Panaji, 22nd July, 2021 (Asadha 31, 1943)
SERIES II No. 17
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Animal Husbandry &
Veterinary Services
—
Order
No. 2/13/95-AH (Part)/2021-22/1740
On the recommendations of the Goa Public
Service Commission, as conveyed under letter
No. COM/II/11/3(2)/2014/116 dated 19-06-2019,
Government is pleased to promote the following
Officers to the post of Assistant Director,
Group “A” Gazetted on “Officiating Basis” in the
Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary
Services, Panaji, in Level 10 of the Pay Matrix plus
other admissible allowances with immediate
effect.
Sr.
Name of the
Place of posting
No.
officer
1. Dr. Narendra R. Naik
Veterinary Hospital,
Honda, Sattari.
2. Dr. Atanazia Terezinha
Government Livestock
Fernandes
Farm, Dhat and Fodder
Seed Production Farm,
Kalay.
3. Dr. Tushar A. Gaunekar
Stockman Training
Centre, Curti-Ponda.
4. Dr. Anuradha Anant
Veterinary Dispensary,
Naik
Mandrem.
The above officers shall hold the post of
Assistant Director in the Directorate of Animal
Husbandry & Veterinary Services on “Officiating
Basis”.
The above officers holding post of Assistant
Director on Officiating basis shall not hold any
right against the post of Assistant Director and the
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-23
349
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
service rendered as Assistant Director on
officiating basis will not be counted for further
promotion.
The Budget Head of Account from which they
shall draw their pay and allowances shall be issued
by the Director, Directorate of Animal Husbandry
& Veterinary Services, separately.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dr. Agostinho Misquita, Director & ex officio
Joint Secretary (AH).
Panaji, 09th July, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
__
Order
No. 20/3/(25)/Elec/BOD/AMCH/CZ/RCS/20/895
Read: Letter No. 1/474/Elec/AMCH/ARCS/CZ/20/
/1392 dated 20-11-2020 received from the
Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Central
Zone, Panaji-Goa to grant exemption of
Section 60(3)(b) in terms of Section 126A of
the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 to
Altess Manor Co-operative Housing Society
Ltd., Caranzalem, Taleigao-Goa.
In pursuance of the powers vested under Section
126A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,
the Government of Goa hereby exempts Altess
Manor Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Caranzalem, Taleigao-Goa from the provisions of
Section 60(3)(b) of the Goa Co-operative Societies
Act, 2001 so as to enable Altess Manor Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd., Caranzalem, Taleigao-Goa to
constitute its full fledged Board of Directors.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
350
The exemption so granted shall be valid for a
period of one month or until the seven vacant posts
of the Board of Directors are duly filled 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, 08th July, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Higher Education
__
Notification
No. ADMN/APPT./CHAIRMAN/GEDC/36/2018/2057
Read: 1. Notification No. 2/23/Accts./DHE/09-10/
/PF-I/53 dated 06-04-2017.
2. Order No. ADMN/APPT./CHAIRMAN/
/GEDC/36/2018/5856 dated 27-02-2019.
3. Notification
No.
ADMN/APPT./
/CHAIRMAN/GEDC/36/2018/207 dated
22-04-2020.
4. Notification
No.
ADMN/APPT./
/CHAIRMAN/GEDC/36/2018/4107 dated
23-10-2020.
In exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Goa Education
Development Corporation Act, 2003 (Act No. 22 of
2003), and in supersession of orders read in
preamble, the Government of Goa is pleased to
re-constitute the Goa Education Development
Corporation with immediate effect as below:-
1. Shri Shripad @ Kanta K.
— Chairman.
Patnekar, r/o Housing Board,
Bicholim
2. Secretary (Higher Education),
— Director.
Government of Goa
3. Director (Higher Education),
— Director.
Government of Goa
4. Mr. Gorakh Mandrekar
— Director.
5. Shri Narsiha Bhattgaonkar
— Director.
6. Managing Director, GEDC
— Ex officio
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Tushar T. Halarnakar, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 14th July, 2021.
Department of Finance
Directorate of Accounts
__
Addendum
No. DA/Admn/45-2/2021-22/TR-514/87
Read: Office order No. 1289 bearing No. DA/Admn/
/45-2/19-20/256/TR-2735 dated 10-02-2020.
In view of the recommendation of the Review
Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held
on 13-05-2021 to review the DPC meetings held on
07-02-2020 as conveyed by Goa Public Service
Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/1(1)/2019/175
dated 18-05-2021, the following Para is inserted
above the last para in the above read order:-
“The newly promoted officers to the post of
Dy. Director of Accounts/Accounts Officer shall be
on probation for a period of two years from the date
of joining the post of Dy. Director of Accounts/
/Accounts Officer”.
The other contents of the order remain
unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dilip K. Humraskar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Accounts).
Panaji, 02nd July, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Forest
__
Memorandum
No. 4-4-2012/Seniority-FOR/308
Read:
O.M. No. 4/4/2012/Seniority-FOR/305 dated
08-06-2021.
The Seniority of Assistant Conservator of Forests
(Group ‘B’ Gazetted) in the Forest Department was
finalised vide Memorandum No. 4/4/2012/Seniority/
/FOR/494 dated 02-08-2018. A tentative Seniority
list of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Forest
Department from Serial No. 13 onwards was
circulated and objection, if any, pertaining to the
seniority assigned to them were invited vide this
Department’s Memorandum of even number dated
08-06-2021.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
351
As no objections have been received from the Assistant Conservator of Forests in the Forest Department,
the Final seniority in the grade of Assistant Conservator of Forests (Group ‘B’ Gazetted) in the Forest
Department is hereby finalised as below:-
Sr.
Name of the
Date
Date of
Promote/
Remarks
No.
Officer
of birth
appointment
/Direct recruit
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
Shri Anand S. Jadhav
11-05-1974
03-05-2012
D
2.
Shri Aniket P. Gaonkar
23-05-1988
03-05-2012
D
3.
Shri Nandakumar E. Parab
09-11-1975
03-05-2012
D
4.
Shri Vishal V. Surve
11-01-1981
03-05-2012
D
5.
Shri Amar A. Heblekar
18-08-1968
28-03-2016
P
6.
Shri Shrikrishna R. Prabhu
20-09-1962
29-03-2016
P
7.
Shri A.G. Samant
28-10-1961
29-03-2016
P
8.
Shri Deepak Pednekar
06-04-1970
06-04-2016
P
9.
Shri Damodar Prakash
01-10-1982
21-11-2017
D
Salelkar
10.
Kum. Cliffa D’Costa
18-04-1970
06-06-2019
P
11.
Shri Vishwas K. Chodankar
04-09-1968
06-06-2019
P
12.
Shri Jose Colaco (ST)
05-10-1966
06-06-2019
P
13.
Shri Paresh C. Porab
15-04-1974
31-08-2020
p
14.
Shri Dyaneshwar M.
08-03-1967
15-12-2020
P
Kudalkar (SC)
15.
Shri Minguel A. Fernandes (ST)
16-05-1973
15-12-2020
P
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Isha M. Sawant, Under Secretary (Forest).
Porvorim, 21st June, 2021.
_________
Order
No. 4-2-2011/FOR/318
The Government of Goa is pleased to order posting and transfer of Assistant Conservator of Forests,
with immediate effect and until further orders in public interest as shown below:-
Sr.
Name of the Officers &
Present place
Transferred & posted as/
No.
Designation
of posting
/charge
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Amar Heblekar, Assistant
Principal, Forest Research
Asst. Conservator of Forests,
Conservator of Forest
and Training Institute,
Legal Cell, Forests Department,
Valpoi-Goa
Altinho, Panaji-Goa.
2. Shri Vishwas Chodankar,
Assistant Conservator of Forest,
Principal, Forest Research
Assistant Conservator
Legal Cell, Forest Department
and Training Institute,
of Forest
Altinho, Panaji-Goa
Valpoi-Goa.
The above Officers shall draw their salary on their respective Budget Head.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Isha M. Sawant, Under Secretary (Forest).
Porvorim, 12th July, 2021.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
352
Department of Home
Home–General Division
—
Notification
No. HD(G)/45-59/575/66-Vol-III/2555
The Government of Goa is pleased to re-constitute
the Rajya Sainik Board, Goa with the following
composition:-
1. Hon’ble Chief Minister
— President/
/Chairman.
2. GOC-in-C, Southern Command, — Vice-
Pune
President.
3. FOC-in-C, Western Naval
— Vice-
Command, Mumbai
-President.
4. AOC-in-C, South Western Air
— Vice-
Command Ahmedabad
President.
5. Minister for Home
— Member.
6. Shri Pravin Zantye,
— Member.
MLA, Mayem
7. Chief Secretary
— Vice-
President.
8. Flag Officer Commanding,
— Member.
Goa area
9. Station Commander,
— Member.
Panaji, Goa
10. Director, Resettlement,
— Member.
Zone (South)
11. Director, General of Police
— Member.
12. Principal Secretary/Secretary
— Member.
(Home)
13. Secretary (Finance)
— Member.
14. Secretary (Education)
— Member.
15. Secretary (Information &
— Member.
Publicity)
16. Collector, North Goa, Panaji
— Member.
17. Collector, South Goa, Margao
— Member.
18. Additional Secretary (Personnel) — Member.
19. Additional Secretary (Home)
— Member.
20. Director of Sports & Youth
— Member.
Affairs
21. Director, Social Welfare
— Member.
22. Brig N H Branganza (Retd.)
— Non-official
Member.
23. Capt (IN) Tushar M. Valunjkar — Non-official
(Retd.)
Member.
24. Air Vice Mshl Giles Gomez
— Non-official
VSM (Retd.)
Member.
25. Ex-PO Anil Bondre
— Non-official
Member.
26. President, All Goa
— Non-official
Ex-Servicemen Welfare
Member.
Association
27. President, Air Force Associa-
— Non-official
tion, Goa
Member.
28. President, Goa Foundation
— Non-official
Member.
29. Dir. General Resettlement,
— Special
Ministry of Defence,
Invitee.
New Delhi
30. Secretary, Kendriya Sainik
— Special
Board, New Delhi
Invitee.
31. Secretary of Department
— Vice-
of Ex-Servicemen Welfare,
President.
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi
32. Secretary, Rajya Sainik Board
— Member
Secretary.
The function of the Board are specified below:-
i) Co-ordinating and administering the work of
Department of Sainik Welfare.
ii) Promoting measures relating to the welfare
of Ex-Servicemen and the families of serving
and deceased personnel.
iii) Disseminating information to the General
Public regarding the Armed Forces in the
Country and taking measures to encourage
the general public to take active interest in
the Armed Forces.
iv) Any other task the State Government may
assign from time to time.
The re-constituted Board shall hold office for a
period of 2 years, it shall meet every year.
The Non-Official Members will be entitled to
travelling allowances as per the rules.
This supercedes this Departments earlier
Notification No. HD(G)45-59/575/66-Vol-III/1853
dated 01-07-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Home-II).
Porvorim, 12th July, 2021.
———uuu——
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 24/3/87-Lab-Part-I (Vol-I)/ESI/309
Government is pleased to order the transfer and
posting of the following Insurance Medical Officers
in E.S.I. Scheme, under Office of Commissioner
Labour & Employment, in public interest, with
immediate effect as under:
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
353
Sr.
Name of the
Present place
Place of posting
No.
Insurance
of posting
on transfer
Medical Officer/
/Doctor
1. Dr. Pavitra
ESI Dispensary,
ESI Hospital,
Deshprabhu
Mapusa
Margao.
2. Dr. Reshma
ESI Dispensary,
ESI Hospital,
Hiremath
Mapusa
Margao.
This order shall come into force with immediate
effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 06th July, 2021.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2021-LAB/282
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
18-05-2021 in Ref. No. IT/35/10 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/35/10
Mrs. Radhika Sawant &
2 Others,
Rep. by Gomantak Mazdoor
Sangh,Tisk, Ponda,
Goa-403115
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Godrej and Boyce
Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,
(Cartini India Limited),
D-2, 38/39,
Tivim Industrial Estate,
Karaswada,
Mapusa-Goa 403404.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Adv. Shri S. P.
Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri Valmiki
Menezes.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 18th day of the month
of May of the year 2021)
By order dated 19-11-2010, bearing No. 28/41/
/2010-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),
referred the dispute for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal, Goa as under:
(1) Whether the action of the Management of
M/s Cartini India Limited, Thivim Industrial
Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa in
dismissing its workpersons Mrs. Radhika
Sawant, Ms. Nutan Vaigankar and Mrs.
Mahananda Halankar, with effect from
08-02-2010 from 08-02-2010, is legal and
justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workpersons are entitled
to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/35/10 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a claim statement at Exhibit 5 and
Party II filed a written statement at Exhibit 6.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
workmen were regular employees of Party II and
had put in a considerable and unblemished service
over the years. There are more than fifty permanent
workmen and 20-25 temporary workmen working
in the establishment. The Party I workmen although
were working since last 10-15 years, were not paid
even minimum wages and hence the workers had
raised a charter of demands for revision of their
earned wages and improvement in other service
conditions. Mrs. Mahananda Halankar is the office
bearer of the local committee of Gomantak Mazdoor
Sangh and is representing the said workers of the
Party II. The management of the Party-II was
adamant hence, the workers through their union
raised a dispute before the office of the Labour
Commissioner and on receipt of the said
communication, the Director, Mr. James Kurian got
furious and annoyed and started harassing the
workers at the factory and hence Union had lodged
a complaint against the said management before
the appropriate Authority.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
354
4. Due to the above complaint, the Management
was against the Union and started harassing the
active workers of the union and also started
fabricating false cases against them for the purpose
of victimization, with the help of temporary workers.
The three workmen in this reference were active
in furthering better conditions for workers through
the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh which irked the
Party-II to a great extent. The ill-will against the
Party I workpersons had increased to such an
extent that the Party II had framed false cases
against them, in order to fuel their decision to
dismiss them. Most of the workers were females
and they were forced to work standing
continuously for eight hours. The personal minor
arguments between the female workers outside
the factory premises on the National High way,
was fabricated and converted as misconduct by
forcing the temporary workman to lodge false and
fabricated case against the local committee and
active members of the Union and a false complaint
was lodged by the Director, Mr. James Kurian on
next day by taking the said girl to the Mapusa
Police station by using his personnel influence and
based on the false and fabricated case, charge sheet
dated 25-08-2008 was issued to the above three
workmen, which stated that they were being
charged under the misconducts as per the Model
Standing Orders of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
5. The Charge sheets were issued by Mr. James
Kurian, the Director of the Party-II on the basis of
a complaint obtained by him from one temporary
workman, Ms. Sarita Naik and as per the Party-II it
was alleged that the three workmen/Party-I
assaulted Ms. Sarita Naik, who was a temporary
workmen near the factory gate. It was also
mentioned that the Party I used abusive and filthy
language and threatened Ms. Sarita Naik and that
after the verbal threat the Party 1 collectively
manhandled Ms. Sarita Naik, brutally beat her up,
and then threw itching powder on her; and even
tried to strip off her clothes and when called by
the Director, Mr. James Kurian the Party I refused
to accept their suspension letters; summoned all
other workmen in the cabin; started shouting
slogans and using abusive language, gheraoed all
officers in the cabin; and restrained officers from
leaving the premises. The workpersons then replied
to the charge sheet vide their individual letters
dated 08-09-2008 vehemently denying each and
every charge. The Party II then proceeded with the
enquiry of the Party 1/Workpersons. The Party I
also had satisfactorily showed through evidence
that the charges levied against them were
unjustified and false. The Inquiry Officer gave his
findings whereby it was held that the three
workmen/Party-I were guilty of the misconducts
alleged against them and the charges against them
were proved. Based on the findings of the Enquiry
officer, the Party II informed the three workmen
that they have decided to impose a punishment
and asked them to submit their reply to the same.
6. The Party I explained that the inquiry was
proceeded without considering relevant evidence
and the findings were biased. The Party II issued
the Order of Dismissal of the Party I. The Party I
then through its Union, Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh
raised a dispute before the Asst. Labour
Commissioner asking him to intervene in the said
matter of illegal dismissal. The matter was admitted
in conciliation which ended in a failure on
18-06-2010 before the Asst. Labour Commissioner,
Mapusa, who then made a failure report to the
Government of Goa. The Appropriate Government
then referred the dispute to the Hon’ble Tribunal.
The order of dismissal dated 08-02-2010 is illegal,
unjustified, and violative of principles of natural
justice and suffers from errors apparent on the face
of the record. The Disciplinary Authority failed to
consider long past service put in by the Party I.
The whole inquiry is vitiated as Mr. James Kurian,
the Director of the Party-II who was the Deciding
Authority and had issued the Order of Dismissal,
has also deposed as a witness in the inquiry. The
Management has acted in a biased manner with a
malafide intention of dismissing the Party I on
account of their affiliation to the Union, Gomantak
Mazdoor Sangh. The Party I/workpersons are
therefore entitled for the reliefs claimed. Hence,
the dispute.
7. In the written statement, the Party II has
claimed that the price of brass which is the main
raw material for manufacture of product has shot
up exponentially, consequently requiring the
Party II to procure this raw material at an extremely
high price and the profit margins on the same are
extremely thin and that the Party II is required to
maintain proper security of the brass stored in the
factory premises at Karaswada as brass is a high
value raw material. The plot wherein the factory is
situated, there exists two entrances/gates along
the western boundary of the plot and towards the
South Eastern Corner of the plot, there exists the
Main Gate to the Factory Premises, next to which
lies the Office Building. The value of the machinery
presently installed at or around the factory
premises within the said plot and building, raw
material and finished goods, stock etc. is
approximately valued One Crore Twenty Lacs Only,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
355
which, if damaged during a riot or by any striking
or indisciplined workers, would be the loss caused
to Party II. The workmen concerned in the present
dispute had been in employment with the Party II
having joined its service between about July, 1997
and 1999. The Party II had engaged the services of
over 20 temporary and contract workers for the
purpose. It was informed that the permanent
employees working in the said factory had joined
the Union. The Party II received a notice from the
Asst. Labour Commissioner, Panaji requesting the
Party II to participate in discussions on the said
demands of the Party I on behalf of the permanent
workforce of the Party II.
8. The Party II through its Manager/Director
appeared before the Asst. Labour Commissioner
on various dates, the last of which was held on
12-8-2008 when the conciliation proceedings ended
in a failure as the Party I refused to budge from its
unreasonable demands. In the meantime on
26-7-2008, the Management was informed by one
of its temporary workers named Ms. Sarita Arjun
Naik that she had been assaulted just outside the
factory main gate by the workers concerned in the
present dispute, soon after close of work at about
5.15 p.m. The said three workmen were directly
interfering with the temporary worker of the factory,
and threatening the said workman with dire
consequences, if she reported for work, and further,
since the threats by the workmen were issued in
order to disrupt normal work at the factory through
any temporary or contract workers, the Party I
decided to suspend the said three workmen,
pending an inquiry into the incident and when
they attempted to serve the Order of Suspension
from service on the said three workers at the Factory
Premises, the said workers refused to sign in
acknowledgement of receipt of the suspension
orders, nor would they accept the same and
thereafter, the said workers began insulting Shri
James Kurian, and the above referred staff with
filthy language and used abuses and went on to
the shop floor of the factory and incited the workers
working there by calling upon them to strike work;
thereafter, the workmen concerned in the present
dispute along with several other workers forced
entry into the factory office as well as the cabin of
Mr. James Kurian.
9. The group of workers was led by the workmen
concerned in the present dispute, who threatened
all the staff in the office and the managers with
physical assault and informed them that they
would not allow to leave the factory premises.
Police was called fearing that the machinery,
equipment and factory premises would be
vulnerable to damage. However, the workmen,
along with more than 20 other workers refused to
leave the factory and blocked the exit of the staff,
management and some willing workers, through
the main gate. On 21-8-2008, the permanent
workers who are members of the Party I assembled
at the main factory gate at about 8.00 a.m. before
their shift commenced and they blocked ingress
and egress through the said main gate, as a result
of which, it became impossible to commence its
operation in the factory. The workers were using
abusive language and physically obstructing
people moving freely into or out from of the said
factory gate. They were also shouting slogan.
Similarly, no vehicular traffic including trucks with
supplies of raw material or any other vehicles were
allowed into or out of the factory thereby
completely paralyzing the factory causing the
Party II huge monetary loses. The workers
continued picketing at the factory gate blocking
entry or exit through the said gate and also
threatened employees of the Party II as also contract
employees. The entire incident of the blockage of
the factory gate was filmed by Shri Atmaram
Toraskar, Diploma Engineer Trainee, which was
then transferred to a compact disc. The Party II
filed a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge Senior
Division, Mapusa bearing No. RCS 139/08/A,
praying for an order of injunction to restrain the
striking workers from interfering with the entry
and egress of staff and goods to the factory. After
the workmen refused to accept the order of
suspension on 20-8-2008, Party II served said order
to the concerned workmen through registered post,
which was received by the said workmen.
10. Party II thereafter served a charge sheet
dated 25-8-2008 an each of the above referred
workmen. They were called upon to submit their
explanation to the charges levelled against them
and submitted their replies dated 8-9-2008
attempting to explain their acts of misconduct by
merely denying the incidents. The Enquiry Officer
was appointed. The workmen had fully participated
in the inquiry and the Enquiry Officer concluded
that all three charges levelled against the workmen
have been proved and held them guilty of the same.
The management considered and accepted the
findings and concurred with the same, and had
decided to impose a punishment for the
misconducts committed by the workmen,
thereupon, calling upon them to show cause as to
why punishment should not be imposed upon them
for the said misconducts and after considering the
contents of the said replies of the workmen to the
show cause notice, and after considering the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
356
Enquiry Report/Findings of the Enquiry Officer, and
the past records of the workmen, the management
decided to terminate the services of the above
referred three workmen vide Order of Dismissal
dated 8-2-2010 for the charges of misconduct. The
Party I workpersons are not entitled for any reliefs.
11. In the rejoinder at Exh. 7, the Party I has
denied the case set up by the Party II in the written
statement.
12. Issues which came to be framed at Exhibit 8
are as follows:
1. Whether the Party I/Union proves that the
enquiry was unjust, illegal and in violation
of principles of natural justice?
2. Whether the charges leveled against the
Party I/Workman are proved to the
satisfaction of the Tribunal?
3. Whether the Party I/Union proves that the
termination of the Party I workmen is illegal,
unjustified and by way of victimization?
4. What Relief? What Order?
13. In the course of evidence, the Party II
examined Shri James Kurian as their witness and
produced on record copies of three orders of
dismissal letter dated 08-02-2010 at Exh. 51 Colly,
copies of three replies dated 02-02-2010 of Party I
along with postal receipts at Exh. 52 Colly, copies
of three letters dated 28-01-2010 of Party II along
with certificate of posting to Party I at 53 Colly,
copies of three letters dated 27-01-2010 of Party I
along with postal receipts at Exh. 54 Colly, copies
of three notice dated 19-01-2010 of Party II along
with certificate of posting at Exh. 55 Colly, copy of
findings of Enquiry Officer dated 28-12-2009 at
Exh. 56, copy of record of enquiry proceedings
dated 25-08-2008 at Exh. 57, copy of letter of
appointment of the Enquiry Officer dated
09-09-2008 at Exh. 58, copy of letter of appointment
of the Management Representative dated
15-10-2008 at Exh. 59, copies of three notice of
enquiry dated 18-09-2008 to the Party I at Exh. 60
Colly, copies of three explanation to charge-sheet
dated 08-09-2008 of Party I at Exh. 61 Colly, copies
of three charge-sheets dated 25-08-2008 to Party I
at Exh. 62 Colly, copy of letter dated 28-08-2008 to
Police Inspector at Exh. 63, copy of letter dated
21-08-2008 to Police Inspector at Exh. 64, copy of
letter dated 20-08-2008 to Police Inspector at Exh.
65, copy of letter dated 17-07-2008 to Police
Inspector at Exh. 66, copies of three letters dated
21-08-2008 to Party I at Exh. 67 Colly, copies of three
suspension
orders
dated
20-08-2008
at
Exh. 68 Colly, copy of complaint dated 19-08-2008
of Sarita Naik at Exh. 69, copies of two N.C.
complaints dated 18-08-2008 and 26-07-2008 at
Exh. 70 Colly, copy of conciliation proceedings
dated 18-07-2008 at Exh. 71, copy of notice dated
28-04-2008 for conciliation at Exh. 72, copy of notice
dated 23-08-2008 to Police Inspector at Exh. 73,
copy of notice dated 22-08-2008 to Police Inspector
at Exh. 74, copy of notice dated 21-08-2008 to Police
Inspector at Exh. 75, copy of notice dated
20-08-2008 to Police Inspector at Exh. 76, copy of
notice dated 17-07-2008 to Police Inspector at
Exh. 77, copy of notice dated 01-09-2008 to Police
Inspector at Exh. 78, copy of notice dated
30-08-2008 to Police Inspector at Exh. 79, copy of
notice dated 29-08-2008 to Police Inspector at
Exh. 80, copy of notice dated 28-08-2008 to Police
Inspector at Exh. 81, copy of notice dated
27-08-2008 to Police Inspector at Exh. 82, copy of
notice dated 26-08-2008 to Police Inspector at
Exh. 83, copy of notice dated 25-08-2008 to Police
Inspector at Exh. 84, copy of letter dated
27-01-2009 to Mrs. Mahananda along with
certificate of posting at Exh. 85 Colly, copies of
three letters dated 17-01-2009 of Party I at Exh. 86
Colly, copy of letter dated 20-12-2008 to
Mrs. Mahananda at Exh. 87, copy of letter dated
16-12-2008 of Party I at Exh. 88, copy of letter dated
05-12-2008 by Party II to the Enquiry Officer at
Exh. 89, copy of letter dated 24-11-2008 of Party I
to Party II at Exh. 90, copies of three daily output
sheets of July and August, 2008 of Ms. Sarita Naik
at Exh. 91 Colly, copy of letter dated Nil of Party I
to Party II along with certificate of posting and
postal receipt at Exh. 92 Colly, copy of daily output
sheets of July and August, 2008 of Party I at
Exh. 93 Colly, copy of Minutes of conciliation
proceedings dated 18-07-2008 between the Union
(GMS) and Party II at Exh. 94, a copy of
Memorandum of Settlement dated 14-11-2009 at
Exh. 95, copy of Award dated 14-11-2009 in Lok
Adalat along with Memorandum dated 14-11-2009
at Exh. 96 Colly, copy of plaint in RCS No. 139/2008
between Party II and the Union and Ors. at Exh. 97,
copy of proceeding sheets of SDO, Mapusa along
with annexures at Exh. 98 Colly, copy of Muster
Roll for August, September and October, 2008 at
Exh. 99 Colly, copy of Power of Attorney dated
04-09-2008 at Exh. 102, a copy of Special Power of
Attorney dated 07-10-2016 at Exh. 103, a copy of
Board Resolution dated 21-01-2021 at Exh. 104.
Party II also examined its witness Shri Gajendra
Parab and produced on record a CD along with
certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act at
Exh. 109 Colly. Party also examined its witness,
Ms. Patsy Rita Correia and Shri Atmaram Toraskar
as its witness and produced on record copy of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
357
certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act at
Exh. 114, and also examined Shri Anand Karapurkar
and Sarita Naik. On the other hand, no witnesses
were examined by the Party I workmen, who
claimed that they are relying on the evidence
already led by them at the time of preliminary
issues. The Party I had examined Mrs. Radhika
Sawant as their witness and produced on record a
copy of joining letter dated 28-05-2006 at Exh. 11,
a copy of letter dated 05-06-2006 of formation of
Union at Exh. 12, a copy of letter dated 05-06-2006
informing newly elected committee members at
Exh. 13, a copy of dated 04-03-2010 at Exh. 14, a
copy letter dated 19-05-2010 at Exh. 15, a copy of
minutes of conciliation proceedings dated
18-06-2010 at Exh. 16, a copy of failure report dated
13-08-2010 at Exh. 17, a copy of three charge-sheets
dated 25-08-2008 at Exh. 18, Exh. 19 and Exh. 20, a
copy of explanation to the charge-sheet dated
08-09-2008 at Exh. 21 and Exh. 22, copy of findings
dated 19-01-2010 (3 in Nos.) at Exh. 23 Colly, a copy
of explanations dated 02-02-2010 to the show cause
notice dated 19-01-2010 at Exh. 24, Exh. 25 and
Exh. 26, a copy of Orders of Dismissal dated
08-02-2010 at Exh. 27 and 28, copy of three
explanation letters dated 16-02-2010 at Exh. 29,
Exh. 30 and Exh. 31.
14.
Heard
arguments
through
video
conferencing. Notes of written arguments came to
be placed on record by the Party I as well as
Party II.
15. My answers to the above issues are as
follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the Affirmative
(Already answered).
Issue No. 2
…
In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the Negative.
Issue No. 4
…
As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
16. It is a matter of record that my Learned
Predecessor had answered the above issue on
18-1-2013 in the affirmative as it was held that the
domestic enquiry held against the workmen is
unjust, illegal and in violation of principles of
natural justice and as such the enquiry was set
aside. The Party II preferred a Writ Petition before
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa, which
was pleased to dismiss the Petition on 27-4-2020
with a direction to the Tribunal to endeavour to
decide the reference, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of one year, from the
expiry of the eight weeks, if the normal Court/
/Tribunal working is restored. Needless to mention,
the Party II was afforded an opportunity to lead
evidence before the Tribunal to establish the
charges as levelled and to lead such evidence, if so
advised and accordingly, the Party II led evidence
as stated above.
Issue No. 2:
17. Learned Advocate Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the
Party I has submitted that following charges have
been framed against the Party I workman as per
exhibit 62 Colly namely (1) Assault and abuse of
Sarita Naik on 18-8-2008 near the factory gate
(2) Refusal to accept suspension order given by
James Kurian (3) Slogan shouting, using abusive
language and gheraoing all the officers in his cabin
and (4) Several other officers were prevented from
leaving the factory premises by blocking the gate.
He submitted that none of these charges are made
out on the basis of evidence led before the Tribunal.
The charges made against Party I workpersons on
the basis of alleged incident are false as Sarita
Naik was not present in the factory on 18-8-2008
and further the charges are not maintainable as
incident occurred outside the factory premises on
the national highway which was purely of a
personal nature not connected with the affairs of
the company and the same should have been
investigated by the police and not by the employer.
The misconducts enumerated in the Model
Standing Orders cannot be given any liberal
interpretation since the standing orders are penal
in nature which deserves strict interpretation.
Besides, Sarita Naik has admitted that when in the
factory she would sign in the column of employee’s
signature on the Daily output sheet, however on
the day of incident the signature of Sarita Naik is
missing and therefore the credibility of the
complaint itself from which the charge sheet
originated is questionable. The Party II has not
established that act of Party I workpersons had
directly interfered with the production and
functioning of the factory as Daily output sheets of
all the workmen had not been produced.
18. Learned Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar has further
submitted that the incident of 20-8-2008 as alleged
in the charge sheet has also not been made out as
all the witnesses examined were directly reporting
to Mr. James Kurian and therefore there is a
likelihood that the statements of said persons have
been controlled and influenced by said James
Kurian. The Party II had also not examined any
security guard posted at the plant to prove the
incident. He also submitted that the incident of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
358
21-8-2008 regarding the workmen alleged
involvement in picketing at the factory gate and
threatening one Dilip D. Narvekar cannot be relied
upon as a ground for dismissal as there is no
mention of the alleged incident in the charge sheet
at Exh. 62 colly. He further submitted that in the
case of the Workmen of India Cements Limited
v/s Labour Court, Coimbatore, 1988 SCC Online
Mad 245 it was held that in a case of domestic
enquiry, the parties are confined to charges framed
and the Court or the Enquiry officer as the case
may be, cannot travel outside the charges, admit
evidence or give any findings in respect of any
matter extraneous to the charge and therefore the
alleged misconducts under Model Standing Orders
are not made out and any action taken against the
Party I workmen on the basis of the charge sheet
is illegal. He also stated relying upon the case of
Neeta Kaplish v/s Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
(1999) 1 SCC 517 that the Party II has not led any
fresh evidence on merits and if Management has
not led fresh evidence on merits, the management
has to suffer the consequences.
19. Per contra, Learned Adv. Shri Valmiki
Menezes for the Party II has submitted that there
is no evidence led by the Party 1 workpersons
refuting the allegations in the charge sheet or the
evidence now led by six eyewitnesses to the two
incidents that the workpersons are charged of and
therefore the entire matter will have to be viewed
in the complete absence of evidence by the three
workers on the specific allegation in the charge
sheet and refuting the evidence of eye witnesses
accounts nor on the question of victimization raised
by the workers in the written statement. He further
submitted that in the case of Workman v/s Motipur
Sugar Factory Private Limited, AIR 1965 SC 1803,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the entire
matter would be open before the Tribunal, if the
domestic enquiry has been set aside and the
employer would have to justify on facts as well as
that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper.
He further submitted that in the case of Workmen
of F. T and R Company v/s Management of
Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited,
AIR 1973 SC 1227, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held that powers of Tribunal under Section 11-A of
the Act permit the employer to adduce evidence
to justify its action for the first time before the
Tribunal and the Tribunal is empowered to consider
the evidence and to conclude based upon the same
whether the termination of the workman was
justified and that provisions of Section 11-A also
empower the Tribunal to modify the punishment
for misconduct, if it is justified.
20. Admittedly, three charges have been framed
vide the charge sheet dated 25-8-2008 at exhibit
62 colly, namely misconduct No. 14(3)(h), riotous or
disorderly behaviour during working hours at the
establishment or any act subversive of discipline,
(b) misconduct No. 14(3)(a), wilful insubordination
or disobedience whether alone or in combination
with others to any lawful and reasonable orders of
the superior and (c) Misconduct No. 14(3)(k), striking
work or inviting others to strike work in
contravention of any law or rule having the force
of law. Discernibly, the following charges have been
slapped against the workmen, namely (a) Assault
and abuse of Sarita Naik on 18-8-2008 near the
factory gate, (b) Refusal to accept suspension order
given by James Kurian (c) Slogan shouting, using
abusive language and gheraoing all the officers in
the cabin of James Kurian and (d) Other officers
were prevented from leaving the factory premises
by blocking the gate.
21. It is therefore apposite to find out whether
the Party II have proved the above charges against
the workmen as alleged by them as per the
evidence adduced before the Court. The first
charge as per the charge sheet is (a) Assault and
abuse of Sarita Naik on 18-8-2008 near the factory
gate.
22. It is the case of the Party II/employer that the
Party I/ three workpersons on 18-8-2008 assaulted
Sarita Naik near the factory Gate who was the
temporary worker, using abusive language
threatening her that if she resumes work at the
factory of Party II, she would face dire
consequences. The Party II examined said Sarita
who has deposed that 18-8-2008 after finishing her
duty at the factory in the evening and as she came
out of the factory Gate, the Party I workpersons
gheraoed her and pulled her dupatta and threw it
on the road and that they threatened her to
withdraw the police complaint of 26-7-2008 and to
stop coming for work at the factory and that the
Party I/workpersons then started beating her and
she fell down on the road and they kicked her and
continued beating her while she was lying on the
road after which she fainted. The police came to
the spot and took her to the hospital, at Mapusa
where doctor treated her and issued a hurt
certificate and that on the same day, the police
took down her complaint regarding the incident.
She also claimed that on the next day, James Kurian
came to her residence enquired with her about the
previous incident with the three workers and she
narrated him the incident in detail and also gave
him the copy of the complaints dated 26-7-2008
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
359
and 18-8-2008 and also gave him a letter dated
19-8-2008 signed by her narrating all the incident
and requested him to take action against the said
three workpersons. In the cross examination, she
stated that she used to assemble the locks and
that she left the job in August, 2008 and did not
join any company thereafter. When shown Daily
output sheets at Exh. 91 colly, she admitted
signature in the column employee’s signature and
admitted that she used to sign Daily output sheet
everyday. She also admitted that the above bus
stop is always crowded at the time of leaving and
that on 18-8-2008 after completing her shift, she
went directly to the bus stop. She has not been
shaken in the cross examination regarding the
incidents. She has deposed in detail about the
incident of 18-8-2008 occurred just outside the
factory gate. She also narrated about the previous
incident on 25-7-2008 within the factory premises,
after which on 18-8-2008 she was abused and
threatened near the factory gate and told her not
to report for duty.
23. Exh. 70 Colly (2) is the N. C. complaint lodged
by Sarita Naik before Mapusa Police Station with
respect to the previous incident on 25-7-2008
wherein she was abused by Radhika and Nutan.
Exh. 70 Colly (1) is the N. C complaint lodged by
her with respect to the second incident on
18-8-2008 reported by her near Karaswada bus stop
wherein she was assaulted Exh. 69 is the complaint
addressed by her to the Party II disclosing the two
incidents and as to how she was abused and
assaulted by the Party I/workpersons. The Hurt
Certificate produced also shows that she was
referred by the police for medical examination
immediately after she lodged the complaint
regarding the incident, which also corroborates
that such an incident occurred. The examination
of Sarita Naik clearly indicates that the incident
took place at the bus stop outside the factory Gate.
She also explained prior incident of 25-7-2008
wherein she stated that at the washroom while
washing hands a rose which was kept on the basin
fell into the basin and Radhika who was present
asked her whether she was blind and she left the
factory soon thereafter and at the factory gate,
Radhika and Nutan were waiting for her and as
soon as she came out of the gate, they pushed her
and threatened her saying if she reports for duty
on the next day, they would assault her. She lodged
the N.C complaint as stated above. She also
categorically deposed regarding the incident on
18-8-2008 wherein she stated that when she came
out of the factory gate, she was gheraoed by the
Party I/workpersons and threatened to withdraw
the police complaint and stop coming for work and
also beat her and she fell on the road and they
kicked her and continued beating her while she
was on the road after which she fainted. There is
also a N.C complaint with respect to the incident.
The Hurt certificate also corroborates her case. She
also stated that she had not come back to work
after the incident which also indicates that the
assault was with the purpose of threatening the
temporary worker to desist from joining duties as
to force the management to fulfil their demands.
24. The witness of Party II, namely James Kurian
has stated in detail the background facts as to
why there were attempts of threats, assault etc.,
by the above workpersons who were representing
the Union. He also deposed that negotiations on
the Charter of demands were going on and the
above workpersons were attempting to disrupt
normal operations during that period by
threatening other workers from attending the
duties. The other witnesses namely, Gajendra Parab
and Atmaram Toraskar have also deposed about
the negotiations that were going on about the
Charter of demands of the Union and the temporary
workers were being threatened as a pressure
tactics not to come for attending their regular
duties. The above two incidents therefore assumes
importance as rightly submitted by Learned
Advocate Shri Valmiki Menezes. The incident on
the workperson, Sarita is not one of a private
dispute as claimed by Learned Advocate Shri S. P.
Gaonkar, but one which is directly connected with
the workers in the factory, with an aim of creating
ruckus and stopping production at the factory as
to put a pressure on the management during the
negotiations of the Charter of demands raised by
the Union. It is well settled in the case of Usha
Breco Mazdoor Sangh v/s Management of Usha
Breco Limited and Anr, (2008) 5 SCC 554 that
assault, intimidation are penal offences and a
workman indulging in commission of a criminal
offence should not be spared only because he
happens to be an union leader. The Act does not
encourage indiscipline as the union leader does
not enjoy immunity from being proceeded with in
a case of misconduct.
25. Needless to mention, the act complained of
by Sarita Naik took place outside the factory gate
but with an intention of pressurising the
workperson from attending the duties as stated by
her in her deposition. The Model Standing Orders
nowhere restricts misconduct of assault, abuses or
threats against the workman as required to take
place within the premises of the establishment or
its vicinity. The said act of assault and threats has
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
360
direct interference with the normal production and
discipline of the establishment. It is well settled in
the case of Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v/s
Presiding Officer (1984) 1 SCC 1 that even where
the Standing Orders refer to a misconduct of an
act subversive of discipline of good behaviour
within the premises or precincts of the
establishment, where the act is committed outside
the precincts or wherever committed, if it has the
effect of subverting discipline or good behaviour
within the precincts of the establishment, will
amount to a misconduct. It is therefore immaterial
as to whether the assault took place inside the
establishment or just outside its gate or the bus
stand abutting the factory premises as, in fact, the
assault was an act which had effect of subverting
discipline and good behaviour within the factory
premises. The contention of Learned Advocate Shri
S. P Gaonkar as stated above therefore pales into
insignificance as the evidence clearly points out
that Sarita Naik was present at the time of incident
and the incident narrated by her occurred. The
Party II therefore proved the misconduct
No. 14(3)(h), riotous or disorderly behaviour during
working hours at the establishment and any act
subversive of discipline as it has sufficiently shown
assault and abuse on Sarita Naik on 18-8-2008 near
the factory gate by the Party I workpersons.
26. The other misconducts are (b) misconduct
No. 14(3)(a), wilful insubordination or disobedience
whether alone or in combination with others to
any lawful and reasonable orders of the superior
and (c) Misconduct No. 14(3)(k), striking work or
inviting others to strike work in contravention of
any law or rule having the force of law, namely,
refusal to accept suspension order given by James
Kurian (c) Slogan shouting, using abusive language
and gheraoing all the officers in the cabin of James
Kurian and (d) Other officers were prevented from
leaving the factory premises by blocking the gate.
The incidents imputed in the Charge (b), (c) and
(d) above form part of one transaction between
4.30 pm and approximately 8 pm on 20-8-2008. The
first part of the incident was when James Kurian,
in the presence of Gajendra Parab, HR Manager
and Carol Narvekar, Deputy Manager, Accounts
attempted to serve a Suspension Order on the
Party I/workers in the Chamber of James Kurian at
4.30 pm.
27. The witness of Party II namely, James Kurian
has recounted the said incident on 20-8-2008 in his
Affidavit. He has stated that the workers involved
in the present dispute refused to sign in
acknowledgment of receipt of suspension orders
nor would they accept the same and thereafter the
said workpersons began insulting him and their
staff with filthy language and that thereafter they
thereafter went on to the shop floor of the factory
and incited the workers thereby calling them to
strike work and thereafter they along with other
workers forced entry into the factory office as well
in his cabin and threatened the staff with physical
assault and informed that they would not allow
them to leave the factory premises and on sensing
the situation and fearing that the machinery,
equipment and factory premises would be
vulnerable to damage, he called the police force to
the factory, however the above workpersons along
with other workers refused to leave the factory
and blocked the exit of the staff and other workers.
28. The above statement of James Kurian has
specifically corroborated by Gajendra Parab and
Patsy Correia. Gajendra Parab has stated that the
said workpersons refused to accept the orders of
suspension which was being served on them by
James Kurian in his office cabin after which the
said workers left the cabin, summoned other
workers from the shop floor, gheraoed the officers
and workers of the company and thereafter
restrained him and other officers including James
Kurian from leaving the office premises. The above
incident has not been denied by the Party I
workpersons. Ms. Patsy Correia also narrated the
said facts. She stated that when she was in the
Accounts office at around 4.30 pm on 20-8-2008,
she heard some lady workers shouting abuses from
the direction of the chamber of James Kurian and
thereafter heard same workers shouting in the
corridor outside their office and noticed the three
workers were walking outside the office of James
Kurian in a threatening manner along with other
workers and forced entry into factory office as well
as in the cabin of James Kurian.
29. Ms. Patsy, the then Accounts Officer also
deposed that the group was led by Party I/
/workpersons who threatened her and other staff
and informed them that they would not allow them
to leave the factory premises. In the cross
examination, she maintained that she was in the
factory office on the ground floor. She has not been
shaken as far as the incident is concerned.
Atmaram Toraskar, the Engineering Executive on
the Shop Floor also narrated the above incident in
detail. He claimed that on 20-8-2008, at 4.30 pm he
was at the shop floor, at which time the Party I/
/workpersons came to meet other workers on
various production lines and after some
conversation with them, suddenly, all the workers
from the shop floor left together in a large group
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
361
led by Party I workpersons and went to the cabin
of James Kurian and thereafter did not allow any
of the staff to leave factory premises till 6 pm. He
admitted that the shop floor and the cabin of James
Kurian are on the ground floor and can be seen
from the shop floor. He has thus corroborated the
incident. Similarly, Anand Karapurkar, then
employed as Deputy Manager (Production) has also
deposed that he was dealing with production and
spend most of the time on the shop floor and on
20-8-2008 at 4.30 pm, the Party I workpersons came
to meet other workers at the shop floor and after
some conversation with them, all of them suddenly
left and went to the cabin of James Kurian and
refused to allow James, Carol, and Gajendra to move
out of cabin. He admitted that he did not go inside
the cabin but stated that he could see them
through cabin glass door. Except for denials of the
statements of these witnesses, there is no
substantial cross examination on the actual
incident. The evidence of the above witnesses
clearly establishes the above misconducts on the
part of Party I/workpersons.
30. The explanation of the Party I workpersons
can be found in their reply which is produced at
Exhibit 61 colly which is a bare denial. Refusal to
accept a legitimate Order from the Management is
a misconduct and an act subversive of discipline.
The above charge comprises of the incident that
took place immediately after the workers left the
Chamber of James Kurian and returned to his
chamber with a large crowd of workers and
thereafter physically restrained the Management,
Staff and willing workers from leaving the factory
premises until after 7 pm as per the case of
Party II as well as the documents including Police
Complaints made to that effect along with a suit
filed by the Party II to restrain the workers at
Exhibit 97, and various other documents to
substantiate the incident. It is therefore the Party II
has sufficiently proved the commission of the above
misconducts by the Party I/three workers, during
the second part of the transaction from 4 pm
onwards on 20-8-2008. The incident of
21-8-2008 regarding the workmen alleged
involvement in picketing at the factory Gate and
threatening one Dilip D. Narvekar and reliance on
the CD to prove the said charge cannot be relied
upon as a ground for dismissal as rightly submitted
by Learned Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for the Party I
as there is no mention of the alleged incident in
the charge sheet at Exh. 62 colly as it well settled
in the case of the Workmen of India Cements
Limited, supra that in a case of domestic enquiry,
the parties are confined to charges framed and the
court or the enquiry officer as the case may be,
cannot travel outside the charges, admit evidence
or give any findings in respect of any matter
extraneous to the charge and therefore the alleged
misconduct under Model Standing Orders is not
made out and any action taken against the
Party I workmen on the basis of the charge sheet
is illegal.
31. It is well settled in the case of Jay
Engineering Works Ltd. v/s State of West Bengal,
AIR 1968 Calcutta 407 that Gherao or a Physical
Blockade of the egress and ingress of a factory,
with a target to place Managerial Staff in a position
as to compel those in control of an industry to
submit to the demands of the workers, invariably
involves the commission of an offence. The
Judgment discusses all aspects of this method
adopted by workmen, to coerce the Management
and to pressurize it into accepting its demands by
means which are other than peaceful ones, like the
present case, as rightly submitted by Learned
Adv. Shri Valmiki Menezes for Party II. The
contention of Learned Adv. Shri S.P. Gaonkar and
reliance placed on the case of Neeta Kaplish, supra
cannot be accepted as in that case, no evidence
was led by the management, unlike in the present
case, where the management has led fresh
evidence before the Tribunal, which has not been
rebutted by the Party I workpersons. The Party II
has proved by way of oral as well as documentary
evidence the misconducts namely (b) misconduct
No. 14(3)(a), wilful insubordination or disobedience
whether alone or in combination with others to
any lawful and reasonable orders of the superior
and (c) Misconduct No. 14(3)(k), striking work or
inviting others to strike work in contravention of
any law or rule having the force of law, namely,
refusal to accept suspension order given by James
Kurian (c) Slogan shouting, using abusive language
and gheraoing all the officers in the cabin of James
Kurian and (d) Other officers were prevented from
leaving the factory premises by blocking the gate.
It is therefore the above issue is answered in the
affirmative.
Issue No. 3:
32. Learned Advocate S. P. Gaonkar for Party I
has submitted that the act of termination by the
Party II is a clear case of victimisation as it was on
account of their affiliation to the Union since they
were striving for better conditions through the
Union, and for this reason, the Employer/Party II
has falsely charged them with the misconduct for
an alleged act that occurred outside the premises
of the Party II which was purely of a personal nature,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
362
unconnected with the affairs of the Company. He
further submitted that although Ms. Sarita Naik
complained to the Management that on 18-08-2008
around 12 workmen were involved in the alleged
assault against her, the Employer Party II
maliciously issued suspension orders only against
these 3 workmen i.e. Party I to victimise them. The
depositions of all witnesses of Party II show that on
20-08-2008 after Mr. James Kurian attempted to
give the suspension orders, the Workmen/Party 1
along with 20 other workers refused to leave the
factory and blocked the exit of the staff,
management and some workers through main gate.
However, only Party I workmen were charge
sheeted which goes to prove the intention of
victimization of the Workmen/Party I by the
Employer/Party II.
33. Learned Advocate Shri S.P. Gaonkar has
further submitted that the very fact that Mr. James
Kurian deposed against Party I and that he himself
decided to dismiss them from their services clearly
establishes malafide intentions of the Employer/
/Party-II in fabricating the misconducts against the
Workmen/Party I and terminating their services
which clearly shows a case of bias and personal
vendetta against the Workmen. He relied upon the
case of Mohd. Yunus Khan v. State of UP & Ors
(2010) 10 SCC 539 and submitted that if a person
appears as a witness in disciplinary proceedings,
he cannot be an inquiry officer nor can he pass the
order of punishment as a disciplinary authority.
No person can be a Judge in his own cause and no
witness can certify that his own testimony is true.
Anyone who has personal interest in the
disciplinary proceedings must keep himself away
from such proceedings. The violation of the
principles of natural justice renders the order null
and void. He further submitted that while passing
this illegal dismissal order, the unblemished past
record and performance of the Party I/Workmen
had been ignored and this also makes the dismissal
order illegal and void. It is thus clear that the
orders of termination of the Party I/Workmen are
illegal, unjustified and by way of victimization.
34. Per Contra, Learned Advocate Shri Valmiki
Menezes has submitted and rightly so that the
plea of victimization is required to be substantiated
by evidence to be led by the workers and
victimization being the antithesis of proved
misconduct, requires evidence and facts to be
pleaded and proved. The workers having not led
any evidence in this regard, there is no past
incident or any specific act of victimization pleaded
or proved on the record. It is also well settled in a
case of Messrs Bharat Iron Works v/s Bhagubhai
Balubhai Patel and Ors, (1976) SCC 518 that the
onus of establishing a plea of victimisation will be
upon person pleading it and since a charge of
victimisation is a serious matter, they have to be
established by safe and sure evidence. Mere
allegations, vague suggestions and insinuations
are not enough. All particulars of the charge
brought out, if believed, must be weighed by the
Tribunal and a conclusion should be reached on a
totality of evidence produced. It is also well settled
that once a gross misconduct is established as
required, on legal evidence either in a fairly
conducted domestic enquiry or before the Tribunal
on merits, the plea of victimisation will not carry
the case of the employee any further. Also, in the
case of Ajit Kumar Nag v/s Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., (2005) 7 SCC 764, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that the burden of proving
malafide is on the person making the allegations
and the burden is very heavy. There is every
presumption in favour of the administration that
the power has been exercised bonafide and in good
faith as it is to be remembered that the allegations
of malafide are often made easily than made out
and the very seriousness of such allegations
demands proof of a high degree of credibility.
35. Needless to mention, the Party II has proved
the misconducts as alleged against the Party I/
/workmen. It is proved that they had abused and
assaulted the temporary workperson, namely Sarita
Naik on 18-8-2008 near the factory gate and on
20-8-2008, when James Kurian attempted to serve
the suspension orders on the Party I/workpersons
in the presence of other officials, they refused to
accept the legitimate orders and thereafter left
and returned with a large crowd of workers and
physically restrained the management, staff and
other workers from leaving the factory premises.
There is no cross examination on the incident
narrated by the said witnesses. None of the
witnesses of Party I workmen who have been
examined during preliminary enquiry have stated
about the alleged bias or personal grudge. There
are also no sufficient pleadings regarding bias or
victimisation by the Officers of Party II Company.
The burden is on the Party I/workmen to prove
victimisation.
36. There is nothing on record that besides the
Party I/ workpersons, the other workmen have also
taken active part in the incident. There is nothing
on record that they were also responsible for the
said act. The case of Mohd. Yunus Khan, supra is
not applicable in the present case as the Party II
have established gross misconducts against the
workmen. The Tribunal would not have to consider
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
363
only whether there was a prima facie case but
would decide for itself on the evidence adduced
whether the charges have been really made out. In
any event, the Party I workmen have not established
any bias or victimisation on the part of Party II.
Even otherwise, once gross misconducts are
established before the Tribunal on merits, the plea
of bias or victimisation fails. The Party I/
/workpersons therefore failed to prove that the
termination of Party/workpersons is illegal,
unjustified and by way of victimisation. Hence,
Issue No. 3 is answered in the negative.
Issue No. 4:
37. Learned Advocate Shri S. P. Gaonkar has
submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal would be fully
justified under Section 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 in declaring the dismissal of all
workmen/Party I in the order of reference as illegal,
improper, unjustified and violative of principles of
natural justice as the Orders of dismissal were
ab-initio void and inoperative and hence the
Workmen/Party I continued to be in service with
all consequential benefits.
38. The next question would be whether the
Tribunal has the jurisdiction to interfere with the
punishment of termination of services imposed on
the
Party
I/workmen
and
under
what
circumstances such interference is justified. It is
well settled in the case of Davalsab Hussainsab
Mulla v/s North West Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation (2013)10 SCC 185 that under Section
11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, discretionary
power to set aside punishment of discharge or
dismissal to be exercised judicially and judiciously
with care and caution and that such satisfaction
must be based on sound reasoning and cannot be
arrived at in a casual manner for flimsy reasons
and the Labour court has to assess gravity and
magnitude of misconduct found proved against the
employee concerned, his past conduct,
repercussions it would have in the event of
interference with the order of discharge or
dismissal in day-to-day functioning of the
establishment which would have far-reaching
effects on other workmen, etc. and that misplaced
sympathy would cause more harm to the
establishment than any good for the employee
concerned.
39. In the instant case, the Party I/workpersons
were involved in two separate incidents, the first
of threatening a temporary worker not to come to
work and directly committing an act subversive of
discipline. The second incident which is as serious,
whereby they have indulged in acts of criminal
restraint, intimidation, insult and threatened the
life of staff. All these incidents comprise offences
under the Indian Penal Code for which action was
sought from the Police. It is well established that
unless there are compelling circumstances or the
Tribunal is of the opinion that the punishment
meted out is far disproportionate to the acts of
misconduct, such that it shocks the conscience of
the Tribunal, it should not interfere with the
punishment imposed upon the workmen.
40. The Party II has fully justified the charges
levelled against the workers by cogent evidence
on all the incidents. There is total loss of confidence
in the said three workpersons who have committed
acts of gross misconducts and criminal offence
which do not deserve any sympathy. There are also
no mitigating circumstances to award any lesser
punishment on the workers than termination of
their services. The conduct of the Party I/
/workpersons towards the establishment as well
as its fellow employees and higher authorities was
highly condemnable and therefore there is
absolutely no scope for exercising the discretionary
powers vested in the Tribunal under Section 11-A
of the Act. The workmen have not led any evidence
on the state of employment or what attempts were
made by them to secure a job since their
termination. Hence, the above issue is answered
accordingly.
41. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s. Cartini India Limited
(now, M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing
Company Limited), Tivim Industrial Estate,
Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa in dismissing its
workpersons, Mrs. Radhika Sawant,
Ms. Nutan Vaigankar and Mrs. Mahananda
Halankar with effect from 8-2-2010 is legal
and justified.
2. Consequently, the Party I/workpersons are
not entitled for any reliefs.
3. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
364
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (establishment) Division
__
Order
No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/1505
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint the
following advocates as Additional Government
Advocates to appear and defend the interest of the
State Government in the matters before the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji with immediate
effect and until further Orders.
Sr.
Name of the
Designation
No.
Advocate
1. Adv. Nehal Vernekar
Additional Govern-
ment Advocate.
2. Adv. Subham Priolkar
Additional Govern-
ment Advocate.
The above advocates will be attached to the
Office of the Ld. Advocate General, Altinho, Panaji-
Goa.
They shall be paid fees as per the existing terms
and conditions laid down by the Government vide
Order No. 1/19/2015/LD(Estt.)/150 dated 18-01-2016
and subsequent Corrigendum No. 1/19/2015/
/LD(Estt.)/1887 dated 25-10-2016, as applicable to
Government Advocates/Additional Government
Advocates and as amended from time to time, on
submission of bills (in duplicate) alongwith the
attendence certificate, issued by the Registrar of
the High Court of Bombay, Panaji-Goa. They shall
comply with the instructions contained in the
Government Circular No. 4-43-99/LD dated
04-05-2000. They will appear in those matters,
which would be allotted to them by the
Ld. Advocate General.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 09th July, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Panchayats
Directorate of Panchayats
__
Notification
No. 26/25/DP/DPC/06/2021-22/4320
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
239 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Goa Act 14
of 1994), and in supersession of the Government
Notification No. 26/25/DP/DPC/S/2012-13 dated
11-03-2016 published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 52 dated 26-03-2016, the Government
of Goa is pleased to re-constitute the District
Planning Committee for the North Goa District,
consisting of the following members and permanent
invitees, namely:-
North District Planning Committee:
1. Adhyaksha of North Goa Zilla — Ex-Officio
Panchayat
Chairperson.
2. Member of Parliament,
— Member.
North Goa
3. Mayor of the Corporation of
— Member.
the City of Panaji
4. Shri Shankar Anant
— Member.
Chodankar, Member of North
Goa Zilla Panchayat
5. Smt. Diksha Dilip Kanolkar,
— Member.
Member of North Goa Zilla
Panchayat
6. Shri Gopal Mahadev Surlakar,
— Member.
Member of North Goa Zilla
Panchayat
7. Shri Guirish Pundolica
— Member.
Uscoicar, Member of North Goa
Zilla Panchayat
8. Shri Rupesh Damodar Naik,
— Member.
Member of North Goa Zilla
Panchayat
9. Shri Dattaprasad Murari
— Member.
Dabolkar, Member of North Goa
Zilla Panchayat
10. Smt. Sanisha Satish Toraskar,
— Member.
Member of North Goa Zilla
Panchayat
11. Shri Siddesh Shripad Naik,
— Member.
Member of North Goa Zilla
Panchayat
12. Chairperson of Pernem
— Member.
Municipal Council
13. Chairperson of Mapusa
— Member.
Municipal Council
14. Chairperson of Bicholim
— Member.
Municipal Council
15. Chairperson of Sankhali
— Member.
Municipal Council
16. Chairperson of Valpoi
— Member.
Municipal Council
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
365
17. All Members of the Legislative — Permanent
Assembly of Goa whose
Invitees.
constituencies lie within
the North Goa District
The Chief Executive Officer of the North Goa
Zilla Panchayat shall be the Secretary of the District
Planning Committee for the North Goa District.
Duties and Responsibilities
1. Every Panchayat, Zilla Panchayat and
Municipal Councils falling within the area of North
Goa District, shall, at the beginning of every Five
Year Plan period, prepare a Five Year Plan and by
the end of January of every year, prepare an Annual
Plan and submit it to the said District Planning
Committee for the North Goa District.
2 The said District Planning Committee shall
consolidate the plans prepared by the Zilla
Panchayat, Panchayats and Municipal Councils in
the District and prepare a draft development plan
for the District as a whole.
The District Planning Committee for the North
Goa District shall, in preparing the draft
development plan –
a) Have regard to,
I. The matters of common interest between
the Zilla Panchayat, Panchayats and
Municipal Councils in the district including
special planning, sharing of water and other
physical and natural resources, the
integrated development of infrastructures
and environmental conservation;
II. The extent and type of available resources,
whether financial or otherwise;
b) Consult such institutions and organizations
as the Government may, by order, specify.
The Chairman of the District Planning
Committee for the North Goa District shall forward
the development plan, as recommended by the said
Committee, to the Government of Goa.
The expenditure of the meetings of the District
Planning Committee for the North Goa District shall
be met from the funds provided to the North Goa
Zilla Panchayat by the Government towards
recurring and non-recurring expenditure for
administration.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Siddhi Halarnkar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (PR).
Panaji, 14th July, 2021.
Notification
No. 26/25/DP/DPC/06/2021-22/4320
In exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 239 of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
(Goa Act 14 of 1994), and in supersession of the
Government Notification No. 26/25/DP/DPC/S/
/2012-13 dated 11-03-2016 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 52 dated 26-03-2016, the
Government of Goa is pleased to re-constitute the
District Planning Committee for the South Goa
District, consisting of the following members and
permanent invitees, namely:-
South District Planning Committee:
1. Adhyaksha of South Goa
— Ex-Officio
Zilla Panchayat
Chairperson.
2. Member of Parliament,
— Member.
South Goa
3. Member of Parliament
— Member.
(Rajya Sabha)
4. Chairperson of Margao
— Member.
Municipal Council
5. Shri Khushali J. Velip,
— Member.
Member of South Goa
Zilla Panchayat
6. Shri Shramesh Sukdu Bhosle,
— Member.
Member of South Goa Zilla
Panchayat
7. Shri Domnic Minguel Gaonkar, — Member.
Member of South Goa Zilla
Panchayat
8. Shri Ulhas Yeshwant Tuenkar,
— Member.
Member of South Goa Zilla
Panchayat
9. Smt. Sudha Govind Gaonkar,
— Member.
Member of South Goa Zilla
Panchayat
10. Smt. Anita Ajay Thorat,
— Member.
Member of South Goa Zilla
Panchayat
11. Shri Dipak Tiru Naik Borkar,
— Member.
Member of South Goa Zilla
Panchayat
12. Smt. Shobhana Shambu Velip, — Member.
Member of South Goa Zilla
Panchayat
13. Chairperson of Sanguem
— Member.
Municipal Council
14. Chairperson of Quepem
— Member.
Municipal Council
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
366
15. Chairperson of Curchorem-
— Member.
-Cacora Municipal Council
16. Chairperson of Cuncolim
— Member.
Municipal Council
17. Chairperson of Mormugao
— Member.
Municipal Council
18. Chairperson of Canacona
— Member.
Municipal Council
19. Chairperson of Ponda
— Member.
Municipal Council
20. All Members of the Legislative — Permanent
Assembly of Goa whose
Invitees.
constituencies lie within the
South Goa District.
The Chief Executive Officer of the South Goa
Zilla Panchayat shall be the Secretary of the District
Planning Committee for the South Goa District.
Duties and Responsibilities
1. Every Panchayat, Zilla Panchayat and
Municipal Councils falling within the area of South
Goa District, shall, at the beginning of every Five
Year Plan period, prepare a Five Year Plan and by
the end of January of every year, prepare an Annual
Plan and submit it to the said District Planning
Committee for the South Goa District.
2. The said District Planning Committee shall
consolidate the plans prepared by the Zilla
Panchayat, Panchayats and Municipal Councils in
the District and prepare a draft development plan
for the District as a whole.
The District Planning Committee for the South
Goa District shall, in preparing the draft
development plan –
a) Have regard to,
I. the matters of common interest between
the Zilla Panchayat, Panchayats and
Municipal Councils in the district including
special planning, sharing of water and other
physical and natural resources, the
integrated development of infrastructures
and environmental conservation;
II. the extent and type of available resources,
whether financial or otherwise;
b) Consult such institutions and organizations
as the Government may, by order, specify.
The Chairman of the District Planning
Committee for the South Goa District shall forward
the development plan, as recommended by the said
Committee, to the Government of Goa.
The expenditure of the meetings of the District
Planning Committee for the South Goa District shall
be met from the funds provided to the South Goa
Zilla Panchayat by the Government towards
recurring and non-recurring expenditure for
administration.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Siddhi Halarnkar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (PR).
Panaji, 14th July, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
—
Order
No. 7/11/2020-PER/1691
In pursuance of Order No. 14016/10/2021, UTS-I
dated 30-06-2021 issued by Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the Governor
of Goa is pleased to appoint Ms. Sneha Gitte, IAS
(AGMUT:2019), as Deputy Collector & SDO-II
Bardez, with immediate effect.
Smt. Veera Nayak, Deputy Collector & SDO-II
Bardez is transferred and posted as Deputy
Collector (Election) North.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 12th July, 2021.
________
Order
No. 7/21/2017-PER/1721
The Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint Shri
Arun Kumar Mishra, IAS (AGMUT:2012), as Secretary
to Governor, with immediate effect, relieving Shri
R. Mihir Vardhan, IAS (Retd.), appointed on
co-terminus basis vide order No. 7/18/2020-PER/83
dated 08-01-2021.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 14th July, 2021.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
367
Order
No. 5/16/2021-PER/1669
Read: Memorandum No. 5/16/2021-PER dated
25-03-2021.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/I/5/42(4)/2019/964 dated 22-02-2021, the Governor
of Goa is pleased to appoint the following candidates
as Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service (Group
“A” Gazetted) in Level 10 of the Pay Matrix with
immediate effect:-
1) Shri Shubham Mohan Naik.
2) Shri Ganesh Krishnakumar Barve.
3) Shri Yogiraj Prakash Gosavi.
4) Smt. Ashwini Abhay Gauns Desai.
5) Shri Girish Gopal Sawant.
6) Shri Sitaram Gurudas Sawal (OBC).
7) Shri Manohar Lavu Karekar (OBC).
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, during which they shall undergo a
departmental training and shall have to pass the
Departmental Examination prescribed under the
rules.
4. The pay and allowances of the above
candidates shall be debited to the Budget Head
controlled by the concerned Department wherever
they are posted from time to time, or as per specific
orders issued by Personnel Department.
5. The above candidates shall join their duties in
the Personnel Department. within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of this
order.
6. The appointment of the candidate at Serial
No. 6 shall be subject to the verification of the
genuineness of his educational qualification
certificate.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Meghana Shetgaonkar, Joint Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 08th July, 2021.
Corrigendum
No. 5/40/84-PER-Vol.I/1743
Read: Order No. 5/40/84-PER(Vol.I) dated 22-06-2009
In para 2 of the Order read in the preamble, the
words “two years” shall be substituted to read as
“one year”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 12th July, 2021.
——————
Addendum
No. 6/13/2017-PER/1677
Read: Order No. 6/13/2017-PER/1513 dated
22-06-2021.
The following line shall be added after para 3 of
the order referred to in the preamble:
‘The officers appointed on ex-cadre deputation
posts shall be governed by the standard terms of
deputation, as amended from time to time’.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 09th July, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Certificate
No. 45/1/2005-I/PHD/PART/1574
Read: Government Order No. 45/1/2005-I/PHD/Part/
/1449 dated 29-06-2021.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Dr. Rina Cordeiro, Junior Anaesthetist (Group ‘A’
Gazetted) under Directorate of Health Services
mentioned in the above referred Order has been
verified by the District Magistrate, North Goa,
Panaji vide letter No. 2/11/2016-MAG/VCA/Vol-II/
/1253 dated 04-06-2021 and it is revealed that there
is nothing adverse reported against her.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 09th July, 2021.
——————
Certificate
No. 4/23/2002-II/PHD/PART 1/1311
Read: Government Order No. 4/23/2002-II/PHD/
/Part-1/1215 dated 10-06-2021.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 17
22ND JULY, 2021
368
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Dr. Pandurang alias Prathamesh A. Naik, Lecturer,
Department of Medicine in Goa Medical College
and Hospital, Bambolim mentioned in the above
referred Order have been verified by the District
Magistrate, North Goa District, Panaji and
nothing adverse has come to the notice of the
Government.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 09th July, 2021.
——————
Certificate
No. 45/1/2005-I/PHD/Part/1575
Read: Government Order No. 45/1/2005-I/PHD/
/Part/1449 dated 29-06-2021.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Dr. Deepika Jaikrishna Chari, Junior Anaesthetist
(Group ‘A’ Gazetted) under Directorate of Health
Services mentioned in the above referred Order
has been verified by the District Magistrate,
South Goa, Margao vide letter No. 36/05/2019/MAG/
/243/7192 dated 02-07-2021 and it is revealed that
there is nothing adverse reported against her.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 09th July, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
—
Order
No. 5/2/93-Tpt/P.F./2021/1668
The Order No. 5/2/93-Tpt/P.F./2021/1646 dated
30-06-2021 regarding transfer of Shri Sandeep B.
Dessai, Shri Meghashyam Pilankar and Shri Rajesh
G. Naik, Assistant Director of Transport (Group ‘B’
Gazetted) shall be kept in abeyance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Rajan Satardekar, Director & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Tpt.).
Panaji, 2nd July, 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. 20.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—127/150–7/2021.