Panaji, 1st July, 2021 (Asadha 10, 1943)

SERIES II No. 14

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

—

Order

No. 50/3/(71)/Elec/DSDV/BOD/RCS/19/690

Read: Letter No. 5-9-93/ADM/1010 dated

29-10-2020 received from the Asstt. Registrar

of Co-op. Societies, Ponda Zone, Ponda-Goa

to grant exemption of Section 59(4) in terms

of Section 126A of the Goa Co-op. Societies

Act, 2001 to Dudhsagar Sahakari Dudh

Vyavsaik Saunstha Maryadit, Collem,

Dharbandora-Goa.

In pursuance of the powers vested under Section

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

the Government of Goa hereby exempts Dudhsagar

Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Saunstha Maryadit, Collem,

Dharbandora-Goa from the provisions of Section

59(4) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,

so as to enable Dudhsagar Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik

Saunstha Maryadit, Collem, Dharbandora-Goa to

constitute its full fledged Board of Directors for the

term 2019-2024.

The exemption so granted shall be valid for a

period of one month or until the three vacant posts

of the Board of Directors are duly filed in whichever

is earlier.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 23rd June, 2021.

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

271

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

Order

No. 3/12/Urban Credit/TS II/NZ/2019/RCS/671

Read: 1)

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

06-03-2020.

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

21-04-2017.

3) Letter No. ARCS/NZ/PLN/Registrar’s

Nominee dated 16-04-2021.

Whereas, Adv. Sushma T. Mandrekar alias

Sushma Harish Chodankar, having Office at H. No.

713/33, Ardhawada, Mayem, Bicholim-Goa was

appointed as Registrar’s Nominee under Section

86(1) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001

read with Rule 116(1) of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Rules, 2003 vide Order read at Sr. No. 2

above.

And whereas, now a request has been received

from the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, North

Zone, Mapusa-Goa vide their letter read at Sr. No.

3 above to designate Adv. Sushma T. Mandrekar

alias Sushma Harish Chodankar, as their dedicated

nominee to adjudicate disputes referred by The

Panchasheela Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Assonora, Bardez-Goa.

In view of above, the above named nominee Adv.

Sushma T. Mandrekar alias Sushma Harish

Chodankar in exercise of powers conferred under

Section 123(B) of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001,

I, the undersigned hereby authorize the above

named nominee to entertain the disputes referred

to her on recovery of loan overdues matter by The

Panchasheela Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Assonora, Bardez-Goa.

When a purported dispute is referred by the

society, the above named nominee is authorised to

first decide under sub-section (1) of Section 86 of

the Goa Co-operative Societies Act whether the

matter referred by society involves a dispute and

pass appropriate Orders under sub-section (1) of

Section 86.

Note:- There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official

Gazette, Series II No. 13 dated 24-06-2021

namely, Extraordinary dated 28-06-2021 from

pages 269 to 270 regarding Notification from

Goa Legislature Secretariat.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

272

Only upon the nominee satisfying that there

exists a dispute she shall proceed to adjudicate the

same and give award accordingly. The nominee

shall abide by the terms and condition on which he

was originally appointed as nominee read at Sr. 2

above.

This appointment shall come into force with

immediate effect and shall remain in force for one

year and same can be withdrawn at any stage

without assigning any reason.

Arvind Khutkar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 18th June, 2021.

________

Order

No. 3/9/Urban Credit/TS II/NZ/2018/RCS/632

Read: 1)

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

06-03-2020.

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

21-04-2017.

3) ARCS/NZ/PLN/Registrar’s Nominee/152

dated 16-04-2021.

Whereas, Adv. Shivaji B. S. Bhangui, having

Office at c/o P. J. Kamat, above Bank of Maharashtra,

2nd floor, SF-8, Goa Housing Board comm. & Res.

Complex, Journalist Colony, Alto Porvorim, Bardez-

Goa was appointed as Registrar’s Nominee under

Section 86(1) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001 read with Rule 116(1) of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Rules, 2003 vide Order read at Sr. No. 2

above.

And whereas, now a request has been received

from the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, North

Zone, Mapusa vide their letter read at Sr. No. 3

above to designate Adv. Shivaji B. S. Bhangui, as

their dedicated nominee to adjudicate disputes

referred by The Candolim Urban Co-op. Credit

Society Ltd., Candolim, Bardez-Goa.

Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under

Section 123 B of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001,

I, the undersigned hereby authorise Adv. Shivaji B.

S. Bhangui, to entertain all disputes referred to him

in the matter of recovery of outstanding loans by

The Candolim Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Candolim, Bardez-Goa.

When a purported dispute is referred by the

society, the above named nominee is authorised to

first decide under sub-section (1) of Section 86 of

the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 whether

the matter referred by society involves a dispute

and pass appropriate Orders under sub-section (1)

of Section 86 of the Act.

Only upon the nominee satisfying that there

exists a dispute he shall proceed to adjudicate the

same and give award accordingly. The nominee

shall abide by the terms and condition on which he

was originally appointed as nominee read at Sr. 2

above

This appointment shall come into force with

immediate effect and shall remain in force for one

year and same can be withdrawn at any stage

without assigning any reason.

Arvind Khutkar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 17th June, 2021.

_______

Order

No. 6-37-2006/EST/RCS/555

On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the following officials holding the

post of Multi Tasking Staff, in the office of the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Panaji are hereby promoted

to the post of Lower Division Clerk, Group “C” in the pay matrix level-2 on regular basis with immediate

effect and posted at the place shown in column No. 4.

Sr.

Name of the

Present posting of

Transfer on promotion

Budget Head

No.

officials

the officials

to the post of Lower

Division Clerk

1. Shri Raju V.

O/o the Registrar of Co-op.

2425 — Co-operation,

Adkonkar

Societies, Headquarters,

00 —,

Panaji

101 — Audit of Co-opera-

tives,

01 — Audit (Non Plan),

01 — Salaries (against

the vacant post).

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

273

2. Shri Prakash

O/o the Asstt. Registrar of

2425 — Co-operation,

C. Gaude

Co-op. Societies, Ponda

00 —,

Zone, Ponda

001 — Direction and

Administration,

01 — Direction (Non Plan),

01 — Salaries.

The above officials may exercise their option for fixation of pay under FR 22(1)(a)(1) within one month

from the date of issue of this order.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 14th June, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Home

Home–General Division

—

Order

No. 24/31/2014-HD(G)/Part/2364

Read: Memorandum No. 24/31/2014-HD(G) dated

11-02-2021.

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/I/5/58(1)/2020/873 dated 29-12-2020, the

Government is pleased to appoint the following

candidates as probationers to the post of Assistant

Public Prosecutors (Group ‘A’ Gazetted) in the

Directorate of Prosecution in Level-10 of the pay

matrix. His/Her pay will be fixed in accordance

with CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, with immediate

effect:-

1. Valanka alias Laximi Babu Redker.

2. Shivani Pandharinath Bodke.

3. Latoya Krita Sequeira Carvalho.

4. Joyce Matilda Rodrigues.

5. Laxman Ramnath Sawant.

6. Manoj Manohar Naik (OBC).

7. Harshal Vijay Ghate (OBC).

8. Sukruti Ravindra Chodankar (OBC).

9. Sandhya Umesh Naik (OBC).

10. Prilam Premanand Phadte (OBC).

11. Pritam Gautam Surlikar (ST).

12. Tejas Tukaram Pawar (SC).

2. The above candidates have been declared

medically fit by the Medical Board. Their character

and antecedents have been verified.

3. The above candidates shall be on probation

for a period of two years with effect from their date

of joining.

4. The pay and allowances of the above

candidates shall be debited to the Budget Head

controlled by the Directorate of Prosecution

wherever they are posted from time to time.

5. The above candidates shall join their duties

in the Directorate of Prosecution with immediate

effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary-II (Home).

Porvorim, 24th June, 2021.

———uuu———

Goa Human Rights Commission

Office of the Goa Human Rights Commission

BEFORE THE GOA HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMISSION

Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 15/2019

Dr. Roopa Belurkar,

R/o F-4, Bldg. E,

Adwalpalkar Legend,

Shankarwadi, Taleigao,

Goa-403002.

…

Complainant

V/s

1) The Principal,

Parvatibai Chowgule College,

Gogol, Margao-Goa.

2) The Director of Higher Education,

Directorate of Higher Education,

Government of Goa,

Porvorim, Bardez-Goa

…

Respondents

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

274

INQUIRY REPORT/ORDER

(22nd March, 2021)

The Complaint dated 14-01-2019 was received

from the Complainant, complaining of violation of

her human rights by the Respondent No.1, by delay

of her salary payments from July, 2018.

2. The Complainant states that she is Head of

the Department of Chemistry of Smt. Parvatibai

Chowgule College, Margao. She states that, on

22-02-2018, she had applied for Child Care Leave

for 315 days from 20-06-2018 to 30-04-2019 and after

several emails to the Respondent No. 1, she

received letter dated 12-11-2018 from the

Respondent No. 2 stating that the college had

informed Respondent No. 2 by letter dated

13-04-2018 that the Child Care Leave of the

Complainant had been sanctioned by the college

management.

3. The Complainant states that till 19-06-2018,

she was not given sanction letter despite her email

to the Respondent No. 1. She informed the

Respondent No.1 that she is proceeding on Child

Care Leave on 20-06-2018.

The Complainant further states that, to

cause her harassment, Respondent No.1 sent an

email to her that any leave without sanction will

be treated as leave without pay. She states that

her salary from the months of July, 2018 to

November, 2018 was paid in December, 2018

without any interest on the delayed payments.

5. The Complainant prays before this Commission

for taking action against the Respondent No.1 for

violating her human rights and to direct the

Respondent No. 1 to pay interest at the rate of

8% on delayed salary from July, 2018 and also for

compensation.

6. The Respondent No. 1 filed their reply on

12-03-2019 denying the contents of the complaint.

They stated that they have followed the standard

procedure for processing the application for leave

by the staff of the college and as the substitute

candidate could not join duties, the sanction letter

could not be given to the Complainant to proceed

on Child Care Leave. They prayed that the

proceedings be disposed with costs.

7. The Respondent No. 2 filed their reply on

19-03-2019. They submitted that the Respondent

No. 1 by letter dated 13-04-2018 had informed the

Respondent No. 2 that the college management had

sanctioned Child Care Leave of the Complainant

and had requested for NOC for the appointment or

substitute Assistant Professor in Chemistry on

contract basis from 20-06-2018 to 30-04-2019. They

stated that they conveyed approval for the same

with the NOC dated 02-05-2018.

8. They stated that on receiving the application

from the Complainant dated 28-09-2018, that her

salary has not been credited to her account since

July, 2018, they called for the report from the

Respondent No. 1, who submitted the report dated

24-10-2018.

9. The Respondent No. 2 states that by their

letter dated 12-11-2018, they informed the

Respondent No. 1 that the college could not apply

“Leave without pay”, rule in this case and the

College was instructed to pay the salary or they

would have to face the consequences and they

were also informed that the Complainant has not

received salary which is a violation of her human

rights.

10. The Complainant filed Affidavit-in-Rejoinder

on 03-05-2019 and the Respondent No. 1 filed his

Affidavit-in Sur Rejoinder on 03-11-2020.

11. The Commission has heard Ld. Advocate

Shri Sachin Desai for the Complainant and he also

filed his written arguments. So also the Commission

heard Ld. Advocate Shri Amey Prabhudessai for

the Respondent No.1 and Shri D. N. Rane,

Consultant (Administration) for the Respondent

No. 2.

12. On going through the complaint, replies of

the Respondents, affidavits on record and the

documents of the parties, the Commission finds

that there is no dispute that the Complainant had

infact applied for Child Care Leave for 315 days

from 20-06-2018 to 30-04-2019 well in advance,

i.e. by application dated 22-02-2018.

13.

As seen from the letter of the college dated

13-04-2018, the Respondent No. 1 had informed the

Respondent No. 2 that the management has

sanctioned Child Care Leave from 20-06-2018 to

30-04-2019 of the Complainant on the condition

that NOC to fill up the resultant vacancy is

obtained from Respondent No. 2 and the NOC was

requested. There is also no dispute that the

Respondent No. 2, by letter dated 02-05-2018 had

informed the Respondent No. 1 of the NOC for

appointment of the substitute Assistant Professor.

14. The Commission agrees with Ld. Advocate

Shri Sachin Desai for the Complainant that the

Child Care Leave of the Complainant had been

duly sanctioned by the Respondent No. 1, as

communicated to the Respondent No. 2 by letter

dated 13-04-2018. However, the Respondent No. 1

had only not issued the sanction letter to the

Complainant.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

275

15. As per the Circular dated 10-08-2012, issued

by the Department of Personnel, Government of

Goa, it was stated that all Heads of Department/

/Offices ensure that no Child Care Leave be

rejected without approval of the Government.

16. The Child Care Leave of the Complainant

having been approved by the Respondent No. 1 as

per their letter dated 13-04-2018, the Child Care

Leave has to be considered as having been duly

sanctioned by the Respondent No. 1.

17. Ld. Advocate Shri Amey Prabhudesai for the

Respondent No. 1 contended that the substitute

candidate did not join duty on 19-06-2018 and

hence, the sanction letter could not be given to

the Complainant.

18. However, the Respondent No. 1 has not

produced any documents to show that the

substitute had not joined the duty. It is very

relevant that the Complainant had applied under

the Right to Information Act, to the PIO of the

Respondent No. 1 for details in respect of substitute

candidate and the payments made to the substitute

faculty during the Child Care Leave, by her

applications dated 23-12-2020 and 12th January,

2021, and yet she received no replies.

19. As per the letter of Respondent No. 2 dated

12-11-2018, they had informed the Respondent No.1

that there is no question of the Complainant

remaining absent from duty without authorization

and the College will not be able to apply “Leave

without pay” rule in this case. The College had

been instructed to pay her salary otherwise they

will have to face the consequences.

20. It appears that, thereafter, the Respondent

No.1 had paid the salary to the Complainant from

July, 2018 to November, 2018 on 1st December, 2018.

Again the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is

right that the Respondent No. 1 had withheld the

salary dues of the Complainant from July to

October, 2018 without following any procedure,

thereby indicating that the right of Complainant

to receive her salary in time had been violated by

the Respondent No. 1.

21. The salary dues of the Complainant from

July, 2018 to October, 2018 were paid only on

1st December, 2018, alongwith the salary dues of

November, 2018. Thus, there was delay of

payments of 4 months salaries. The Commission

finds that the Complainant had been deprived of

her salary dues from July to October, 2018 without

following the due procedure of law, by the

Respondent No. 1 and hence, the Commission holds

that the Complainant is entitled for payment of

interest on the delayed payments of her salary.

22. In Ramesh R. Kurhade vs Financial Advisor

and Chief Accounts Officer, Establishment

Section, 2019 SCC Online Bom 1060, where one of

the grievances was of withholding salary of the

employee, without authority of law, the Bombay

High Court by Judgment dated on 20th June, 2019,

directed the payment of simple interest at 7.5 %

per annum to the Petitioner on the delayed

payment of salary.

23. Guided by the above case law and in the

facts of present case, the Commission holds that

the Complainant would be entitled to 7.5% interest

per annum on the delayed salary amounts from

July to October, 2018 which were paid only on 1st

December, 2018 i.e. for interest of 7.5% per annum

on the delayed salary amounts (1) of 4 months on

her salary of July, 2018, (2) of 3 months on her

salary of August, 2018, (3) of 2 months on her salary

of September, 2018 and (4) of 1 month on her salary

of October, 2018.

24. Under Section 18(a)(i) of the Protection of

Human Rights Act, 1993, where the inquiry

discloses the Commission of violation of human

rights, the Commission may recommend to the

concerned Government or authority to make

payment of compensation or damages to the

Complainant as the Commission may consider

necessary.

25. Accordingly, the Commission recommends

that the Respondent No. 2 ensure that the

Respondent No. 1 makes payments of the interest

as calculated above to the Complainant within 30

days from today, towards compensation to the

Complainant for the delayed payments of her

salary.

In view of the above, the Proceedings stand

disposed of.

Date : 22-03-2021.

Place : Panaji-Goa.

Sd/-

22-03-2021

(Justice U.V.

(Desmond D’Costa) (Pramod V. Kamat)

Bakre)

Chairperson,

Member,

Goa Human

Rights

Commission.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

276

Department of Labour

—

Order

No. 22/4/2001-Lab/Part-Vol-I/286

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/28(1)/2017/75 dated 07-06-2021, Government

is pleased to promote Shri Bhalchandra U. Sinai

Kenkre, Employment Counselling Officer to the post

of Employment Officer (Group ‘B’ Gazetted) in

Regional Employment Exchange, Office of the

Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji-Goa,

on regular basis, in the pay scale of PB-2-Rs. 9,300-

-34,800/- + 4,600/- (Grade Pay) with corresponding

scale at Level 7 in the VIIth Pay Commission Pay

Structure with immediate effect.

The expenditure on pay and allowances

shall be debited to the Budget Head 2230–Labour

and Employment, 02–Employment Service,

101–Employment Services, 05–Setting up of Job

Development and Vocational Guidance Unit

(Non-Plan), 01–Salaries.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 22nd June, 2021.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-II/277

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

15-04-2021 in Ref. No. IT/47/02 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, 18th June, 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/47/02

Workmen, Shri Philip Fernandes &

Shri Vishnu Naik,

Rep. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

Tisk, Ponda, Goa.

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

1. M/s. Cosmed Analytical

and Central Services,

CMM Bldg., Rua de Ourem,

Panaji-Goa.

… Party II(1)

2. M/s. Cosmed Analytical and

Central Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Rua-de-Ourem,

Panjim-Goa.

… Party II(2)

3. M/s. Cosme Farma

Laboratories Ltd.,

Dempo Towers, 5th Floor,

Patto, Panaji, Goa.

… Party II(3)

4. M/s. Wallace

Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.,

Dempo Towers, 3rd Floor,

Patto, Panaji, Goa.

… Party II(4)

5. M/s. Beiersdorf (I) Ltd.,

Nirankal Road, Curti,

Ponda, Goa.

… Party II(5)

6. M/s. Colfax Laboratories

Ltd., Curti, Ponda, Goa.

… Party II(6)

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

Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II(1) absent.

Employer/Party II(2) absent.

Employer/Party II(3) Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar.

Employer/Party II(4) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S.

M. Singbal.

Employer/Party II(5) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri

G. K. Sardessai.

Employer/Party II(6) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S.

M. Singbal.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 15th day of the month

of April of the year 2021)

By Order dated 11-07-2002, bearing No. 28/26/

/2002-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise of

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

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

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Cosmed Analytical and Central

Services, Nirankal Road, Curti, Ponda-Goa in

terminating the services of their workmen

Shri Philip Fernandes and Shri Vishnu Naik

with effect from 1-11-2001, is legal and

justified?

(2) Whether the demands of workmen/Union to

absorb them in the partner companies as

per the terms of the understanding dated

30-4-1998 has been implemented?

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

277

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

entitled?

2. It is a matter of record that Party II(2) to

Party II(6) have been addded to the reference

during the course of the proceedings.

3. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/47/2002 and registered A/D notices were

issued to the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 3. The

Party II(2) filed the written statement at Exh. 4,

Party II(3) filed the written statement at Exh. 23,

Party II(4) filed the written statement at Exh. 29

and Party II(5) filed the written statement at

Exh. 24 and the Party II(6) filed the written

statement at Exh. 27.

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

Party II(1) is a partnership firm formed by CMM

Group of Companies to cater to the common

services such as personal, engineering, security,

quality control etc. The CACS was formed by

companies namely; CFL Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

(ii) Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and (iii)

Beiersdorf India Pvt. Ltd. The personnel and

administration was common and the personnel

were on the rolls of CACS and they used to sign

the wage settlements on all behalf. The service

conditions and benefits such as pay scale and

allowances were common and governed by common

settlements. All the staff and workers of the group

companies were unionized and several settlements

were signed by the Union. The Party II in the month

of February, 2000 issued a closure notice but due

to intervention of Labour Commissioner it was

withdrawn and thereafter Party II started harassing

the workers including Party I workmen namely;

Philip Fernandes and Vishnu Naik in several ways.

The Party II although displayed a notice w.e.f.

01-11-2001 for closure notice, it was not a closure

at all and normal working of common services were

continued. The activities of the Company were

taken over by M/s Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt.

Ltd., thus it was clear that to avoid implementation

of settlement, fake closure was declared and the

services of the workmen were terminated and new

workers were employed by the Management. The

activities of Party I continued and the Companies

agreed in the settlement dated 13-04-1999 that

employees would be re-deployed and the

Management will not resort to retrenchment

however, the said terms were not implemented by

the Management. The partners of Party II(1) are all

liable, jointly and severely and therefore the

demand of the workmen is legal and justified. The

termination of the workmen namely; Philip

Fernandes and Vishnu Naik is illegal and they were

unemployed with no source of income. Hence, they

are entitled for relief claimed.

5. In the Written Statement, Party II(2)/

M/s. Cosmed Analytical and Central Services Pvt.

Ltd. submitted that the establishment of Party II is

closed and all the workmen including Party I

workmen were retrenched u/s 25-FFF and were

paid compensation u/s 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The Party II(2) suffered heavy losses

and were forced to close down their establishment

at Ponda and due to the closure of their

undertaking, their workmen were retrenched and

paid compensation. The Party II had to raise funds

either by loan and or sale of its assets which it did

to one of its erstwhile clients/M/s Wallace

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. a Company not related with

Party II(2). The entire case of Party I workmen is

untenable and illegal and not maintainable under

the law by virtue of Memorandum of Settlement

dated 24-10-1998 which is in force. The alleged

undertaking dated 30-04-1996 has no legal value

and therefore Party I is not entitled for any reliefs.

6. In the Written Statement, the Party II(3)/M/s.

Cosme Farma Laboratories Ltd., has submitted that

the Party II(3) along with 12 other partners retired

from CACS w.e.f. from 18-04-2000 and therefore they

are not aware of what transpired in the

employment of Party I workmen. However, the said

employees had continued to remain after

18-04-2000 with the employment of reconstituted

partnership firm CACS which was taken over by

Mr. Carlos Menezes and CACS Pvt. Ltd. The alleged

termination of the above workmen namely; Philip

Fernandes and Vishnu Naik had taken place on

01-11-2001 after Party II(3) retired from partnership

firm and therefore the alleged termination of the

services of the workmen have no effect on

Party II(3) and same cannot be binding and/or

enforced against them, more specifically after

18-04-2000 when they have retired from CACS and

therefore Party I workmen are not entitled for any

relief.

7. In the Written Statement, the Party II(4)/M/s.

Wallace Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., averred that

there is no liability of Party II(4) towards the claim

of Party I workmen since there never existed any

relationship of employer and employee between

Party I and Party II(4) as Party II (4) along with

12 other partners had retired from M/s CACS w.e.f.

18-04-2000 as per Deed of Retirement dated

18-04-2000. However, the said employees continued

to remain in the services of M/s CACS which was

operated by partners namely; Carlos Menezes and

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

278

CACS Pvt. Ltd. since they had taken over all assets

and liabilities of CACS. The alleged termination of

the workmen had taken place much after Party II

(4) retired from the partnership firm. The retiring

partners are not responsible or liable for any

demand of the employees or workers or any other

claim towards any statutory dues or liabilities of

the erstwhile firm as per the said Deed of

Retirement. There is no cause of action against

Party II(4) and as such reference is not

maintainable. No relief against Party II(4) therefore

could be granted.

8. In the Written Statement, the Party II(5)/M/s.

Beiersdorf (I) Ltd. claimed that there is no liability

towards claim of the Party I workmen and there

was no employer-employee relationship. The Party

II(5) retired from the partnership by way of Deed of

Retirement w.e.f. 18-04-2000 and as per the said

Deed the retiring partners shall not be liable for

demands of the employees and the workers by

virtue of the earlier settlement or otherwise and

the retiring partners shall not be liable or

responsible towards any statutory dues or

liabilities and consequent to the retirement of the

Party II(5), they are absolved of all the liabilities

and responsibilities of the erstwhile partnership.

There was no employer-employee relationship

between Party II(1) and Party II(5). The CACS was

merely a service provider not only to Party II(5) but

to other Companies too. The Party II(5) is a Company

incorporated under Companies Act and there was

no communality in the books of account vis-à-vis

the other Companies and therefore Party I is not

entitled for any relief.

9. In the Written statement, the Party II(6)/

M/s. Colfax (India) Pvt. Ltd. stated that there is no

liability towards the claim of the Party I workmen

since there never existed any relationship of the

employer-employee between Party II(1) and

Party II(6). The Party II (6) along with 12 other

partners retired from CACS w.e.f. 18-04-2000 and as

per the said Deed of Retirement there cannot exist

any such relationship however, the said employees

continues to remain in the services of CACS which

was operated by continuing partners namely;

Carlos Menezes and CACS Pvt. Ltd. since they have

taken over all the assets and liabilities of CACS

after 18-04-2000. The alleged termination of

workmen had taken place after they retired from

partnership. They are not responsible or liable for

any demand of the employees and workers by virtue

of the Deed of Retirement. There is no cause of

action against Party II(6) and as such the reference

is not maintainable.

10. In the rejoinder at Exh. 5, Exh. 30, Exh. 31

and Exh. 32, the Party I denied the case put forth

by the Party II companies in their Written

statements.

11. Based on the averments of the respective

parties, the following issues were framed at

Exh. 37 dated 21-01-2011.

1. Whether the Party I proves that the group of

companies had agreed to absorb the workers

on the roll as on 30-04-96?

2. Whether Party I proves that the closure is

fake and to avoid implementation of terms of

understanding dated 30-04-96?

3. Whether Party I proves that the termination

of services of the workmen was in violation

of understanding dated 30-04-96?

4. Whether the Party I proves that the group of

companies are liable to absorb the workmen?

5. What relief? What Order?

12. In support of the claim, Party I examined its

first witness, Shri Philip Fernandes and produced

on record a copy of Minutes of Understanding dated

30-04-1996 at Exh. 47, copy of settlement dated

21-03-1992 at Exh. 48, copy of settlement dated

04-04-1995 at Exh. 49, copy of settlement dated

24-10-1998 at Exh. 50, copy of failure report dated

31-01-2002 at Exh. 51, copy of Appointment letter

dated 11-03-1988 at Exh. 52, a copy of five pay slips

of the workman at Exh. 53 Colly, a copy of Form VI

regarding the change in the constitution of the

firm CACS at Exh. 54 and a copy of document

pertaining to changes made in the firm at Exh. 55.

The Party I also examined Shri Vishnu Naik as

second witness and produced on record a copy of

appointment letter dated 17-01-1998 at Exh. 58, a

copy of pay slips at Exh. 59 Colly, a copy of letter

dated 23-03-2002 at Exh. 60, copy of letter dated

31-10-2001 at Exh. 61 and a copy of letter dated

01-10-2001 at Exh. 62. On the other hand, the

Party II(4), M/s. Wallace Pharmaceuticals examined

Shri Eurico Noronha as its witness and during

cross-examination produced on record a copy of

certificate dated 30-10-2012 at Exh. 69. The

Party II(5), M/s Beiersdorf India Limited examined

its witness Shri Praful Patil and produced on record

a copy of public notice published in Gomantak

dated 29-02-2000 at Exh. 72, a copy extract of

Party II(3), M/s CFL Pharmaceuticals Ltd., examined

Shri Uday Deshpande as its witness. The Party II(6),

Colfax Laboratories (India) Private Limited

examined Ms. Elvina Noronha as witness and

produced on record a copy of letter dated

23-09-2013 of closure notice of the Factory at

Exh. 78.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

279

13. Heard arguments. Notes of Written

arguments came to be placed on record by the

parties.

14. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced.

My answers to the above issues are as follows:

Issue No. 1

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 2

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 3

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 4

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 5

…

As per final order.

REASONS

Issue No. 1:

15. It is an admitted fact that Party I workmen

namely; Philip Fernandes and Vishnu Naik have

been examined who claimed that they were

employed by CACS. There is no dispute that CACS

Firm was specifically formed to cater to common

services required by the Partner Companies and

that the Group used to sign common settlements

with the Union. Exh. 47 is Minutes of Understanding

between the Management of CMM Group and the

workmen dated 30-04-96. Exh. 48 is the Memorandum

of Settlement dated 21-03-1992 and Exh. 49 is the

Memorandum of Settlement dated 04-04-1995 and

Exh. 50 is the Memorandum of Settlement dated

24-10-1998 u/s 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act

between the Employers of group of 10 companies

and the Union. The said settlements clearly

indicate that all the personal issues including

wages etc. were handled together for and on behalf

of all the group companies, who were the

individual partners in the CACS Firm.

16. The terms of the Minutes of understanding

at Exh. 47 clearly show that the workmen of CACS

were transferred to individual Units and that

Management agreed to absorb workers in the event

of further decentralization in the same trade as far

as possible and that the individual partner

companies where employees are transferred had

agreed to be given letters to that effect protecting

their past service. It also shows that there was a

move for decentralisation in the year 1993 and

finally the Understanding dated 30-4-1996 was

reached to absorb the workers in the individual

partner companies and that some of the workers

were absorbed. It is therefore clear that all the

partners had agreed to absorb the workers as and

when decentralization takes place. However, the

said commitment has not be honoured by the

partner companies and therefore, the workmen are

justified in raising the dispute.

17. Learned Advocates for Party II have

contended that the partners namely; Wallace

Pharmaceuticals,

Beiresdorf

and

Colfax

Laboratories have retired from the partnership and

that the partnership firm was dissolved in the year

2000 and the cause of action pertaining to the

present reference is in the year 01-11-2001 and

therefore the Parties who have already retired from

the Firm cannot be made liable in order to grant

relief as prayed as all the liabilities have been

taken over by CACS Pvt. Ltd. as being the last

partner before dissolution and since winding up

petition is pending against CACS Pvt. Ltd., no

Award can be passed. Learned Adv. Shri S. P.

Gaonkar for Party I has submitted and rightly so

that it is mandatory on the part of the Parties

contending that they have retired from the

partnership or that new partners have been added

or that the Firm itself has been dissolved that the

retirement, dissolution or addition of the partners

must be proved by leading evidence of the

procedure contemplated under the Partnership

Act, 1932.

18. Needless to mention, the Deed of Retirement

is not produced on record. Public notices and the

notices in the Official Gazette which is mandatory

for retirement, addition and dissolution as per

Section 72 of the Partnership Act, 1932 has also not

been produced on record and therefore in the

absence of the above documents, the partnership

firm continues to be in existence and all the

partners are liable for such an act, notwithstanding

their retirement, more so, when the addition of

CACS Pvt. Ltd is not proved. The Hon’ble Allahabad

High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh V/s

Kanak Prabha Dutta, 2003 ALL LJ 2015 has held

that in the absence of retirement in the prescribed

manner under the Act, the partners continued in

the partnership.

19. It is also well settled in the State of Kerala

v/s Saroja, AIR 1987 KER 239 that when a partner

pleads exemption from liability under Partnership

Act he has to prove retirement, dissolution, addition

etc. even if the other side does not dispute the

same. It is therefore for all purposes, the firm

continues to be in existence so does the liability of

the partners. The addition of CACS Pvt. Ltd. having

not been proved in accordance with the

Partnership Act, they cannot be considered as

newly added partners. There is also no effect of

winding up of CACS Pvt. Ltd. as firstly it in no

longer a Party. Moreover, the winding up of a

Company does not affect a reference under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as held in the case

of B. V. John v/s Coir Yarn and Textiles, AIR

1960 KER 247.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

280

20. There is no dispute that both the workers

namely Philip Fernandes and Vishnu Naik have

worked for more than one year continuously as

seen from their Appointment Letters produced at

Exh. 52 and Exh. 58 respectively. The said letters

have been admittedly issued by CACS Firm. It is

clear from the above documents that once the

workman has completed one year of continuous

service in terms of Section 25-B(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, the Employer is bound to follow the

mandate of Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act.

The Employer has not followed the said provisions

of law inspite of the fact that the Party I workmen

had worked more than one year of continuous

service with CACS Firm and therefore the

termination of the Party I workmen with effect from

1-11-2001 is bad, illegal and ab-initio void and

therefore cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay in the case of Deepali Gundu

Surwase v/s Kranti Jr. Adhyapak, (2013) 10 SCC

324 has clearly laid down the effect of not following

Section of 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once

the Party has satisfied that he has one year of

continuous service, he automatically gets the

protection of Section 25-F and cannot be removed

unless retrenchment compensation is paid to

him.

21. The Party I workmen have led their evidence

in consonance with the Claim Statement, which

has not been shaken. The witness Shri Eurico

Noronha of Party II(4), Wallace has admitted that

he joined in 2008 and is deposing based on records

and that no dues were paid to the employees of

CACS firm at the time of retirement of the company.

Shri Praful Patil, witness of Party II(5), Beiersdorf

has stated that he was not involved with the

company prior to 2016 and did not know what

services were being taken from CACS firm. Similarly,

Uday Deshpande, witness of Party II(3), M/s CFL

was also not involved with the Company and

therefore the evidence of the above two witnesses

pales into insignificance. Ms. Elvina Menezes, the

witness of Party II(6), M/s Colfax, has deposed that

she has not seen the documents mentioned by her

in the affidavit and that she did not know who the

partners of the partnership were. The evidence of

Party II, partner companies is therefore irrelevant

nor supports their case. The Party I workmen have

clearly proved that the group of companies had

agreed to absorb the Party I workmen on its roll as

on 30-04-1996 in terms of the Memorandum of

Understanding at Exh. 47 and therefore, the above

issue has been satisfactorily proved by them.

Hence, the issue No. 1 is answered in the

affirmative.

Issue No. 2:

22. There is no dispute that the only closure

notice referred to by the Parties is the one given by

CACS Pvt. Ltd., Party II(2), which was admittedly

withdrawn. The Party II(2) although has filed a

Written Statement had not stepped into the witness

box. The said Partner Company was not the

employer of the Party I workmen nor any

documents have been brought on record to show

that it had taken over services of the workmen. In

the instant case, the Partner Companies wanted to

dissolve the firm but were bound by the settlement

dated 30-04-1999 and because of this obligation of

absorption which was upon them, they have made

a claim of closure, retirement and dissolution, which

have not been proved by the Party II partner

companies. It is therefore the Party I sufficiently

proved that the closure is fake to avoid

implementation of the Understanding dated

30-04-1999. Hence, issue No. 2 is answered in the

affirmative.

Issue No. 3:

23. There is no dispute that the Parties had

entered into the Minutes of understanding dated

30-04-1999 at Exch. 47 and that the said terms of

the Understanding have not been implemented by

Party II group of partner companies, although it

was specifically agreed that all the workmen on

the rolls would be absorbed but the same was not

followed. When the partnership was to be

dissolved, the Understanding dated 30-04-1999

were to be honoured and therefore the termination/

/refusal of employment by Party II group of partner

companies is in violation of Understanding dated

13-04-1999 and therefore, Party I workmen have

proved issue No. 3 in their favour.

Issue No. 4:

24. There is no dispute that both the workmen

have worked for more than one year continuously

as seen from their letters of appointment which

are at Exh. 52 and 58 issued by CACS. There is no

dispute that once the workman has completed one

year continuous service in terms of 25-B(1), the

Employer is bound to follow mandate of Section

25-F which CACS has not followed and therefore

the termination of the Party I workmen from

1-11-2001 is illegal and void. Section 25-F of

Industrial Disputes Act places an embargo upon

an Employer and that they are barred from

retrenching an employee who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year. The

workmen have shown that they were with the

Group since 1988 and once the workmen proves

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

281

that they had actually worked for 240 days, it will

be deemed to be continuous service for one year

and therefore gets the protection of Section 25-F

and hence cannot be removed unless retrenchment

compensation have been paid to them.

25. It has been held in the case of Sarita Melwani

v/s Pallavi Talekar, 2008 (II) CLR 679 that under

sub-section 1 of Section 25-B, there is no

requirement to show actual working for 240 days.

Once it is proved by the workmen than the

Party II has failed to comply with Section 25-F of

Industrial Disputes Act, the next question is on

whom the liability of the workmen would be

fastened. It is well settled that in a partnership

firm each and every partner is liable jointly and

severely u/s 32 of the Partnership Act and therefore

the newly added Parties would be liable for any

Award passed in the present reference. The

contention of Advocates for Party II that since the

partners have retired by Deed of Retirement dated

18-04-2000, there would be no liability towards any

past claim cannot be accepted as u/s 32 of the

Partnership Act the only way in which a partner

can be discharged from his liability towards the

third Party/workman would be by an agreement

between him, the third Party and the remaining

partners. There is no such agreement produced on

record. It is also well settled in the case of

Syndicate Bank v/s R.S.R. Engineering Works and

Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 265 that every partner is

personally liable for the acts done by the

partnership firm and therefore the Partner Company

continue to be liable towards the claim of the

workmen. Hence, all the partners are jointly and

severally liable for the relief prayed by Party I and

it is not open for partners to contend that the

claim of workmen is limited to the assets and

liabilities of the firm which is taken over by

Party II(1). Hence, issue No. 4 is also answered in

the affirmative.

Issue No. 5:

26. The Party II partners have admittedly not

paid any retrenchment compensation nor notice

given by them while terminating the services of

Party I workmen. It is well settled that when the

termination is illegal and that Party II Employer

has not followed Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, the normal rule is that Party I

workmen are entitled with reinstatement with full

back wages and continuity of services. Learned

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

factors to be considered for the relief of

reinstatement with full back wages for refusal of

employment/termination are without following

Section 25-F, long service put in by the workmen,

number of years took for litigation; that the

workmen are unemployed, date of refusal; and that

the Employer has not shown any evidence of

employment on the part of the workmen.

27. There is no dispute so also Learned

Advocates for Party II partners have submitted and

rightly so that the Party I workmen namely; Philip

Fernandes had claimed in his Affidavit dated

19-10-2011 that his age was 46 years then and as

such said Philip Fernandes is presently about 56

years of age and has about two years of service

left. Similarly, Vishnu Naik in his examination in

chief has stated on 27-02-2015 that his age was 54

years then and as such he has completed 60 years

of age and therefore he cannot be granted relief of

reinstatement or absorption. There is no dispute

that both the workmen had not been employed

from the date of their termination as on 01-11-2001.

The Party I workman namely, Philip Fernandes is

therefore entitled for all the reliefs including

reinstatement however, Party I workman namely

Vishnu Naik is entitled for the relief except

reinstatement. They are therefore entitled for the

reliefs as stated above as they have been denied

an opportunity to serve the Party II partner

companies. Moreover, if the Minutes of

understanding dated 30-04-1999 were honoured by

the Employer, the Party I workmen would be

working with any of the partner Companies, which

has been denied to them and therefore they are

entitled for the reliefs as stated above. Hence the

above point is answered accordingly.

28. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The reference stands partly allowed.

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

management of M/s. Cosmed Analytical and

Central Services, Nirankal Road, Curti,

Ponda-Goa in terminating the services of

their workmen Shri Philip Fernandes and

Shri Vishnu Naik with effect from 1-11-2001

is illegal and unjustified.

(iii) The Party II(1) and its partner companies in

the reference are jointly and severally

directed to absorb Party I workman namely;

Shri Philip Fernandes as per the terms of

understanding dated 30-04-1998 and

shall pay all the back wages including

reinstatement and continuity of service.

(iv) The Party II(1) and its partner companies in

the reference are jointly and severally

directed to pay Party I workman namely;

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

282

Shri Vishnu Naik, the retrenchment

compensation as well as the back wages from

the date of retrenchment till the date of

superannuation.

(v) The Party II(1) and its partner companies in

the reference are jointly and severally

directed to deposit back wages and the

retrenchment compensation before the

Tribunal with respect to Party I workman

namely; Philip Fernandes and Vishnu Naik

as stated above within 60 days of the

publication of the Award, failing which the

Party II shall pay an interest @ 9% per annum.

(vi) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

—

Order

No. 5/2/2017-PER/1152

Read: 1. Order No. 5/2/2017-PER/1136 dated

03-05-2021.

2. Corrigendum No. 5/2/2017-PER/1149

dated 04-05-2021.

The transfer and posting of Shri Sachin Desai,

Deputy Collector and SDO, Mormugao with

additional charge of Member Secretary, Ravindra

Bhavan, Baina indicated at Sr. No. 3 in the order

read at 1 in the preamble above and the

corrigendum read at 2 shall be kept in abeyance

until further orders.

Consequently, the transfer and posting of officers

at Sr. No. 5 & 6 indicated in order read at 1 in the

preamble above shall be kept in abeyance until

further orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 6th May, 2021.

________

Order

No. 5/14/2018-PER/1487

Read: 1)

Order

No.

5/3/2017-PER

dated

28-09-2017.

2) Order No. 5/7/2017-PER/3340 dated

08-11-2017.

3) Order No. 5/7/2017-PER/2823 dated

12-09-2018.

Order No. 5/4/2017-PER/2749 dated

30-10-2018.

5) Order No. 5/4/2017-PER/2778 dated

31-10-2018.

In terms of Rule 28 of the Goa Civil Service Rules,

2016 and on the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/II/12/42(10/2020/68 dated 07-06-2021, the

Governor of Goa is pleased to declare the following

Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service, to have

satisfactorily completed their period of probation

in Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service and confirmed

in the grade with effect from the date of their

completion of probation period as mentioned

against their names below, subject to any orders

that may be passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay at Panaji and the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Writ Petitions Nos. 568/2012, 616/2012 and in

SLP (Civil) No. 14797-14798/2013, 20426/2013 and

SLP (Civil) No. 003587/2018 respectively:-

Sr.

Name of the probationers

Date of

No.

completion of

probation period

Smt. Snehal Shivram Prabhu

02-12-2019

Smt. Nayan Moroscar

02-12-2019

Shri Vivek Krishna Naik

25-12-2019

Shri Kuldeep Ulhas Arolkar

19-09-2020

Shri Sachin Santosh Desai

24-09-2020

Shri Premraj Krishnanath

19-09-2020

Shirodkar

Shri Pranab Gajanan Bhat

20-09-2020

Shri Kabir Krishna Shirgaonkar

27-09-2020

(OBC)

Shri Sagar Babuli Gaude (ST)

30-09-2020

10.

Dr. Pooja M. Madkaikar

01-11-2020

11.

Shri Vikas S. Kamble

13-11-2020

12.

Shri Nilesh Kushta Dhaigodkar

12-11-2020

(ST)

13.

Shri Pritidas Upasso Gaonkar

01-11-2020

(ST)

14.

Shri Mangaldas Budho Gaonkar 13-11-2020

(ST)

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 21st June, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

283

Order

No. 6/13/2011-PER/1512

Read: 1)

Order No. 5/2/2017-PER/1136 dated

03-05-2021.

2) Corrigendum No. 5/2/2017-PER/1149

dated 04-05-2021.

3) Order No. 5/2/2017-PER/1152 dated

06-05-2021.

The order read at preamble at Sr. No. (3) stands

withdrawn with immediate effect.

Accordingly, the transfer and posting of officers

as indicated at Sr. No. (3), (5) & (6) respectively in

the order and the corrigendum read in preamble at

Sr. No. (1) & (2) shall come into effect immediately.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 22nd June, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Planning, Statistics &

Evaluation

Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation

Order

No. DPSE/III/GIFT/120/2020/1006

The Government of Goa is pleased to constitute

‘Goa Institution for Future Transformation’ (GIFT)

with immediate effect from the date of publication

of this Notification in the Official Gazette.

The Chairman of GIFT shall be the Hon’ble Chief

Minister. The functioning of GIFT is to be on par

with the NITI Aayog and will be backed up with

Article 309 of the Constitution of India for attaining

autonomy.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Y. Durga Prasad, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary.

Porvorim, 31st May, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

___

Order

No. 23/20/2014-I/PHD/Part V/1366

Read: Government Order No. 23/20/2014-I/PHD/

Part IV/888 dated 26-04-2021.

In view of reduced caseload of COVID-19 cases,

all the Dispensaries under E.S.I. are hereby allowed

to function with immediate effect. Consequent to

which, the Doctors including paramedical,

non-medical staff etc. shall report to their respective

Dispensaries under supervision of the Commissioner

of Labour and Employment at the earliest after

being relieved by the Dean, Goa Medical

College.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vikas S. N. Gaunekar, Additional Secretary

(Health).

Porvorim, 17th June, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Social Welfare

Directorate of Social Welfare

Order

No. 13/7/2020/BC/SWD/NCSC/835

In pursuance to the directions issued by the

National Commission for Scheduled Castes,

Government of India, New Delhi vide their letter

No. 39/Misc-2/IGR Committee/2020/SSW-I dated

29-07-2020, the Government of Goa is pleased to

constitute a State Level Internal Grievance

Redressal Committee in order to redress internal

grievances related to service/employment of

scheduled caste employees to various Government

Department/Autonomous Bodies coming under the

administrative control of Government of Goa.

i) Shri Nikhil Desai

—

Chairperson.

ii) Dr. Uday N. Kudalkar

—

Member (SC).

iii) Smt. Sneha S. Morajkar

—

Member (SC).

iv) Shri Harish Adconkar

—

Member.

v) Shri Rajan Satardekar

—

Member (SC).

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

Umeshchandra Joshi, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Social Welfare).

Panaji, 18th June, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Tourism

—

Order

No. 4/4(6-4)/State Committee/21-DT/653

The Government of Goa is pleased to

re-constitute the State Level Marketing and

Promotion Committee under the Chairmanship

of Hon’ble Tourism Minister comprising of

following members:

Sr.

Name/Designation

Particulars

No.

1. Hon. Dy. C. M./Minister for

— Chairman.

Tourism

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

284

2. Chairman–GTDC

— Vice-

-Chairman.

3. Secretary (Tourism)

— Member.

4. Managing Director–GTDC

— Member.

5. President—Travel & Tourism

— Member.

Association of Goa

6. President, Shack Owners

— Member.

Welfare Society-Goa

7. Mr. Nand-Gopal Kudchadkar,

— Member.

c/o LPK Waterfront, Nerul

8. Mr. Sunder Advani, Chairman — Member.

& Managing Director, Advani

Hotels and Resorts (India)

Limited

9. Mr. Rohit Salgaonkar, Guirim, — Member.

Vancio Wada, Mapusa,

Bardez, Goa

10. Director of Tourism

— Member

Secretary.

The State Level Marketing and Promotion

Committee (SLMPC) shall have the following

functions:

a) The SLMPC shall be, for all purpose a

recommendatory body to the Government

and shall render all help and assistance for

deciding matters relating to promotion and

marketing activities of Goa Tourism. As

such, all the decisions of the SLMPC shall

be subject to approval by the Government.

b) The execution of the events and activities

under the promotion and marketing shall

be carried out by the Department of

Tourism. Government may, however, allot

any specific event or activity to Goa Tourism

Development Corporation for execution.

c) The SLMPC shall finalise and recommend

to the Government a calendar of events for

the annual year with probable estimates

alongwith with a list of stand by events

upto 80% of the annual budget allocation

on account of the promotion and marketing.

Such calendar of events shall be finalised

for the period from the month of June of

the current year to the month of May in the

succeeding year. In respect of balance 20%

of the annual budgetary allocation. It shall

be open for the Government to decide on

the events to be participated and activities

to be undertaken in respect of promotion

and marketing of Goa Tourism.

d) The SLMPC shall decide upon and

recommend for the empanelment of various

agencies for execution of scope of work of

the activities under promotion and

marketing of Goa Tourism subject to

fulfilment of necessary codal formalities.

e) The SLMPC shall finalise branding plans

and marketing strategies for Goa Tourism

and all other promotional and marketing

related matters.

f) The SLMPC may appoint special invitees,

nominees, experts as and when required

subject to approval of the Government.

g) The SLMPC shall set the procedures and

finalise the standards for undertaking

promotion and marketing activities of Goa

Tourism.

h) The SLMPC will be at a liberty to set its

own procedures such as constituting sub-

committees and take necessary decisions

in order to evolve effective and strategic

branding campaign for Goa Tourism, so that

the Goan tourism industry derives

maximum benefit of promotion and

marketing exercise.

i) The committee will meet minimum 5 times

in a year.

j) The valid quorum for the meeting the

committee shall be six members.

k) The President Travel and Tourism

Association of Goa, shall be the ex officio

member of the Committee.

l) The tenure of the other non-official

members of the committee shall be for three

years with effect from its constitution/

/reconstitution as the case may be, which

may be extended by the Government for a

further period of maximum one year. Non-

official members once nominated may be

repeated for another term with Government

approval. Government may, however,

remove, substitute or replace any such

nominated member at any point of time, if

felt necessary to do so.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

285

m) The nominated non-official members on the

SLMPC will be paid sitting fees as per the

Government notified rates and travelling

as per actual expenditure subject to a

maximum of Rs. 1,500/- on the day of sitting

of the SLMPC.

Menino D’Souza, Director (Tourism).

Panaji, 28th June, 2021.

_______

Corrigendum

No. 4/4(6-4)/State Committee/20-DT/619

Read: Order No. 4/4(6-4) State Committee/

/2017-DT/750 dated 29-06-2017.

The para (k) referred in above order dated

29-06-2017 may be read as under:

k) The tenure of the non-official members of

the committee shall be for three years with

effect from its constitution/reconstitution

as the case may be, which may be extended

by the Government for a further period of

maximum one year. Non-official members

once nominated may be repeated for

another term with Government approval.

Government may, however, remove,

substitute or replace any such nominated

member at any point of time, if felt

necessary to do so.

Menino D’Souza, Director (Tourism).

Panaji, 25th June, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Urban Development

(Municipal Administration)

Notification

No. 10/487/2018-DMA/949

In pursuance to Government approval to the

Supreme Court Order dated 9-3-2016 on behalf of

the Petitioner, Animal Welfare Board of India on

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 691 in the matter

of Animal Welfare Board of India (Petitioner) v/s

People for Elimination of Stray Troubles and Others

(Respondents). It is recommended that a State

Monitoring Committee be set up at the State/Union

territory level in all States and Union territories

across the country. The constitution of the State

Monitoring Committee includes the following

members:-

1. Secretary (UD)

— Chairperson.

2. Secretary (AH)

— Member.

3. Secretary (Health)

— Member.

4. (i) Sarpanch, Kudne Panchayat — Member.

(ii) Panch, Sancoale Panchayat — Member.

5. Commissioner, CCP

— Member.

6. Representative of the Animal — Member.

Welfare Board of India

7. (i) President, Akhil Gomantak — Member.

Goseva Sangh, Valpoi-Goa

(ii) Co-ordinator, Dhyan

— Member.

Foundation

8. (i) Chairperson, Curchorem-

— Member.

Cacora Municipal Council

(ii) Chairperson, Bicholim

— Member.

Municipal Council

9. President, People for Animals, — Member.

Directorate of Animal Husban-

dry & Veterinary Services,

Patto, Panaji-Goa

10. Deputy Director, Directo-

— Member.

rate of Animal Husbandry &

Veterinary Services,

Patto, Panaji-Goa

Functions of the State Monitoring Committee:

(i) The setting up of Animal Birth Control

Monitoring Committees at the local authority

levels as required by the Animal Birth Control

(Dogs) Rules, 2001.

(ii) Developing a comprehensive district wise

plan (including but not limited to

infrastructure, budget, etc.), for dog

population management in urban and rural

areas throughtout the State.

(iii) Enlisting ABC Implementing Agencies that

can implement the comprehensive local

authority/district-wise plan as per the

Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules and are

possessed of the requisite training and

experience. And are duly recognized by the

Animal Welfare Board of India. This may

include the Animal Husbandry Department

of the State working in consultation with

and the under the technical guidance of the

AWBI, or animal welfare organizations

recognized by the AWBI.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 14

1ST JULY, 2021

286

(iv) Where adequate ABC implementing

Agencies are not available, the State

Monitoring and Implementation Committee

shall set up a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)

within the State Animal Husbandry

Department to act as the ABC Implementing

Agency. In each such case the ABC

implementing Agency will undergo

training at an AWBI designated training

establishment, and embark upon the program

only once the training has been completed.

(v) Ensuring that the requisite infrastructure is

set up, and other capital costs (including

but not limited to fully furnished ABC

facilities/campuses with ambulances and

equipment), and all other expenses for

successfully running an animal birth control

program, including manpower costs, are

made available to the ABC Implementing

Agencies from the local authorities, and

reimbursed in a timely manner as required

by Rule 6 of the Animal Birth Control (Dogs)

Rules.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director & ex officio

Additional Secretary (Municipal Administration/

/Urban Development).

Panaji, 24th June, 2021.

Department of Women & Child

Development

Directorate of Women & Child Development

Notification

No. 1-125-2006-DWCD-PART/1734

In exercise of the powers conferred under

Rule 16 (2) of the Goa State Commission for

Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2010, the

Government of Goa is hereby pleased to constitute

a committee, consisting of the following for the

purpose of the said Rule, with immediate effect to

exercise the powers relating to financial

transaction of the Commission except in cases,

which require prior approval of the Government.

1. Mr. Peter Borges

—

Chairperson.

2. Secretary (GSCPCR)

—

Member.

3. Mr. Balaji S. Mayekar

—

Member.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Deepali Naik, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary

(Women and Child Development).

Panaji, 25th June, 2021.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 16.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—103/150–7/2021.