Panaji, 18th November, 2021 (Kartika 27, 1943)

SERIES II No. 34

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Order

No. 21/1/Multipurpose/TS-II/CZ/2017/RCS/2318

Read: 1. Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TS II/

/PZ/2017/RCS/Suppl.5306 dated 10-02-2020.

2. Office Memorandum No. 3/6/Urban Credit/

/TS-II/PZ/2017/RCS dated 17-06-2020.

3. Letter No. 13/572/2018/ARCS/CZ/1675

dated 19-10-2021 received from Asstt.

Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Central Zone,

Panaji.

In exercise of powers conferred upon me vide

Notification read at Sr. No. 1 above, The Chief

Executive Officer, Karmali Corlim Multipurpose

Co-operative Society Ltd., Carambolim-Goa is hereby

empowered to act as Sale-cum-Recovery Officer as

provided under sub-section (1) of Section 91D of the

Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001, in relation to the

recovery of debts and to attach and sell the property

of defaulters or to execute any decree by

attachment and sale of property and execution of

all recovery orders of decree holder viz. The Karmali

Corlim Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd.,

Carambolim-Goa passed by the Asstt. Registrar of

Co-op. Societies, ABN/EXE or the Nominee of

Registrar. This appointment is subject to following

conditions:-

3. The Officer empowered with the powers of Sales-

-cum-Recovery Officer shall work under the

general guidance, superintendence and control

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

Arbitration/Execution, North Goa District,

Ponda, Goa.

4. He shall follow all the procedures as laid down

under the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001

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

689

and the Goa Co-op. Societies Rules, 2003 or in

compliance with any other relevant provision of

any other Act/Rules and also bye-laws of the

society concerned while execution of decree.

5. The Board of Directors of the society shall be fully

responsible along with the General Manager for

any acts in contravention of the Act, Rules and

Bye- laws.

6. The Board of Directors shall review the

performance of the General Manager every

month and ensure compliance.

7. The order shall remain in force for one year from

the date of its issue and the same can also be

withdrawn at any stage without assigning any

reasons thereof.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar of Co-op Societies.

Panaji, 9th November, 2021.

________

Order

No. 3/18/Urban Credit/TS-II/NZ/2020/RCS/2367

Read: 1. Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TS II/PZ/

/2017/RCS/Suppl. 5306 dated 10-02-2020.

2.Order No. 18/11/2016/SUC/TS/RCS/1968

dated 14-09-2020.

3. Letter No. SUCCSL/HO/2021-22/150 dated

12-10-2021 received from Chairman of the

Sada Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Vasco.

In exercise of powers conferred upon me vide

Notification dated 10-02-2020 read at Sr. No. 1 above

and considering the request made by the Chairman,

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

Mormugao-Goa, vide letter dated 12-10-2021 read

at Sr. No. 3 above I, Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar of

Co-op. Societies, hereby extend the term of the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

690

Registrar’s Nominee appointed vide Order dated 14-09-2020 referred to at Sr. No. 2 above upto

14-09-2022.

All other terms and conditions mentioned in the main order shall remain unchanged.

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

Panaji, 11th November, 2021.

________

Addendum

No. 15-99-88-ADT/RCS(Suppl)/2073

Read: Order No. 15-99-88/ADT/RCS(Suppl)/3045 dated 04-12-2020.

In continuation to the above referred order and in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section

74(2) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, I, Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

Government of Goa hereby include the names of the following Auditors.

CLASS - A

Sr.

Name of the C.A. & address

Telephone/Mobile No.

Firms/Registration/

No.

/Membership No.

142. Suresh Kumar Saini, Basude Makote

8390814111

124381W

and Saini, House No. C1, 143, 31 Jan

[email protected]

Road, Panaji-Goa, 403001

143. Vaibhav alias Madhav Sambari Pai

9545183181

153139W.

Fondekar, M/s Vaibhav AMS & Co.,

[email protected]

D/5 JF Correia Complex, near Multi-

purpose High School Borda, Fatorda,

Goa, 403602

144. Karen Raquel Martins Furtado,

9822801012

0132647W.

M/s Karen Furtado and Associates,

[email protected]

H. No. 21 373 09, T-004, Nagali Hills,

Lane-2, ST2, Donapaula,

Taleigao, 403004

145. Siddhi Satchitanand Bagkar,

7875040775

151789W.

M/s. Siddhi Bagkar & Co., Office No. [email protected]

214, Block - E, Saldanha Business

Tower, Mapusa, Bardez-Goa, 403507

146. Shrinivas Shrikant Prabhu,

9545313026

185869.

M/s Shrinivas Prabhu & Associates,

[email protected]

Office No. 52b, Pansulem, Canacona

Goa, 403702

147. Atul Anavekar and Dhanashree

8971733711

131312W.

Kamat, M/s Atul Anavekar & Co.,

[email protected]

Office 10, 2nd floor, Visa Plaza,

Pajifond, Margao, 403601

148. Trupti Tulshidas Sastikar, SF-7,

8805787364

151690W.

Palmar Housing Society,

[email protected]

Pundaliknagar, Bardez-Goa, 403521

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

691

149. Nandan Motilal Sirsat, M/s Vinod

9175557405

005826C/

Singhal and Co., LLP, R. No. 110,

[email protected]

C400276.

1st Floor, Ramchandra building, opp.

Taxi Stand, Mapusa-Goa, 403507

150. Jyothi M. Unnithan, M/s Jyothi

9822714550

130299W.

Unnithan & Co., Office No. 104, first

[email protected]

Floor, Anand Tower 1, Port Road,

Chicalim, Vasco-Goa, 403711

151. Saiprabha Suresh Kamath,

[email protected]

139421W.

M/s S.S. Kamath & Associates, S-8,

9764320770

Ferreria Garden, Phase-1, above

Mascot Pet Shop, Gogol,

Margao-Goa, 403601

152. Mitali Durgesh Talwadker,

[email protected]

137460W.

M/s Mitali Talwadker & Associates,

9765795914

H. No. 449, Shantinagar, near Aquem,

Baixo Panchayat, Navelim-Goa, 403707

153. Siya Adhish Pai Kane, H. No. 77,

karmali.siya@gmailcom

198221.

Manik, Dr. G. P. Kane Road, Comba,

9921159383

Margao-Goa, 403601

Class - C

33.

Swarupa Ravindra Sawant, Certified

9422579069/9158550199

Auditor, House No. 219/C, Borbhat,

[email protected]

Taligao, North Goa, Tiswadi Taluka,

403002

34.

Nandkishor Kashinath Prabhu

917498998298

Tendulkar, Certified Auditor, House

No. 10, Atkhoydem, Sattari-Goa,

403401

35.

Shaik Jamil Ahamed, H. No. 62/1,

9923182572

Sankav, Veling, Mardol-Goa, 403404

The following Chartered Accountant at (Class-A), Sl. No. 58, has been removed from the panel of auditor

as per his request vide letter dated 8-03-2021.

58.

Mr. Malhar A. Shenoy, Chartered Accountant, M/s Malhar A. Shenoy & Co., H. No. 918/3, Gouri

Shankar, V. P. Road, Nr. Holy Family High School, Porvorim-Goa, Pin. 403501.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar, ex officio Joint Secretary (Co-operative Societies).

Panaji, 14th October, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Technical Education

College Section

Order

No. 16/4/93/PF/CSG/Arch/2018

Read:

Memorandum No. 16/2/25/2001/DTE/Vol.II/1364 dated 08-09-2021.

On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/I/5/5(2)/2018/273 dated 23-08-2021, Government is pleased to appoint Ms. Carissa Erica Silveira

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

692

George on temporary basis to the post of Assistant

Professor in Architecture (Group ‘A’ Gazetted) at

Goa College of Architecture, Altinho, Panaji-Goa,

on an initial pay at Level 10 (i.e. on an initial pay

of Rs. 15,600/- (pre-revised) in the Pay Scale of

Rs. 15,600-39,100 (pre-revised) (PB-3) + Academic

Grade pay of Rs. 6,000/-) w.e.f. from the date of

joining as per the terms and conditions contained

in the memorandum cited above.

The appointment is against the post of Assistant

Professor in Architecture vacant since creation

vide Order No. 16/1/10/2002-DTE/1444 dated

04-08-2003 & subsequently revived vide Order DTE/

/ADC/16/2/34//2007/Vol. I/3104 dated 21-12-2017.

Ms. Carissa Erica Silveira George will be on

probation for a period of two years.

She should join duties within 30 days of the

receipt of this order, failing which this order is

liable to be cancelled without further notice.

She has been declared fit by the Medical Board,

Goa Medical College & Hospital, Bambolim vide

letter No. 4/105/85-H/GMC/2021/487 dated

08-10-2021. Her character antecendents have been

verified and nothing adverse is reported against

her as conveyed by the Additional Collector and

ADM, North Goa, Office of the District Magistrate,

North Goa, Panaji vide No. 2/6/2013-MAG/VCA/Vol-

I/2414 dated 29-10-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Addl.

Secretary (Technical Education).

Porvorim, 08th November, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Finance

(Revenue & Expenditure)

Directorate of Accounts

Order

No. DA/Admn/45-1/2021-22/TR-1443/247

On the recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa

Public Service Commission vide its letter No.

COM/II/11/1(1)/2017/390 dated 20-10-2021, the

Government is pleased to promote Shri Subhash S.

Mandrekar Dy. Director of Accounts/Accounts

Officer under the Common Accounts Cadre of the

Directorate of Accounts to the post of Joint Director

of Accounts (Group “A” Gazetted) in level 11 of the

Pay Matrix (i.e. Pay Band PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100 Grade

Pay of Rs. 6600/- pre-revised) on regular basis with

effect from the date of taking over charge of the

post.

The Government is pleased to post Shri Subhash

S. Mandrekar on promotion to the post of Joint

Director of Accounts in the O/o the Principal Chief

Engineer, Public Works Department, Altinho, Panaji-

Goa. However, he shall continue to hold the

additional charge of the post of Dy. Director of

Accounts/Accounts Officer in the Directorate of

Education, Porvorim-Goa, until further orders.

Further, the Government is also pleased to transfer

Shri Eknath Palkar, Joint Director of Accounts under

the Common Accounts Cadre in the Directorate of

Accounts, Panaji-Goa in public interest.

Shri Subhash S. Mandrekar, Jt. DA may exercise

an option for fixation of pay under F.R. 22(1)(a)(i)

within one month from the date of his promotion to

the post of Joint Director of Accounts.

He shall join his promotional post or convey the

acceptance of the promotional post within 7 days of

issue of the promotion order.

On joining their promotional/new post, the

Officers shall send their CTC/Joining reports

immediately to this Directorate.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dilip K. Humraskar, Director, ex officio & Joint

Secretary (Accounts).

Panaji, 1st November, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Food & Drugs

Administration

Directorate of Food & Drugs Administration

Order

No. 147/DFDA/RTI-INF-ACT/Vol.III/2021-22/4424

In supersession of earlier Order No. 147/DFDA/

/RTI-INF-ACT/Vol.III/17-18/06 dated 02-04-2018 in

pursuance of Clause 5 of the Right to Information

Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”),

the following officers are hereby appointed for the

Directorate of Food & Drugs Administration, as

Public Information Officer and Assistant Public

Information Officer to deal with the applications

received from the public under the said Act.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

693

Sr.

Name & Designation of the

Role/Responsibilities

No.

Officers

1. Smt. Shweta Dessai,

Public Information

Deputy Director

Officers

All matters related to

the Department.

2. Shri Richard Luis Noronha, Assistant Public Infor-

Designated Officer

mation officer

All matters related to

the Department.

The above referred Officers shall exercise and

perform the powers/function laid down under the

RTI Act, 2005 with immediate effect.

In the absence of the Public Information Officer,

the Assistant Public Information Officer shall

function as the Public Information Officer with

respect to the Roles and Responsibilities allotted to

them.

Jyoti J. Sardesai, Director (Directorate of Food &

Drugs Admn.).

Bambolim, 29th October, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Forest

Order

No. 4-2-2011/FOR/430

The Government of Goa is pleased to order posting and transfer of Assistant Conservator of Forests, with

immediate effect and until further orders in public interest as shown below:–

Sr.

Name of the Officers

Present place of posting

Transferred & posted

No.

& designation

as/charge

Shri Shrikrishna Prabhu,

Assistant Conservator of

Principal, Goa State Forest

Assistant Conservator of

Forest and Sub Divisional

Research

and

Training

Forest

Forest Officer, Ponda, Goa

Institute, Valpoi, Goa.

Shri Vishwas Chodankar,

Principal, Goa State Forest

Assistant Conservator of

Research and Training

Forest and Sub Divisional

Forest

Institute, Valpoi, Goa

Forest Officer, Ponda, Goa.

The above Officers shall draw their salary on their respective Budget Head.

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

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

Porvorim, 25th October, 2021.

––––––––

Notification

No. 6/933/FD/2021-22/436

Whereas, the land as specified in the Schedule hereto and more particularly described in the plan appended

to the said schedule is the property of the Government and the Government has proprietary rights over it

(hereinafter called as the “said land”);

And whereas, the Government proposes to constitute the said land as reserved forest;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act,

1927 (Act 16 of 1927), the Government of Goa hereby declares that it has been decided to constitute the said

land as a reserved forest and further appoints, Shri Pravin H. Parab as the Forest Settlement Officer for the

purposes of said section.

This Notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

694

SCHEDULE

District

: North Goa

Forest Division

: North Goa

Taluka

: Pernem

Range

: Pernem

Village(s) and Town(s)

: Tuem

Sr.

Name of

Area of

General

Description of

Remarks

No.

Forest

Description

Boundary

From pillar/post

Direction in bearing

From

Distance

Fore

Back

pillar pillar

in (m)

bearing

Tuem 1

2.89 Ha.

The area comprises of

40.00

44⁰

224⁰

Survey No. 59/0 (Part)

30.00

44⁰

224⁰

of “TUEM” Village of

30.00

44⁰

224⁰

Pernem Taluka. The

33.40

44⁰

224⁰

area is undulating with 5

26.60

44⁰

224⁰

gentle slope and

42.00

337⁰

157⁰

covered with natural

40.00

337⁰

157⁰

forestry species

37.00

337⁰

157⁰

37.00

337⁰

157⁰

44.00

337⁰

157⁰

14.20

222⁰

42⁰

29.00

222⁰

42⁰

39.00

222⁰

42⁰

30.00

222⁰

42⁰

45.80

222⁰

42⁰

59.60

222⁰

42⁰

43.70

160⁰

340⁰

33.00

160⁰

340⁰

30.00

159⁰

339⁰

33.70

159⁰

339⁰

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

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

Porvorim, 28th October, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-V/454

The following Judgment passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 10-08-2021 in Case No.

LC-II/LCC/110/2020 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. LC-II/LCC/110/2020

Miss Amita V. Azgaonkar,

H. No. 254/2, Dangui Colony,

Altinho-Duler,

Mapusa, Bardez-Goa.

…..

Applicant

V/s

1. Mandovi Bakers & Confectioners,

(A unit of Mandovi Hotels Private Limited),

D.B. Bandodkar Marg,

Panaji-Goa.

….. Opponent (1)

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

695

2. Mr. Ramnath V. Quenim (Partner),

Managing Director, Hotel Mandovi,

Ashirwad, D-6, Ocean Park,

Dona Paula, Goa.

….. Opponent (2)

3. Mr. Narcinva P. Quenim (Partner),

Ramnath Prasad Building,

Near Mahalaxmi Temple,

Panaji-Goa.

….. Opponent (3)

Panaji, Dated: 10-08-2021.

Applicant represented by Adv. Shri Suhas Naik.

Opponent absent, marked as Ex-parte.

JUDGMENT

1. This Judgment and Order shall determine the

claim application of the Applicant dated 18-10-2020,

filed u/s 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

2. By the present Claim Application, the

Applicant claimed an amount of Rs. 5,15,224/-

(Rupees five lakhs fifteen thousand two hundred

twenty four only) towards salary pending from

September, 2019 to 6th February, 2020

Rs. 2,05,709/- (Rupees Two lakh five thousand seven

hundred and nine only), towards Bonus pending

for the year 2018-19 and 2019-20, Rs. 69,711/- (Rupees

sixty nine thousand seven hundred and eleven only),

towards pending medical allowance 2018-2019 and

2019-20, Rs. 27,759/- (Rupees twenty seven

thousand seven hundred and fifty nine only),

towards salary increase arrears from 01-04-2017 to

30-11-2018, Rs. 89,796/- (Rupees eighty nine

thousand seven hundred and ninety six only),

towards pending unutilized privileged leave

(62 days) Rs. 86,800/- (Rupees eighty six thousand

eight hundred only), towards pending arrears from

01-04-2014 to 06-02-2020 (10 months and 6 days)

Rs. 35,449/- (Rupees thirty five thousand four

hundred and forty nine only). The Applicant

therefore prayed that the Opponents be directed to

pay to him the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,15,224/-

(Rupees five lakhs fifteen thousand two hundred

twenty four only) alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till

its realization.

3. All the Opponents have been duly served. The

Opponents have however, failed to appear before

this Hon’ble Court on the scheduled dates of

hearings for the reasons best known to them. This

Hon’ble Court marked an ex-parte against the

Opponents after giving ample opportunities to

appear and pursue their case.

4. This Hon’ble Court framed the following issues

on 05-04-2021 at Exb. 4.

1. Whether the Applicant proves that he is

entitled to receive from the Opponent an

amount of Rs. 5,15,224/- (Rupees five lakhs

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four

only) being Rs. 2,05,709 towards salary, Rs.

69,711/- towards bonus, Rs. 27,759/- towards

medical allowances, Rs. 86,800/- towards

unutilized privileged leave, Rs. 89,796/-

towards arrears of salary increment and Rs.

35,449/- towards arrears respectively?

2. What Order?

5. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

As per final order.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri

Suhas Naik appearing for the Applicant. On the

contrary, none remained present for the Opponents.

I have carefully perused the entire records of the

present case. I have also carefully considered the

submissions advanced by the Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas

Naik, appearing for the Applicant.

REASONS

Issue No. 1:

6. By the present claim application, the

Applicant claimed a total amount of Rs. 5,15,224/-

(Rupees five lakhs fifteen thousand two hundred

twenty four only) towards unpaid salary, bonus,

medical allowance, salary increase arrears and leave

salary. To support his claim, the Applicant has

produced on record evidence oral as well as

documentary. The said evidence oral as well as

documentary adduced by the Applicant on record

remained unchallenged for want of denial.

(a) Salary:

The Applicant claimed an amount of Rs.

2,05,709/- (Rupees two lakhs five thousand seven

hundred nine only) towards his unpaid salaries for

the period from September, 2019 till 06-02-2020.

7. The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant joined in the services of the Opponent

No. 1 on 01-04-2016 as a ‘Manager’. The evidence

on record indicates that the Applicant was relieved

from the post of ‘Manager’ vide letter dated

06-02-2020 (Exb. 8), after receiving her resignation

06-01-2020 (Exb. 7). The evidence on record

indicates that the Applicant has not been paid her

earned salaries for the month from September, 2019

till 06-02-2020. The evidence on record indicates

that the monthly salary of the Applicant was Rs.

39,507/-. Thus, the Applicant is entitled to receive

from the Opponent a sum of Rs. 2,05,436.40 (two

lakhs five thousand four hundred thirty six and

forty paise only) towards her unpaid salaries.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

696

(b) Arrears of salary increment:

8. The Applicant claimed arrears of salary

increment for the period from 01-04-2017 to

30-11-2018 (20 months) for Rs. 89,796/- and for the

period from 01-04-2019 to 06/-02-2020 (10 months)

Rs. 35,449/-.

9. The Applicant has produced on record a letter

of salary revision for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18

issued to her by the Opponent (Exb. 10). The said

letter of salary revision on record indicates that the

gross salary of the Applicant was revised to Rs.

38,793/- w.e.f. 01-04-2017 and to Rs. 42,000/- w.e.f.

01-04-2018. Thus, the Applicant is entitled for the

difference of Rs. 38,484/- @ Rs. 3,207/- per month for

the period from 01-04-2017 till 31-03-2018. The

Applicant has also produced on record her salary

slip for the month of April, 2018 (Exb. 9-colly). The

said salary slip of the Applicant for the month of

April, 2018 indicates that the gross salary of the

Applicant for the said year was Rs. 35,586/-. The

Applicant is therefore entitled for a difference of

Rs. 51,312/- @ Rs. 6,414/- per month for the period

from 01-04-2018 till 30-11-2018. Thus, the Applicant

is entitled for total amount of Rs. 89,796/- (Rupees

eighty nine thousand seven hundred ninety six

only).

10. The Applicant claimed salary arrears of Rs.

35,449/- for the period from 01-04-2019 till

05-02-2020. The Applicant has however, failed to

produce on record any material evidence either

oral or documentary in support of his claim. In the

absence of any material evidence, the rate at which

the increment is sought by the Applicant cannot

be considered. Hence, it is held that the Applicant

failed to prove that he is entitled to receive from

the Opponents arrears for the period from

01-04-2019 to 05-02-2020 (10 months) Rs. 35,449/-.

11. The Applicant claimed total amount of Rs.

27,759/- towards medical allowance for the year

2018-19 amounting to Rs. 15,000/- and for the year

2019-20 Rs. 12,759/-.

The letter of the Opponent dated 14-03-2016 (Exb.

11) on record indicates that the Applicant is

entitled for a medical allowance of Rs. 15,000/- p.a.

Thus, the Applicant is entitled to receive from the

Opponent medical allowance for the year 2018-19

amounting to Rs. 15,000/- and for the year 2019-20

amounting to Rs. 12,759/-, total amounting to

Rs. 27,759/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand seven

hundred fifty nine only) towards medical

allowances.

(d) Leave encashment:

12. The Applicant claimed leave encashment of

62 days amounting to Rs. 86,800/-.

The evidence on record indicates that basic

salary of the Applicant was Rs. 18,275/- and

Dearness Allowance was Rs. 2,500/-. Thus, the total

comes to Rs. 20,775/-. The evidence on record

indicates that the Applicant was having 62 days

balanced privilege leave in her account. Thus, the

Applicant is entitled to receive from the Opponents

a sum of Rs. 42,935/- (Rupees forty two thousand

nine hundred thirty five only) towards her leave

encashment.

(e) Bonus:

13. The Applicant claimed bonus for the year

2018-19 @ Rs. 35,783/- and for the year 2019-20 for

Rs. 33,928/- total amounting to Rs. 69,711/-.

The bonus is paid to the employee under the

Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Section 8 of the Act

provides for the eligibility of the bonus. Section 9

of the Act provides for disqualification for the bonus.

Section 10 of the Act, provides for minimum bonus.

The provisions of Section 10 provides for the

minimum bonus of 8.33% of the salary or wage

earned by the employee during the accounting year

or Rs. 100/-, whichever is higher, whether or not the

Employer has any allocable surplus in the

accounting year. Similarly, Section 11 of the Act,

provides for payment of maximum bonus.

14. The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant has failed to produce on record relevant

materials to grant maximum bonus. In the

circumstances, the Applicant is entitled for

minimum bonus @ 8.33% of the salary or wage

earned by the employee during the accounting year

or Rs. 100/- whichever is higher, whether or not the

Employer has any allocable surplus in the

accounting year.

15. The Applicant claimed from the Opponent

an amount of Rs. 69,711/- for the year 2018-19 and

for the year 2019-20 towards bonus. The Applicant

has however, failed to satisfy this court about the

calculation of the said amount of Rs. 69,711/- for the

year 2018-19 and for the year 2019-20 towards bonus.

Taking into consideration the monthly salary of the

Applicant of Rs. 39,507/-, the minimum bonus for

the year 2018-19 and for the year 2019-20 @ 8.33%

amounts to Rs. 6,581.87 (Rupees six thousand five

hundred eighty one and eighty seven paise only)

16. The Applicant proved that she is entitled to

receive from the Opponent No. 1 a total amount of

Rs. 3,72,508/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy two

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

697

thousand five hundred eight only) towards unpaid

salaries, arrears of salary increment, medical

allowance, leave encashment and bonus. The

evidence on record indicates that the Opponent

No. 2 and 3 are the partners of the Opponent

No. 1 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the

Applicant the aforesaid amount Rs. 2,82,712/-

(Rupees two lakhs eighty two thousand seven

hundred twelve only).

17. The Applicant claimed the aforesaid amount

of Rs. 3,72,508/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy two

thousand five hundred eight only) along with

interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its maturity till

its actual realization.

18. In the case of New Standard Engineering

Company Limited v/s. Ashok H. Hire and Anr.,

reported in 2004 II CLR 574, the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay, after relying upon a judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of

Suresh Sakharam Chowgule and Anr. v/s. M/s.

Parel Cotton Press Factory (1994 SUPP. (3) SCC

704), held that “though the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, do not expressly empowered the

Industrial Court to grant interest, the court is entitled

to grant interest depending upon facts of each case”.

19. In the case of Haryana State Federation of

Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.

v/s. Siri Kishan and Anr., reported in 1996 II CLR

688, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

has held that “where the Employer has retained

what was required to be disbursed to the Workman,

by denying their rightful dues for almost a period of

12 years, during which the value of their money has

considerably diminished due to inflation i.e. prevalent

in the country, the Labour Court is perfectly entitled

to say that the workman should be compensated by

way of payment of interest.”

20. Thus, it is settled principle of law that the

Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is empowered

to grant interest depending upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. In the instant case as

stated above, it has been proved that the Applicant

is entitled to receive from the Opponent No. 1 a

total amount of Rs. 3,72,508/- (Rupees three lakhs

seventy two thousand five hundred eight only)

towards unpaid salaries, arrears of salary increment,

medical allowance, leave salary and balance leave

and bonus. The Applicant is therefore entitled for

the said amount of Rs. 3,72,508/- (Rupees three lakhs

seventy two thousand five hundred eight only)

alongwith simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date

of passing the present order till its actual realization.

In view of above and with regards to the facts

and circumstances of the case, I pass the following

order:

ORDER

1. The present claim application of the Applicant

filed u/s 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947, is hereby

partly allowed. The Opponents are hereby

directed to pay to the Applicant, Ms. Amita V.

Azgaonkar, a sum of Rs. 3,72,508/- (Rupees

three lakhs seventy two thousand five hundred

eight only) along with simple interest @ 9%

p.a. from the date of passing of the present

order till the actual realization of the said

amount.

2. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-V/455

The following Judgment passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 10-08-2021 in Case No.

LC-II/LCC/111/2020 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. LC-II/LCC/111/2020

Shri Damodar Pangam,

H. No. 244, C-9, Ward No. 15,

St. Inez, Altinho Road,

Panaji-Goa.

…..

Applicant

V/s

1. Mandovi Bakers & Confectioners,

(A unit of Mandovi Hotels Private Limited),

D.B. Bandodkar Marg,

Panaji-Goa.

….. Opponent (1)

2. Mr. Ramnath V. Quenim (Partner),

Managing Director, Hotel Mandovi,

Ashirwad, D-6, Ocean Park,

Dona Paula, Goa.

….. Opponent (2)

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

698

3. Mr. Narcinva P. Quenim (Partner),

Ramnath Prasad Building,

Near Mahalaxmi Temple,

Panaji-Goa.

….. Opponent (3)

Panaji, Dated: 10-08-2021.

Applicant represented by Adv. Shri Suhas Naik.

Opponent absent, marked as Ex-parte.

JUDGMENT

1. This Judgment and Order shall determine the

claim application of the Applicant dated 18-10-2020,

filed U/S 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

2. By the present claim application, the

Applicant claimed an amount of Rs. 4,38,148/-

(Rupees four lakhs thirty eight thousand one

hundred forty eight only) towards bonus for the

year 2018-19 @ Rs. 26,726/- and for the year

2019-20 for Rs. 22,276/- total amounting to

Rs. 48,996/-, medical allowance for the year 2018-19

amounting to Rs. 9,500/- and for the year 2019-20

Rs. 8,712/- total amounting to Rs. 18,212/-, unutilized

privilege leave of 90 days amounting to

Rs. 84,000/- and leave balance amounting to

Rs. 87,814/-, arrears of salary increment for the

period from 01-04-2017 to 10-11-2018 (20 months)

for Rs. 45,794/- and for the period from 01-04-2019

to 05-02-2020 (10 months) Rs. 17,659/-, unpaid salary

from September, 2019 till 05-02-2020 amounting to

Rs. 1,35,673/-. The Applicant stated that the

Opponent have failed to pay to him the above legal

dues

though

made

several

written

communication to them. The Applicant stated that

the Opponent also failed to pay to him, his unpaid

gratuity. The Applicant submitted that he is

entitled to receive the aforesaid amount of

Rs. 4,38,148/- (Rupees four lakhs thirty eight

thousand one hundred forty eight only) alongwith

interest @ 18% per annum from the Opponent till

the realization of the said amount. The Applicant

submitted that the Opponent No. 1 is an

establishment and the Opponent No. 2 and 3 are

the partners of the Opponent No. 1. The Applicant

therefore prayed that the Opponents be directed to

pay to him the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,38,148/-

(Rupees four lakhs thirty eight thousand one

hundred forty eight only) along with interest

@ 18% p.a. till its realization.

3. All the Opponents have been duly served. The

Opponents have however, failed to appear before

this Hon’ble Court on the scheduled dates of

hearings for the reasons best known to them. This

Hon’ble Court marked an ex-parte against the

Opponents, after giving them ample opportunities

to appear and pursue their case.

4. This Hon’ble Court framed the following issues

on 05-04-2021 at Exb. 4.

1. Whether the Applicant proves that he is

entitled to receive from the Opponent an

amount of Rs. 4,38,148/- (Rupees four lakhs

thirty eight thousand one hundred forty eight

only) being Rs. 1,35,673/- towards salary, Rs.

48,996/- towards bonus, Rs. 18,212/- towards

medical allowances, Rs. 63,453/- towards

arrears of salary increment and Rs.

17,71,814/- towards arrears of salary increment

and Rs. 1,71,814/- towards leave salary

respectively?

2. What Order?

5. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

As per final order.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri

Suhas Naik appearing for the Applicant. On the

contrary, none remained present for the Opponents.

I have carefully perused the entire records of the

present case. I have also carefully considered the

submissions advanced by the Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas

Naik, appearing for the Applicant.

REASONS

Issue No. 1:

6. By the present claim application, the

Applicant claimed a total amount of Rs. 4,38,148/-

(Rupees four lakhs thirty eight thousand one

hundred forty eight only) towards unpaid salary,

bonus, medical allowance, salary increase arrears

and leave salary. To support his claim, the Applicant

has produced on record oral as well as documentary

evidence. The said evidence oral as well as

documentary adduced by the Applicant on record

remained unchallenged for want of denial.

(a) Salary:

7. The Applicant claimed an amount of Rs.

1,35,673/- (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousand six

hundred seventy three only) towards his unpaid

salaries for the period from September, 2019 till

05-02-2020.

The letter of the Opponent dated 20-03-2020 (Exb.

10) indicates that the Applicant joined in the

services of the Opponent No. 1 on 05-11-1999 as

‘Cashier’ and subsequently promoted as an

‘Accounts Officer’ w.e.f. 01-09-2006. The evidence

on record indicates that by letter dated 06-01-2020

(Exb. 8), the Applicant resigned from the post of

‘Accounts Executive’ and was relieved on

05-02-2020, by letter dated 20-03-2020 (Exb. 9). The

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

699

evidence on record indicates that the Applicant

has not been paid his earned salaries for the month

from September, 2019 till 05-02-2020. The evidence

on record indicates that the monthly net salary of

the Applicant was Rs. 26,199/-. Thus, the Applicant

is entitled to receive from the Opponents a sum of

Rs. 1,35,361.50 (Rupees one lakh thirty five thousand

three hundred sixty one and fifty paise only) towards

his unpaid salaries for the month from September,

2019 till 05-02-2020.

(b) Arrears of salary increment:

8. The Applicant claimed total amount of Rs.

63,453/- (Rupees sixty three thousand four hundred

fifty three only) towards arrears of salary increment

for the period from 01-04-2017 to 10-11-2018

(20 months) for Rs. 45,794/- and for the period from

01-4-2019 to 05-2-2020 (10 months) Rs. 17,659/-.

9. The Applicant has produced on record a letter

of salary revision for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18

issued to him by the Opponent (Exb. 12). The said

letter of salary revision on record indicates that the

gross salary of the Applicant was revised to Rs.

26,365/- w.e.f. 01-04-2017 and to Rs. 28,000/- w.e.f. 01-

04-2018. Thus, the Applicant is entitled for the

difference of Rs. 19,620/- @ Rs. 1,635/- per month for

the period from 01-04-2017 till 31-03-2018. The

Applicant has also produced on record his salary

slip for the month of October, 2018 (Exb. 13). The

said salary slip of the Applicant for the month of

October, 2018 indicates that the gross salary of the

Applicant for the said year was Rs. 24,729/-. The

Applicant is therefore entitled for a difference of Rs.

26,168/- @ Rs. 3,271/- per month for the period from

01-04-2018 till 30-11-2018. Thus, the Applicant is

entitled for total amount of Rs. 45,788/- (Rupees Forty

five thousand seven hundred eighty eight only).

10. The Applicant claimed salary arrears of Rs.

17,659/- for the period from 01-04-2019 till

05-02-2020. The Applicant has however, failed to

produce on record any material evidence either oral

or documentary in support of his claim. In the

absence of any material evidence, the rate at which

the increment is sought by the Applicant cannot be

considered. Hence, it is held that the Applicant

failed to prove that he is entitled to receive from the

Opponents

arrears

for

the

period

from

01-04-2019 to 05-02-2020 (10 months) Rs. 17,659/-.

11. The Applicant claimed medical allowance for

the year 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 9,500/- and for

the year 2019-20 Rs. 8,712/- total amounting to Rs.

18,212/-.

The letter of the Opponent dated 11-10-2013 at

Exb. 11 as well as the oral evidence adduced by

the Applicant indicates that he is entitled to

receive from the Opponent, medical allowance for

the year 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 9,500/- and for

the year 2019-20 amounting to Rs. 8,712/-. Thus,

the Applicant is entitled for an amount of Rs.

18,212/- (Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred

twelve only) towards his medical allowance for

the year 2018-19 and 2019-20.

(d) Leave Encashment:

12. The Applicant claimed unutilized privilege

leave of 90 days amounting to Rs. 84,000/- and

leave balance amounting to Rs. 87,814/-.

The salary slip of the Applicant for the month of

2019 at Exb. 7, indicates that the basic salary as

well as Dearness Allowance of the Applicant was

Rs. 13,510/- and Rs. 1500/- respectively. Thus, the

Applicant is entitled to receive from the Opponents

a sum of Rs. 45,030/- towards his leave encashment

for the unutilized privilege leave of 90 days. The

Applicant also claimed previous period privilege

leave which was partly paid and balance payable

amounting to Rs. 87,814/-. The letter of the

Applicant at Exb. 14 indicates that the Applicant

is entitled for the amount of Rs. 87,814/- towards

his previous period privilege leave. Thus, the

Applicant is entitled for total amount of Rs.

1,32,844/- (Rupees one lakh thirty two thousand

eight hundred forty four only) towards his entire

leave encashment.

(e) Bonus:

13. The Applicant claimed bonus for the year

2018-19 @ Rs. 26,726/- and for the year 2019-20 for

Rs. 22,276/- total amounting to Rs. 48,996/-.

The bonus is paid to the employee under the

Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Section 8 of the Act

provides for the eligibility of the bonus. Section 9

of the Act provides for disqualification for payment

of the bonus. Section 10 of the Act, provides for

payment of minimum bonus. The provisions of

Section 10 provides for the minimum bonus of 8.33%

of the salary or wage earned by the employee

during the accounting year or Rs.100/-, whichever

is higher, whether or not the Employer has any

allocable surplus in the accounting year. Similarly,

Section 11 of the Act, provides for payment of

maximum bonus.

14. The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant has failed to produce on record relevant

materials to grant maximum bonus. In the

circumstances, the Applicant is entitled for

minimum bonus @ 8.33% of the salary or wage

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

700

earned by the employee during the accounting year

or Rs. 100/- whichever is higher, whether or not the

Employer has any allocable surplus in the

accounting year.

15. The Applicant claimed from the Opponent

an amount of Rs. 48,996/- for the year 2018-19 and

for the year 2019-20 towards bonus. The Applicant

has however, failed to satisfy this court about the

calculation of the said amount of Rs. 48,996/- for the

year 2018-19 and for the year 2019-20 towards bonus.

Taking into consideration the monthly salary of the

Applicant as Rs. 28,000/-, the minimum bonus for

the year 2018-19 and for the year 2019-20 @ 8.33%

amounts to Rs. 4,664.80 (Rupees four thousand six

hundred sixty four and eighty paise only). Thus,

the Applicant is entitled for an amount of Rs.

4,664.80 (Rupees four thousand six hundred sixty

four and eighty paise only) towards his bonus for

the year 2018-19 and for the year 2019-20.

16. Thus, the Applicant proved that he is entitled

to receive from the Opponent No. 1 a total amount

of Rs. 3,36,870/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty six

thousand eight hundred seventy only) towards

unpaid salaries, medical allowance, leave salary and

balance leave and bonus. The evidence on record

indicates that the Opponent No. 2 and 3 are the

partners of the Opponent No. 1, who are jointly and

severally liable to pay to the Applicant the aforesaid

amount Rs. 3,36,870/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty six

thousand eight hundred seventy only).

17. The Applicant claimed the aforesaid amount

of Rs. 3,36,870/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty six

thousand eight hundred seventy only) along with

interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its maturity till

its actual realization.

18. In the case of New Standard Engineering

Company Limited v/s. Ashok H. Hire and Anr.,

reported in 2004 II CLR 574, the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay, after relying upon a judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of

Suresh Sakharam Chowgule and Anr. v/s. M/s.

Parel Cotton Press Factory (1994 SUPP. (3) SCC

704), held that “though the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, do not expressly empowered the

Industrial Court to grant interest, the court is entitled

to grant interest depending upon facts of each case”.

19. In the case of Haryana State Federation of

Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.

v/s. Siri Kishan and Anr., reported in 1996 II CLR

688,the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

has held that “where the Employer has retained

what was required to be disbursed to the Workman,

by denying their rightful dues for almost a period of

12 years, during which the value of their money has

considerably diminished due to inflation i.e. prevalent

in the country, the Labour Court is perfectly entitled

to say that the workman should be compensated by

way of payment of interest.”

20. Thus, it is settled principle of law that the

Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is empowered

to grant interest depending upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. In the instant case as

stated above, it has been proved that the Applicant

is entitled to receive from the Opponents a total

amount of Rs. 3,36,870/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty

six thousand eight hundred seventy only) towards

unpaid salaries, medical allowance, leave salary and

balance leave and bonus. The Applicant is therefore

entitled for the said amount of Rs. 3,36,870/- (Rupees

three lakhs thirty six thousand eight hundred

seventy only) alongwith simple interest @ 9% p.a.

from the date of passing the present order till its

actual realization.

In view of above and with regards to the facts

and circumstances of the case, I pass the following

order:

ORDER

1. The present claim application of the Applicant

filed u/s 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947, is hereby

partly allowed. The Opponents, are hereby

directed to pay to the Applicant, Shri Damodar

Pangam, a sum of Rs. 3,36,870/- (Rupees three

lakhs thirty six thousand eight hundred

seventy only) towards unpaid salaries, medical

allowance, leave salary and balance leave and

bonus along with simple interest @ 9% p.a.

from the date of passing of the present order

till the actual realization of the said amount.

2. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

––––––––

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-V/456

The following Judgment passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 10-08-2021 in Case No.

LC-II/LCC/109/2020 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.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

701

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/LCC/109/2020

Miss Sharmila Linhares,

H. No. E-619, Linhares Mansion,

Dr. A. B. Road,

Panaji-Goa.

…..

Applicant

V/s

1. Hotel Mandovi,

(A unit of Mandovi Hotels Private Limited),

D. B. Bandodkar Marg,

Panaji-Goa.

….. Opponent (1)

2. Mr. Ramnath V. Quenim (Partner),

Managing Director, Hotel Mandovi,

Ashirwad, D-6, Ocean Park,

Dona Paula, Goa.

….. Opponent (2)

3. Mr. Narcinva P. Quenim (Partner),

Ramnath Prasad Building,

Near Mahalaxmi Temple,

Panaji-Goa.

….. Opponent (3)

Panaji, Dated: 10-08-2021.

Applicant represented by Adv. Shri Suhas Naik.

Opponent absent, marked as Ex-parte.

JUDGEMENT

1. This Judgment and Order shall determine the

claim application of the Applicant dated 18-10-2020,

filed u/s 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

2. By the present claim application, the

Applicant claimed from the Opponent an amount

of Rs. 3,75,781/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy five

thousand seven hundred eighty one only) being Rs.

98,164 towards salary, Rs. 27,528/- towards bonus,

Rs. 18,208/- towards medical allowances, Rs.

70,000/- towards salary increase arrears, Rs.

34,256/- towards leave encashment and Rs.

26,638/- towards provisional salary increment.

3. The Applicant stated that the Opponent

No. 1 have failed to pay to her the above legal dues

though he made several written communication to

them. The Applicant stated that the Opponent

No. 1 also failed to pay to her, her unpaid gratuity.

The Applicant submitted that she is entitled to

receive the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,75,781/-

(Rupees three lakhs seventy five thousand seven

hundred eighty one only) alongwith interest @ 18%

per annum from the Opponent till the realization of

the said amount. The Applicant submitted that the

Opponent No. 1 is an establishment and the

Opponent No. 2 and 3 are the partners of the

Opponent No. 1. The Applicant therefore prayed

that the Opponents be directed to pay to her the

aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,75,781/- (Rupees three

lakhs seventy five thousand seven hundred eighty

one only) along with interest @ 18% p.a. till its

realization.

4. All the Opponents have been duly served. The

Opponents have however, failed to appear before

this Hon’ble Court on the scheduled dates of

hearings for the reasons best known to them. This

Hon’ble Court marked an ex-parte against the

Opponents after giving ample opportunities to

appear and pursue their case.

5. This Hon’ble Court framed the following issues

on 05-04-2021 at Exb. 3.

1. Whether the Applicant proves that he is

entitled to receive from the Opponent an

amount of Rs. 3,75,781/- (Rupees three lakhs

seventy five thousand seven hundred eighty

one only) being Rs. 98,164 towards salary, Rs.

27,528/- towards bonus, Rs. 18,208/- towards

medical allowances, Rs. 70,000/- towards

salary increase arrears, Rs. 34,256/- towards

leave encashment and Rs. 26,638/- towards

provisional salary increment respectively?

2. What order?

6. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

As per final order.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri

Suhas Naik appearing for the Applicant. On the

contrary, none remained present for the Opponents.

I have carefully perused the entire records of the

present case. I have also carefully considered the

submissions advanced by the Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas

Naik, appearing for the Applicant.

REASONS

Issue No.1:

7. By the present claim application, the

Applicant claimed a total amount of Rs. 3,75,781/-

(Rupees three lakhs seventy five thousand seven

hundred eighty one only) towards unpaid salary,

bonus, medical allowance, salary increase arrears

and leave encashment. To support her claim, the

Applicant has produced on record evidence oral as

well as documentary. The said evidence oral as

well as documentary adduced by the Applicant on

record remained unchallenged for want of denial.

(a) Salary:

8. The Applicant claimed from the Opponent an

amount of Rs. 98,164/- (Rupees ninety eight

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

702

thousand one hundred sixty four only) towards her

salaries for the period from October, 2019 to

February, 2020.

The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant joined in the services of the Opponent

No. 1 on 01-07-2008 as a ‘Secretary Sales and

Marketing’ which was subsequently re-designated

as ‘Executive Sales and Marketing’. The evidence

on record indicates that the Applicant resigned

from the post of ‘Executive Sales and Marketing’,

vide her letter dated 20-01-2020 (Exb. 7) and relieved

on 20-03-2020 (Exb. 8) at the close working hours of

19-02-2020. The evidence on record indicates that

the Applicant has not been paid her earned salaries

for the month from October, 2019 till 19-02-2020.

The evidence on record indicates that the monthly

net salary of the Applicant was Rs. 21,087/-. Thus,

the Applicant is entitled to receive from the

Opponent a sum of Rs. 97,703/- (Rupees ninety seven

thousand seven hundred three only) towards her

unpaid salaries for the period from October, 2019

till 19-02-2020.

(b) Arrears of salary increment as well as

provisional salary increment:

9. The Applicant claimed an amount of Rs.

96,638/- towards arrears of towards salary increment

as well as provisional salary increment.

The Applicant has produced on record a letter

issued by the Opponent (Exb. 10) pertaining to her

salary revision for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18.

The said letter of the Opponent at Exb. 10 on record

indicates that the gross salary of the Applicant

was revised to Rs. 20,337/- w.e.f. 01-04-2017 and to

Rs. 22,837/- w.e.f. 01-04-2018. The Applicant has also

produced on record her pay slip for the month of

September, 2019 (Exb. 6). The said pay slip of the

Applicant for the month of September, 2019 on

record indicates that her gross salary was Rs.

22,837/-. Thus, the Applicant is entitled for

increment of Rs. 2,500/- for the period from

01-04-2017 to 31-03-2018, which comes to Rs.

30,000/- towards salary increase arrears.

10. The Applicant has however, failed to produce

on record any material evidence either oral or

documentary in support of her claim for provisional

salary increment of Rs. 2,500/- for the year 2019-20.

In the absence of such material evidence, the rate

at which the increment as sought by the Applicant

cannot be considered. Hence, it is held that the

Applicant is entitled to receive from the Opponents

a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards her unpaid salary

increased. The Applicant has however, failed to

prove that she is entitled for any amount towards

provisional salary increment from the Opponents.

11. The Applicant claimed medical allowance

for the year 2018-19 and for the year 2019-20

amounting to Rs. 18,208/- (Rupees eighteen

thousand two hundred eight only).

The evidence on record indicates that vide letter

dated 01-08-2013 (Exb. 11), the Opponent had given

a medical reimbursement allowance of Rs. 9,500/-

for the year 2012-13. Thus, the Applicant is entitled

to receive from the Opponents, medical allowance

for the year 2018-19 and year 2019-20 amounting

Rs. 18,208/- (Rupees eighteen thousand two

hundred eight only).

(d) Leave encashment:

12. The Applicant claimed an amount of Rs.

34,256/- towards her leave encashment of 45 days.

The evidence on record indicates that basic

salary of the Applicant was Rs. 12,087/- and

Dearness Allowance was Rs. 2,500/-. Thus, the total

comes to Rs. 14,587/-. The evidence on record

indicates that the Applicant was having 45 days

balanced privilege leave in his account. Thus, the

Applicant is entitled to receive from the Opponents

a sum of Rs. 21,880.50 (Rupees twenty one thousand

eight hundred eighty and fifty paise only) towards

her leave encashment.

(e) Bonus:

13. The Applicant claimed a bonus for the year

2018-19 @ Rs. 14,581/- and for the year 2019-20 for

Rs. 12,947/- total amounting to Rs. 27,528/-.

The bonus is paid to the employee under the

Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Section 8 of the Act

provides for the eligibility of the bonus. Section 9

of the Act provides for disqualification for the bonus.

Section 10 of the Act, provides for minimum bonus.

The provisions of Section 10 provides for the

minimum bonus of 8.33% of the salary or wage

earned by the employee during the accounting year

or Rs. 100/-, whichever is higher, whether or not the

Employer has any allocable surplus in the

accounting year. Similarly, Section 11 of the Act,

provides for payment of maximum bonus.

14. The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant has failed to produce on record relevant

materials to grant maximum bonus. In the

circumstances, the Applicant is entitled for

minimum bonus @ 8.33% of the salary or wage

earned by the employee during the accounting year

or Rs. 100/- whichever is higher, whether or not the

Employer has any allocable surplus in the

accounting year.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

703

15. The Applicant claimed from the Opponent

an amount of Rs. 49,002/- for the year 2018-19 and

for the year 2019-20 towards bonus. The Applicant

has however, failed to satisfy this court about the

calculation of the said amount of Rs. 49,002/- for the

year 2018-19 and for the year 2019-20 towards bonus.

Taking into consideration the monthly salary of the

Applicant of Rs. 22,837/-, the minimum bonus for

the year 2018-19 and for the year 2019-20 @ 8.33%

amounts to Rs. 3,804.60 (Rupees three thousand

eight hundred four and sixty paise only).

16. Thus, the Applicant proved that he is entitled

to receive from the Opponent No. 1 a total amount

of Rs. 1,71,596/- (Rupees one lakh seventy one

thousand five hundred ninety six only) towards

unpaid salaries, arrears of salary increment, medical

allowance, leave encashment and bonus. The

evidence on record indicates that the Opponent

No. 2 and 3 are the partners of the Opponent

No. 1 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the

Applicant the aforesaid amount Rs. 1,71,596/-

(Rupees one lakh seventy one thousand five

hundred ninety six only).

17. The Applicant claimed the aforesaid amount

of Rs. 1,71,596/- (Rupees one lakh seventy one

thousand five hundred ninety six only) along with

interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its maturity till

its actual realization.

18. In the case of New Standard Engineering

Company Limited v/s. Ashok H. Hire and Anr.,

reported in 2004 II CLR 574, the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay, after relying upon a judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of

Suresh Sakharam Chowgule and Anr. v/s. M/s.

Parel Cotton Press Factory (1994 SUPP. (3) SCC

704), held that “though the provisions of Industrial

Disputes Act, do not expressly empowered the

Industrial Court to grant interest, the court is entitled

to grant interest depending upon facts of each case”.

19. In the case of Haryana State Federation of

Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.

v/s. Siri Kishan and Anr., reported in 1996 II CLR

688,the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana

has held that “where the Employer has retained

what was required to be disbursed to the Workman,

by denying their rightful dues for almost a period of

12 years, during which the value of their money has

considerably diminished due to inflation i.e. prevalent

in the country, the Labour Court is perfectly entitled

to say that the workman should be compensated by

way of payment of interest.”

20. Thus, it is settled principle of law that the

Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is empowered

to grant interest depending upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. In the instant case as

stated above, it has been proved that the Applicant

is entitled to receive from the Opponent No. 1 a

total amount of Rs. 1,71,596/- (Rupees one lakh

seventy one thousand five hundred ninety six only)

towards unpaid salaries, arrears of salary increment,

medical allowance, leave encashment and bonus.

The Applicant is therefore entitled for the said

amount of Rs. 1,71,596/- (Rupees one lakh seventy

one thousand five hundred ninety six only)

alongwith simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date

of passing the present order till its actual realization.

In view of above and with regards to the facts

and circumstances of the case, I pass the following

order:

ORDER

1. The present claim application of the Applicant

filed u/s 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947, is hereby

allowed. The Opponents are hereby directed

to pay to the Applicant, Ms. Sharmila Linhares,

a sum of Rs. 1,71,596/- (Rupees one lakh

seventy one thousand five hundred ninety six

only) along with simple interest @ 9% p.a.

from the date of passing of the present order

till the actual realization of the said amount.

2. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-I/460

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 05-08-2021 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/04/2016 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/04/2016

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

704

Shri Satvapal Amonkar,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Kadamba Kamgar Union,

Bg-10, Gr. Floor, Casa Immaculade,

Jose Falcao Road, Panaji-Goa .….. Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Paraise de Goa,

Alto-Porvorim, Goa.

…..

Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri A.

Kundaikar.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri P.

Agarwal.

Panaji, Dated: 05-08-2021.

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 28-01-2016,

bearing No. 28/59/2015-Lab/65, referred the

following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour

Court-II of Goa at Panaji, Goa.

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

Transport Corporation Limited, Panaji, Goa,

in imposing punishment of stoppage of two

annual increments to Shri Satvapal Amonkar,

Conductor, with cumulative effect for the year

1998 and 1999, 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/04/2016 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

14-03-2016. The facts of the case in brief as pleaded

by the Workman are that he was the member of the

Kadamba Kamgar Union (for short, ‘the Union’) which

is espousing his cause in respect of punishment of

stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative

effect for the year 1998 and 1999. He stated that he

was appointed as conductor by the Employer/Party

II (for short, ‘the Employer’) having conductor badge

No. 3801 and presently posted at Porvorim depot.

He stated that during his tenure of service, he did

not receive any communication in respect of any

adverse entries if any towards the performance and

discharge of his duties. He stated that on account

of the punishment of stoppage of two annual

increments with cumulative effects for the year 1998

and 1999 have cascading effect on his service

during the service tenure as he is deprived of

various scales adopted from time to time. He stated

that similarly placed workmen is drawing the scales

at higher rates than him which resulted in disparity

of the scale.

3. He stated that in course of employment, the

vehicle was intercepted by the line checking staff

and he was issued with a default notice. He stated

that he filed an effective reply to the purported

default notice and controverted the irregularities.

He stated that on perusal of the reply to the

purported default notice, the Employer was pleased

to issue charge-sheet dated 24-09-1994. He stated

that he filed reply to the said charge-sheet and

controverted the charges levelled against him. He

stated that the Employer was pleased to hold a

departmental enquiry in respect of the said charge-

sheet dated 24-09-1994. He stated that the enquiry

was held against him by Shri Pramod Gaonkar. He

stated that he was issued a show-cause notice dated

12-01-1998 after lapse of four years. He stated that

on account of delay in processing the enquiry report,

there was manipulation and occasion to twist the

facts and conclusions. He stated that he

participated in the departmental enquiry before

the Ld. Enquiry Officer and denied the charges

levelled against him. He stated that he was not

given a reasonable opportunity to defend in the

departmental enquiry. He stated that on conclusion

of the enquiry, the report was processed by the

Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority. He

stated that the Disciplinary Authority was pleased

to issue show-cause notice dated 12-01-1998,

wherein the enquiry report was not furnished to

him. He stated that vide order dated 04-03-1998,

the Employer imposed punishment of stoppage of

two annual increments with cumulative effect for

the year 1998 and 1999. Being aggrieved with the

impugned order dated 04-08-1998, the Workman

raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer,

which ended in failure.

4. Aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty of

stoppage of two annual increments w.e.f. the year

1998 and 1999, the Workman challenged the

impugned order dated 04-03-1998 by contending

that the action of the Employer is illegal and

malafide. He submitted that penalty imposed is

disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against

him. He submitted that there is no acceptable

evidence on record so as to invite penalty imposed

against him. He submitted that the impugned order

suffers from inherent defects and is liable to be set

aside. He submitted that the enquiry was

conducted in flagrant violation of the principles of

natural justice. He submitted that the action of the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

705

Employer is smacks of malafide and is an ex-facie

instance of unfair labour practice. He submitted

that the impugned order is issued only to victimize

him. He submitted that the enquiry conducted

against him is defective, improper and completely

devoid of principles of natural justice. He submitted

that his oral request to conduct the departmental

enquiry in Konkani language known to him, was

also not considered. He submitted that the

departmental enquiry was conducted in gross abuse

of the process of law. He submitted that the charge-

sheet was vague and the vagueness in the charge-

sheet is prejudiced by itself and there is no need of

any further prejudice. He submitted that in the

facts and circumstances of the case, the invocation

of the clauses of the certified standing orders are

not warranted. He submitted that he is entitled for

release of two annual increments with

consequential benefits. He submitted that his case

is gross case, wherein he has been compelled to

seek sanctuary in portals of the Hon’ble Tribunal.

He submitted that he is grossly discriminated

against the whims and caprices of the unmoving

bureaucracy. The Workman therefore prayed to pass

an award holding that the impugned order dated

04-08-1998 in imposing punishment of stoppage of

two annual increments with cumulative effect for

the year 1998 and 1999 is illegal and unjustified

and that the Employer be directed to release the

increments with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date

of the order till the amount is released and other

consequential benefits.

5. The Employer controverted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement on

02-09-2016. The Employer, as and by way of its

preliminary objections, submitted that the reference

is not maintainable as there is no ‘industrial

disputes’ exists between the parties as defined

u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947, that the reference has

been made by the Government of Goa without any

material on record in haste and without any

application of mind, that the reference at such a

belated stage is bad-in-law as it is hit by delay and

latches since the Workman has raised dispute after

a gap of fourteen years without any justification

and that this Hon’ble Court lacks the jurisdiction to

try the present dispute since the Workman has not

preferred any appeal before the Appellate authority

aggrieved with the punishment order dated

01-03-1998 issued to him as per clause 39 of its

certified standing orders.

6. The Employer stated that it is a Government

Company registered under Section 617 of the

Companies Act, 1956. The Employer stated that it

is a State transport undertaking under the purview

of the Motor Transport Act, 1988. The Employer

stated that it has been served with a copy of the

claim statement filed by the Workman before this

Hon’ble Labour Court with distorted facts. The

Employer stated that its employees are not the

employees of the Government of Goa. The Employer

stated that it, being a separate legal entity

altogether different from Government of Goa, the

service benefits being granted by the Government

of Goa to its employees, do not become

automatically applicable to its employees. The

Employer stated that it is governed by its own

certified standing orders. The Employer stated that

the service conditions of its employees are specified

in its certified standing orders and the

memorandum of settlement drawn between its

management and its workmen from time to time.

7. The Employer stated that the Workman joined

in its service w.e.f. 31-08-1983 on daily wages. The

Employer stated that the Workman was thereafter

appointed as ‘conductor’ on probation for six months

w.e.f. 01-08-1983. The Employer stated that the

Workman was issued a charge-sheet dated

24-09-1994 for charges of misconducts committed

by him. The Employer stated that in pursuance to

the said charge-sheet, a disciplinary enquiry was

conducted according to its certified standing

orders. The Employer stated that the Workman fully

participated in the enquiry. The Employer stated

that the Enquiry Officer, in its report dated

03-12-1997, held that the Workman was guilty of

charges of misconduct mentioned therein. The

Employer stated that vide its letter dated

12-01-1998, the Workman was asked to show-cause

as to why he should not be imposed penalty of

withholding two annual increments with

cumulative effect. The Employer stated that the

Workman filed his reply dated 12-02-1998. The

Employer stated that after going through the reply

of the Workman and finding unsatisfactory, the

Workman was given a penalty of withholding two

annual increments with cumulative effect for the

year 1998 and 1999, by order dated 04-03-1998. The

Employer stated that the Workman has not preferred

any appeal before the Appellate authority aggrieved

with the punishment order dated 04-03-1998 issued

to him as per clause 39 of its Certified Standing

Orders. The Employer stated that during the tenure

of service of the Workman with them, he was also

given an opportunity for improvement of his

performance, in spite of the fact that he was

involved in misappropriation of its revenue. The

Employer stated that while imposing punishment

of withholding two annual increments with

cumulative for the year 1998 and 1999, the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

706

Disciplinary Authority have shown sympathy in

awarding punishment giving him last opportunity

to improve. The Employer submitted that in the

event, this Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion

that the enquiry conducted against the Workman

is not fair or the findings are perverse, they may be

given opportunity to lead evidence in support of

charges of misconduct. The Employer denied the

case of the Workman as pleaded and submitted

that action of the Employer is legal and justified

and that the Workman is not entitled to any relief

and the reference be rejected.

8. Thereafter, the Workman was given

opportunity to file his rejoinder to the written

statement of the Employer. However, Ld. Adv. Shri

A. Kundaikar, representing the union submitted that

he do not wish to file any re-joinder.

9. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

parties, this court framed following issues

07-11-2016 at Exb. 9. The said issues were up-dated

on 20-09-2019 at Exb. 23.

1. Whether the Workman proves that the

enquiry conducted against the Workman/

Party-I in respect of charge-sheet dated

24-09-1994 is in violation of the principles of

natural justice?

2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled

against the workman vide charge-sheet dated

24-09-1994 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/Party II in imposing

punishment of stoppage of his two annual

increment with cumulative effect for the year

1998 and 1999, is illegal and unjustified?

4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the reference is not maintainable in view of

the reasons stated in para 2 (a) to (d) of its

written statement?

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

any relief?

6. What order? What award?

10. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

follows:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

In the negative.

Does not arise.

(d) Issue No. 4

In the affirmative.

(e) Issue No. 5 & 6

As per order below.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri

A. Kundaikar, appearing for the Workman as well as

Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal, representing the Employer.

I have carefully perused the entire records and

proceedings of the present case and is of the opinion

as under:

Issue No. 1, 2 and 4:

11. By Order dated 02-08-2021, passed in my

findings on the Preliminary Issue No. 1, 2 and 4, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that no

free, fair and proper enquiry was conducted against

the Workman in respect of charge-sheet dated

24-09-1994 in violation of the principles of natural

justice and that the charges of misconduct levelled

against the Workman, vide charge-sheet dated

24-09-1994 has not been proved to the satisfaction

of this court by acceptable evidence. Accordingly,

the said inquiry stands vitiated. It is further held

that the present reference filed by the Workman at

a belated stage is stale and as such it is not

maintainable. The issue No. 1 and 4 are answered

in the affirmative and issue No. 2 is answered in

the negative.

Issue No. 3:

12. By Order dated 02-08-2021 passed in my

findings on the Preliminary Issue No. 4, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that the

present reference filed by the Workman at a belated

stage is stale and as such it is not maintainable.

As the present reference filed by the Workman

at a belated stage is not maintainable, the question

of proving the legality and justifiability of the action

of the Employer in imposing punishment of

stoppage of two annual increments to the Workman

with cumulative effect for the year 1998 and 1999,

cannot be substantiated. The issue No. 3 is therefore

answered in the negative.

Issue No. 5:

13. By Order dated 02-08-2021 passed in my

findings on the Preliminary Issue No. 4, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that the

present reference filed by the Workman at a belated

stage is stale and as such it is not maintainable.

The Workman is not entitled to any relief. The issue

No. 5 is therefore answered in the negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action of M/s. Kadamba

Transport Corporation Limited, Panaji, Goa, in

imposing punishment of stoppage of two

annual increments to Shri Satvapal Amonkar,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

707

Conductor, with cumulative effect for the year

1998 and 1999, is legal and justified, does not

arise.

2. The Workman, Shri Satvapal Amonkar, is not

entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

_______

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-I/461

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 04-08-2021 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/17/2016 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/17/2016

Shri Gopal Hari Naik,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Kadamba Kamgar Union,

BG-10, Gr. Floor,

Casa Immaculade, Jose Falcao Road,

Near Panjim Church,

Panaji-Goa.

….. Workman/Party-I

V/s

M/s. Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Paraiso de Goa, Alto Porvorim,

Bardez-Goa.

…. Employer/Party-II

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

Kundaikar.

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

Agarwal.

Panaji, Dated: 04-08-2021.

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 18-10-2016,

bearing No. 28/45/2016-LAB/741 referred the

following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour

Court II of Goa.

“(1) Whether the action of M/s Kadamba

Transport Corporation Limited, Porvorim, Goa,

in withholding the annual increment of Shri

Gopal Hari Naik, Conductor, with effect from

1998, thereby depriving him of the monitory

benefits, 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/17/2016 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

15-12-2016 at Exb. 5. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the workman are that he is a member

of the Kadamba Kamgar Union (for short, ‘the Union’).

He stated that the said union is espousing his cause

in respect of punishment of stoppage of two annual

increments. He stated that he was appointed by

the Employer/Party-II (for short, ‘Employer’) as a

‘conductor’ and presently posted at Porvorim depot.

3. He stated that he was on route of Bombay-

-Panaji on a vehicle No. GA-01-X-0094 on 30-03-1994.

He stated that he was checked by the Line

Checking staff at Panaji bus stand at 10.00 hours.

He stated that he was issued a default notice stating

the following irregularities that conductor failed to

bring to the notice of the TC/ATI at Bombay that

the luggage was put in the bus without weighing

thereby not following the rules/instructions given

by the superior.

4. He stated that on 26-09-1994, he was on a

route of Panaji-Dodamarg-Sawantwadi on vehicle

No. GA-01-X-0075. He stated that in the course of

employment, he was intercepted by the line

checking staff at Sadoli ghati on 26-09-1994 and

was issued a default notice. He stated that in the

said default notice, the following irregularities were

found that there was an excess amount of Rs. 25.50

of cash than sale of tickets and that the conductor

passed an amount of Rs. 70/- to a passenger

travelling in the said bus.

5. He stated that he filed reply to both the

purported default notices. He stated that he was

issued two charge-sheets, one dated 11-11-1994 and

another charge-sheet dated 18-04-1994. He stated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

708

that the Employer was pleased to hold departmental

enquiry by appointing Shri A. B. Prabhu as an

Enquiry Officer. He stated that he participated in

the departmental enquiry before the Enquiry Officer

and denied the charges levelled against him. He

stated that he was not given reasonable opportunity

to defend in the departmental enquiry. He stated

that on closure of the enquiry, a report was

processed by the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary

Authority. He stated that the Employer was pleased

to issue a show-cause notice dated 19-06-1998,

thereby directing him to show-cause as to why the

penalty of withholding one annual increment with

cumulative effect be imposed. He stated that he

filed reply dated 30-06-1998 to the said show-cause

notice. He stated that thereafter, the Employer was

pleased to award a penalty of withholding one

annual increment with cumulative effect for the

year 1998. He stated that it was further stipulated

in the purported order that he shall not be entitled

for any additional wages for the period he was

under suspension, except whatever subsistence

allowance paid to him. Being aggrieved with the

impugned order dated 14-07-1998, he raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer, which ended

in failure.

6. The Workman contended that the action of

the Employer in imposing a penalty of stoppage of

one annual increment with cumulative effect for

the year 1998 is illegal and malafide. He submitted

that the penalty imposed upon him is

disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against

him. He submitted that there is no acceptable

evidence on record so as to invite the penalty

imposed against him. He submitted that the

impugned order suffers from inherent defects and

is liable to be set aside. He submitted that the

enquiry was conducted in flagrant violation of

principles of natural justice. He submitted that the

impugned order is also in violation of the principles

of natural justice. He submitted that the action of

the Employer smacks of the malafide and is an

ex-facie instance of unfair labour practice. He

submitted that the impugned order is issued only

to victimize him. He submitted that there is no

acceptable evidence on record, on the contrary, the

documentary is in his favour, which was overlook

at the time of accessing the evidence. He submitted

that his oral request to conduct the departmental

enquiry in Konkani language known to him was

also not considered. He submitted that the

departmental enquiry was conducted in gross abuse

of process of law and he was not given reasonable

opportunity. He submitted that the charge-sheet

issued to him is vague and the vagueness in the

charge-sheet is prejudice by itself. He submitted

that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

invocation of the clauses of the Certified Standing

Orders are not warranted. He submitted that the

action of the Employer in passing the impugned

order is illegal and in the interest of justice, the

impugned order be set aside. He submitted that

the impugned order is in violation of the Certified

Standing Orders applicable to the Employer

Corporation. He submitted that his case is gross

case, wherein he has been compelled to seek

sanctuary in portals of the Hon’ble Tribunal. He

submitted that he is grossly discriminated against

the whims and caprices of unmoving bureaucracy.

The Workman therefor prayed that this Hon’ble

Court be pleased to pass an Award holding that

the impugned order dated 14-07-1998 in imposing

punishment of stoppage of one annual increment

with cumulative effect for the year 1998 is illegal

and unjustified and direct the Employer to release

the increment with interest @ 12% p.a. from the

date of the order till the amount is released and

other consequential benefits.

7. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman, by filing its Written Statement dated

24-07-2017 at Exb. 9. The Employer, as and by way

of its preliminary objections, submitted that the

reference is not maintainable as the union has no

locus standi to raise the present dispute, that there

is no industrial dispute exist between the parties

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

reference is bad-in-law as it is hit by delay and

latches since the Workman has raised the dispute

after a gap of 16 years of imposition of the said

punishment, that the reference has been made by

the Government of Goa without any material on

record in haste and without application of mind.

8. The Employer stated that it is a Government

Company registered u/s 617 of the Companies Act,

1956. The Employer stated that it is a State Transport

Undertaking under the purview of M.T. Act, 1988.

The Employer submitted that the Workman is

working as a ‘conductor’ with them.

The Employer admitted that the Workman was

on route from Bombay to Panaji on vehicle No.

GA-01-X-0094 on 30-03-1994. The Employer admitted

that the Workman was checked at Panaji bus stand

at 10.00 hours by the line checking staff. The

Employer stated that the Workman was issued a

default notice LC No. 05113 dated 30-03-1994 for

his irregularities of (1) checked and found that the

conductor has collected luggage fare of Rs. 425/-

from two passengers travelling from Bombay to

Panaji and issued a luggage tickets of Rs. 100/- to

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

709

one passenger and no luggage ticket was issued to

another passenger after collecting the same from

the said passenger, with the intension to

misappropriate the passenger revenue of the

corporation. The Employer stated that the statement

of the Workman was recorded on 30-03-1994 in

which he has admitted that he had collected the

luggage fare of Rs. 425/- from two passengers, but

issued a luggage ticket of Rs. 100/- to only one

passenger. The Employer stated that the Workman

was therefore issued a charge-sheet dated

18-04-1994 and charged for his following acts of

misconduct under clause No. 28 of its Certified

Standing Orders (vi) Failure on the part of the

conductor to issue any tickets and thereby

permitting ticketless travel and non-issue of tickets

to a passenger by a conductor, after recovery of fare

or issue of tickets of lesser value after recovery of

correct fare from passenger. (xxxv) Breach of any

rules and instructions given by the superiors for

proper functioning or safety of the establishment.

The Employer stated that the Workman was

suspended, vide its order dated 18-04-1994, pending

departmental enquiry. The Employer stated that

thereafter, the suspension of the Workman was

revoked, vide its order dated 18-05-1994.

9. The Employer admitted that on 26-09-1994,

the Workman was on route of Panaji-Dodamarg-

Sawantwadi on vehicle No. GA-01-X-0075. The

Employer stated that the said bus of the Workman

was checked by the line checking staff at Sadoli

ghati at 8.30 hours. He stated that the Workman

was issued a default notice LC No. 08152 dated

26-09-1994 for his irregularities of (1) found 12

passengers travelling without ticket out of them

five were travelling from Sasoli to Sawantwadi, one

from Dodamarg to Sawantwadi, two from Sasoli to

Kumbral Titha and four from Sasoli to Kawale from

whom conductor neither collected fare nor issued

tickets to them. (2) found an excess amount of

Rs. 25.50 in his cash bag than the cost of sale of

tickets. (3) found that the conductor pass an amount

of Rs. 70/- to a passenger travelling in the said bus,

which amount was then impounded. The Employer

stated that the statement of the workman was

recorded on the same day, wherein he has admitted

that an amount of Rs. 25.50 was found in excess

than the amount of sale of tickets. The Employer

stated that the statement of the ticketless

passengers were recorded in the presence of the

Workman, wherein the said passengers admitted

the non-issue of tickets by the workman. The

Employer stated that the statement of one of the

passenger was recorded in the presence of the

Workman, wherein the said passenger has stated

that when the ticket checkers entered the bus, the

Workman forcibly kept Rs. 70/- in her hand, which

amount she gave to the ticket checker. The

Employer stated that the said irregularities have

also been recorded in the conductor’s way bill in

the presence of the Workman, which has been

signed by him. The Employer stated that the

Workman filed his reply dated 28-09-1994 to the

default notice. The Employer stated that on finding

reply of the Workman not satisfactory, the Workman

was thereafter, issued charge-sheet dated

11-11-1994 for the following acts of misconduct

under clause 28 of its Certified Standing Orders.

(vi) Failure on the part of the conductor to issue

any tickets and thereby permitting ticketless

travel,

(xv) Theft, fraud and dishonesty in connection

with Employers business or property inside

or outside the establishment or theft of the

property of another employee within the

premises of the establishment.

(xxxv) Breach of any rules and instructions given

by the superiors for proper functioning or

safety of the establishment.

(Lxi) Breach of any of the provisions prescribed to

be complied with by the Workman under the

Standing Orders.

10. The Employer stated that thereafter, a

departmental enquiry was conducted into both the

charge-sheets issued to the Workman i.e. charge-

sheet dated 11-11-1994 and charge-sheet dated

18-04-1994. The Employer stated that Mr. A.B.

Prabhu, its Depot Manager was appointed as an

Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The

Employer stated that Shri Anil Vengurlekar, ATI

was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The

Employer stated that the Workman fully participated

in the enquiry initially along with his Defense

Representative, Mr. Gurudas Raul and Mr.

Chandrakant J. Naik. The Employer stated that the

Workman were given full opportunity to conduct

his defense, which he did. The Employer stated

that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on

11-05-1998 holding that the charges at sr. No. (2)

and (3) of the charge-sheet dated 11-11-1994 were

proved. The Employer stated that similarly, the

charges referred in the charge-sheet dated

18-04-1994 were partly proved against the Workman.

The Employer stated that thereafter, they issued a

show-cause notice dated 19-06-1998 to the Workman

to show-cause as to why penalty of withholding

one annual increment with cumulative effect

proposed should not be imposed for the serious

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

710

acts of misconduct proved against him. The

Employer stated that a copy of the findings were

furnished to the Workman alongwith the said show-

cause notice dated 19-06-1998. The Employer stated

that the Workman sent his reply dated 30-06-1998

to the show-cause notice issued to him. The

Employer stated that they went carefully into the

records of the enquiry proceedings, documents filed

in the enquiry, the findings of the Enquiry Officer

and the reply of the Workman to the show-cause

notice, they did not find the explanation

satisfactory. The Employer stated that considering

the misconduct committed by the Workman and

his past record, it would have been justified in

taking serious action against the Workman. The

Employer stated that however, giving a Workman a

last opportunity to improve his performance in

future, vide its order dated 14-07-1998, they

awarded a penalty of withholding of one annual

increment with cumulative effect i.e. for the year

1998.

11. The Employer stated that the Workman filed

an appeal dated 18-02-2003 after a lapse of about

four and half year against the said punishment

imposed upon him. The Employer stated that the

said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate

Authority, vide its order dated 03-04-2004 after

giving personal hearing to the Workman. The

Employer stated that thereafter, the Workman did

not challenge the said punishment till 17-01-2016

and as such the said punishment becomes final.

12. The Employer stated that the Workman was

a member of the KTC Workers Union and continuous

to be a member of the said KTC Workers union. The

Employer stated that the Workman at no point of

time communicated to them that he ceased to be

a member of KTC Workers union and has joined the

union. The Employer stated that the Kadamba

Kamgar Union is not a recognized union in its

Corporation and has no locus standi to espouse the

cause of their workers including the workman.

13. The Employer submitted that the enquiry

was conducted in a fair and proper manner in

accordance with the principles of natural justice.

The Employer submitted that the Workman was

given every opportunity to defend himself and only

after appreciating the evidence on record, the

Enquiry Officer gave a reasoned findings on the

basis of which, any prudent person would come to

the conclusion that the workman was guilty of the

charges levelled against him. The Employer stated

that they went through the findings of the Enquiry

Officer, the proceedings and the documents and

concurred the same. The Employer stated that the

past records of the Workman was also not good and

was issued default notices, warning etc. The

Employer stated that considering the gravity of

proved misconduct, they would have been justified

in awarding him capital punishment of dismissal

from service. The Employer stated that they

however, took a lenient view and awarded a lesser

punishment. The Employer stated that its action in

awarding a penalty of withholding one annual

increment with cumulative effect to the Workman

is legal, just and bonafide and this Hon’ble Court

shall be pleased to uphold the same. The Employer

submitted that in the event this Hon’ble Court

comes to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted

against the Workman is not fair or the findings are

perverse, they crave leave to adduce evidence

before this Hon’ble Court in support of the charges

of misconduct. The Employer denied the overall

case as pleaded by the Workman and prayed for

dismissal of the claim of the Workman.

14. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder

on 03-10-2017 at Exb. 12. The Workman, by way of

his Re-joinder, denied each and every statement,

averments and submissions made by the Employer

in its Written Statements which are contrary and

inconsistent to the statements, averments and a

submission made in his statement of claim and

reiterates his case as pleaded in his statement of

claim. He submitted that the Enquiry Officer was

directed to submit his enquiry report within one

month from the date of his appointment however,

he failed to submit his report within the stipulated

period of one month.

15. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

parties, this Court framed the following issues on

25-10-2017 at Exb. 13. The said issues have been

re-casted vide order dated 20-09-2019 at Exb. 28.

1. Whether the Workman/Party I prove that the

enquiry conducted against him in respect of

charge-sheet dated 11-11-1994 and charge-

sheet dated 08-04-1994 is unfair and in

violation of the principles of natural justice?

2. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer

in respect of charge-sheet dated 11-11-1994

and charge-sheet dated 18-04-1994 are

perverse?

3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the action of the Employer in withholding

his annual increment w.e.f. 1998 thereby

depriving him of the monetary benefits is

illegal and unjustified?

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

711

4. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

Kadamba Kamgar Union has the locus standi

to raise present dispute?

5. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the present order of reference is not

maintainable in view of the reasons

mentioned in para 2 (b), 2 (c) and 2 (d) of its

Written Statement?

6. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to

any relief?

7. What Order? What Award?

16. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a) Issue No. 1

: In the negative.

(b) Issue No. 2

: In the negative.

(d) Issue No. 4

: In the negative.

(e) Issue No. 5

: In the negative.

(f) Issue No. 6 & 7

: As per final order.

17. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence

of both the parties on the preliminary issue No. 1

and 2. Both the parties also lead their evidence oral

as well as documentary. This Hon’ble Court also

heard the arguments on the preliminary issue No.

1 and 2 and the matter was fixed for order. It is at

this stage, the Employer filed an application for

re-casting of the said preliminary issues, which has

been allowed by this court, vide its order dated

20-09-2019 after hearing both the parties. The

Workman also filed an application for recall and

re-examination of the first witness of the Employer,

Shri Vidyadhar Harmalkar, which has been

dismissed, vide order of this court dated 11-12-2019

after hearing both parties. Thereafter, the Employer

filed an application dated 14-01-2020 for allowing

them to cross-examine the Workman, which has

been dismissed, vide order of this court dated

06-02-2020 after hearing both the parties. The

Employer also filed an application dated 13-03-2020

for amendment of its Written Statement, which has

been dismissed, vide order of this court dated

28-01-2021 after hearing both the parties. The

Employer finally filed an application for production

of enquiry proceedings as well as an application to

treat the issue No. 5 as preliminary issue. Pending

the aforesaid application filed by the Employer, the

Workman filed an application dated 02-06-2021 for

withdrawal of the present dispute as well as all his

claims made therein supported by a resignation of

the membership of the union at Exb. 45-colly. No

objection has been given for withdrawal of the

present dispute by Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal,

representing the Employer. Ld. Adv. Shri A.

Kundaikar, representing the union however,

objected for the said withdrawal of the Workman as

the present reference was raised by the union.

18. The Workman verified his said withdrawal

application at Exb. 45-colly. The Workman

confirmed that he had filed the said application for

withdrawal of the dispute as well as his claim

statement of his free will and without any pressure,

force, threat, duress or coercion from anybody. It is

the Workman who had filed the claim statement

and prayed for passing an award holding that the

impugned order dated 14-07-1998 passed by the

Employer is illegal and unjustified and direct the

Employer to release his increment, prayed for

withdrawal of his claim statement and also for the

withdrawal of the dispute, this court has no other

option rather than to allow the present application

filed by the Workman for withdrawal of his claim.

Thus, in the absence of any evidence on record, it

is held that action of the Employer in withholding

the annual increment of the Workman w.e.f. 1998,

thereby depriving him of the monetary benefits is

legal and justified. The Workman is not entitled to

any relief.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action of M/s Kadamba

Transport Corporation Limited, Porvorim, Goa,

in withholding the annual increment of Shri

Gopal Hari Naik, Conductor, with effect from

1998, thereby depriving him of the monitory

benefits, is legal and justified.

2. It is held that the Workman Shri Gopal Hari

Naik, is not entitled to any relief.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

_______

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-I/462

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 09-08-2021 in Case No.

LC-II/IT/07/2020 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.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

712

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/IT/07/2020

Shri Dinesh B. Naik,

r/o. H. No. 202,

Dr. Gama Pinto Road,

St. Inez, Panaji-Goa.

….. Workman/Party-I

V/s

Shri Pralhad V. Kumtakar,

Tax Consultant,

Nr. PWD office,

St. Inez, Panaji-Goa.

….. Employer/Party-II

Workman/Party-I present in person.

Employer/Party-II absent, marked an Ex-parte.

Panaji, Dated: 09-08-2021.

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 08-09-2020,

bearing No. 28/18/2020-LAB/948 referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this Labour

Court-II, Panaji, Goa.

“(1) Whether the action of Shri Pralhad V.

Kumtakar, Tax Consultant, S-1, 2nd floor, Bldg.

No. 6, Model Exotica, Near PWD Office,

St. Inez, Panaji-Goa in terminating the

services of Shri Dinesh B. Naik, Office

Assistant, with effect from 01-03-2019, is legal

and justified?

(3) If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/07/2020 and registered

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

to the said notice, the Workman/Party-I (for short

‘Workman’) put in his appearance. On the contrary,

the Employer did not appear before this Court on

the scheduled dates of hearings, though duly

served. This Court marked an ex-parte order against

the Employer, after giving him several opportunities

and an ex-parte proceedings were conducted.

The Workman filed his Statement of Claim on

23-11-2020 at Exb-3. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that he was

appointed as an ‘Office Assistant’, by the Employer/

/Party II (for short, “Employer”) in his office since

01-08-1989. He stated that from the date of joining

the office of the Employer, he was performing all

the duties assigned to him by the Employer. He

stated that his duties included clerical work, filing

of tax papers, delivering all official correspondence,

collecting papers and other official documents from

the clients etc. He stated that when he started

working with the Employer, he was paid a salary of

Rs. 250/- p.m. and thereafter it was increased to

Rs. 500/- p.m. He stated that before he was told to

stop attending the work in the month of February,

his last drawn salary was Rs. 8000/- per month.

3. He stated that suddenly somewhere in the

month of March, 2019, without any reason the

Employer instructed him to stop attending duties

and asked him to refrain from coming to the office.

He stated that he made many oral requests to the

Employer, however, he did not entertain his pleas.

He stated that he was in desperate need of money

as he had just become a father of twins, apart from

that he was the sole earner in the family and had

to look after the day to day expenses of the

household. He stated that the Employer knew the

dire situation that he was in, however, not bothered

to take him back in the employment. He stated that

he had no option, but to file a complaint dated

24-09-2019 with the Asstt. Labour Commissioner,

Panaji, Goa. He stated that even during the

conciliation proceedings, then various efforts of the

Conciliation Officer, the Employer refused to appear

and hence the conciliation proceedings ended in

failure.

4. The Workman submitted that he has not been

paid his monthly salary including commission for

the period from 01-03-2019 till date. He stated that

he was forced to remain out of employment from

01-03-2019 which amounts to refusal of employment.

He stated that though he has continuously worked

diligently for almost thirty years, he has not only

been paid his wages from 01-03-2019, but also other

benefits like notice pay, encashment of leave,

retrenchment compensation, gratuity etc. He stated

that though he has tried for another employment,

he was not able to get it because of age factor and

other reasons. He stated that however to support

his family, he has been doing menial jobs of the

clients of the Employer to earn a leaving. He stated

that he is entitled to gratuity of Rs. 138461/- for his

services rendered to the Employer, one months’

notice pay, leave encashment for 45 days,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

713

retrenchment compensation of Rs. 120000/- and for

compensation of Rs. 500000/- for the hardship and

mental strain caused to him by the Employer. The

Workman therefore, prayed for passing an award of

his reinstatement in the employment of the

Employer with full back wages and consequential

benefits and that the salary payment for the month

of March 2019 till date @ Rs. 8000/- amounting to

Rs. 160000/-, gratuity of Rs. 138461/- for the services

rendered to the Employer, one months’ notice pay,

leave encashment for 45 days, retrenchment

compensation of Rs. 120000/- and for compensation

of Rs. 500000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a.

accrued thereon.

5. A notice was issued to the Employer by

registered A/D post, which has been returned along

with postal endorsement “Refused”. A refusal is a

good service of summons, hence, the Employer is

presumed to be duly served with the notice of this

Hon’ble Court. Since the Employer failed to remain

present on the scheduled dates of hearings, he was

marked an ex-parte and ex-parte proceedings were

conducted.

6. This court framed the following issues on

03-03-2021 at Exb. 4.

1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the action of the Employer in terminating

his services w.e.f. 01-03-2019 is illegal and

unjustified?

2. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to

any relief?

3. What Order? What Award?

7. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2 and 3 :

As per final order.

I have heard the oral arguments of the Workman

in person. None present for the Employer at the

time of final arguments. I have carefully perused

the entire records of the present case. I have also

carefully considered the submissions made by the

Workman in person and is of the opinion as under:

REASONS:

Issue No. 1:

8. The evidence on record indicates that the

Employer is in the business of Tax Consultancy and

is registered under the GDD Shops and

Establishments Act, 1973 and Rules, 1975. Section

39 of GDD Shops and Establishment Act, 1973

provides for conditions for terminating service of

an employee and payment of gratuity and it reads

as under:

Section 39:

Conditions for terminating the services of an

employee and payment of gratuity:-

(1) No employer shall without a reasonable cause

and except for misconduct, terminate the

service of an employee who has been in his

employment continuously for a period of not

less than six months without giving such

employee, at least one month’s notice in writing

or wages in lieu thereof and a gratuity

amounting to fifteen days’ average wages for

each year of continuous employment.

Explanation: For the purpose of this sub-

section:

(a) the expression “wages” does not include

overtime wages;

(b) the expression “wages” means the daily

average of wages for the days an employee

actually worked during the thirty days

immediately preceding the date of

termination of service;

deemed to have been in continuous

employment for a period of not less than

six month, if he has worked for not less

than one hundred and twenty days in that

establishment within a period of six

months immediately preceding the date of

termination of the service of that employee;

(d) where the total continuous employment is

for a fraction of a year or extends over a

fraction of a year in addition to one or

more completed years of continuous

employment, such fraction, if it is not less

than half a year shall be counted as a year

of continuous employment in calculating

the total number of years for which the

gratuity is to be given.

(2) Where a gratuity is payable under sub-section

(1) to an employee, he shall be entitled to receive

his wages from the date of termination of his

service until the date on which the gratuity so

payable is actually paid subject to a maximum

of wages for two months.

(3) An employee, who has completed the age of

sixty years or who is physically or mentally

unfit having been so declared by a medical

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

714

certificate or who wants to retire on medical

grounds or to resign his service, may give up

his employment after giving to his employer

notice of at least one month and every such

employee and the dependent of an employee,

who dies while in service, shall be entitled to

receive a gratuity amounting to fifteen days’

average wages for each year of continuous

employment calculated in the manner provided

in the Explanation to sub-section (1). He shall

be entitled to receive the wages from the date

of giving up the employment until the date on

which the gratuity so payable is actually paid,

subject to a maximum of wages for two months.

(4) The services of an employee shall not be

terminated for misconduct except, for such acts

or omissions and in such manner, as may be

prescribed.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section,

the term “employee” shall include part time

employee also.”

9. Thus, bare perusal of section 39 of GDD Shops

and Establishments Act, 1973, it is crystal clear

that the Employer shall not terminate the services

of the employee without a reasonable cause and

except for misconduct, who has been in his

employment continuously for a period of not less

than six months without giving such employee, at

least one months’ notice in writing or wages in lieu

thereof, a gratuity amounting to 15 days average

wage for each year of continuous employment and

maximum two months wages for delayed payment

of gratuity beyond two months.

10. In the case in hand, the Workman was in the

services of the Employer continuously for thirty

years. The evidence on record indicates that the

services of the Workman were terminated by the

Employer without any reasonable cause and

without giving him at least one months’ notice in

writing or wages in lieu thereof and a gratuity

amounting to 15 days average wages for each year

of continuous service. Thus, in the absence of giving

at least one months’ notice in writing to the

Workman or one month wages in lieu of notice and

payment of gratuity as stated hereinabove, as a

condition precedent of section 39 (1) of the GDD

Shops and Establishment Act, 1973, the action of

the Employer in terminating the services of the

Workman with effect from 01-03-2019 is illegal and

unjustified. Hence, it is held that the action of the

Employer in terminating the services of the

Workman with effect from 01-03-2019 is illegal and

unjustified. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered

in the Affirmative.

Issue No. 2:

11. While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the action of the Employer in terminating the

services of the Workman with effect from

01-03-2019 is illegal and unjustified. Thus, taking

into consideration the provisions of Section 39 of

GDD Shops and Establishments Act, 1973, the

Workman is entitled for one months’ notice pay

i.e. Rs. 8000/-, gratuity for 30 years of service

amounting to Rs. 1,38,461/- and two months wages

amounting to Rs. 16,000/-. Thus the Workman is

entitled to receive from the Employer an amount of

Rs. 1,62,461/- (Rupees one lakh sixty two thousand

four hundred sixty one only). The Workman is also

entitled for a simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the said

amount of Rs. 1,62,461/- from the date of its maturity

till its actual realisation.

In view of above, I pass the following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action of Shri Pralhad V.

Kumtakar, Tax Consultant, S-1, 2nd floor, Bldg.

No. 6, Model Exotica, Near PWD Office, St.

Inez, Panaji-Goa in terminating the services of

Shri Dinesh B. Naik, Office Assistant, with

effect from 01-03-2019, is illegal and

unjustified.

2. It is held that the Workman, Shri. Dinesh

B. Naik is entitled to receive from the Employer,

Shri Pralhad V. Kumtakar a sum of Rs.

1,62,461/- (Rupees one lakh sixty two thousand

four hundred sixty one only) alongwith simple

interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its maturity

till its actual realization.

3. No order as to cost.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

715

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

Order

No. 2-2-2020-LD (Estt)2272

The Government of Goa is pleased to post and transfer the following District Registrars and Civil Registrars-

-cum-Sub-Registrars on promotion of Registration Department, Panaji, with immediate effect:-

Sr.

Name of the Staff

Present place of

Posted as

Additional charge

No.

posting

Shri Vasudev T..

District Registrar, South

Distrct Registrar, North

—

Hadkonkar

Shri Arjun S. Shetye

Civil Registrars-cum-Sub-

District Registrar, Head

Civil Registrars-cum-Sub-

Registrar, Tiswadi

Quarters

-Registrar, Tiswadi and

Jt. Civil-Registrars-cum-

Sub-Registrar-I, Tiswadi.

Shri Suraj R.

Civil Registrars-cum-

District Registrar,

Civil Registrars-cum-

Verenkar

-Sub-Registrar, Salcete

South

-Sub-Registrar, Salcete.

Shri Mahesh Prabhu

C.R.S.R. (H.Q.) and

C.R.S.R., Pernem

—

Parrikar

holding additional

charge of Civil

Registrar-cum-Sub-

-Registrar, Pernem

Smt. Aarti A. Parvatkar

Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-

C.R.S.R. (H.Q.)

—

-Sub-Registrar, Tiswadi-I

The District Registrars shall draw their pay and allowances against their respective posts from the date

of acceptance/joining to the post of District Registrars. The Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrars shall draw

their pay and allowances against their place of transfer. They shall complete the process of handing over/

/taking over of charge with immediate effect and submit compliance.

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

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

Porvorim, 9th November, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation

Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation

Order

No. DPSE/I/ADMN/Prom. Stat. Off./2019/1990

On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/28(2)/2020/

/338 dated 29-09-2021, Government is pleased to promote the following Research Assistants of Goa Common

Statistical Cadre to the post of Statistical Officer on regular basis in Group “B” Gazetted, in the pay scale

of Level 7 (44,900-1,42,400) as per VIIth Pay Commission with immediate effect.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

716

The postings of the Statistical Officer are as under:

Sr.

Name of the Officer

Against the vacant post

Place of posting

Additional charge

No.

1. Smt. Melita V. B.

Shri Dilkush Dessai, S.O.

Directorate of

District Rural Development

Fernandes

retired on superannuation

Panchayat on

Agency, North, Panaji for

transfer of

02 days every Tuesdays &

Shri Liladhar B.

every Thursday against the

Dessai, Statistical

newly created post.

Officer

2. Shri Sandeep N.

Shri Augusto L. Sequeira, S.O. Directorate of

Shri Krishna K. Ratul,

Sawant

on expiry

Education, Porvorim Statistical Officer is relieved

on the vacant post

from the additional charge.

of Shri Augusto

Sequeira, S.O.

expired

3. Shri Ranjan R.

Smt. Naina V. Raikar, S.O.

Directorate of

—

Hinde

retired on superannuation

Industries, Trade &

Commerce, Panaji on

promotion of Smt. Asha

Sambary, S.O.

4. Shri Noel Fernandes Shri Tolentino Furtado,

Directorate of

—

S.O. promoted

Planning, Statistics

& Evaluation,

Porvorim-RBD Section

5. Shri Chandresh

Smt. Asha G. Sambary, S.O.

Directorate of

—

Gaonkar (ST)

promoted

Planning, Statistics

& Evaluation,

Porvorim-Planning

Section

6. Shri Thanu Zalmi

Kum. Neumani M. Rodrigues, Directorate of

Dr. Kailas D. Gokhale, S.O.

(ST)

S.O. on promotion

Social Welfare,

is relieved of his additional

Panaji, against the

charge.

vacant post of

Smt. Priti Desai,

S.O. promoted

This issues with the Government approval vide U.O. No. 3294/F dated 08-10-2021.

The above officers are required to submit joining report to this Department for record.

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

Dr. Y. Durga Prasad, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Planning).

Porvorim, 13th October, 2021

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

–––

Order

No. 7/1/2001-I/PHD (Part II )/2415

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/II/12/

/54(1)/2017/364 dated 13-10-2021, Government is pleased to declare the following Officers as having

satisfactorily completed their probation period of two years and to confirm them in the post of Chemists

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

717

(Drugs) under Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration, with effect from the date of completion of their

probation period:-

Sr.

Name of the Chemists

Date of completion

Confirmation in

No.

(Drugs)

probation period

post of

Smt. Sushmita D’Souza

04-09-2015 to 03-09-2017

Chemists (Drugs).

Shri Raju Kamat

07-03-2018 to 06-03-2020

Chemists (Drugs).

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

Gautami S. Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 11th November, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Public Works

Office of the Principal Chief Engineer

Order

No. 40/2/2021/PCE-PWD-Tech.Cell/214

Government is pleased to order the transfer of the following Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor

of Works (Civil/Mechanical/Electrical) to the places shown against their names in Column No. 4 below,

with immediate effect until further orders:

Sr.

Name of the officers

Present place

Place of

No.

of posting

posting on transfer

1. Smt. Smita Shashikant

Assistant Surveyor of Works,

As Assistant Surveyor of Works

Kamat

Div. I, PWD, Panaji

in SW-II (WSS), HBA/GSR/RTI,

SSW’s office, PWD, Altinho,

Panaji-Goa on existing vacancy.

2. Shri Randhir Ashtekar

Assistant Surveyor of Works,

As Assistant Surveyor of Works II,

Works Div. II, PWD, Panaji-Goa

Div. XIII, PWD, Mapusa-Goa vice

Shri Pandurang M. S. Nadkarni,

ASW transferred.

3. Shri Pandurang M.S.

Assistant Surveyor of Works II,

As Assistant Surveyor of Works,

Nadkarni

Div. XIII, PWD, Mapusa-Goa

Div. II, PWD, Panaji-Goa vice

Shri Randhir Ashtekar, ASW,

transferred.

4. Shri Rix Archibald de

Assistant Engineer on deputation

As Assistant Surveyor of Works,

Souza

to JICA Project, Altinho, Panaji-Goa

Div. IV, PWD, Tonca-Caranzalem, in

the existing vacancy.

5. Shri Suraj Kochrekar

Assistant Engineer on deputation

As Assistant Engineer, SD-II, Div. X,

to JICA Project, Altinho, Panaji-Goa

PWD, Margao-Goa, thereby

Shri Manuel M. Fernandes, A.E.

relieved from the additional charge.

6. Shri Edwin Candido R.

Assistant Engineer on deputation

As Assistant Surveyor of Works,

Ferrao

to JICA Project, Altinho, Panaji-Goa

SW-I (R&B), SSW’s Office, PWD,

Altinho, Panaji-Goa in the existing

vacancy.

7. Shri Vitorino D’Souza

Assistant Engineer on deputation

As Assistant Engineer, STP SD II,

to JICA Project, Altinho, Panaji-Goa

Div. XXVII, Bastora in the existing

vacancy.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

718

8. Shri Sanjay P. Shet

Assistant Engineer on deputation

As Assistant Surveyor of Works, SW-I

to JICA Project, Altinho, Panaji-Goa

(R&B) SSW’s Office, PWD, Altinho,

Panaji-Goa, in the existing vacancy.

9. Shri Deepak Borkar

Assistant Engineer, SD-II, Div. XXVII,

As Assistant Engineer, SD III, Div.

Bastora

XVII, PWD, Calangute vice

Shri Narayan Tivrenkar, AE

transferred.

10. Shri Narayan Tivrenkar Assistant Engineer, SD III, Div. XVII,

As Assistant Engineer, SD II,

PWD, Calangute

Div. XXVII, PWD, Bastora vice

Shri Deepak Borkar, AE, transferred.

11. Shri Digambar

Assistant Surveyor of Works, Circle

As Assistant Surveyor of Works,

Kulkarni

Office IX, PWD, Altinho, Panaji-Goa

Div. XXI, PWD, Margao in the

existing vacancy.

12. Shri Ecwin Ribeiro

Assistant Engineer, SD-V, Div. V, PWD, As Assistant Engineer, SD-IV,

Porvorim-Goa

Div. XI (QC), PWD, Panaji in the

existing vacancy.

Smt. Jyoti Velipo, Assistant Surveyor of Works, presently posted in Div. XII, PWD, Sanguem-Goa shall

hold the additional charge to the post of Assistant Surveyor of Works, Div. XIX, PWD, Sanguem-Goa in

addition to her own duties until further orders.

Shri Jayant Volvoikar, Assistant Engineer, presently posted in SD-I, Div. V, PWD, Panaji-Goa, shall hold

the additional charge to the post of Assistant Engineer, SD-V, Div. V, PWD, Porvorim-Goa in addition to his

own duties until further orders.

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

Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).

Panaji, 11th November, 2021.

________

Notification

No. 8-4/CE-PWD-Accts/2021-22/971

Whereas, the Government had constituted a

Committee to examine cost escalations due to the

shortage of labour and non availability of material

as a result of the lockdown and the restrictions

thereafter, due to the increase in Covid 19 cases in

the State and to submit proposals to overcome the

same in order to expeditiously complete various

Infrastructure Projects taken up in the State, vide

Order No. 2/2/PCE/PWD/ADM (I)/2021-22/231 dated

22-07-2021.

And whereas, the Committee after detailed

deliberations, looking into the various works

handled presently in PWD, WRD, Electricity

Department and GSIDC and after careful

consideration, looking into various issues presently

faced in the State due to COVID-19, which have

affected the progress of various developmental

works, submitted its proposal with recommen-

dations to the Government for approval.

Whereas, the Government has considered and

accepted the recommendations of the Committee

to provide relief to the following works taken up as

below:-

1. Three cases as stated below have been

identified for providing relief under Clause 10 CC as

provided in escalation clause of CPWD Contract

document. Cost of escalation will be calculated on

basis of indices published by the Office of

Economics Advisor, Department for Promotion of

Industries and internal Trade on their official

websites. The calculation of labour escalation under

Clause 10cc of the contract, the value of minimum

daily wages of unskilled male mazdoor as notified

by the Chief Labour Commissioner, Ministry of

Labour and Employment, Government of India, New

Delhi.

2. The works which have been considered for these

reliefs are as follows:

a. Work is of Capital intensive in Nature i.e.

works costing more than Rs. 2 Crores.

b. The stipulated period of completion of work is

120 days and above.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

719

3. Case I

Work Order is issued for the work during/after

the pandemic from 01-04-2020 onwards.

a. The escalation will be calculated as provided

under 10CC of CPWD Form 7/8 and this will be

subject to the following condition:-

i) The work is to be completed by the agency

latest by the stipulated date of completion or 90

days from the date of issue of this notification in the

Official Gazette, whichever is later.

4. CASE II

Works which have been tendered prior to the

date of notification of this scheme in the Official

Gazette.

a. Calculation of escalation will be from the date

of issue of relevant GSR and upto the last date for

submission of tender.

b. The justified statement is prepared after

opening of tender based on cost put to tender plus

the escalation calculated as above.

c. In case the tender is quoted within 5% of

justified amount it will be accepted by the tender

accepting authority as per delegated power in

accordance with the Finance Department circular

in this regard.

d. In case the tender quoted exceeds 5% of

justified amount, it will be placed before GSWB for

approval/suitable decision from GSWB for

Departments & as per the procedures adopted by

Autonomous bodies/Corporations etc., for approval/

/suitable decision.

5. CASE III

For works which have been tendered after to the

date of notification of this scheme in the Official

Gazette.

a. Escalation will be calculated from date of

issue of relevant GSR and upto the last date of

submission of tender.

b. Reasonable amount is proposed considering

cost put to tender and escalation calculated as

above.

c. In case the tender is quoted within 5% of

reasonable amount it will be accepted by the tender

accepting authority as per delegated power in

accordance with the Finance Department circular

in this regard.

d. In case the tender quoted exceeds 5% of

reasonable amount, it will be placed before GSWB

for approval/suitable decision from GSWB for

Departments & as per the procedures adopted by

Autonomous bodies/Corporations etc., for approval/

/suitable decision.

This notification will be in force for period of one

year or till further directions. In all the Cases I, II

and III mentioned above the concerned Department,

Autonomous bodies/Corporation etc. will be allowed

to exceed the expenditure sanction upto 10%

without referring to the Finance Department. In case

the Revised Expenditure sanction on account of this

notification exceeds 10% of the original sanction

amount, it will be submitted to the Finance

Department for accord of revised expenditure

sanction.

This is issued with the approval of the

Government and concurrence of the Finance

Department (Expenditure) vide U. No. 1400082228

dated 4-10-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

U. P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer (P.W.D.).

Panaji, 11th October, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Science and Technology

and Waste Management

___

Order

No. 3-191/2011/STE-DIR/808

1. Read Order No. 9/309/2011HE/SInC/1673 dated

4th August, 2011.

2. Read Order No. 3-191/2011/STE-DIR/702 dated

12th September, 2013.

3. Read Order No. 3-191/2011/STE/DIR/725 dated

18th January, 2021.

In supersession of the above referred order,

Government is pleased to re-constitute the Goa

State Innovation Council (GSInC) comprising the

following members:

Shri Jose Manuel Noronha,

—

Chairman.

Bagbhat, Raia, Salcete, Goa

Director, Indian Institute

—

Member.

of Technology, Farmagudi,

Ponda, Goa or his nominee

Director, National Institute

—

Member.

of Technology, Farmagudi,

Ponda, Goa or his nominee

Director, National Institute

—

Member.

of Oceanography, Dona

Paula, Goa or his nominee

Director, Birla Institute

—

Member.

of Technology & Science

Zuarinagar, Sancoale or

his nominee

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

720

Director, Department of

—

Member.

Information Technology,

Government of Goa, Altinho,

Panaji-Goa

Director, Directorate of

—

Member.

Higher Education,

Government of Goa,

Porvorim, Goa

Director, Directorate of

—

Member.

Technical Education,

Government of Goa

Porvorim, Goa

Principal, Goa College

—

Member.

of Engineering, Farmagudi,

Ponda, Goa

10. Principal, Don Bosco

—

Member.

College of Engineering,

Fatorda, Goa

11. Shri Shreedhar Bevara,

—

Member.

CEO, BMR Innovations

Vishakapatnam, Andhra

Pradesh

12. Shri D. S. Prashant,

—

Member.

C.E.O. Forum for

Innovation, Incubation,

Research and Entrepreneurship,

Fatorda, Goa

13 Shri Kastubh Priolkar,

—

Member.

Professor, Department of

Physics, Goa University,

Taleigao, Plateau, Goa

14. President, Goa Technology

—

Member.

Association, Ponda, Goa

or his nominee

15.

Member Secretary,

—

Member.

Goa State Council for

Science and Technology,

Department of Science

and Technology, Government

of Goa, Saligao, Bardez-Goa

16. Director, Department of

—

Member

Science and Technology

Secretary.

& Waste Management,

Government of Goa, Saligao

Bardez-Goa

Following shall be the ‘Terms of Reference’ for

the Council:-

1. Support the Government to promote innovation

in Science and Technology and to strengthen the

Innovation ecosystem in the State of Goa.

2. Organize seminars, workshops, lectures and

symposia on innovation and related areas.

3. Identify, encourage and reward young talent

in innovation related to Science and Technology.

4. Map opportunities for innovation in the State

of Goa.

5. Assist in identifying and setting up common

facility centers for “Robatics and Coding” at

educational institutions.

6. Create periodic reports on innovations in the

State of Goa.

7. Create and maintain the Council Web portal

which includes monitoring and evaluating the

Virtual Innovation Register.

8. Organize risk capital and venture capital for

young innovators in the State of Goa.

9. Identify High Networth Individuals (HNI) and

Angel Investors (AI) and organize periodic

“Pitching Sessions” for the innovators of the State

with the HNIs and AIs.

10. Engage with the Innovation Community to

develop ideas and strategies for the growth of

Innovation in the State of Goa.

11. Connect and develop closer linkage between

National and State Innovation ecosystems.

12. To provide financial support for prototyping

technology based innovative projects/ideas under

the Virtual Innovation Register (VIR) to make it

affordable for students, startups, innovators,

research faculty and entrepreneurs who require

necessary support in converting ideas into

marketable products.

The Non Official members of the Council shall be

paid sitting fees @ Rs. 2000/- per sitting. Out station

Members will be paid TA/DA as per prevalent rules

in addition to sitting fees.

Levinson J. Martins, Director/ex officio Jt.

Secretary (S&T & WM).

Porvorim, 19th October, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Sports and Youth Affairs

Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs

Corrigendum

No. GFDC/01/01/2012 (Part-I)/1758

Read Orders No. GFDC/01/01/2012(Part-I)/321

dated 05-06-2020.

No. GFDC/01/01/2012 (Part-I)/793

dated 31-07-2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

721

In partial modification, to the above Order the

name of the Members at Sr. No. 12 of General Body

of Goa Football Development Council and

Sr. No. 10 of Council Committee of Goa Football

Development Council, Lavino Rebello is changed/

/replaced to Kum. Maria Rebello and Caitano J.

Fernandes respectively.

Other contains of the order remain unchanged.

This issues with the approval of Competent

Authority.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Mekala Chaitanya Prasad, IAS, Director, ex officio

& Joint Secretary (Sports & Youth Affairs).

Panaji, 26th October, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Town and Country Planning

Office of the Chief Town Planner (Admn.)

Order

No. 1/3/TCP (Part File)/2017-19/1844

Government is pleased to order the transfer of following officers of the Town and Country Planning

Department in public interest with immediate effect as per the details shown in the following table:

Sr.

Name and Designation

Present posting

New posting/additional

No.

charge

Shri K. Ashok Kumar, Deputy

Member Secretary, Mormugao Planning

Member Secretary, Mormugao

Town Planner

and Development Authority, Vasco

PDA and additional charge of

Quepem Taluka Office, TCP

Dept., Quepem.

Shri Anand A. Deshpande,

Town & Country Planning Dept., Quepem

Town & Country Planning Dept.,

Deputy Town Planner

Taluka Office, Quepem and additional

Headquarters, Panaji.

charge at Canacona Taluka Office,

Canacona

Shri Yugandaraj V. Redkar,

Goa Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Goa Real Estate Regulatory

Deputy Town Planner

(RERA)

Authority (RERA) with additional

charge of Town & Country

Planning Department, Canacona.

The officers are directed to join the new place of posting with immediate effect without availing joining

time. The officer mentioned at Sl. No. 2 shall move first and Senior Town Planner (South) shall relieve the

officer. Officers should complete handing over and taking over process with immediate effect and submit

compliance.

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

James Mathew, Chief Town Planner (Administration).

Panaji, 11th November, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Urban Development

Municipal Administration

Notification

No. 14/DMA/STAT/PFMS/2021-22/2861

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India is implementing the Centrally Sponsored

Schemes such as Swachh Bharat Mission - Urban, Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana - National Urban Livelihoods

Mission (DAY-NULM) and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana - Urban and has been releasing Central Assistance

to the State for execution of the project/scheme.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 34

18TH NOVEMBER, 2021

722

The Ministry has directed the State Government to designate a Single Nodal Agency (SNA) for each

Centrally Sponsored Scheme and the SNA shall be further register on the PFMS portal and roll out on EAT

module.

Further, the GSUDA is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 under the

Administrative control of this Directorate, Government of Goa and is implementing the Centrally Sponsored

Schemes from the date of launch of the scheme’s.

Further, the State Government is pleased to designate the GSUDA as the Single Nodal Agency for the three

Centrally Sponsored Schemes having bank account mentioned below:

Sr.

Scheme

Code of State

Bank

Account

PFMS Unique

No.

Linked Scheme

Agency Code

Deendayal Antyodaya

GA108

Punjab National 01642010025600

GSUDA.

Yojana National Urban

Bank

Livelihoods Mission

Swachh Bharat Mission

GA245

ICICI Bank Ltd. 136401000082

GSUDA.

(Grant-in-Aid)

Pradhan Mantri Awas

GA112

ICICI Bank Ltd. 136401000103

GSUDA.

Yojana

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director (Urban Development).

Panaji, 3rd November, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Vigilance

Directorate of Vigilance

Notification

No. 15/19/2012-VIG/2352

Whereas, an inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1965 is being held against Shri Pankaj Bandekar, the then Inspector of Survey and Land Records,

Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, Government of Goa.

And whereas, the Governor of Goa considers that for the purposes of the departmental inquiry relating

to said Shri Pankaj Bandekar, it is necessary to summon the witnesses, as their presence is essential to

confirm the facts of complaints.

Now therefore, the Governor of Goa, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of

the Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents) Act,

1972 (18 of 1972), hereby authorizes Shri Nikhil U. Dessai, the Managing Director, Goa Tourism Development

Corporation Limited, Panaji as the Inquiry Authority to exercise the power specified in Section 5 of the

said Act in relation to departmental proceeding against Shri Pankaj Bandekar, the then Inspector of Survey

and Land Records, Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, Government of Goa.

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

Sanjeev C. Gauns Dessai Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Vigilance).

Panaji, 10th November, 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. 34.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—259/150–11/2021.