31st March, 2020.
________
Order
No. 7/24/2018-III/PHD/837
Read:
Memorandum No. 7/24/2018-III/PHD/167
dated 13-01-2020.
On the recommendations of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide letter
No. COM/I/5/35(6)/2018/1332 dated 28-11-2019,
Government is pleased to appoint Dr. Bharati
Chandrashekhar Chavan to the post of Associate
Professor in Psychiatric Social Work (Group “A”
Gazetted) in Level-11 of Pay Matrix (pre-revised-
-Pay Band-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100+Grade Pay of
Rs. 6,600/-) under the Institute of Psychiatry &
Human Behaviour with immediate effect as per the
terms and conditions contained in the
Memorandum cited above.
Dr. Bharati Chandrashekhar Chavan shall be on
probation for a period of two years.
Dr. Bharati Chandrashekher Chavan has been
declared medically fit by the Medical Board and
also there is nothing adverse reported against her
at the concerned Police Station, as per verification
of character and antecedents report submitted by
District Magistrate, North Goa, Panaji.
The recruitment is made against the vacancy
occurred due to creation of 01 post of Associate
Professor in Psychiatric Social Work vide Order
No. 6/6/2009-III/PHD dated 12-07-2016 and kept
alive vide Order No. 6/6/2018-III/PHD/2127 dated
13-07-2018 and Corrigendum No. 6/6/2018-III/PHD/
/3927 dated 17-10-2018 and subsequently revived
vide Order No. 6/3/2018-III/PHD/1339 dated
10-09-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 15th April, 2020.
________
Order
No. 25/13/2019-I/PHD/793
Read: Order No. 25/13/2019-I/PHD/675 dated
30-03-2020.
In partial modification of paragraph 01 of the
Order read above, the Officers of Directorate of
Health Services indicated in the enclosed Annexure
who have completed the requisite years of regular
service of 04 years in Grade Pay of Rs. 7,600 in
PB-3 including the service rendered in the
pre-revised scale of Rs. 12,000-16,500 are granted
3rd financial upgradation under the Dynamic
Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme with
effect from the date indicated against his/her name
in column No. 6 in terms of Order Nos. 25/1/2003-I/
/PHD dated 16-07-2009 and 25/1/2003-I/PHD dated
17-07-2009.
The rest of the content of the Order read above
will remain unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 27th April, 2020.
________
Order
No. 25/12/2019-I/PHD/794
Read:
Order No. 25/12/2019-I/PHD/647 dated
30-03-2020.
In partial modification of paragraph 01 of the
Order read above, the Officers of Directorate of
Health Services indicated in the enclosed Annexure
who have completed the requisite years of regular
service of 07 years in Grade Pay of Rs. 8,700 in
PB-4 including the service rendered in the
pre-revised scale of Rs. 14,300-18,300 or 20 years
of regular service are granted 4th financial
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
67
upgradation under the Dynamic Assured Career
Progression (DACP) Scheme with effect from the
date indicated against his/her name in column
No. 6 in terms of Order Nos. 25/1/2003-I/PHD
dated 16-07-2009 and 25/1/2003-I/PHD dated
17-07-2009.
The rest of the content of the Order read above
will remain unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 27th April, 2020.
________
Order
No. 25/18/2019-I/PHD/791
Read: Order No. 25/18/2019-I/PHD/648 dated
30-03-2020.
In partial modification of paragraph 01 of the
Order read above, the Officers of Directorate of
Health Services indicated in the enclosed Annexure
who have completed the requisite years of regular
service of 04 years in Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 in
PB-3 including the service rendered in the
pre-revised scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500 are granted
1st financial upgradation under the Dynamic
Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme with
effect from the date indicated against his/her name
in column No. 6 in terms of Order Nos. 25/1/2003-I/
/PHD dated 16-07-2009 and 25/1/2003-I/PHD dated
17-07-2009.
The rest of the content of the Order read above
will remain unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 27th April, 2020.
________
Order
No. 25/15/2019-I/PHD/792
Read: Order No. 25/15/2019-I/PHD/676 dated
30-03-2020.
In partial modification of paragraph 01 of the
Order read above, the Officers of Directorate of
Health Services indicated in the enclosed Annexure
who have completed the requisite years of regular
service of 05 years in Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600 in
PB-3 including the service rendered in the
pre-revised scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 are granted
2nd financial upgradation under the Dynamic
Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme with
effect from the date indicated against his/her name
in column No. 6 in terms of Order Nos. 25/1/2003-I/
/PHD dated 16-07-2009 and 25/1/2003-I/PHD dated
17-07-2009.
The rest of the content of the Order read above
will remain unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 27th April, 2020.
________
Order
No. 25/13/2019-I/PHD/675
On the recommendation of the Screening Committee, the Officers of Directorate of Health Services
indicated in the enclosed Annexure who have completed the requisite years of regular service from the
date of regular appointment to entry grade are granted 3rd financial upgradation under the Dynamic
Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme with effect from the date indicated against his/her name in
column No. 6 in terms of Order Nos. 25/1/2003-I/PHD dated 16-07-2009 and 25/1/2003-I/PHD dated
17-07-2009.
The Officers may exercise an option in terms of F.R. 22 (I) (a) (1) if he/she so desires within one month
from the date of issue of his/her Order for fixing pay in the 3rd financial upgradation under Dynamic
Assured Career Progression Scheme.
Each Officer shall give an undertaking that in case any excess payment that may be found to have
been made as a result of incorrect fixation of pay or any excess payment detected in the light of
discrepancies noticed subsequently will be refunded by them to the Government either by adjustment
against future payments due to them or otherwise.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
68
The expenditure on his/her pay and allowances shall be debited to the budget head under which their
salary is drawn.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 30th March, 2020.
______
ANNEXURE-I
3rd Financial Upgradation under Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme
Sr.
Name & Designation
Date of
Present
Grade Pay to be
Date of
No.
joining
Grade Pay
made applicable
effect
under DACP
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Dr. Sujata Kamat,
19-02-2003
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Medical Officer
2. Dr. Kedar Narahari Raikar,
01-12-2003
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Medical Officer
3. Dr. Deepali Dindalkumpi,
01-12-2003
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Medical Officer
4. Dr. Premila Sandra Viegas
24-11-2003
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Do Cosmo Souza,
Medical Officer
5. Dr. Prajakt S. Kamulkar
14-12-2003
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Medical Officer
6. Dr. Atul Dilip Pai Bir,
24-11-2003
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Medical Officer
7. Dr. Rupchandra Navelkar,
28-11-2003
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Medical Officer
8. Dr. Maria Sara Da Costa,
11-06-2004
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Medical Officer
9. Dr. Shikandar Yeshwant
10-06-2004
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Talwar, Medical
Officer
10. Dr. Prashant M.
05-01-2005
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Suryawanshi,
Medical Officer
11. Dr. Amey Suresh Aiya,
07-01-2005
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Medical Officer
12. Dr. Talash S. Velip alias
05-01-2005
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Kundaikar, Medical
Officer
13. Dr. Shilpa Tople,
11-01-2005
G.P. – Rs. 7,600 in PB-3
G.P. – Rs. 8,700 in PB-4
01-04-2018.
Medical Officer
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
69
Department of Revenue
__
Notification
No. 24/2/87-RD(Part)/331
Read: 1. Notification No. 24/2/87-RD dated
18-07-1989 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 15 dated 18-07-1989.
2. Notification No. 24/2/87-RD dated
5-12-1997 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 48 dated 26-12-1998.
3. Notification No. 24/2/87-RD dated
29-03-2004.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3
of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1988 (Goa Act 22 of 1988)
(hereinafter called the said Act) and in modification
of the Government Notification No. 24/2/87-RD
dated 18-07-1989, the Government of Goa hereby
appoints the following Officers as Estate Officers
for the purpose of the said Act, within the local
limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of
all categories of public premises except the public
premises controlled by the respective Municipal
Council, Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa
Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and Goa
Industrial Development Corporation.
i) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Pernem.
ii) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Mapusa.
iii) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Bicholim.
iv) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Satari.
v) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Panaji.
vi) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Ponda.
vii) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Margao.
viii) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Mormugao.
ix) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Quepem.
x) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Sanguem.
xi) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Dharbandora.
xii) Dy. Collector & S.D.O., Canacona.
This is issued in supersession of Notification
No. 24/2/87-RD dated 18-07-1989 published
in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 15 dated
18-07-1989.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Roshell Fernandes, Under Secretary (Revenue-II).
Porvorim, 21st April, 2020.
Notification
No. 24/2/87-RD(Part)/332
Read: 1. Notification No. 24/2/87-RD dated
21-11-2003.
2. Notification No. 24/2/87-RD dated
29-03-2004.
3. Notification No. 24/2/87-RD dated
27-02-2009.
In supersession to the Notification referred to
above and in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 3 of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988 (Goa Act 22 of
1988) (hereinafter called “the said Act”) and
notwithstanding anything contained in the
Government Notification of even number dated
27-02-2009, the Government of Goa hereby appoints
the following officers mentioned in column (2) of
the Schedule hereto to be Estate Officers for
the purpose of the said Act, in respect of the
public premises within the State of Goa and
controlled by statutory authorities as specified in
the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said
schedule.
The Government further directs that cases, if
any, in respect of the statutory authorities as
specified in this Notification are pending before
the Estate Officers appointed under the
Notification of even number dated 27-02-2009 &
29-03-2004, the same shall be transferred with
immediate effect, to the concerned Estate Officers
appointed under this Notification.
SCHEDULE
Sr.
Designation of the
Name of the statutory
No.
officer
authority
1
2
3
1. Officer on Special
Kadamba Transport
Duty
Corporation Ltd., Panaji.
2. General Manager
Goa Tourism Develop-
(Engineering)
ment Corporation Ltd.,
Panaji.
3. Deputy Chief Execu- Goa Industrial Develop-
tive Officer
ment Corporation, Panaji.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Roshell Fernandes, Under Secretary (Revenue-II).
Porvorim, 21st April, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
7TH MAY, 2020
70
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
Lead Agency
__
Notification
No. D.Tpt/EST/839-V (Part File)/2018/0071
In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2), read with sub-section (4) of
Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central
Act No. 59 of 1988) and Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 (No. 10 of 1897), the Government
of Goa hereby further amends the Government
Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/839/IV/2011 dated
13-01-2011, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 44 dated 27-01-2011 (hereinafter
referred to as the “principal Notification”), as
follows, namely:-
In the principal Notification, for the entries
against Serial Number 12 to 13, the following entries
shall be substituted, namely:-
“12. Shri Keshav V. Ghodke,
— Member.
GDM(T)/RSO, RO, Mumbai
13. Director of Health Services — Member.
14. Director of Panchayats
— Member.
15. Director of Municipal
— Member.
Administration
16. Director General of Police
— Member.
17. Director of Tourism
— Member.
18. Director of Transport
— Member
Secretary”.
This Notification shall come into force on the
date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Rajan Saterdekar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Transport).
Porvorim, 5th May, 2020.
Note: The Principal Notification was subsequently
amended vide the following notifications,
namely:-
(i) Government Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/
/F-2198/R.S.S./2017/Vol. II 5965 dated 20-12-2017
published in Official Gazette, Series II No. 37
dated 20-12-2017.
(ii) Government Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/839-V/
/2011/230 dated 21-05-2018 published in Official
Gazette, Series II No. 8 dated 24-05-2018.
(iii) Government Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/
/839-V (Part File)/2018/1035 dated 07-01-2019
published in Official Gazette, Series II No. 42
dated 17-01-2019.
(iv) Government Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/
/839-V (Part File)/2018/2477 dated 11-06-2019
published in Official Gazette, Series II No. 11
dated 13-06-2019.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 18.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—34/160–5/2020.