Panaji, 5th November, 2021 (Kartika 14, 1943)

SERIES II No. 32

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Education

Order

No. 1(1)-5-2009/SE/Part/568

Government is pleased to re-employ Smt. Bertha

Sardinha, Headmaster, Government High School,

Netorlim, Sanguem-Goa [due to retire on

superannuation w.e.f. 30-11-2021 (a.n.)] beyond

superannuation w.e.f. 01-12-2021 to 30-04-2022 in

the same post under the Directorate of Education,

terms

amended

Notification

No.

DE/Amendment/2012/1381 dated 8th July, 2020

notified in Official Gazette, Government of Goa,

Series I No. 15 dated 9th July, 2020, proviso to sub-

-rule-1 of Rule 88 of Goa School Education Rules,

1986.

On re-employment, she stands posted in

Government High School, Netorlim, Sanguem-Goa

where she is presently working.

She has been declared physically and mentally

fit for the post of Headmaster, Government High

School, Netorlim, Sanguem-Goa by the Medical

Board, Hospicio Hospital, Margao-Goa vide Medical

Fitness Certificate bearing No. HH/EST/MFC/2021-

-22/3697 dated 17-09-2021.

Her pay and allowances shall be fixed in terms

of Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of

Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Bhushan K. Savaikar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Education).

Porvorim, 25th October, 2021.

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

627

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

Office of the Returning Officer, Goa Board of

Secondary and Higher Secondary Education

Notification

No. GBSHSE/IT/BRD-ELE/2021/2900

In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Goa,

Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary

Education Board Members Election Procedure

Rules, 1979, I, Shri Ruildo Souza, the Returning

Officer hereby notify 4th December, 2021 (Saturday)

to be the date for election to elect the members

referred to in Clauses (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii),

under “Class B-Elected Members” of sub-section (1)

of Section 12 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary

and Higher Secondary Education Board Act, 1975

(Act No. 13 of 1975).

Shri Ruildo Souza, Returning Officer.

Alto Betim, 28th October, 2021.

V. No. AP-612/2021.

———u———

Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary

Education

Notification

No. GBSHSE/IT/BRD-ELE/2021/2964

In pursuance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Goa,

Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary

Education Board Members Election Procedure

Rules, 1979, I, Shri Ruildo Souza, the Returning

Officer hereby appoint the date, hours and place

or places for the following stages of election of

members referred to in Clauses (iii), (iv), (v), (vi)

and (vii), under “Class B-Elected Members”, of

sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Goa, Daman and

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

628

Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education

Board Act, 1975 (Act 13 of 1975), as follows:-

(a) Nomination of candidates:-

On 22nd of November, 2021 (Monday) from

10.00 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. and 02.00 p.m. to

04.00 p.m.

Place:-

Office of the Goa Board of Secondary

and Higher Secondary Education,

Alto Betim-Goa.

(b) Scrutiny of Nominations:-

On 23rd of November, 2021 (Tuesday) from

09.30 a.m. to 01.00 p.m.

Place:-

Office of the Goa Board of Secondary

and Higher Secondary Education,

Alto Betim-Goa.

On 25th of November, 2021 (Thursday) from

11.00 a.m. to 03.00 p.m.

Place:-

Office of the Goa Board of Secondary

and Higher Secondary Education,

Alto Betim-Goa.

(d) Record of Votes:-

The recording of votes for all categories shall

be on Saturday 4th December, 2021 from

10.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m.

The Talukawise places for recording of votes for

all the aforesaid categories shall be as under:-

Taluka

Place of voting (polling station)

1) Pernem

Government Higher Secondary

School, Pernem-Goa.

2) Satari

Government Higher Secondary

School, Valpoi-Goa.

3) Bicholim

Shri Shantadurga High School,

Bicholim-Goa.

4) Bardez

St. Britto High School, Mapusa

Bardez-Goa.

5) Tiswadi

Mary Immaculate High School,

Panaji-Goa.

6) Ponda

A.J. de Almeida High School,

Ponda-Goa.

7) Sanguem

Union High School, Sanguem-

-Goa.

8) Mormugao

St. Joseph’s Institute, Vasco-

-Goa.

9) Salcete

Loyola High School,

Salcete, Margao-Goa.

10) Quepem

Holy Cross High School

(Institute), Quepem-Goa.

11) Canacona

St. Theresa of Jesus High

School, Chavdi, Canacona-Goa.

12) Dharbandoda B.B.S.S. Vishweshwar Shankar

Laad Higher Secondary School,

Dharbandoda-Goa.

All the voters from all institutions of a taluka

aforesaid shall cast their votes in the respective

polling station, as indicated against the Taluka.

(e) Counting of Votes:-

On 5th of December, 2021 (Sunday) from 09.30

a.m. onwards.

Place:-

Office of the Goa Board of Secondary

and Higher Secondary Education,

Alto Betim-Goa.

Shri Ruildo Souza, Returning Officer.

Alto Betim, 01st November, 2021.

V. No. AP-630/2021.

———uuu———

Department of Finance

Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Notification

No. CCT/1-16/2021-22/1783

Read: 1) Notification No. 6/17/83-Fin(R&C)/847

dated 24-04-2018, published in the

Official Gazette, Series I No. 5 dated

03-05-2018.

2) Notification No. 5/8/2019-Fin(R&C)/3876

dated 16th September, 2019, published

in the Official Gazette, Series III No. 25

dated 19-09-2019.

3) Notification No. 5/8/2019-Fin(R&C)/1145

dated 9th March, 2021, published in the

Official Gazette, Series I No. 51 dated

18-03-2021.

4) Notification No. CCT/PF/(SSG)/2019-20/

/3056 dated 24th February, 2020,

published in the Official Gazette, Series

II No. 48 dated 27-02-2020.

In exercise of the powers conferred on the

undersigned under sub-rule (v) of Rule 9 of the

Departmental Examination Rules, published under

Notification No. 6/17/83-Fin(R&C)/847 dated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

629

24-04-2018, I, the Commissioner of State Tax, hereby

declare the result of the Departmental Examination,

held w.e.f. 26th April, 2021 to 29th April, 2021 (2nd

attempt), for retention to the post of State Tax Officer

(earlier known as Commercial Tax Officer).

The following candidates have been declared

successful in the above mentioned examination.

Sr. No.

Name of the candidate

Roll No.

Shri Rohan A. Loliyekar

A-1

Kum. Ashvita A. Goltekar

A-2

Shri Melwin Faleiro

A-3

Gargi A. Kamat

A-4

Shri Rajendra S. Gaude

A-5

Hemant Kumar, IAS, Commissioner of State Tax.

Panaji, 19th October, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Forest

Order

No. 4-3-2014/FOR/426

On recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa

Public Service Commission vide letter No. Com/II/

/11/22(1)/16/362 dated 13-10-2021, the Governor of

Goa is pleased to promote Shri Anand S. Jadhav,

Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF), to the post

of Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF) Group “A”

Gazetted, in the pay scale of PB-3 Rs. 15,600-

-39,100+6,600 (Level-11 of the 7th Pay Commission)

on regular basis in the Office of the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Panaji,

with immediate effect.

The above officer shall be on probation for a

period of two years.

The officer shall exercise the option for fixation

of pay within one month from the date of this order

in terms of F.R. 22(I)(a)(1).

The pay of officer on promotion shall be fixed as

per C.C.S. (RP) Rules, 2016.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sapna S. N. Bandodkar, Under Secretary (Forests).

Porvorim, 25th October, 2021.

Goa Human Rights Commission

Office of the Goa Human Rights Commission

Before the Human Rights Commission at

Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 192/2017

Shri Kedar R. Talaulikar,

R/o H. No. B-73,

Opp. Syndicate Bank,

Betim, Bardez-Goa

…

Complainant.

V/s

1) The Executive Engineer,

Public Works Department,

Works Division XVII (PHE-N) PWD,

Alto Porvorim, Bardez-Goa.

2) Shri Agnelo B. D’Souza,

H. No. B-247/1,

Casa De Souza,

Opposite Syndicate Bank,

Betim, Bardez-Goa

…

Respondent.

Inquiry Report/Order

(1st February, 2021)

The Commission had received the Complaint

on 31-07-2017, in respect of harassment for

restoration of water supply to the mundkarial house

No. B-73, Opp. Syndicate Bank, Betim, Bardez-Goa.

2. It is the case of the Complainant that the

water connection was almost 39 years old and was

taken in the name of his late grandfather, Mr.

Pandurang Talaulikar on 26-07-1979.

3. It was stated that currently the said water

pipeline is damaged by Mr. Agnelo D’Souza and

his wife and his Grandmother had given a written

complaint on 17-08-2016 about non working of the

water meter and non supply of water to their

residence.

4. The Complainant states that the PWD is asking

them to obtain fresh NOC when the actual owner

had already permitted NOC in the year 1979 for

the said connection. As such, the Complainant

approached this Commission.

5. The Commission vide its Order dated

07-08-2017 called for the report from the Executive

Engineer of PWD, i.e. Respondent No. 1.

6. The respondent No.1 filed their report/reply

on 23-07-2017 stating that the water connection

was released in the name of Shri Pandurang

Talaulikar in the year 1979 by laying pipeline

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

630

through the private property bearing Survey

No. 62/5 of Village Reis Magos with the written

consent of the land owner, Mr. Mingel D’Souza,

whose name was appearing in Form I & XIV.

7. The Respondent No. 1 stated that, on receiving

the complaint dated 17-08-2016 from Smt. Kusumbai

Talaulikar, the site was inspected by the Technical

Officer of Sub Division IV, WD XVII (PHE-N) PWD,

which revealed that the pipeline passing through

the private property pertaining to the water

connection was damaged. The occupant of the

property Mr. Agnelo D’Souza objected for carrying

out repairs stating that he is the owner of said

property and no work should be carried out without

his NOC.

8. The Respondent No.1 also stated that the

Assistant Engineer, by letter dated 01-09-2016

requested Mr. Agnelo D’Souza to co-operate with

the department for the repairs of the existing water

pipeline which was laid with the NOC of his father

while releasing the water connection and that no

new or additional pipeline is being laid in his

property.

9. Further, the Respondent No.1 stated that there

is no provision of law which allows the Government

authority to trespass into the private property for

any public work without the consent of the owner

and as the original owner who had issued NOC

has expired and the rights of the property are

subsequently transferred, the Respondent No. 1 is

not in a position to address the grievances of the

Complainant unless and until order is issued by

the competent authority.

10. The Respondent No.1 stated that the

grievances of the Complainant cannot be

addressed as the owner of the private property is

adamant in not allowing the repairs of the pipeline

pertaining to the Consumer.

Both the Complainant and the Respondent No.1

had attached documents to the complaint and

reply, respectively.

11. On 27-11-2017, the Complainant filed

Rejoinder stating that Mr. Mingel D’Souza was

uncle and not father of Mr. Agnelo D’Souza. He also

stated that, as per the Official Gazette dated

07-03-1963, the Water Works department has right

to give water connection to the house, even when

the pipeline has to cross a plot of another owner,

provided that no other solution is technically

acceptable.

12. There upon the Respondent No. 1 filed his

further reply on 16-01-2018 stating that the

Notification dated 07-03-1963 is repealed by the

provisions of the Water Supply Act 2003. It was

stated that the Respondent No.1 has tried his level

best to restore the water supply to the Complainant

but due to the legal issue, it could not be restored.

13. The Complainant filed his further reply on

09-02-2018.

14. Subsequently, Mr. Agnel D’Souza moved an

intervention application on 02-04-2018. By Order

dated 10-10-2018, the Intervenor was joined as the

Respondent No. 2 in the Proceedings.

15. The Respondent No. 2 filed his reply on

10-01-2019 stating that the Complainant is not

residing in the suit house and they have separate

residences in Salvador-do-Mundo and at Caranzalm.

The Respondent No. 2 also stated that the

Complainant has sought the same relief before the

Mamlatdar of Bardez in Mundkar declaration

application filed by the Complainant.

The Respondent No. 2 further stated that he

has filed a Civil Suit against the Complainant. The

Respondent No. 2 states that the PWD officials

have no right to trespass into his property and

prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

16. The Complainant filed his Rejoinder

on 06-01-2019 to the above reply of the Respondent

No. 2.

17. On 19-03-2020, the Respondent No. 2 filed

his written arguments in the matter, followed

by the written arguments of the Complainant

on 12-06-2020.

18. Arguments of all the parties were also heard

on 15-12-2020. The Complainant argued in person.

Shri Deepak Borkar, Assistant Engineer argued in

the matter for the Respondent No. 1 and Advocate

Shri U. Khot argued for the Respondent No. 2.

19. On going through the complaint and the

replies of the Respondents No. 1 & 2 and the

documents produced by the parties, as well as the

oral and written submissions of the parties, the

Commission finds that there is no dispute that the

water connection was released in the year 1979 in

the name of Shri Pandurang Talaulikar for H. No. 446

at Betim, on the no objection being given by

the land owner, Mr. Mingel D’Souza for laying

the pipeline through his property bearing Survey

No. 62/5 at Reis Magos.The copy of the said

NOC indicates that it was given on 01-06-1979.

20. Alongwith the said NOC, the Complainant

has also produced documents obtained under

RTI Act, showing that the 80 mm pipeline was

laid from the Verem-Betim road, to the house of

Mr. Pandurang Talaulikar.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

631

21. There is also the letter dated 01/09/2016

written by the Assistant Engineer to Mr. Agnelo

D’Souza that the PWD is not installing any new or

additional pipeline and that the same old pipeline

which supplies water to the existing consumer is

choked. In the said letter, the PWD has clearly

stated that NOC for the water connection from

the owner was taken by the Applicant and to

co-operate for the repairs of the existing water

pipeline.

22. The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2

submitted that the PWD has no right to trespass

into the property of Respondent No. 2.

23. The Commission finds that the earlier

owner Shri Mingel D’Souza has given no objection

to lay the water pipeline in his property, to

Shri Pandurang Talaulikar, i.e. late grandfather of

the Complainant. Based on the NOC, in the year

1979, water connection was released to the house

occupied by Shri Pandurang Talaulikar.

24. As per the reply dated 10-10-2018, filed by

the Executive Engineer of Respondent No. 1, the

department by notices to both the parties had

carried out inspection of the pipeline on the ground

level for checking damages/tempering by the

owner and after inspection it was found that most

of the G.I. pipelines are very old and completely

corroded. Hence, it is required to replace full length

of pipeline for a length of about 60 to 70 mtrs. from

main tapping point to meter point. Here, the

Respondent No.1 has stated that land owner’s NOC

is required for replacing pipeline at the expenses

of the Complainant.

25. The question before the Commission is

whether once the NOC was given in the year 1979

by the owner and the pipeline was laid, now only

for replacing the damaged pipeline, whether fresh

NOC of the present owner is required.

The Commission finds that there is no provision

of law that the fresh NOC from the present owner

would be required for replacing the damaged

pipeline.

The present owners have inherited the property

from the earlier owner and all the encumbrances

imposed by the earlier owner of the property will

continue to be valid.

The Commission agrees with the Complainant

that the Respondent No. 1 themselves have stated

in their letter dated 01-09-2016 that no additional

or new pipeline will be installed but only repairs/

/replacement of the existing pipeline are to be

done, for which NOC was given by the owner at

the time of release of the connection.

In view of the same, the Commission finds that

the Respondent No.1 is duty bound to restore water

supply to the house of late Shri Pandurang

Talaulikar as the NOC was already given by the

original owner in 1979. By not restoring the

pipeline, the human rights of the Complainant have

been violated by the Respondent No. 1.

26. The Complainant has relied on the

Government Official Gazette published on

17-03-1963 under Series I, No. 10. As rightly pointed

out by the Respondent No. 1, under the Goa

Provision of Water Supply Act 2003, which was

published in the Official Gazette on 29-12-2003,

under Clause 10, it has been stated that so much

of any law inforce in the State of Goa relating to

the supply of water to the consumers, shall stand

repealed, as from coming into force of the Act. The

Act came into force w.e.f. 22-07-2003.

In any case the original water supply was

provided to the house of Shri Pandurang Talaulikar,

not under the said Gazette of 1963 but admittedly

on the NOC given by the owner of the property. As

such, the repeal is of no consequence.

27. In this proceeding, the Respondent No. 2 has

also filed an application on 23-07-2020 for issuing

contempt notices against the Complainant for

averments in his replies.

The Complainant had filed his reply thereafter.

28. The Commission finds no merits in the said

application and the same stands disposed of.

29. Under Section 18 of the Protection of Human

Rights 1973, are the steps that the Commission can

take under the Act, when the inquiry discloses the

Commission of violation of human rights or

negligence in the prevention of violation of human

rights or abatement thereof by a public servant

and the powers of the Commission to recommend

to the concerned Government authority, the action

as deemed fit, in terms of Section 18(a)(III).

30. Under Clause 17 of the Goa Human Rights

Commission (Procedure) Regulation 2011, a copy of

the inquiry report along with the copy of

recommendation shall be sent to the authority

calling upon them to furnish their comments on

the report including action taken or proposed to

be taken within one month from the date of receipt

of the Order or recommendation made by the

Commission.

31. The Commission recommends that the

Respondent No. 1 restore the water connection to

the house of the Complainant, by replacing the

damaged water pipeline, in the same direction as

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

632

it exists at present, through the property bearing

Survey No. 62/5 of Village Reis Magos and leading

to the house No.B-73 at Betim, within 30 days from

the date of receipt of this Order.

Date : 01-02-2021.

Place : Panaji-Goa.

Sd/-

(Justice U. V. (Desmond D’Costa), (Pramod V. Kamat),

Bakre),

Member,

Chairperson,

Goa Human

Rights

Commission.

_______

Before the Human Rights Commission at

Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 192/2017

Shri Kedar R. Talaulikar,

R/o H. No. B-73,

Opp. Syndicate Bank,

Betim, Bardez-Goa

…

Complainant.

V/s

1) The Executive Engineer,

Works Division XVII (PHE-N) PWD,

Alto Porvorim, Goa.

2) Shri Agnelo B. D’Souza,

H. No. B-247/1,

Casa De Souza,

Opposite Syndicate Bank,

Betim, Bardez-Goa

…

Respondent.

With reference to the above matter the

respondent submit that:-

1) The matter pertains to restoration of water

connection to the complainant to the

mudkarial house No. B-73 (old No. 446),

Betim, Bardez-Goa.

2) The pipeline was passing through private

property belonging to Shri Agnelo D’Souza.

The land owner objected to laying of pipeline.

3) Vide order dated 01-01-2021 the Human Right

Commission instructed to restore the water

connection within one month.

4) This order was challenged vide Writ Petition

No. 71/2021 by the land owner.

5) Vide order dated 22-06-2021 the Hon’ble High

of Bombay at Goa dismissed the Writ Petition

& directed to restore the water connection to

Shri Kedar R. Talaulikar.

6) On compliance to the above order the water

connection to Shri Kedar R. Talaulikar is

restored & the same is confirmed by him. Copy

of the letter is placed in the file.

In view of above it is requested to kindly close

the case.

Respondent

Sd/-

Executive Engineer,

WD XVII (PHE-N), PWD.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/340

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

22-06-2021 in Ref. No. IT/13/18 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, 19th July, 2021.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Ms. Bela N. Naik, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/13/18

Workmen,

Rep. by The President,

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena,

C/o Shankar Murari Pandit,

H. No. 86/1 (85, Mahalaxmi

Residency,

Behind Kala Bhavan,

Sancoale-Goa-403

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s Sanofi India Limited,

L-121, Phase III, Verna Industrial

Estate,

Verna, Goa-403 722

… Employer/Party II

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

Kamat.

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

S. Bandodkar.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

633

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 22nd day of the month

of June of the year 2021)

By Order dated 24-09-2018, bearing No. 28/16/

/2018-LAB/642, 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 Local Committee of the Bhartiya

Kamgar Sena Union has a locus standi to

raise dispute of collective nature on behalf of

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Union?

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

affirmative, then:-

(a) Whether there is withdrawal of special

allowance to the workmen shown in

Annexure ‘A‘ with effect from 01-04-2014?

(b) Whether there is stoppage of increment

to the workmen shown in Annexure ‘B‘

with effect from 01-08-2014?

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

affirmative, then, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/13/18 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties.

3. In the course of the proceedings, the Parties

filed an application at Exh. 7 colly alongwith a

copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated

08-06-2021 under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stating that

they have arrived at a settlement on the subject

matter of the above reference with a prayer to pass

a consent award in terms of the said settlement.

7. The terms of settlement agreed by and

between the parties are as follows:

1.0 Objectives, intent and purpose of this

settlement

1.1 The purpose of this settlement is to provide

orderly, effective and harmonious industrial

relations through collective bargaining, to maintain

cordial and meaningful relations between the

Company and the workmen, to maintain fair wage

and service conditions, to ensure prompt and fair

redressal of grievances, to foster positive discipline

and total observance of all rules and regulations

everywhere in the organization, to sustain and

improve efficiency, smooth and uninterrupted

operations in the factory and to increase individual

and overall productivity all round and ensuring

also the welfare of the workmen.

1.2 Recognising the rights and responsibilities of

the Company and appreciating that the Company

must improve and sustain its competitive status

and earning capacity through concerted efforts

aimed at improving efficiency and productivity, the

workmen agree to render complete, wholehearted

and unstinted co-operation in improving

productivity, to improve continuously the quality

of the Company’s products and to ensure on-time

delivery.

1.3 To re-dedicate and re-affirm our mutual faith to

work together for the continuous stability, growth

and profitability so that our organization becomes

WORLD CLASS, serve customers to international

standards, develop technologies related to both

process and products, hold our own against

competition and to become global in our thinking

and approach.

1.4 The parties will co-operate in securing

improvements in overall productivity and avoiding

all forms of waste including waste of time and

materials and all wasteful practices. For achieving

the above objectives and to sustain and improve

the competitive status of the Company, effectively

respond to and satisfy customer needs and to

improve its production and earning capacity, and

pledge to foster and encourage the highest degree

of co-operation between the Company and their

workmen at all levels.

1.5 It is the intent and purpose of the parties hereto

that under the existing highly competitive

conditions in the industry, all efforts will be directed

at maximising production/productivity, quality,

containing the manufacturing costs at appropriate

levels and eliminating all wasteful practices. In

order to achieve this, there shall be appreciation of

obligations on either side.

1.6 It is clearly understood and agreed by the

Parties hereto that the objectives of the Settlement

are not only to ensure harmonious industrial

relations resulting in improved productivity and

higher earnings to workmen, but also to review,

streamline and rationalise various procedures,

practices, systems, etc. and to ensure optimum

utilisation of all resources, maintain optimum

inventory levels, elimination of all wasteful

practices and due enforcement of discipline for

the sustained stability and growth for achieving

the targeted turnover of the company.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

634

2.0 MANAGEMENT ROLE:

In discharging their responsibilities, the

Management shall be the providers of direction

and long term perspective for the organization. All

such necessary performance such as adequate long

term and short term planning, required capital

expenditure and investments in plant, equipment

etc development and sufficient provision of vital

infrastructure facilities such as space and power,

development and management of sources of raw

material/supplies of input to the Production Unit,

adequate manpower planning and stationing and

governance of the Employee population shall be

considered as Management responsibilities.

3.0 EMPLOYEE ROLE:

While discharging their responsibilities through

their sufficient and effective performance, the

Workmen shall co-operate in all initiatives, Lean,

Supply Chain Management, Modernisation, change

in technology and manufacturing processes,

contemporary management techniques and

practices and optimising the use of men, material

and machinery. Implementation of safety measures

and using safety appliances, personal protection

equipment’s (PPE) etc. workmen agree jointly and

severally to extend their full co-operation to the

company in improving effective working time,

enforcing discipline, improving the efficiency,

maintaining punctuality and regularity in

attendance, improving quality and safety at

workplace consistently and eliminating wastage

and unproductive practices which will hamper

production/productivity.

4.0 COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS:

Harmonious Industrial Relations, healthy practices

and commitment on either side to resort only to

constitutional means to resolve differences, if any,

are accepted as prerequisites for successfully

steering the Company to establish growth and

attain an enviable position in the industry. Both

parties firmly believe that joint efforts on the lines

referred to above, will enable them to attain their

cherished goals.

5.0 APPLICABILITY:

The provisions of this settlement shall be

applicable only to all permanent workmen who are

members of the union and were on the rolls of the

company on the date of submission of the charter

of demands dated 2nd May, 2018 (as per the list

attached in Annexure A) and no other workmen or

employee shall be covered under this settlement.

Any confirmed employee who was part of the

charter of demand dated 2nd May, 2018 and has

resigned from the services of the company or ceased

to be in employment for any reason during the

term of the settlement will be entitled for an amount

proportionate to the period of service rendered

during the term of the settlement. They would be

paid actual arrears in full and final settlement of

all their dues arising out of this settlement. In

order to identify such workman an application will

be obtained from them. As on the date of signing

of this settlement, since the period/tenure of the

settlement is already over the benefit would be

given only to members as per the list attached in

Annexure A.

It is further agreed between the parties that the

provisions of this settlement, however, shall not be

applicable to, workmen employed by any of the

contractors or those who are employed as retainer/

consultant or casual/temporary/part-time workmen

for whatsoever job work in whatsoever capacity,

they are engaged.

6.0 EMOLUMENTS & COSTING OF THIS

SETTLEMENT:

The total cost of the settlement was arrived at

and then after agreement between the parties in

mutual interest it was decided to distribute it in

the following manner.

6.1 BASIC PAY AND FITMENT:

It is agreed that the following pay scale shall

apply to all the eligible workmen during the tenure

of this settlement.

3000–550–5750–575–8625–600 –11625 – 625–14750–

–650–18000–675–21375–700–24875–725–28500.

Each permanent workman on the rolls of the company and who are part of this settlement shall be

given an ad hoc rise in their existing basic pay w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 as follows:

Group

w.e.f. 1st July, 17

w.e.f. 1st July, 2018

w.e.f. 1st July, 2019

Rs. 3045/- pm

Rs. 652.50/- pm+ yearly

increment

increment.

Rs. 2695/- pm

Rs. 577.50/- pm+ yearly

increment

increment.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

635

III

Rs. 2380/- pm

Rs. 510/- pm+ yearly

increment

increment.

Rs. 1645/- pm

Rs. 352.50/- pm+ yearly

increment

increment.

On adding above amount into the existing Basic Pay & Personal Pay (drawn in July, 2017), the basic salary

so arrived will be then fitted in the Pay Scale at appropriate level. If there is no corresponding step in

the salary scale the residue amount, if any, due to this fitment will be considered as Personal Pay. It is

agreed between the parties that the Personal Pay of the first year i.e. 1st July, 2017 shall be added to

the fitment money of the second year i.e. 1st July, 2018 and fitted at the respective step in the Scale of

Pay and residue amount in the second year shall be taken as personal pay. Similarly the personal pay

of second year shall be added to the fitment amount of the third year i.e 1st July, 2019 and fitted at the

respective step in the scale of pay and the residue amount in the third year shall be taken as Personal

Pay. This personal pay shall be considered for calculating all benefits such as overtime wages, provident

fund, bonus, LTA, Gratuity.

Basic scales for new employees taken on Probation/Confirmation will be fitted into Basic scale in

respective Grades depending on his qualifications and experience and is paid all allowances in the

Grade at the discretion of the management.

It is agreed between the parties that if the management associate joins the union of workmen at any

time, they shall be given the scale of pay as agreed above in clause 2 and fitted at appropriate step

prospectively from the date they join the union.

It has been agreed between the Union and the Management that the amount of Rs. 200/- shall be

added into Basic Wage w.e.f 1st July, 2017.

6.2 HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE:

Each permanent workman on the rolls of the company and who are part of this settlement shall be

given a rise in their existing House Rent Allowance w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 as follows:

Group

w.e.f. 1st July, 17

w.e.f. 1st July, 2018

w.e.f. 1st July, 2019

Rs. 1995/- pm

Rs. 427.50/- pm

Rs. 1645/- pm

Rs. 352.50/- pm

III

Rs. 1330/- pm

Rs. 285/- pm

Rs. 595/- pm

Rs. 127.50/- pm

House Rent Allowance will attract only contributions towards ESI and overtime benefit in accordance

with the prevailing statute. It shall not be consider for the purpose of PF, Bonus, Gratuity and Leave

encashment and shall be proportionately deducted in case of unpaid leave/unauthorized absence.

6.3 LUNCH ALLOWANCE:

Each permanent workman on the rolls of the company and who are part of this settlement shall be

given a rise in their existing Lunch Allowance w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 as follows:

Group

w.e.f. 1st July, 2017

w.e.f. 1st July, 2018

w.e.f. 1st July, 2019

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

III

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

This allowance shall not be considered for purpose of PF, Bonus, Gratuity, overtime and Leave encashment

and shall be proportionately deducted in case of unpaid leave/unauthorized absence.

The present system of providing a subsidy of Rs. 14/- per meal will continue, however any further

increase in the meal prices will be shared in the proportion of 75: 25 between the Management and the

employees respectively.

Group

w.e.f. 1st July, 17

w.e.f. 1st July, 2018

w.e.f. 1st July, 2019

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

636

6.4 EDUCATION ALLOWANCE:

Each permanent workman on the rolls of the company and who are part of this settlement shall be

given a rise in their existing Education Allowance w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 as follows:

Group

w.e.f. 1st July, 2017

w.e.f. 1st July, 2018

w.e.f. 1st July, 2019

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

III

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

This allowance shall not be considered for purpose of PF, Bonus, Gratuity, overtime and Leave encashment

and shall be proportionately deducted in case of unpaid leave/unauthorized absence.

6.5 CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCCE/TRANSPORT ALLOWANCE:

Each permanent workman on the rolls of the company and who are part of this settlement shall be

given a rise in their existing Conveyance Allowance/Transport Allowance w.e.f. 1st July, 2017 as follows:

Group

w.e.f. 1st July, 2017

w.e.f. 1st July, 2018

w.e.f. 1st July, 2019

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

III

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

Rs. 350/- pm

Rs. 75/- pm

Conveyance Allowance/Transport Allowance shall

not be considered for purpose of PF, Bonus,

Gratuity, overtime and Leave encashment and shall

be proportionately deducted in case of unpaid

leave/unauthorized absence.

6.6 MEDICAL ALLOWANCE:

It is agreed between the parties that the

prevailing practice shall continue in respect of this

demand.

7.0 MEDICAL SCHEME:

All such workmen who are exempted from ESIC

scheme (as in Clause 7) will be covered under a

suitable

insurance

policy

for

Medical

Hospitalization Reimbursement Policy upto an

amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- per financial year for self,

spouse and upto 2 dependent children upto 21

years of age. The hospitalization claim shall be

directly settled with insurance company and all

the terms and conditions as prevalent with the

Insurance company will be applicable.

As and when the existing employee is again

covered under ESIC scheme in future, whether

prospectively or retrospectively, due to amendment

in the ESI Act, the hospitalization benefit scheme

will cease to be in operation.

8.0 LEAVE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE:

All permanent employee on the rolls of the

company will be paid an amount equivalent of one

month Basic Pay and Personal Pay as Leave Travel

Allowance. All other conditions for availing LTA

will be as per the LTA policy of the company and

will remain the same.

9.0 SHIFT TIMINGS:

It is agreed that the shift timings will be as

follows (in case of three shift working):

Shift

Timing

Lunch/Dinner

08.00 hrs. 16.00 hrs.

30 mins.

16.00 hrs. 00.00 hrs.

30 mins.

III

00.00 hrs. 08.00 hrs.

30 mins.

General

09.00 hrs. 17.30 hrs.

30 mins.

a. It is also agreed that, as per the prevailing

practice and business needs, the company will

decide to work in One/Two/Three shifts/

Extended shift as and when the need arise as

per business requirement or due to exigencies

of work.

b. Availability of operators at work place (place

of work) at start of shift indicated above

i.e. sharp 08.00 hrs. for first shift, 16.00 hrs. in

second shift and 00.00 hrs. in third shift.

c. During two shift operation

I. Machines to start within 10 minutes

(i.e. 8:10 am in first shift) latest at beginning

of shift.

II. No stoppage during first and second shift

transition/handover.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

637

III. Stoppage of machines 15 minutes before

end of shift for cleaning purposes

(at 11:45 pm in second shift).

IV. If there is no cleaning of machine in each

shift that the machines in the first and

second shift shall run without stoppage.

d. Subject to Clause 10 (C) above, the Operators

to follow running handover strictly.

I. Operator shall ensure that the machine is

not stopped during the shift change and

handover the machine in running condition

to the next operator/assigned employee.

II. The operator shall ensure that he/she takes

the handover prior or sharp at respective

shift timings mentioned and notified from

time to time.

III. Operator to remain at respective post till

other operator/assigned employee is able

to take over charge during shift Change.

IV. Operators

ensure

that

circumstances machine shall be stopped

during the shift change. Similarly

staggering shall be strictly followed during

lunch/dinner break.

e. Maximum number of late comings 3 (three) in

a calendar month and max. Late time allowed

in such case is upto 10 minutes, after which

the employee has to apply for half day

alternatively salary for half day will be

deducted. No intimation in this regards, may

be given to the concerned operator. The same

rule and calculation will hold good for

employees leaving the workplace earlier than

the designated time.

f. Any operator punching his attendance card

or reporting at place of work after 15 minutes

from the start of the shift, the employee has to

apply for half day alternatively salary for half

day will be deducted. No intimation in this

regards, may be given to the concerned

operator. The same rule and calculation will

hold good for employees leaving the

workplace earlier than the designated time.

g. Lunch break and dinner break timing of 30

mins. to be strictly followed and necessary

staggering should be done.

h. Shift operating personnel will remain at their

posts until he is relieved by his successor or

their supervisor is able to make other

arrangements for their relieving.

I. Operators should remain at the work place

and may leave workplace for IPC checks or

only work related issues with permission of

their supervisors.

II. Subject to Clause 10 (c) above, there will be

no stoppage of machines during first,

second shift and third shift transition and

handover.

III. Immediate communication in case machine

stoppage to be given by the operator to the

supervisor or maintenance engineer, to

ensure maximum machine utilization and

minimize the wastage.

9.0 SHIFT ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS:

All confirmed employee working in second shift

will be paid a shift allowance of Rs. 40/- per second

shift worked and Rs. 80/- incase of Third shift

effective July, 2017. This will not be applicable for

extended hours. Rules and regulations for claiming

this allowance will be made in accordance with

the provisions of the law relating to shift working.

This amount will not attract any other benefit such

as Provident Fund, Gratuity, Bonus and Overtime

Payments.

10.0 LEAVE AND PAID HOLIDAYS:

All such workmen who are exempted from ESIC

Scheme (as in Clause 7) will be given an additional

2 days of sick leave per calendar year (on pro-rata

basis). These leaves will be withdrawn, as and

when the employee is again covered under ESIC

scheme in future, whether prospectively or

retrospectively, due to amendment in the ESI Act.

All other terms and conditions with respect to

leave and paid holidays as per the prevailing

practice and as detailed in the Certified Standing

Orders will be applicable.

11.0 OVERTIME:

Overtime shall be paid as per the provisions of

the Factories Act, 1948 and other relevant statutes.

This amount shall not be taken into account for PF,

Gratuity, Bonus and Leave encashment. The

overtime shall not be refused when asked due to

exigencies of work.

12.0 LOAN:

The permanent workman shall be entitled, from

the date of signing of this agreement for a 50%

interest subsidy on personal loan of upto Rs.

1,80,000/-. The workman shall satisfy all the terms

and conditions attached to the loan. The Company

shall reimburse 50% of the interest charged by the

bank to the workman in his/her monthly salary.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

638

Any rules and regulations made under the loan

scheme in future shall be binding on all workmen.

Till the loan amount is fully repaid, workmen will

not be entitled to any other company loan.

Prevalent rules as applicable under Income Tax

will be applicable.

13.0 FESTIVAL ADVANCE:

The permanent workmen shall be entitled to

avail festival advance of Rs. 5,000/- per year. The

advance will be paid once a year, either for Ganesh

Chaturthi, Diwali, Id or Christmas as per request

made by the workmen in writing. The advance

shall be deducted in 10 equal monthly instalments

from the salary of the workmen from the month

when the advance is availed.

14.0 MONSOON ALLOWANCE:

It is agreed between the parties that the

prevailing practice shall continue in respect of this

demand. An Amount of Rs. 750/- will be paid

w.e.f. 2018 along with the salary in the month of

May/June.

15.0 BONUS:

The Payment of Bonus shall be as per the

provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, and

rules made thereunder.

16.0 INSURANCE POLICY:

All workmen would be covered under the Group

Personal Accident Insurance Policy. The accident

coverage for each workman will be for an amount

of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). The

coverage will be on a 24-hours basis. The terms

and conditions prevailing as per the policy shall

be binding.

17.0 LUMPSUM PAYMENT:

It is agreed that the company shall pay a one-

time lumpsum amount of Rs. 5000/- as exgratia as

settlement signing incentive.

In appreciation of the Co-operation shown by

the Union and as demanded by the Union and the

Workmen the company has agreed that each

workman/member of union who are on the rolls of

the company on the date of signing of this

settlement shall be paid lumpsum amount of Rs.

11500/- totalling to Rs. 805000/- as ex gratia to be

paid as a part of the arrears arising out of the

settlement.

It is also agreed between the Union/Workmen/

/Management/Company that both the Parties shall

file a joint application before the appropriate

authorities for an award/order in terms of the

settlement in ref IT/10/20 and IT/3/21 as also

following disputes pending before various

authorities for finally disposing the matters.

Sr.

Brief

Filed by

Filed

Case No.

No.

against

1. Special

Union

Sanofi

IT/53/16

allowance

India Ltd.

2. Withdrawal Union

Sanofi

IT/13/18

of special

India Ltd.

allowance

3. Protected

Union

Sanofi

All

Workmen

India Ltd.

pending

cases

4. Deduction

Pravin

Sanofi

CLE/

of special

Kande

India Ltd.

/(PWA-2)/

allowance

& others

/2018

5. Refusal to

Union

Sanofi

IT/06/

work

India Ltd.

/2020

6. Works

Union

Sanofi

CLE/TA/

Committee

India Ltd.

/(383)/

/2016 and

other

matters

on the

subject.

The Works committee will be constituted as per

law laid down and committee shall be constituted

within 90 days after the Award passed in terms of

settlement by the Industrial Tribunal.

All pending enquiries against the workmen who

are members of the Union will be mutually closed.

18.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS:

a) The Union and the workmen have specifically

agreed to implementation of various

requirements/procedures under ISO, FDA

regulations, GMP, EHS, Factories Act, I.D. Act,

1947 and gowning procedures and other

Global/International authorities etc.

b) This settlement is in full and final settlement

of all demands raised by the Union in their

charter of demands dated 20th June, 2020

mentioned in the recital of this case above

and other demands, which are not

specifically dealt with or not pressed in this

settlement, shall be treated as settled.

c) The Union and the workmen individually,

Jointly or through any other union or agency,

agree not to raise or pursue any dispute in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

639

respect of any demands in respect of the

workmen covered under this settlement,

whether specifically covered or not pressed

or withdrawn in this settlement and further

agree not to raise any demand on behalf of

these workmen involving any financial

burden or otherwise on the company, directly

or indirectly, during the currency of this

settlement. The Company agrees not to raise

or pursue any dispute specifically covered or

withdrawn during the currency of this

settlement.

d) In case of a legislation or otherwise, any

identical or similar higher benefits as

accruing to the workmen under this

settlement, are introduced in future by the

Government, the Union and the workman,

the company shall make good the difference

to fall in line with such legislation. The

workmen will be entitled to opt for benefits

either under this settlement or the legislation

in its totality, whichever is more beneficial

to them but not both.

e) Both parties also agree that in case of any

individual/group grievances, every effort will

be made to resolve it in the first place by

mutual discussions between the parties in

accordance with the existing grievance

procedure, and without either party resorting

to any unilateral action. It is also agreed

between the parties that in event that they

do not arrive at a mutually acceptable

solution,

both

parties

will

constitutional and legally established

machinery/methods for the settlement of

disputes and shall not resort to any direct

and/or agitational methods.

f) It is in interest of the Company and its

workmen that the company must sustain and

improve its competitive status and earning

capacity. For this the union and its workmen

agree to co-operate with the Management in

all necessary efforts to continue to improve

efficiency, productivity, various continuous

improvement programmes and elimination of

wastage. As a measure of the same it is

agreed that workmen or employee shall co-

operate and participate in the Lean

management/GMP and different initiatives

like +QDCI, VSM (Value Stream Mapping),

works committee, or any other taken in this

regards.

g) It is expressly understood by the Union and

it workmen that all the prevalent service

conditions shall continue to remain unaltered

and the union and the workmen agree to

abide and follow these conditions for the

overall efficiency of the Plant and the

Company.

h) It is understood by the Union and the

workmen that any rules and regulations,

existing practices, privileges, terms and

conditions currently prevailing in the

company as a matter of policy or statute

which have not been expressly altered as a

result of this settlement shall continue to

remain in force and the union and its

workmen shall abide by the same. Any

alteration in the existing policy, rules and

regulations, existing practices and privileges

or introduction of any new policy, rules and

regulations, practices and privileges by the

Company during the tenure of this settlement

in accordance with the existing law at the

time of such alteration/introduction, and

which does not prejudice the terms and

conditions of this settlement shall be

followed by the union and its workmen.

Similarly any statute modified or introduced

by the Government during the tenure of this

settlement shall be complied with by the

company as well as the union and its

workmen.

i) It is understood and agreed upon by the

Union and its workmen that usage of Mobile

phones

the

Production

area

(Manufacturing and Packaging) and other

restricted areas is not permitted. The

workmen and all other employees of the

company shall strictly abide by the Mobile

Policy of the Company.

j) The Union and the workmen appreciate that

it is essential to improve and maintain the

competitive status and profitability of the

company and reduce the costs as an ongoing

exercise. The Union and the Workmen shall

continue to adhere to all measures adopted

by the company from time to time towards

this goal, including the following.

Introduction of new and/or improved

methods and machinery, restructuring,

re-allocation or re-organization, flexibility

of manpower allocation and method

simplification

modification

improvements in various Inputs.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

640

II.

Both parties agree to carry out

modifications, abolition of wasteful

practices, introduction of appropriate

procedure for effective and maximum

utilization of the operating time, and such

other methods as may be considered

appropriate jointly which will result into

work simplification or overall improvement

in the efficiency.

III.

It is agreed that workman shall work in

any section/department as per the

requirement of the company. The

Company may also depute workmen in

other department/on any other job than

currently handled by him for upgradation

of his skill or due to exigencies of work or

company requirements.

IV.

It is agreed that workman shall adhere to

working in shifts as notified from time to

time and accepting overtime work as and

when it is required. Workmen from the

prior shift shall co-operate and continue

to work on overtime after his regular duty

hours in case of absenteeism or work

requirement.

It is also agreed that safety of the plant,

machinery/equipments and personnel is

of paramount importance and both the

parties shall protect it under all

circumstances. The workmen shall ensure

at all times wearing of personal protective

equipment wherever required as per

safety norms required for personal safety.

VI.

The concerned workmen shall handover

proper charge at workplace during the

change over from one shift to another. It

is also agreed that all workmen will

adhere to the shift timings by starting

the work on time and not leaving the

place of work until and unless he is

relieved by the next shift operator.

VII.

It is agreed that the workmen will adhere

to all the rules of the cafeteria/canteen

including of lifting of self soiled plates

and depositing the same in the bin

provided in the canteen.

VIII. It is also agreed that all workmen will attend

the training programmes they are

nominated for as per the Company’s

training and development plans.

19.0 TENURE OF SETTLEMENT:

The settlement shall remain effective from 1st

July, 2017 to 30th September, 2020 and shall

continue to remain in force thereafter until such

time it is validly terminated by either of the parties

as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

It is further agreed that the arrears arising out

of this settlement shall be paid to all the workmen

as per list at Annexure A. The said payment shall

be subject to any deductions under the prevailing

laws and will be paid within 3 succeeding months

from signing of the settlement. Any tax liability

arising from any payment or other benefits

introduced or revised under the settlement will be

as per the Income Tax Act, 1961.

That this settlement shall be presented before

the Industrial Tribunal, Panaji in References No. IT

10/20 IT 03/2021, IT 53/16, IT 13/18 & IT 06/20 and

before the Office of the Commissioner of Labour

and Employment in cases of Protected Workmen,

Pravin Kande and Others bearing No. CLE/(PWA-

-2)/2018 & Works Committee with a prayer to make

an Order in terms of this settlement.

It is agreed that with the signing of the

settlement, all the differences or disputes pending

cases/reference related to the Charter of Demands

in Reference No. IT 10/20 and IT 03/2021 between

the management and the workmen in the tribunal

or with conciliation authority is deemed to have

been settled. It is agreed that no fresh dispute on

any issue which is settled under this settlement

shall be raised with the management or with any

authority under industrial/labour law during the

subsistence of this settlement. In view of the above

settlement it is specifically agreed between the

parties for the disposal of all the matters mentioned

hereinbelow that Union will withdraw all the

following case or file and shall make applications

before the appropriate authority to pass no dispute

award for the disputes mentioned hereinbelow.

Sr.

Brief

Filed by

Filed

Case No.

No.

against

1. Special

Union

Sanofi

IT/53/16

allowance

India Ltd.

2. Withdrawal Union

Sanofi

IT/13/18

of special

India Ltd.

allowance

3. Protected

Union

Sanofi

All

Workmen

India Ltd.

pending

cases

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

641

4. Deduction

Pravin

Sanofi

CLE/

of special

Kande

India Ltd.

/(PWA-2)/

allowance

& others

/2018

5. Refusal to

Union

Sanofi

IT/06/

work

India Ltd.

/2020

6. Works

Union

Sanofi

CLE/TA/

Committee

India Ltd.

/(383)/

/2016 and

other

matters

on the

subject

20.0 That in consideration of the management

having agreed to their demands as specified in

this settlement, during the period of its operation

the workers who are beneficiaries of the settlement

and the Union agree that they will not, either jointly

or severally, raise/support any demand involving

any additional financial burden upon the

management, or support any move likely to disrupt

any of the operations of the Management, which

may directly or indirectly cast a financial burden

on the company.

For the following three workmen who were

confirmed in between the tenure of the settlement

their payment mode will be as follows:

E Code

Name

DOJ

130042

Surat Gaonkar

14-09-2017

99227

Kumar Kamble

14-09-2017

99070

Jitendra Usapkar

13-05-2017

The above three workmen would be only eligible

for settlement benefit from July, 2018. Further,

they would be paid annual basic increment of

April, 2018. If the said employees had taken MA

increments for the year April 18, then the same

stands to be relinquished by them and would be

recovered from the arrears paid arising out of this

settlement.

Further, employees joined the union on

17-07-2017 would be eligible for Settlement benefit

from July, 2017. Further, employees joined the union

on 28-06-2018 would be eligible for Settlement

benefit from July, 2017. Further they will be paid

annual basic increment of April, 2018 as per the

settlement. Further, if these set of workmen had

taken MA increments for the year April, 2018 than

the same stands to be relinquished by them and

would be recovered from the arrears paid arising

out of this settlement.

21.0 OTHER CONDITIONS OF SERVICE:

That all other terms and conditions of service,

more particularly including all those specified in

the letter of appointment of probation/confirmation,

Certified Standing Orders and existing rules and

regulations as the case may be, in the employment

of the management not modified in this settlement,

will continue unaltered.

It is hereby agreed by and between the parties

that any technical, legal, arithmetical and

typographical error that may have inadvertently

crept up in the settlement, will be resolved and

rectified mutually and neither party will take

undue advantage if any.

The above Memorandum of Settlement has been

signed by representative of Party I, Mr. Arvind

Sawant, President, Dr. Raghunath Kuchik, General

Secretary and other Committee Members, so also

the representative of Party II, Shri Magno

Fernandes, Site Director, Goa Site and

Mr. Shailendra Bidye – Site HR Head, Goa Site and

the other Officials on behalf of Party II. I have gone

through the application dated 09-06-2021 along

with the Memorandum of Settlement at Exh. 7 colly

filed as above, which in my view, are just and fair

and in the interest of both the Workmen/Party I as

well as Employer/Party II and hence, the same are

accepted.

4. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The reference at the instance of both the

Parties stands disposed off in view of the

application dated 09-06-2021 at Exhibit 7

colly.

(ii) Consequently, the benefits of the Settlement

shall be extended to the workmen of Party I.

(iii) No order as to costs.

(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Bela N. Naik),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

Dated:- 22-06-2021.

Place:-

Panaji-Goa.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

642

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-IV/458

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 19-08-2021 in Case. No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/08/2017 is hereby published as required

under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Labour) (Link).

Porvorim, 21st September, 2021.

______

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/08/2017

Shri Shailesh Govekar,

H. No. 9, Sunderpeth Waddo,

Bicholim-Goa.

…..Workman/Party-I

V/s

M/s. The Bicholim Merchant Urban Co-op.

Credit Society Ltd.,

Sahayog, ODLI, New Market,

Bicholim-Goa.

.…. Employer/Party-II

Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri P.

Agarwal.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri G.K.

Sardessai.

Panaji, Dated: 19-08-2021.

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

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

Government of Goa, by Order dated 28-04-2017,

bearing No. 28/11/2017-LAB/284 referred the

following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour

Court-II of Goa.

“(1) Whether the action of the management M/s.

The Bicholim Merchant Urban Co-operative

Credit Society Limited, Bicholim, Goa in

dismissing its Workman, Shri Shailesh Govekar,

Clerk, with effect from 07-03-2016, is legal and

justified?

(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/08/17 and registered

A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance

to the said notice, the Parties put in their

appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short

‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on

07-08-2017 at Exb-4. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that he was

employed with the Employer/Party II (for short,

‘Employer’) as a ‘Clerk’ with effect from 01-02-1993.

He stated that on 01-06-2005, the Employer

terminated his services. He stated that he

challenged his termination of services before the

Labour Court II, Panaji-Goa and it bears case No.

IT/27/2007. He stated that the Hon’ble Labour

Court II passed an award in his favour and directed

the Employer to reinstate him with continuity in

service with immediate effect by holding that the

termination of services of the Workman is illegal

and unjustified. He stated that accordingly, the

Employer directed the Workman to join in its

services on 01-07-2013. He stated that he joined in

the services of the Employer on 01-07-2013.

3. He stated that two false charge-sheets cum

notice of enquiry were issued against him on

account of misconduct, one dated 30-11-2013 and

another dated 14-04-2015. He stated that he denied

all the allegations levelled against him. He stated

that he categorically denied that the enquiries were

conducted in accordance with the principles of

natural justice. He denied that the opportunities

were given to him to participate and defend him.

He stated that his evidence was closed. He stated

that Ld. Enquiry Officer submitted his findings

dated 30-01-2016 and dated 02-02-2016 in both the

charge-sheets issued to him. He stated that the

findings given by Ld. Enquiry Officer are biased,

one sided and unfair. He stated that the so called

findings given by the Enquiry Officer holding that

he is engaged in misconduct is a falsity and fraud

against him.

4. He stated that he was attending the office

regularly, however, he was deliberately not assigned

any work. He stated that the Employer deliberately

retained him and made him to sit in old premises

on the first floor, where hardly there is any work.

He stated that on 07-03-2016, he was shocked and

surprised to receive a letter of dismissal from

services with immediate effect after having hard

work.

5. The Workman contended that the dismissal of

his services w.e.f. 07-03-2016 is illegal, unjustified

and in violation of provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947.

He submitted that the impugned order of dismissal

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

643

from service passed by the Employer is bad-in-law

for non-observance of principles of natural justice.

He submitted that he has not been paid his monthly

salary for last four years, even after performing the

duties sincerely and honestly. He submitted that

after receiving the letter of dismissal of services, he

demanded for his reinstatement in service with full

back wages and continuity in service. He stated

that presently he is unemployed, having an

unemployed wife and a minor son. He submitted

that the action of the Employer in dismissing his

service amounts to an unfair trade practice. The

Workman therefore prayed that the Employer be

directed to reinstate him with full back wages and

continuity in service and further direct the Employer

to pay to him a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as a

compensation towards mental torture and

harassment.

6. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman, by filing its written statement on

13-10-2017 at Exb. 6. The Employer, as and by way

of its preliminary objections, submitted that the

alleged dispute is not an ‘industrial dispute’ and

that there is non-application of mind by the

Government and as such the reference deserves to

be rejected summarily at the threshold.

7. The Employer stated that it is Co-operative

Credit Society engaged in the banking business

such as granting loans to its members and

accepting deposits from public. The Employer

stated that they are having a branch at Bordem,

Bicholim, Goa at the relevant time, apart from the

head office cum branch at market Bicholim-Goa.

The Employer stated that the Workman was

employed by them in January, 1993 as a ‘clerk’. The

Employer stated that in due course, the Workman

was transferred to its Bordem branch and again

was re-transferred to Bicholim market branch. The

Employer stated that since the appointment of the

Workman as a clerk in January, 1993 and during his

tenure of service, his duties varied from time to

time depending upon the exigencies of work. The

Employer stated that during the tenure of service,

the behaviour and attitude of the Workman was

highly objectionable and affected its smooth

functioning. The Employer stated that during the

tenure of service, the Workman had developed a

habit of remaining absent from the duties without

prior permission and more particularly during the

half yearly and yearly account closing date.

8. The Employer stated that on 11-04-2003, during

a surprise check of its Bordem branch, they found/

/observed a shortage of cash of Rs. 42,000/- in the

said branch and upon questioning about the same,

the Workman deposited a cash of Rs. 42,000/- in the

cash account of its Bordem branch. The Employer

stated that the Workman was accordingly, issued a

memo on 16-04-2003 seeking his explanation. The

Employer stated that the Workman filed his reply

dated 20-04-2003. The Employer stated that they,

vide its letter dated 28-04-2003 issued a warning to

the Workman.

9. The Employer stated that on 03-07-2003, the

Workman was issued a memorandum as he had

fraudulently withdrawn a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from

his S.B. A/c. No. 117 and as such he was asked to

refund the said amount immediately. The Employer

stated that by letter dated 05-07-2003, the Workman

stated that he would refund the said excess

withdrawn amount of Rs. 10,000/- in installments of

Rs. 500/- per month. The Employer stated that by

his said letter, the Workman also attempted to

cover-up his misdeeds by offering various baseless

explanations. The Employer stated that the said

explanation given by the Workman was

unacceptable to them. The Employer stated that as

the past performance of the Workman was most

unsatisfactory, they suspended him, by its order

dated 08-07-2003. The Employer stated that

subsequently, by letter dated 22-07-2003, the

Workman once again gave an undertaking to repay

the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- in installments of Rs.

500/- per month and pleaded that the suspension

order dated 08-07-2003 be revoked. The Employer

stated that however, as the misconduct was serious

and did not merit any further consideration, they

decided not to revoke the suspension order and

decided to initiate enquiry proceedings, whereby

the Workman was afforded opportunity of being

heard. The Employer stated that Ld. Enquiry Officer

thereafter gave his findings, wherein he found

Workman guilty of the said misconducts i.e.

“withdrawing Rs. 10,000/- extra from his S.B.

account.” The Employer stated that after holding a

domestic enquiry into the charges and based on

the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the past

records of the Workman which was bad, they

terminated the services of the Workman w.e.f.

01-06-2005 for loss of confidence. The Employer

stated that aggrieved by their decision in dismissing

him from their services w.e.f. 01-06-2005, the

Workman raised an ‘industrial dispute’ in the matter

of alleged illegal termination of his services before

the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (ALC), Mapusa-Goa

for intervention. The Employer stated that the ALC

admitted the dispute in conciliation, however, the

conciliation proceedings ended in failure.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

644

10. The Employer stated that the Government of

Goa, by an order No. 28/01/2007-LAB/465 dated

14-05-2007 referred the dispute to the Hon’ble

Industrial Tribunal for its adjudication as to whether

the action of the Bicholim Merchant Urban Co-op.

Credit Society, Bicholim-Goa in terminating the

services of Shri Shailesh C. Govekar, ‘Clerk’ w.e.f.

01-06-2005 is legal and justified and that if not, to

what relief the Workman is entitled. The Employer

stated that on receipt of the reference, it was

registered under No. IT/27/2007. The Employer

stated that both parties filed their respective

pleadings and led evidence before the Tribunal.

The Employer stated that the Industrial Tribunal,

after hearing both the parties, vide its award dated

15-10-2012 was pleased to pass an order holding

that the action of the Bicholim Merchant Urban

Co-op. Credit Society, Bicholim-Goa in terminating

the services of Shri Shailesh C. Govekar, ‘Clerk’ w.e.f.

01-06-2005 is illegal and unjustified and that the

Employer, Bicholim Merchant Urban Co-op. Credit

Society, Bicholim-Goa is therefore directed to

reinstate the Workman Shri Shailesh C. Govekar

with continuity in service with immediate effect.

The Employer stated that in compliance with the

said award, the Workman was reinstated in its

services.

11. The Employer stated that however, it was

observed that right from the date of resumption in

service, the Workman failed to carry out the normal

duties. The Employer stated that the Workman was

repeatedly instructed by his superiors to carry out

his normal duties, but he continued to disobey the

instructions. The Employer stated that the Workman

used to sit idle without carrying out his duties and

such failure to perform the duties continued. The

Employer stated that they therefore, served a show-

cause notice dated 07-08-2013 on the Workman

seeking explanation. The Employer stated that the

Workman replied to the said show-cause notice,

vide his reply dated 09-08-2013. The Employer stated

that they, vide their letter dated 28-08-2013, advised

the Workman to carry out his duties. The Employer

stated that by letter dated 31-08-2013, the Workman

called upon them to promote him. The Employer

stated that they, by its letter dated 25-09-2013,

informed the Workman that his claim for promotion

to higher post cannot be entertained. The Employer

stated that it was further brought to his notice that

his refusal to carry out his normal duties and failure

to perform his duties will disentitle him to wage on

the principles of ‘no work no pay’. The Employer

stated that they further reserved their liberty to

initiate such disciplinary action for his misconduct

of refusal to carry out his normal duties.

12. The Employer stated that as the Workman

was still refusing to carry out his normal duties, in-

spite of repeated request, they had no other option

than to initiate disciplinary proceedings against

the Workman. The Employer stated that the

Workman was issued a charge-sheet cum notice of

enquiry dated 30-11-2013 for the above acts of the

Workman which constituted the following acts of

misconducts.

(a) Wilful insubordination or disobedience,

whether alone or in combination with other,

to any lawful and reasonable order of a

superior.

(b) Riotous and disorderly behaviour during

working hours at the establishments.

discipline or good behaviour on the premises

of the establishment.

(d) Habitual negligence or neglect of work and

(e) Habitual breach of any law applicable to the

establishment.

13. The Employer stated that Mr. Vasudev Tari, is

an officer in their society whose deposition was in

progress on 05-03-2015. The Employer stated that

said Shri Tari addressed a complaint to them against

the Workman stating that on 05-03-2015, he had

gone to collect stationary at its society’s old

premises and that at about 4.20 p.m., the Workman

came running towards him and started shouting at

him in abusive and objectionable language, that

Workman slapped him on his left ear, that the

Workman threatened to beat him if he do not give

proper statement on the next date of hearing at the

enquiry. The Employer stated that Mr. Tari on

05-03-2015 also lodged a complaint against the

Workman at Bicholim Police Station. The Employer

stated that the Workman was issued another

charge-sheet cum notice of enquiry dated

15-04-2015 for the above acts of misconduct. The

Employer stated that the Workman was suspended

pending enquiry.

14. The Employer stated that they conducted an

enquiry into the above said charge-sheets. The

Employer stated that both the enquiries were

conducted by Mr. Prasanna Chawdikar, an Enquiry

Officer in an impartial manner and every

opportunity was given to the Workman to defend

the charges levelled against him. The Employer

stated that the Workman fully participated in the

enquiry. The Employer stated that Ld. Enquiry

Officer submitted his findings dated 30-01-2016 and

dated 02-02-2016. The Employer stated that after

appreciating the evidence on record, Ld. Enquiry

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

645

Officer held the Workman guilty of the charge-

sheets levelled against him in both the charge-

sheets dated 30-11-2013 and dated 15-04-2015

respectively. The Employer stated that they

considered proceedings of both enquires, the

findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 30-01-2016

and dated 02-02-2016 and concurred with the same.

The Employer stated that they considered the past

record of the Workman and that they did not find

any extenuating circumstances and the Workman

was accordingly served with a show-cause notice

dated 05-02-2016, as to why he should not be

dismissed from service. The Employer stated that

the Workman filed his reply dated 11-02-2016. The

Employer stated that after carefully perusing the

contents of the said reply to the said show-cause

notice and once again going through the

proceedings of the enquiry and the findings of the

Enquiry Officer dated 30-01-2016 and dated

02-02-2016 did not find the explanation satisfactory.

The Employer stated that they decided to dismiss

the Workman from service and accordingly, they

dismissed the Workman, vide their letter dated

07-03-2016. The Employer denied the overall case

as pleaded by the Workman in his claim statement

and prayed for rejection of the claim of the Workman.

15. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder

on 30-07-2018 at Exb. 10. The Workman, by way of

his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all his

submissions, averments and statements made in

his Claim Statement to be correct and true and

denies all the statements, averments and

submissions made by the Employer in its Written

Statement which are contrary to his Statement and

averments made in his Claim Statement.

16. Based on the pleadings filed by both the

parties’ hereinabove, this court framed the following

issues on 30-07-2018 at Exb. 11.

1. Whether a free, fair and proper enquiry was

conducted against the Workman in respect

of charge-sheet dated 30-11-2013 and charge-

sheet dated 15-04-2015?

2. Whether the charges of misconduct levelled

against the Workman vide charge-sheet dated

30-11-2013 and charge-sheet dated

15-04-2015 have been proved to the

satisfaction of this court by acceptable

evidence?

3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the action of the Employer in dismissing him

from the service w.e.f. 07-03-2016 is illegal

and unjustified?

4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the reference is not maintainable in view of

the reasons mentioned in para (a) and (b) of

its written statement?

5. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to

any relief?

6. What order? What award?

17. After framing the issues, the matter was fixed

for filing affidavit in evidence of the Workman. The

Workman also filed his affidavit in evidence and

produced on record certain documents in support

of his oral evidence and the case was adjourned to

05-03-2021. On 05-03-2021, Ld. Rep. Shri P. Agarwal,

appeared for the Workman as well as Adv. Ms. N.

Gaonkar appeared for the Employer and both the

parties submitted that the matter is likely to be

settled amicably. Accordingly, 16-08-2021, Ld. Adv.

Shri P. Agarwal, appearing for the Workman as well

as Ld. Adv. V. Palekar, representing the Employer

remained present and orally submitted that they

have settled the matter amicably between the

parties hereinabove and prayed for disposing off

the reference as consent award. The parties

produced on record a copy of the terms of settlement

duly signed by both the parties along with their

respective representatives which is on record at

Exb. 29. The terms of settlement as settled between

the parties are reproduced herewith.

1. The parties have amicably resolved to settle

all claims, demands, disputes – existing,

accrued and anticipated, including the

following cases pending before various courts

on the terms and conditions stated above:

Sr. No.

Case No.

Pending before

Appln. No. LC-II/IT/

Labour Court.

/8/2017

W.P. No. CLE/(PWA)-

Labour

-5/2014

Commissioner.

W.P. No. 174/2014

High Court of

Bombay at Panaji-

Goa.

W.P. No. 130/2015

High Court of

Bombay at Panaji-

Goa.

2. The Party II shall pay to the Party I a total sum

of Rs. 6,25,000/- in full and final settlement

towards all claims/demands/disputes arising

out of employment of Party I with Party II, as

stated in para 1 above.

3. The Party I is deemed to have been discharged

from service with effect from 01-06-2005.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

646

4. The Party I and the Party II shall not raise/file/

prosecute any claim, civil or criminal, in

future, on the basis of right, accrued to them

but not claimed/demanded/enforced, against

each other.

5. Party I and Party II shall withdraw all cases

pending before various courts as stated in para

1 above.

6. The payment in terms of para 2 above shall be

made within a period of 30 days from the date

of passing of the award in terms of the present

consent terms.

7. All cases referred in para 1 above shall be

deemed to have been withdrawn and or

settled by the Party I and Party II. The parties

shall be at liberty to produce certified copy of

the order passed in accordance with the

present consent terms, before the court where

the proceedings are pending to formally

terminate the proceedings pending before

such court.

I have carefully perused the said terms of

settlement at Exb. 29 signed by and between the

parties hereinabove. The said terms of settlement

are beneficial to both the parties. Hence, I consented

for the same. Since the dispute under reference is

settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute

under present reference, does not survive.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that action of the management

M/s. The Bicholim Merchant Urban

Co-operative Credit Society Limited,

Bicholim, Goa in dismissing its Workman,

Shri Shailesh Govekar, Clerk, with effect from

07-03-2016, does not survive.

2. The Workman, Shri Shailesh Govekar, is not

entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-I/459

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 10-08-2021 in Case

No. Ref. LC-II/IT/14/17 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.

Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 21st September, 2021.

______

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/14/17

Shri Sunil Chauhan,

R/o. H. No. 103, Swarkar Nagar,

Sasmolem, Baina,

Vasco da Gama, Goa

….. Workman/Party- I

V/s

M/s. High Street Cruises and

Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.,

Panaji-Goa

..… Employer/Party-II

Workman/Party-I present in person.

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

Chawdikar.

Panaji, Dated: 10-08-2021.

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

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

Government of Goa, by Order dated 12-10-2017,

bearing No. 28/19/2017-LAB/714, referred the

following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour

Court-II of Goa at Panaji, Goa.

“(1) Whether Shri Sunil Chauhan, Senior Dealer,

could be construed as a “workman” as defined

under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?

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

affirmative, then, whether the action of the

management of M/s. High Street Cruises and

Entertainment Private Limited, Panaji, Goa, in

dismissing from service Shri Sunil Chauhan,

Senior Dealer, with effect from 22-12-2016, is

legal and justified?

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

negative, then, what relief, the workman is

entitled to?”

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

647

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II-IT/14/2017 and registered

A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance

to the said notice, the Parties put in their

appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short

‘Workman’) appeared in person and filed his

Statement of Claim on 23-11-2017 at Exb. 4. The

facts of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workman

are that initially, he was employed as a ‘Sr. Dealer’

with Golden Porch Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. He stated

that thereafter, he was transferred to the Employer/

/Party-II (for short ‘Employer’). He stated that he

was not happy and was feeling uncomfortable to

work with the Employer for various reasons. He

stated that he, therefore, decided to write a letter

for clarification as personal problem given by the

entire authority management. He stated that on

29-03-2016, he submitted a letter for the clarification

on employee’s right as his personal problems to the

Casino Manager and asked forty questions to clarify

in writing in matters of employee’s right. He stated

that there was a verbal conversation between

Casino Manager and himself regarding clarification

on letter. He stated that on the next day i.e. on

31-03-2016, he submitted a letter in Panaji Police

Station subject to information for security reasons.

He stated that the Casino Manager, Mr. Rajae Sarhan

refused to reply his clarification letter dated

29-03-2016 in writing and therefore, he informed

the Casino Manager that he will write a letter to

him until all the major Government department,

authorities, ministry, opposition leader, Goa police

and Government before going to the court. He

stated that on 06-04-2016, he wrote a clarification

letter as first reminder and second reminder on

20-04-2016 along with copy to others. He stated

that on 25-04-2016 in closing shift, Casino Manager,

Mr. Rajae Sarhan informed him that he is not

authorized to reply to his letter dated 29-03-2016 in

writing as per the Company’s policy and further

the clarification should be asked from the Human

Resource Manager, as he being the authority. He

stated that he wrote a letter to the Human Resource

Manager, vide his letter dated 27-04-2016 and dated

04-05-2016. He stated that since the management

has not submitted reply on clarification on problems

created by the authority of management, he

submitted letter dated 20-05-2016 to the Labour

Inspector, Patto, Panaji-Goa. He stated that on

06-06-2016, Asstt. Labour Commissioner served a

notice to him on his representation and advised to

attend on 16-06-2016 for clarification on the issues

raised by him. He stated that on 16-06-2016, he

attended the office of Asstt. Labour Commissioner,

Panaji, Goa and submitted his representation. He

stated that on 24-06-2016 a notice was served to

the Manager (HR) of the Employer and requested

the management to offer the pointwise comments

on the issues raised by him in his letter dated

29-03-2016.

3. He stated that on 22-07-2017, he was on duty

and that he was not feeling well. He stated that he

went to submit medical prescription, medical bill

and prescription of blood test to the Casino Manager

and requested for sick leave. He stated that since

he had raised issue before the Commissioner, Labour

and Employment and other authorities about the

clarification of employee’s rights, the said Casino

Manager was very rude to him and did not accept

any of his problems related to work, personal or

health. He stated that he had an argument related

to his sickness and employee’s right with the said

Casino Manager between 11.30 p.m. in Casino

Manager’s office cabin. He stated that the Casino

Manager wanted him either to work or go home, on

condition for two days deduction in salary and 20%

deduction in tips on verbal warning as per the

Company’s policy. He stated that since he didn’t

agree and was asking about the employee’s right,

the Casino Manager was angry and upset. He stated

that the Casino Manager called the bouncer and

security guard and told them to take his identity

card and throw him out from the ship. He stated

that his identity card was taken by force and he

was thrown out from the ship and from service

without any notice. He stated that he therefore

filed a complaint of harassment before the Panaji

Police Station against the Casino Manager, Mr. Rajae

Sarhan as well as office of the Commissioner, Labour

and Employment, Panaji, Goa.

4. He stated that on and from 25-07-2016, he is

not working with the Employer. He stated that he

received a show-cause notice cum suspension dated

25-07-2016 on 28-07-2016 by post. He stated that he

submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice

on 28-07-2016. He stated that on 16-08-2016, Asstt.

Labour Commissioner, Mr. Milind Govekar served a

notice to him as well as the Employer directing

them to remain present in its office on 30-08-2016

at 11.00 a.m. without fail, in the matter of harassment

and illegally throwing him out of service. He stated

that he also received a charge-sheet cum notice of

enquiry dated 20-08-2016 on 22-08-2016 by post. He

stated that the Employer conducted domestic

enquiry for the acts of misconduct as per the Model

Standing Orders applicable to the Employer. He

stated that by the said notice dated 20-08-2016, he

was called to appear in its office 26-08-2016 at 4.30

p.m. He stated that he replied to the charge-sheet

cum notice of enquiry on 23-08-2016 and also

attended the domestic enquiry before Ld. Enquiry

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

648

Officer, Mr. Prashant Agarwal. He stated that he

told Ld. Enquiry Officer that if the management did

not reply to his representation dated 23-08-2016

before next date of hearing scheduled on

14-09-2016, he will not attend the enquiry. He stated

that Ld. Enquiry Officer agreed to him and directed

the Management Representative to file reply before

the next date of hearing on 14-09-2016. He stated

that he himself as well as the Employer’s Advocate,

Shri P. Chawdikar, appeared before the Asstt.

Labour Commissioner, Panaji-Goa on 30-08-2016 and

that the conciliation officer directed the

Management Representative to submit written

comments on the next date of hearing on

20-09-2016.

5. He stated that he received a copy of show-

cause notice dated 08-12-2016 from the Employer

on 13-12-2016 by post alongwith copy of findings of

the Enquiry Officer dated 07-12-2016. He stated that

by the said show-cause notice, the Employer

informed the Party I to file his reply as to why he

should not be dismissed from the service. He stated

that on 14-12-2016, he submitted his reply to the

show-cause notice and accepted to attend the show-

cause on 19-12-2016 in the Employer’s premises at

Fisheries Building, Panaji-Goa. He stated that he

received a copy of his dismissal letter dated

22-12-2016 from the Employer by post on

23-12-2016 along with a cheque dated 22-12-2016

of Rs. 9225/- of HDFC Bank towards subsistence

allowance. He submitted that the Employer had

conducted domestic enquiry for its own benefits in

the name of natural justice. Being aggrieved by the

dismissal of his service, he raised an industrial

dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner,

Panaji-Goa, which ended in failure.

6. He submitted that he was targeted since he

had raised issue for the clarification on employee’s

rights. He submitted that correction of mistakes

will not going to be considered as justice and the

Employer have to return everything with interest.

He submitted that false statement of his sickness

was produced to twist the fact in domestic enquiry.

He submitted that his documents and proof was

not cross-examined by Ld. Enquiry Officer, Shri

Prashant Agarwal and needs to do the same. He

submitted that he was not furnished with copies of

list of documents submitted by the management to

the Enquiry Officer. He submitted that his dismissal

from service is illegal as it is without notice and

amounts to unfair labour practice as defined u/s

25-T of the I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted that the

Employer committed an offence as defined u/s 2

(ra) of Unfair Labour Practice described in 5th

schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

Workman therefore prayed for an order directing

the Employer to reply point wise on his letter dated

29-03-2016 along with proof and also order for court

of enquiry. The Workman also prayed for ordering

the Employer on his demand submitted on

10-03-2017 and as mentioned in the minutes of

conciliation proceedings admitted on 20-04-2017.

7. The Employer resisted the claim of the Party I

by filing its written statement on 15-01-2018 at

Exb. 9. The Employer, as and by way of his

preliminary objections, submitted that the present

claim filed by the Party I cannot be construed as an

‘industrial dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D.

Act, that the present claim is filed with malafide

intension with ulterior motive and that the Party I

was appointed as “Sr. Casino Dealer” in supervisory

cadre and duties discharged by him are purely of

supervisory nature and hence, he cannot be

construed as ‘workman’ u/s 2 (s) of the I. D. Act, that

the Party I performed essentially and predominantly

supervisory, managerial and administrative

functions, that the grades, scales and allowances

applicable to the Party I were of managerial cadre

and that the services of the Party I was terminated

on account of his own negligence and fault and the

Employer even conducted enquiry as and by way

of abandunt caution, though, it was not mandatory

on the basis of his proved misconduct, his services

were terminated.

8. Without prejudice, the Employer stated that it

is a company duly incorporated under the Indian

Companies Act, having its office at Fisheries

Building, Panaji-Goa. The Employer submitted that

the Party I has filed the present dispute just to

pressurize and harass them without justifiable

reasons. The Employer submitted that the services

of the Party I were terminated on account of proved

misconduct by them and as such the allegations of

the Party I against them are unwarranted, false and

baseless. The Employer submitted that the

management had followed the proper procedure

with due regards to the principles of natural justice,

while dismissing the services of the Party I. The

Employer submitted that Party I was involved in

several acts of misconducts during his service

tenure and they have afforded him several

opportunities to improve his behaviour and other

related issues at workplace. The Employer

submitted that they believe in maintaining best of

the relations with its employees and if any issues

arises, they believe in settling the same amicably.

9. The Employer admitted that on 22-07-2015,

the Party I was on duty. The Employer has however,

denied that the Party I was not feeling well and

that he went to submit medical prescription, medical

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

649

bill and prescription of blood test to the Casino

Manager. The Employer stated that the medical

case paper does not even stand in his name and it

can clearly be read from the case paper that the

same are in the name of Anil S. Chauhan. The

Employer stated that if the Party I or any of the

employee is sick, than in that event such employee

is not supposed to attend his duty as the

management never force any of its employee to

attend their duty, when they are not enjoying good

health/sick as basically they are involved in

hospitality services. The Employer stated that if

the Party I was not feeling well, he should have

proceeded on sick leave and should not have

attended his duty on the said day. The Employer

stated that the Party I even had an argument with

the Casino Manageron 22-07-2016, which was not

at all related to his sickness and employees right

with the Casino Manager in between 11.00 p.m. to

11.30 p.m. in Casino Manager’s cabin. But the same

was occurred only on account of arrogant behaviour

of the Party I. The Employer stated that the entire

incident was recorded in the CCTV cameras/

/surveillance system. The Employer stated that the

Party I was asked to surrender his ID card. The

Employer denied that he was thrown out by force

as alleged. The Employer submitted that the

management served show-cause notice cum

suspension letter dated 25-07-2016 to the Party I

and he was regularly paid subsistence allowance

as per law.

10. The Employer stated that the Party I was

issued a charge-sheet cum notice of enquiry dated

21-06-2011. The Employer stated that they have

instituted an enquiry by appointing Mr. Prashant

Agarwal, an Advocate as an Enquiry Officer to

conduct an impartial enquiry. The Employer stated

that accordingly, the enquiry has been conducted

by the Ld. Enquiry Officer in accordance with the

principles of natural justice. The Employer stated

that the Party I even attended the domestic enquiry

on the scheduled dates initially and thereafter,

abandoned the enquiry for the reasons best known

to him. The Employer stated that the Party I was

given every conceivable opportunity to participate

and present his case during the enquiry. The

Employer stated that after conclusion of the enquiry,

Ld. Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated

03-10-2012 holding the Party I guilty of charges

levelled against him as mentioned therein. The

Employer stated that they perused the charges, the

proceedings of the enquiry and the findings of the

Enquiry Officer and concluded that the enquiry

has been conducted in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and the findings of the

Enquiry Officer are fair, proper and based on the

evidence on record. The Employer stated that it

can be seen that Ld. Enquiry Officer has given his

reasoned findings. The Employer stated that the

charges levelled in the charge-sheet have been

proved in the enquiry against the Party I as there

is sufficient evidence on record to hold him guilty

of charges mentioned in the charge-sheet. The

Employer stated that considering the gravity of

proved misconducts, past records, they dismissed

the Party I from their services, vide dismissal letter

dated 22-12-2016. The Employer stated that they

paidall the legal dues to the Party I as per law,

which has been duly accepted by him. The

Employer stated that the Party I was paid an amount

of Rs. 9,225/- drawn on HDFC Bank towards the

subsistence allowance, vide cheque No. 359036

dated 22-12-2016. The Employer submitted that the

termination of services of the Party I is therefore

legal and justified and hence, he is not entitled to

any relief as claimed by him.

11. The Employer submitted that in the event

this Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that

the enquiry held against the Party I was not

conducted fairly and/or properly for any reason

whatsoever and that the findings of the said enquiry

are perverse or vitiated for any reason whatsoever

or for the said reasons the proceedings of the

enquiry are liable to be set aside, the Employer be

permitted to hold an enquiry a fresh and/or to lead

evidence a fresh before this Hon’ble court to prove

the charges against the Party I to its satisfaction.

The Employer denied overall case as pleaded by

the Party I and prayed for rejecting the same.

12. Thereafter, the Workman filed his re-joinder

on 26-02-2018 at Exb. 12. The Party I, by way of his

re-joinder, submitted that the written statement

filed by the Employer is without any documentary

proof is not justifiable, bad-in-law, fabricated,

unwarranted, false and baseless. He stated that the

Employer deposited an amount of Rs. 5700/- in his

account on 24-11-2017 as per the HDFC Bank

statement towards bonus after dismissal dated

22-12-2016 and that is with ulterior motive and with

malafide intensions. He stated that the management

does not believe in following any law and procedure

prescribed under the Act and Rules of Industrial

Establishment. He submitted that the Employer use

the employees with the policy of “use and throw”

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

650

and committing offence by unfair labour practice.

He denies the overall case as pleaded by the

Employer.

13. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

parties, this court framed the following issues on

08-08-2018 at Exb. 19.

1. Whether a free, fair and proper enquiry was

conducted against the Workman in respect

of charge-sheet dated 20-08-2016?

2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled

against the Workman vide charge sheet dated

20-08-2016 have been proved to the

satisfaction of this court by an acceptable

evidence?

3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that he

is a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D.

Act, 1947?

4. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the action of the Employer/Party II in

dismissing him from service with effect from

22-12-2016 is illegal and unjustified?

5. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the present reference is not maintainable in

view of the reasons mentioned in para (a) to

(h) of the written statement?

6. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to

any relief?

7. What Order? What Award?

14. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a) Issue No. 1

: In the negative.

(b) Issue No. 2

: In the negative.

: In the negative

(d) Issue No. 4

: Does not arise.

(e) Issue No. 5

: In the affirmative.

(f) Issue No. 6 & 7

: As per final order.

REASONS

I have heard the oral arguments of the Party I as

well as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, appearing for

the Employer. I have carefully perused the entire

records of the present case including the synopsis

of written arguments filed by the respective parties

herein above. I have also carefully considered the

submissions made across the bar and is of the

opinion as under.

Issue No. 1 and 2:

15. Vide order dated 07-05-2021, passed in my

findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the enquiry conducted against the Party I in respect

of charge-sheet dated 20-08-2016 is unfair, improper

and in violation of principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the said inquiry is vitiated. The issue

No. 1 and 2 are therefore answered in the Negative.

Issue No. 3:

16. As the Employer denied that the Party I is a

‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of

the I.D. Act, 1947, the burden was cast on the Party I

to prove that he is a ‘workman’ within the meaning

of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is therefore

necessary to refer to the definition of the ‘workman’

as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 defines the

term ‘workman’ and it means “any person

(including an apprentice) employed in any

industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,

technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work

for hire or reward, whether the terms of

employment be expressed or implied and for the

purposes of any proceedings under this act in

relation to an industrial dispute, includes any

such person who has been dismissed, discharged

or retrenched in connection with or a

consequence of that dispute or dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that

dispute, but does not include any such person

(1) who is subject to the AIR Force Act, 1950 (45

of 1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950)

or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or

(2) who is employed in the police service or as an

Officer or other employee of a prison or

(3) who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity

(4) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity

draws wages exceeding Rs. 1,600/- per

mensem or exercises either by the nature of

the duties attached to the office or by reason

of the powers vested in him, functions mainly

of a managerial nature.”

17. Thus, from the bare reading of definition of

“Workman” under the I. D. Act, 1947, it is clear that

in order to prove the concerned employee is a

‘Workman’ or not within the meaning of the said

Act, he/she must prove that he/she was employed

in an ‘Industry’ as defined under the said Act and

secondly he/she was employed to perform any of

the work such as to do any manual, unskilled,

skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory

work for hire or reward.

18. In the case of H. R. Adyanthaya V/s Sandoz

(I) Ltd. reported in 1994 (69) FLR 593, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India held that “a person claiming

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

651

to be a Workman under the I. D. Act, 1947 must

show that he was employed to do the work of any

of the category which of manual, unskilled, skilled,

technical, operational, clerical or supervisory and that

is not enough that he was not covered by either of

the four exceptions to the definition of the Workman.”

19. In the case of Management of M/s Sonepat

Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s Ajit Singh

reported in 2005 LAB IC 1315, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India observed that “the question as to

whether the Employee has been performing a clerical

work or not is required to be determined upon

arriving at the findings as regards the dominant

nature of duty with a view to give effect to the

expression to do “any manual, unskilled, skilled,

technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work”,

the job of the concerned employee must fall within

one or other category thereof. It would therefore not

be correct to contend that merely because the

employee had not been performing any managerial

or supervisory duties, ipso facto, he would be a

Workman”.

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in its aforesaid both judgments is well

recognized.

20. Thus, it is crystal clear that the employee

must prove that he was performing the duties of

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work and it is not sufficient

to prove that the concerned employee was not

falling in any of the exceptional category i.e.

administrative, managerial and/or supervisory in

nature and drawing a salary of more than

Rs. 7,500/- p.m. It is well settled law that whether

a person is a ‘workman’ or not as defined u/s 2 (s)

of the I. D. Act, 1947 has to be decided on the basis

of the predominant nature of duties performed by

concerned person at the relevant time, it cannot

lay down any straight jacket formula.

21. In the case of Shankar Chakrawarti V/s

Britannia Biscuits Co. Ltd. reported in 1979 SC

1652, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held

that “it is well settled principles of law that the

allegation which was not pleaded and even if the

evidence is adduced in that regards cannot be

examined because the other side has no notice of it

and if such evidence is entertained it would

tantamount to granting unfair advantage to the

Party who had not pleaded his case properly”.

22. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in its aforesaid judgment is well settled and

applicable to the case in hand. In the case in hand,

it appears that the Party I was designated as

‘Sr. Casino Dealer’ at the time of dismissal from the

service of the Employer. The Party I was required to

plead his predominant nature of duties in his

pleadings i.e. his claim statement or re-joinder and

also prove the same, which he was performing as

a Sr. Casino Dealer, while working with the

Employer. Failure to plead his pre-dominant nature

of duties, the Party I failed to prove that he is a

‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

This finds merits in the written submissions of Ld.

Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, representing the Employer.

23. It is pertinent to note that the Party I, during

the course of cross-examination of Shri Rajae Sarhan,

the fifth witness of the Employer, put a suggestion

that “the Party I was forced to perform the duties of

supervisory, managerial and administrative functions

without any payment, without any promotion and

without any written appointment letter in the

establishment of the Employer, I say that it is not

true”. The said suggestion put to the fifth witness

of the Employer itself implies that the Party I was

performing the duties of supervisory, managerial

and administrative in nature by force. The Party I

however, failed to prove the alleged force applied

by the Employer on him to perform the duties of

supervisory, managerial and administrative in

nature.

Hence, it is held that the Party I failed to prove

that he is a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D.

Act, 1947. The issue No. 1 is therefore, answered in

the negative.

Issue No. 4:

24. While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the Party I failed to prove that he is a ‘workman’ as

defined u/s 2 (s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. Hence, the

question of deciding the action of the Employer in

dismissing the Party I from its service w.e.f.

22-12-2016 is illegal and unjustified, does not arise.

The issue No. 4 is therefore answered accordingly.

Issue No. 5:

25. The Employer, as and by way of his preliminary

objections, submitted that the present claim filed

by the Party I cannot be construed as an ‘industrial

dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I. D. Act, that the

present claim is filed with malafide intension with

ulterior motive and that the Party I was appointed

as “Sr. Casino Dealer” in supervisory cadre and

duties discharged by him are purely of supervisory

nature and hence, he cannot be construed as

‘workman’ u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, that the Party I

performed essentially and predominantly

supervisory, managerial and administrative

functions, that the grades, scales and allowances

applicable to the Party I were of managerial cadre

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

652

and that the services of the Party I was terminated

on account of his own negligence and fault and the

Employer even conducted enquiry as and by way

ofabundant caution, though, it was not mandatory

on the basis of his proved misconduct, his services

were terminated. The burden to prove the said

allegations were casted on the Employer.

26. While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the Party I failed to prove that he is a ‘workman’ as

defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, the

dispute raised by the Party I cannot be construed

as an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 and hence, this court has no

jurisdiction to adjudicate the present reference

issued by the Appropriate Government. Hence, it is

held that the Employer proved that the present

reference is not maintainable in view of the reasons

mentioned in para (a) to (h) of the written statement.

The issue No. 5 is therefore answered in the

affirmative.

Issue No. 6:

27. While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the Party I failed to prove that he is a ‘workman’ as

defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Similarly,

while deciding the issue No. 5 hereinabove, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that the

Employer proved that the present reference is not

maintainable in view of the reasons mentioned in

para (a) to (h) of the written statement. Hence, this

court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present

reference issued by the Appropriate Government.

The Party I is therefore not entitled to any relief as

sought by him in his claim statement. The issue No.

6 is therefore answered in the negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that Shri Sunil Chauhan, Sr. Dealer

is not a “workman” as defined under

Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947.

2. It is further held that the action of the

management of M/s. High Street Cruises and

Entertainment Private Limited, Panaji, Goa,

in dismissing from service Shri Sunil

Chauhan, Senior Dealer, with effect from

22-12-2016, is legal and justified, does not

arise.

3. The Party I, Shri Sunil Chauhan is not entitled

to any relief.

4. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

—

Order

No. 5/2/2017-PER/2646

On the recommendation of the Goa Services

Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order Shri

Antonio Savio Lourenco, Under Secretary to

Minister for Science & Technology, to hold the

charge of the post of Deputy Director (Development),

Higher Education in addition to his own duties in

public interest with immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 21st October, 2021.

________

Order

No. 5/14/2018-PER/2650

Read: 1) Order No. 6/16/2013-PER/Part dated

25-11/2014.

2) Order No. 6/20/2016-PER/782 dated

07-03-2019.

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 (1)/2020/335 dated 29-09-2021, the

Governor of Goa is pleased to declare Smt. Maya

Pednekar to have satisfactorily completed the

probation period in Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service

and confirmed in the grade with effect from the

date of her completion of probation period i.e.

02-12-2019.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Meghana Shetgaonkar, Joint Secretary

(Personnel).

Porvorim, 20th October, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

653

Order

No. 6/6/2021-PER/2691

On the recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee as conveyed by Goa Public

Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/42(1)/

/2011/391 dated 20-10-2021, the Governor of Goa is

pleased to promote the following Senior Scale

Officers of Goa Civil Service to Junior Administrative

Grade (Group ‘A’ Gazetted), under Rule 32 of the

Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, in Level 12 of Central

Civil Services (RP) Rules, 2016 with immediate

effect:-

1. Shri Bhushan K. Savoikar.

2. Smt. Varsha S. Naik.

3. Smt. Anju S. Kerkar.

4. Shri Gouresh Kurtikar.

5. Shri Brijesh D. Manerkar.

6. Shri Santosh S. Kundaikar.

7. Smt. Aisha Amir Vaingankar.

The officers shall exercise their option for fixation

of pay in promotional grade in terms of F.R. 22(I)(a)(1),

within a period of one month from the date of issue

of the order. The option once exercised shall be

final.

On promotion, the officers shall continue to hold

the post presently held by them, until further

orders.

The promotion shall be subject to the decision of

Hon’ble High Court in WP No. 240/2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Meghana Shetgaonkar,

Joint

Secretary

(Personnel).

Porvorim, 27th October, 2021.

________

Order

No. 7/21/2017-PER/2693

The Governor of Goa is pleased to order transfer

and posting of Ms. Jyoti Kumari, IAS (AGMUT:2018),

as Deputy Collector (South-I) with additional charge

of Deputy Collector (South-II), with immediate

effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Ankita Anand, IAS, Special Secretary (Personnel).

Porvorim, 27th October, 2021.

———uuu———

Order

No. 5/1/2018-PER/2690

On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board and with the approval of the Government, the

transfer and posting of the following Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service is ordered in public

interest:-

Sr.

Name and present posting

Posted as

No.

of the officer

1. Shri Shubham M. Naik,

Deputy Collector, South-1 with additional charge of Deputy

awaiting posting

Collector, South-2.

2. Shri Ganesh K. Barve,

Chief Officer, Canacona Municipal Council with additional

awaiting posting

charge of Forest Settlement Officer, South.

3. Shri Yogiraj P. Gosavi,

Chief Officer, Ponda Municipal Council.

awaiting posting

4. Smt. Ashwini A. Gauns Desai,

Deputy Director, Industries.

awaiting posting

5. Shri Girish G. Sawant,

Under Secretary, Home-II.

awaiting posting

6. Shri Sitaram G. Sawal,

Chief Officer, Mapusa Municipal Council.

awaiting posting

7. Shri Manohar L. Karekar,

Chief Officer, Curchorem Municipal Council with

awaiting posting

additional charge of Member Secretary, Ravindra

Bhavan, Curchorem.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

654

8. Shri Sagar Gaude,

Administrator of Communidade, North Zone.

Chief Officer, Ponda Municipal Council

9. Shri Ulhas Kadam,

SLAO, Tillari Irrigation.

Administrator of Communidade,

North Zone

10. Smt. Nancy Fernandes,

Under Secretary, GA-II.

Deputy Director (Admn.), Transport

11. Smt. Seema Salkar @ Veera Nayak,

Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare.

Deputy Collector (Election), North, holding

additional charge of Deputy Director

(Admn.), Tribal Welfare

12. Smt. Swati Dalvi,

Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare with additional charge

Deputy Director of Panchayat, South

of Member Secretary, Rajiv Gandhi Kala Mandir, Ponda.

holding additional charge of Member

Secretary, Rajiv Gandhi Kala Mandir, Ponda

13. Shri Raju R. Dessai,

Deputy Director of Panchayat, South.

Deputy Collector & SDM, Sanguem

14. Shri Deepesh N. Priolkar,

Under Secretary in the office of the Minister (Agriculture,

Deputy Director, Municipal

TCP) with additional charge of Deputy Director (Admn.),

Administration holding additional charge

TCP.

of Under Secretary in the Office of the

Minister (Agriculture, TCP)

15. Shri Prasad G. Volvoikar,

Deputy Collector & SDM-I, Salcete.

Deputy Director of Tourism holding

additional charge of Deputy Director,

Industries & SLAO, Tourism

16. Shri Shripad Arlekar,

Under Secretary, GA-I with additional charge of Under

Under Secretary, GA-II holding

Secretary to Chief Secretary.

additional charge of Under Secretary,

GA-I and Under Secretary to Chief

Secretary

Shri Milagres Soares, Under Secretary, Lokayukta shall hold the charge of Deputy Director (Admn.),

Transport in addition to his own duties.

Shri Vivek Naik, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes shall hold the charge of Deputy Director,

Municipal Administration in addition to his own duties.

Shri P. A. Parab, Deputy Director-III, Mines shall hold the charge of Deputy Director, Tourism in addition

to his own duties.

Shri Pandurang T. Talgaonkar, General Manager, GIDC shall hold the charge of SLAO, Tourism in

addition to his own duties.

The officers posted against deputation posts shall be governed by standard terms of deputation as

amended from time to time.

All the above officers shall take over the charges immediately and submit compliance report.

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

Meghana Shetgaonkar, Joint Secretary (Personnel).

Porvorim, 27th October, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

655

Department of Power

Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer

—

Order

No. CEE/CSC/Tech-2/2021-22/1643

Sub.: Constitution of Distribution Reforms

Committee (DRC).

The Ministry of Power, Government of India has

formulated the Revamped Distribution Sector

Scheme for supporting the DISCOMs to improve the

operational efficiencies and financial sustainability

by providing financial assistance for strengthening

of supply infrastructure based on meeting pre-

qualifying criteria and achieving basic minimum

benchmarks in reforms.

Government of Goa seeks to avail financial

assistance under the scheme, however as mandated

under the guidelines of the Scheme, the Distribution

Reforms Committee has to be constituted at the State

level. The Distribution Reforms Committee is

therefore constituted consisting of the following:

Chief Secretary

—

Chairman.

Secretary (Power)

—

Convenor.

Secretary (Finance)

—

Member.

Secretary (Revenue)

—

Member.

Secretary (Forest and

—

Member.

Environment)

The DRC shall review the progress of the scheme

at the State level. Without prejudice to the

generality of the above, it shall:

(i) Recommend the Action Plan for approval of

State Cabinet;

(ii) Recommend the DPRs for approval of

Monitoring Committee;

(iii) Approve change in the mode of execution with

the consent of the Nodal Agency;

(iv) Monitor the implementation of the Action

Plan;

(v) Monitor physical and financial progress

including quality of the projects.

This issues with the approval of the Government

vide Office of the Chief Minister Inward No. 6042/F

dated 22-09-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Raghuvir Keni, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex

officio Additional Secretary.

Panaji, 25th October, 2021.

Department of Public Health

—

Order

No. 22/1/2001-I/PHD/2292

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/24(4)/91/341 dated 29-09-2021, Government

is pleased to promote Dr. Vandana R. Dhume @

Gaunekar, Chief Medical Officer to the post of

Medical Superintendent-cum-Dy. Director, North

Goa District Hospital, Mapusa under Directorate of

Health Services on regular basis in the Level 11 of

Pay Matrix [PB-3: Rs. 15600-39100/- + GP: Rs.

6600/- (pre-revised)] and other allowances to be

fixed as per rules with immediate effect:-

The promotion is made against the vacancy

occurred due to retirement on attaining the age of

superannuation of Dr. Mohandas Pednekar, Medical

Superintendent-cum-Deputy Director, Asilo

Hospital, Mapusa w.e.f. 30-06-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 20th October, 2021.

________

Order

No. 21/34/96-I/PHD/2297

Government is pleased to accept the notice of

voluntary retirement dated 26-07-2021 tendered by

Dr. Oswald Fernandes, Health Officer, Urban Health

Centre, Panaji under Directorate of Health Services

under Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and

to relieve him from the post of Health Officer under

Directorate of Health Services with effect from

26-10-2021 (a.n.).

The dues outstanding against House Building

Advance of Rs. 8,70,826/- in respect of Dr. Oswald

Fernandes, Health Officer shall be recovered from

the Pensionary dues/Death-cum-Retirement

Gratuity payable to him.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 20th October, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 32

5TH NOVEMBER, 2021

656

Order

No. 5/13/2019-IV/PHD/Part/1954

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/14(1)/2014/334 dated 29-09-2021, Government

is pleased to promote Dr. Gauri Sardessai, Assistant

Professor to the post of Professor in Department of

Periodontics under Goa Dental College & Hospital,

on regular basis in Level 13 of Pay Matrix of the 7th

Pay Commission (pre-revised PB-3 Rs. 37,400-

-67,000+ Grade Pay Rs. 8,700/-) and other allowance

to be fixed as per rules with immediate effect.

The promotion is made against the vacancy

occurred due to acceptance of voluntary retirement

tendered by Dr. Jyoti R. Rao, Professor vide Order

No. 8/26/91-IV/PHD/528 dated 15-03-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami S. Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-I)/

Link.

Porvorim, 21st October, 2021.

________

Order

No. 5/13/2019-IV/PHD/Part/1955

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/14(7)/2014/333 dated 29-09-2021, Government

is pleased to promote Dr. Shalmali Viraj Dhond,

Lecturer to the post of Assistant Professor in

Department of Periodontics under Goa Dental

College & Hospital, on regular basis in Level 11 of

Pay Matrix of the 7th Pay Commission (pre-revised

PB-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100 + Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/-) and

other allowance to be fixed as per rules with

immediate effect.

The promotion is made against the vacancy

occurred due to promotion of Dr. Gauri Sardessai,

Assistant Professor to the post of Professor in the

Department of Periodontics in Goa Dental College

& Hospital, Bambolim vide Order No. 5/13/2019-IV/

/PHD/Part/1954 dated 21-10-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami S. Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-I)/

Link.

Porvorim, 21st October, 2021.

________

Order

No. 22/6/98-I/PHD/PF-I/2295

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/24(1)/2017/342 dated 29-09-2021, Government

is pleased to promote the following Medical Officers

to the posts of Health Officer under Directorate of

Health Services (Group ‘A’ Gazetted) on regular basis

in Level 10 of Pay Matrix in 7th Pay Commission

[PB-3 Rs. 15600- 39100 + GP: Rs. 5400/- (pre-revised)]

in the pay scale: Rs. 15,600-39100+ Grade Pay

Rs. 5,400/- with immediate effect:-

(1) Dr. Succoro Quadros.

(2) Dr. Damodar P. Sinai Narvencar.

(3) Dr. Dinesh Krishna Parab.

(4) Dr. Sneha Santosh Amonkar.

The promotions are made against the vacancies

occurred due to (i) promotion of Dr. Gokuldas Vasant

Sawant to the post of Chief Medical Officer vide

Order dated 22-10-2020, (ii) due to voluntary

retirement of Dr. Neeta Kakodkar, Health Officer

w.e.f. 30-06-2021, (iii) due to retirement on

superannuation of Dr. Anju Kharangate, Health

Officer w.e.f. 31-07-2021, (iv) due to retirement on

superannuation of Dr. Vandana Dhillon Naique

Dessai, Health Officer w.e.f. 31-07-2021.

The posting Order shall be issued separately.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami S. Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 20th October, 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. 30.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—246/150–11/2021.