Panaji, 06th January, 2022 (Pausa 16, 1943)
SERIES II No. 41
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 Asst. Registrar of Co-operative
Societies
___
Notification
In exercise of the powers vested in me under
Section 8 of Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,
“Mohideen’s Hum Twin Tower Co-operative Housing
Maintenance Society Ltd.,” Nagamasjid, Curti,
Ponda-Goa”, Nagamasjid, Curti, Ponda-Goa is
registered under Code Symbol No. RCSPZ2021220003.
Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda Zone
(Co-operative Societies).
Curti, Ponda, 15th November, 2021.
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
905
Certificate of Registration
“Mohideen’s Hum Twin Tower Co-operative
Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Nagamasjid,
Curti, Ponda-Goa,” Nagamasjid, Curti, Ponda-Goa has
been registered on and it bears registration Code
Symbol No. RCSPZ2021220003 and it is classified as
“Co-operative Housing Society” under sub-
classification No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing
Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa
Co-operative Rules, 2003.
Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda Zone
(Co-operative Societies).
Curti, Ponda, 15th November, 2021.
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Education
___
Order
No. 1(2)-22-2005-SE/Part/604
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/11/15(4)/2014/4142 dated 02-11-2021, Government is pleased to promote the following Officers in the
cadre of Deputy Education Officer/Principal, Government Higher Secondary Schools/Vocational Education
Officer/Dy. Director, S.I.E. to the post of “Assistant Director of Education”, Group ‘A’ Gazetted in Level-12
of Pay Matrix of VII Pay Commission+ 02 (two non compounded increment on initial pay on regular basis
under this Directorate with immediate effect.
1.
Shri Jose Francisco Gomes.
2.
Shri Jaiwant Waman Naik.
3.
Kum. Geraldina Luiza Mendes.
They shall give in writing their acceptance/refusal of above promotion to this Directorate within 10 days
from the date of issue of this order, failing which, it will be treated as refusal of promotion by the promotee
officer and such promotee officer shall be debarred for promotion for a period of one year from the date
of refusal of promotion or till next vacancy arises whichever is later, without any further intimation.
They shall exercise option for fixation of pay in terms of F.R. 22(I) (a) (1) within one month from the date
of issue of this order.
———uuu———
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
906
Consequent upon the above promotion, the posting on promotion is ordered as below:-
Sr.
Name of the
Present place
Place of posting
No.
Officer
of posting
on promotion
1. Shri Jose Francisco Gomes
Principal, Government Multipurpose
Assistant Director of Education,
Higher Secondary School,
Central Educational Zone, Panaji
Borda, Margao
against vacant post.
2. Shri Jaiwant Waman Naik
Vocational Education Officer of
Assistant Director of Education,
this Directorate
North Educational Zone, Mapusa
against vacant post.
3. Kum. Geraldina Luiza Mendes
Joint Secretary, Goa Board of
Assistant Director of Education,
Secondary and Higher
Adult Section of this Directorate
Secondary Education,
thereby relieving Shri Manoj
Porvorim-Goa
Sawaikar from additional charge.
Shri Jose Francisco Gomes, Assistant Director of Education, shall continue to hold the charge of Principal,
Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Borda, Margao until further orders.
Kum. Geraldina Luiza Mendes shall hold the additional charge of Joint Secretary, Goa Board of Secondary
and Higher Secondary Education, Porvorim-Goa in addition to her own duties.
They shall report to the place of posting immediately.
This issues with the approval of Government vide U.O. No. 7917/F dated 01-12-2021.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nagaraj G. Honnekeri, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Education).
Porvorim, 27th December, 2021.
———u———
Directorate of Technical Education
College Section
___
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/3142
On the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted vide Government
Order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay – Fix/2009/4310 dated 10-10-2011 for implementing the Career Advancement
Scheme (CAS) as per the recommendations of AICTE accepted by the Government vide order No. DTE/
/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/273 dated 27-01-2011 and order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/194
dated 27-04-2021, approval of the Government is hereby conveyed to Grant Pay Level 14 (Pre-revised
Academic Grade pay of Rs.10,000/- in the Pay Scale of Rs. 37,400 - 67,000) and re-designation as Professor
from the date of grant of CAS, to the following Associate Professor of Goa College of Engineering,
Farmagudi, Ponda-Goa.
Sr. No.
Name
Department
Date of CAS
1.
Nisha P. Naik
Associate Professor in Civil Engineering,
06-04-2018.
Goa College of Engineering
2.
Nitesh B. Guinde
Associate Professor in Electr. & Tele Com.
18-8-2017.
Engineering, Goa College of Engineering
3.
Mahesh Dhawalikar
Associate Professor in Mechanical
28-08-2017.
Engineering, Goa College of Engineering
4.
Sumitra S. Tari
Associate Professor in Civil Engineering,
12-04-2018.
Khandolkar
Goa College of Engineering
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty are
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. These posts shall stand reverted to the original posts, level of Pay, once the
faculty cease to occupy the upgraded posts.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
907
The above employee may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of
the order for fixing his pay.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 21st December, 2021.
_______
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/3145
On the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted vide Government Order
No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay - Fix/2009/4310 dated 10-10-2011 for implementing the Career Advancement Scheme
(CAS) as per the recommendations of AICTE accepted by the Government vide order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/
/Pay Fixation/2009/273 dated 27-01-2011 and order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part III/194 dated
27-04-2021, approval of the Government is hereby conveyed to Grant Pay Level 11 (pre-revised Academic
Grade Pay of Rs. 7000/- in the Pay Scale of Rs. 15,600 - 39,100), to the following Assistant Professors of Goa
College of Pharmacy, Panaji, Goa.
Sr. No.
Name
Department
Date of CAS
1.
Nutan L. Naik
Asst. Prof. in Pharmaceutical Chemistry,
25-02-2019.
Goa College of Pharmacy
2.
Rahul S. Chodankar
Asst. Prof. in Pharmaceutical Chemistry,
21-02-2019.
Goa College of Pharmacy
3.
Liesl Maria Fernandes
Asst. Prof. in Pharmacology, Goa College
21-02-2019.
of Pharmacy
4.
Asmita S. Arondekar
Asst. Prof. in Pharmacology, Goa College
11-09-2016.
@Korgoankar
of Pharmacy
5.
Rohan Ramesh Prabhu
Asst. Prof. in Pharmaceutics, Goa College
21-02-2019.
of Pharmacy
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty are
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. These posts shall stand reverted to the original posts, level of Pay, once the
faculty cease to occupy the upgraded posts.
The above employees may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of
the order for fixing his/her pay.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 21st December, 2021.
_______
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/3146
On the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted vide Government Order
No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay – Fix/2009/4310 dated 10-10-2011 for implementing the Career Advancement Scheme
(CAS) as per the recommendations of AICTE accepted by the Government vide order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/
/Pay Fixation/2009/273 dated 27-01-2011 and order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated
27-04-2021, approval of the Government is hereby conveyed to Grant Pay Level 12 (Pre-revised Academic
Grade Pay of Rs. 8000/- in the Pay Scale of Rs. 15,600 - 39,100), to the following Assistant Professors of Goa
College of Pharmacy, Panaji, Goa.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
908
Sr. No.
Name
Department
Date of CAS
1.
Mythili Krishna
Asst. Prof. in Pharmacognosy, Goa College of
23-08-2019.
Jeedigunta
Pharmacy
2.
Vaibhav V. Potdar
Asst. Prof. in Inorganic Chemistry, Goa College
25-06-2019.
of Pharmacy
3.
Sachi S. Kudchadkar
Asst. Prof. in Pharmaceutical Analysis, Goa
23-06-2018.
College of Pharmacy
4.
Vithal R. Bhandare
Asst. Prof. in Organic Chemistry, Goa College
14-08-2018.
of Pharmacy
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty are
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. These posts shall stand reverted to the original posts, level of Pay, once the
faculty cease to occupy the upgraded posts.
The above employees may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of
the order for fixing his/her pay.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 21st December, 2021.
_______
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/3147
On the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted vide Government Order
No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay - Fix/2009/4310 dated 10-10-2011 for implementing the Career Advancement Scheme
(CAS) as per the recommendations of AICTE accepted by the Government vide order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/
/Pay Fixation/2009/273 dated 27-01-2011 and order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol. VI/DTE/Part III/194 dated
27-04-2021, approval of the Government is hereby conveyed to Grant Pay Level 11 (Pre-revised Academic
Grade Pay of Rs. 7000/- in the Pay Scale of Rs. 15,600 - 39,100), to the following Assistant Professors of Goa
College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda-Goa.
Sr. No.
Name
Department
Date of CAS
1.
Milind Lui Fernandes
Assistant Professor in Electronics & Tele Com.,
14-08-2018.
Goa College of Engineering
2.
Deepali M. Raikar
Assistant Professor in Information Technology,
22-09-2019.
Goa College of Engineering
3.
Teslin Jacob
Assistant Professor in Computer Engg., Goa
26-12-2019.
College of Engineering
4.
Mario Pinto
Assistant Professor in Information Technology,
01-10-2019.
Goa College of Engineering
5.
Megha G. Nayak
Assistant Professor in Information Technology,
13-10-2019.
Goa College of Engineering
6.
Siddhi P. Naik
Assistant Professor in Information Technology,
22-09-2019.
Goa College of Engineering
7.
Geeta S. Shet
Assistant Professor in Electronics & Tele Com.,
10-11-2019.
Goa College of Engineering
8.
Sherica Lavinia
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering,
05-11-2019.
Menezes
Goa College of Engineering
9.
Melina Maria Afonso
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering,
03-11-2019.
Goa College of Engineering
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
909
1
2
3
4
10.
Purti R. Savardekar
Assistant Professor in Electronics & Tele Com.,
27-10-2019.
Goa College of Engineering
11.
Shruti N. Pednekar
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering,
25-11-2019.
alias Shruti G. Naik
Goa College of Engineering
12.
Sayeesh D. Habbu
Assistant Professor in Sc. & Hum., Goa College
13-07-2019.
of Engineering
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of pay, the respective posts, the above faculty
are currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing
faculty to the higher level of Pay. These posts shall stand reverted to the original posts, level of pay, once
the faculty cease to occupy the upgraded posts.
The above employees may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of
the order for fixing his/her pay.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 21st December, 2021.
_______
Order
No. 16/393/MACPS/DTE/2015/3149
On the recommendation of Screening Committee constituted vide O.M. No. 2/7/2017-PER/900 dated
05-04-2021, approval of the Government vide U. O. No. 7919/F dated 10-12-2021 is hereby accorded for grant
of 01st “Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme” (MACPS) to below mentioned Group ‘A’ Gazetted
Officer of Goa College of Architecture in the pay scale and date, as shown in the table below.
Sr. No.
Name and Designation
Date of initial
Present pay scale
Date of grant of
Pay Scale granted
appointment
01st MACPS
1.
Victor C X D’Souza,
06-08-2010
Level 10
06-08-2020
Level 11
System Analyst, Goa
College of Architecture
The above employees may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of the
order for fixing his/her pay in the M.A.C.P. Scheme scale.
The expenditure on their pay and allowance shall be debited to the Budget Head under which their
salary is drawn.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 21st December, 2021.
______
Order
No. 16/557/PF/SBB/GEC/DTE/21/3250
Read: 1)
Memorandum No. 16/250/C&R of Posts of GEC/DTE/10/Pt.II/2261 dated 07-12-2021.
2)
Order No. 16/139/Filling up Post/GEC//DTE/03-04/PF III/2239 dated 12-12-2006.
On the recommendations of Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/I/
/5/18(1)/2019/438 dated 19-11-2021, Government is pleased to appoint Shri Samarth Bhagirath Borker on
temporary basis to the post of Associate Professor in Electrical and Electronics Engineering (Group ‘A’
Gazetted) at Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda-Goa on an initial pay at Level 13 A1 [i.e. initial
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
910
pay of Rs. 37,400/- (pre-revised) in the Pay Scale of Rs. 37,400 - 67,000/- (pre-revised) (PB-4) +Academic
Grade Pay of Rs. 9,000/- (pre-revised)] as per the terms & conditions contained in the Memorandum cited
above.
His pay may be fixed as per rules.
The appointment is against the post of Associate Professor in Electrical and Electronics Engineering
vacated by Shri Shirish B. Karapurkar w.e.f. 27-02-2020.
Shri Samarth Bhagirath Borker will be on probation for a period of two years.
He should join duties within 30 days of the receipt of this order, failing which this order is liable to be
cancelled without further notice.
He has been declared fit by Medical Board, Goa Medical College & Hospital, Bambolim and his
character and antecedents have been verified and nothing adverse is reported against him during his
selection as Lecturer in Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering in Goa College of Engineering,
Farmagudi, Ponda-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Tech. Education).
Porvorim, 29th December, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Environment & Climate Change
___
Notification
No. 31-9-2017/STE-DIR/Part-I/1060
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Central Act 6 of 1974), the Government of Goa is pleased to re-constitute the
Goa State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB) for the period of three years from the date of notification in Official
Gazette. The composition of the Board shall be as follows:-
1.
Mr. Mahesh K. Patil
—
Chairman.
2.
Director, Industries, Trade & Commerce
—
Member.
3.
Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department
—
Member.
4.
Director, Food & Drugs Administration
—
Member.
5.
Chief Inspector of Factories & Boilers
—
Member.
6.
Director, Directorate of Health Services
—
Member.
7.
Shri Shawn Brian Martins, Panch Member, V.P. Calangute
—
Member.
8.
Shri Shubham Chodankar, Corporator, Corporation City of Panaji
—
Member.
9.
Smt. Unnati Sahastrabhudhe, Panch Member, V.P. Velguem
—
Member.
10.
Shri Ashirwad T.. Khorjuvekar, Councilor, Mapusa Municipal Council
—
Member.
11.
Shri Pradip K. Naik, Councilor, Curchorem Cacora Municipal Council
—
Member.
12.
President, Confederation of Indian Industries (CII)
—
Member.
13.
President, Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industries (GCCI)
—
Member.
14.
President, Travel & Tourism Association of Goa (TTAG)
—
Member.
15.
Managing Director, Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation
—
Member.
16.
Managing Director, Goa Waste Management Corporation
—
Member.
17.
Dr. Shamila Monteiro
—
Member
Secretary.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dasharath M. Redkar, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Environment & Climate Change).
Panaji, 5th January, 2022.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
911
Department of Home
Home—General Division
__
Order
No. 20/26/66-HD(G)/Vol. IV/DSW/4286
Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded to incur an expenditure of Rs. 3,79,000/- (Rupees Three
lakhs seventy nine thousand only) towards payment in cash in lieu of land grant for the Post Independence
Gallantry/Non-Gallantry award winners to the following 22 awardees by the Department of Sainik Welfare.
List of Gallantry/Non-Gallantry Award Winners, 2020-21.
Sr. No.
Name of Awardees
Award
Total Annuity
1.
Late Wg Cdr V B Sawardekar
KC - 55000/-
60000/-
Widow
(Smt. Asha V. Sawardekar)
AVSM - 5000/-
2.
General S.F. Rodrigues
PVSM - 6000/-
9000/-
VSM - 3000/-
3.
Late Cdr Noel Kelman (Retd.)
KC - 55000/-
55000/-
Widow
(expired), (Smt. Patricia Kelman)
4.
Late Air Mshl C S Naik (Retd.)
PVSM - 6000/-
14000/-
Widow
(expired), (Smt. Teresa Maria Naik)
AVSM - 5000/-
VSM - 3000/-
5.
Vice Adm John D’Silva (Retd.)
PVSM - 6000/-
11000/-
Widow
(expired) (Smt. Meena DeSilva)
AVSM - 5000/-
6.
Rear Adm P.A. Debrass (Retd.)
AVSM - 5000/-
12000/-
NM (G) - 7000/-
7.
Maj Gen (Mrs.) G A Saha (Retd.)
AVSM- 5000/-
8000/-
VSM- 3000/-
8.
Cmde K P Mathew (Retd.)
AVSM - 5000/-
5000/-
9.
Brig Ian da Costa (Retd.)
VSM - 3000/-
3000/-
10.
Wg Cdr Cecil Barretto (Retd.)
VSM - 3000/-
3000/-
11.
CPO Nathu Singh Tomar
NM(G) - 7000/-
7000/-
12.
Hony Sub Lt Kans Raj
NM(G) - 7000/-
7000/-
13.
Late Spr Ramchandra S. Shinde
SC - 35000/-
35000/-
Mother
(Smt. Tarabai S. Shinde)
14.
Gp. Capt C A Dalton (Retd.)
VM(G) -7000/-
7000/-
15.
Late Lt. Narendra A. Mayekar
KC - 55000/-
55000/-
Widow
(Smt. Neha N. Mayekar)
16.
Maj. Gen Pakala Venkateswarlu (Retd.)
AVSM - 5000/-
8000/-
VSM - 3000/-
17.
Admiral Sureesh Mehta (Retd.)
PVSM - 6000/-
11000/-
AVSM - 5000/-
18.
Air Vice Marshal Giles Gomez (Retd.)
VSM - 3000/-
3000/-
19.
Col I.J. Crasto (Retd.)
KC - 55000/-
55000/-
20.
Brig. Sanjay Kumar Vidyarthi
SM - 2500/-
2500/-
21.
Brig. Anil John Alfred Pereira
SM - 2500/-
2500/-
22.
Lt. Gen C A Barretto (Retd.),
PVSM - 6000/-
6000/-
Miss Lianne Julie Barretto
Rs. 3,79,000/-
(Rupees Three lakhs seventy nine thousand only).
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
912
[KC-Kirti Chakra, AVSM-Ati Vishist Seva Medal,
PVSM-Param Vishist Seva Medal, VSM-Vishist Seva
Medal, NM (G)-Nausena Medal (Gallantry), SC-
Shaurya Chakra, VM(G)-Vayu Sena Medal, SM-Sena
Medal].
All the award winners have to be paid one time
cash and cash in lieu of land once in a year
(Annually).
The expenditure shall be debited to Budget
Head: 2235 — Social Security & Welfare, 60 —
Other Social Security & Welfare Prog., 200 — Other
Programmes, 05 — Cash Grant/Cash in lieu of Land
Grant for the Post Independence Gallantry, 32 —
Contribution.
The amount will be drawn and disbursed by the
Secretary, Department of Sainik Welfare, Panaji-Goa.
This issues with the concurrence of Finance
(Exp.) Department vide their U.O. No. 1400068587
dated 30-11-2021.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Girish G. Sawant, Under Secretary (Home-II).
Porvorim, 23rd December, 2021.
_______
Order
No. 24/31/2014-HD(G)/P/4356
Read:
Memorandum No. 24/31/2014-HD(G)/442
dated 11-02-2021.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission, as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/I/5/58(1)/2020/873 dated 29-12-2020, the
Government is pleased to appoint Shri Narendra
Arjun Velip on provisional basis, to the post of
Assistant Public Prosecutor (Group ‘A’ Gazetted) in
the Directorate of Prosecution in Level-10 of the Pay
Matrix. His pay will be fixed in accordance with
CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016. His appointment is
further subject, to the following conditions:
1. The final outcome of the criminal case
No. 21/5/2017/B pending for trial before
JMFC, Quepem.
2. The candidate has been declared medically
fit by the Medical Board and his character
and antecedents has been verified.
3. The candidate shall be on probation for a
period of two years with effect from his date
of joining.
4. The pay and allowances of the above
candidate shall be debited to the Budget
Head controlled by the Directorate of
Prosecution wherever he is posted from time
to time.
5. The candidate shall join his duties in the
Directorate of Prosecution with immediate
effect subject to the decision of the court
resulting in acquittal/conviction in the
criminal case.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Girish G. Sawant, Under Secretary (Home-II).
Porvorim, 30th December, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 28/37/2021-LAB/635
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. GVK EMRI (Emergency
Management & Research Institution), 1st Floor,
Block No. 05, Old Library Block, Goa Medical
College, Bambolim, Goa and their workmen, in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule
hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby
refers the said dispute for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted
under Section 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. GVK EMRI (Emergency Management &
Research Institution), 1st Floor, Block No. 05, Old
Library Block, Goa Medical College, Bambolim,
Goa in terminating the services of following 12
workmen, is legal and justified?
Names of Workmen
(1)
Ramu Vithu Shelko.
(2)
Sameer Zilu Gaonkar.
(3)
Shavesh Gaonkar.
(4)
Gajanan Usapkar.
(5)
Yeshwant Naik.
(6)
Keshav Govekar.
(7)
Pravin Naik.
(8)
Shamrao S. Jadhav.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
913
(9)
Sagun Varak.
(10) Eshan Naik.
(11) Mohit Chari.
(12) Ms. Pranaya Chari.
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?”
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O.F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 28th December, 2021.
_______
Notification
No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-II/425
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 23-07-2021 in Case No.
Ref. LC-II/C-IT/03/20 is hereby published as required
under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 31st August, 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/C-IT/03/20
Shri Sunil Chauhan,
R/o. H. No. 103, Swarkar Nagar,
Sasmolem, Baina,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa
….. Workman/Party-I
V/s
M/s. High Street Cruises and
Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.,
Panaji-Goa
…. Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I present in person.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
Panaji, Dated: 23-07-2021.
AWARD
1. This Award shall dispose off the complaint
filed by the Party I u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act, 1947.
2. It is the case of the Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Party I’), in brief as pleaded are that he was working
in the establishment of the Employer. He stated
that he was thrown out allegedly without any notice
by the Employer as he filed a complaint against the
Employer in the office of the Commissioner, Labour
and Employment, Panaji-Goa, vide his letter dated
20-05-2016. He stated that the Employer issued him
show cause cum suspension letter, vide letter dated
25-07-2016 as per law as alleged by the Employer.
He stated that the Employer also issued him a
charge-sheet cum notice of enquiry under letter
dated 20-08-2016 as per the model standing orders
applicable to them. He stated that a conciliation
proceedings was in the process in the office of
Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji, Goa
in the matter of the issues, he was dismissed from
service pending conciliation proceedings without
permission of the said Conciliation Officer. He
submitted that the said action of the Employer is in
violation of Section 33 (1) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He
stated that he filed a complaint on 02-03-2017 for
stopping his subsistence allowance and also for
punishment of dismissal, pending conciliation
proceedings before any judgment by the office of
Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji-Goa.
He stated that he has filed his claim statement as
well as his affidavit in evidence in the reference
bearing case No. LC-II/IT/14/2017, pending before
this Hon’ble Court. He stated that his complaint of
issues dated 20-05-2016, as well as complaint for
illegally throwing him out from service without any
notice by the Employer and for punishment of
dismissal in pending conciliation proceedings
before any judgment from the office of Commissioner,
Labour and Employment, Panaji, Goa caused an
industrial dispute. He stated that the said
conciliation proceedings ended in failure. He stated
that the appropriate Government has referred the
said industrial dispute to this Labour Court II, which
has been numbered as LC-II/IT/14/2017 and pending
for its adjudication. He submitted that the
principles of natural justice, Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is applicable to the
Employer and the said act is extended to the Goa
Daman and Diu by Regulation 12 of 1962. He stated
that the employer has failed to give him service
conditions which caused grave prejudice to his life
and liberty. The Workman therefore prayed for an
order directing the Employer for the payment of
full back wages, allowances, tips etc. as per law
since July, 2016 till date and for payment in further
continuation. The Workman also prayed for an
appropriate order as deemed fit against the
Employer for violation of Section 33 (1) of the I.D.
Act, 1947.
3. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing his reply dated 03-02-2020 at
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
914
Exb. 4. The Employer, as and by way of its
preliminary objections, submitted that the present
complaint filed by the Party I cannot be construed
as an ‘Industrial Dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, that the present application filed by
the party I with malafide intentions, with ulterior
motives and as such the claim be dismissed with
limine, that the present application filed by the
Party I is bad-in-law and not maintainable, that the
Party I was appointed as management of the
Employer as “Sr. Casino Dealer” in supervisory
cadre, that duties discharged by him are purely of
a supervisory nature and he cannot be construed
as ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
that the Party I performed essentially and
pre-dominantly supervisory, managerial and
administrative functions, his duties and functions
and his exercise of powers over the subordinates
excludes him from the purview of the definition of
the ‘workman’ under the I.D. Act, 1947. The
Employer submitted that the grades, scales and
allowances applicable to the Party I were of
management cadre and as such this Hon’ble Court
does not have the jurisdiction to entertain present
petition.
4. Without prejudice to aforesaid submissions,
the Employer stated that it is a company duly
incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,
having its office at Fisheries Building, Panaji-Goa.
The Employer stated that the services of the Party I
were terminated by them and therefore the present
petition filed by the Party I does not deserve any
consideration of this Hon’ble Court. The Employer
submitted that the Party I has filed the present
petition without any use of action with an intension
to extract money from them and to pressurize and
harass them. The Employer submitted that there
are ongoing proceedings before this Hon’ble Court
and the Party I has filed the present petition u/s 33-A
of the I.D. Act, 1947 claiming full back wages,
allowances, tips etc. after termination of his
services. The Employer submitted that the Party I
has also filed one more separate complaint u/s 10-
A of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946 which is not maintainable and that the Party
I is in habit of filing such frivolous complaints and
applications. The Employer submitted that the Party
I has filed separate application u/s 10-A of Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 claiming
subsistence allowance till date and whereas
simultaneously, also filed the present petition
u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 claiming full back
wages, allowances etc. after termination of his
services for the same period. This implies that the
Party I not only dragging them in frivolous and
futile litigations but also wasting precious time of
this Hon’ble Court. The Employer submitted that
both the petitions filed by the Party I cannot be
entertained as the same are filed in violation of
separate procedure laid down under Industrial
Disputes Act, and as such deserves to be dismissed
with exemplary costs. The Employer submitted that
the management had followed the proper procedure
with due regards to the principles of natural justice
in case of the Party I. The Employer submitted that
the management had even conducted enquiry as
an abundant caution, though it was not mandatory
under the law considering the fact that the Party I
is not a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D.
Act, 1947. The Employer submitted that they have
taken appropriate decision in the matter of the Party I
after conclusion of the enquiry proceedings held
against him and their decision is perfectly legal,
just and in accordance with law.
5. The Employer stated that the Party I was
involved in several acts of misconducts during his
service tenure. The Employer stated that they have
afforded him several opportunities to improve his
behavioural and other related issues at the work
place. The Employer stated that the Party I was
placed under suspension vide suspension letter
dated 25-07-2016. The Employer stated that he was
regularly paid subsistence allowances as per law.
The Employer stated that subsequently, charge
sheet-cum-notice of enquiry dated 20-08-2016 was
also issued to the Party I. The Employer stated that
have instituted an enquiry by appointing Mr.
Prashant Agarwal, an advocate, as an Enquiry
Officer to conduct an impartial enquiry. The
Employer stated that accordingly, an enquiry was
conducted by an impartial and competent Enquiry
Officer. The Employer stated that the enquiry has
been conducted by the said Enquiry Officer in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The Employer submitted that the Party I was given
every conceivable opportunity to participate and
present his case during the enquiry. The Employer
stated that after the conclusion of the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated
07-12-2016 holding Mr. Sunil Chauhan i.e. Party I
guilty of charges levelled against him. The Employer
stated that the Employer perused the charges, the
proceedings of the enquiry and the findings of the
Enquiry Officer and concluded that the enquiry
has been conducted in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and the findings of the
Enquiry Officer are fair, proper and based on
evidence on record. The Employer stated that it
can be seen that the Enquiry Officer has given his
reasoned findings. It. can be also seen from the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
915
records that the charges levelled against the
Party I has been proved in the enquiry as there is
sufficient evidence on record against him to hold
him guilty of the charges mentioned in the charge-
sheet. The Employer stated that considering the
gravity of proved misconducts and past records,
they dismissed the Party I from its services, vide
dismissal letter dated 22-12-2016. The Employer
stated that they paid the Party I all his legal dues
including entire subsistence allowances payable
as per law which has been duly accepted by him.
The Employer stated that the management
states that the termination of services of Mr. Sunil
Chauhan is therefore legal and justified and hence,
he is not entitle for any reliefs as claimed by him
before this Hon’ble Court. The Employer stated that
the Party I is definitely not entitled to claim any
back wages, allowances, tips etc. in the present
proceedings.
6. Without prejudice to the above, the Employer
stated that it has conducted the disciplinary
enquiry against the Party I by following all the
legal procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act
as an abundant caution. The employer stated that
after concluding the enquiry, the services of the
Party I were terminated by following the legal
process and all the legal dues were paid to him.
The Employer submitted that the Party I was also
paid the subsistence allowances till the date of
termination of his services and as such there is no
employer-employee relationship survives between
them and the Party I. The Employer finally denied
the case of Party I as pleaded by him and prayed for
dismissal of the present complaint filed by him.
7. Thereafter, the Party I filed his re-joinder on
10-02-2021 at Exb. 5. By way of said re-joinder, the
Party I confirms and reiterates all his submissions,
averments and statements made in his slaim
statement to be correct and true and denies all the
statements, averments and submissions made by
the Employer in its written statement which are
contrary to his Statement and averments made in
his claim statement. The Party I submitted that the
Employer conducted illegal domestic enquiry in the
name of model standing orders, but in fact the
Employer has not certified its model standing
orders. He submitted that the Employer conducted
the domestic enquiry, when the conciliation
proceedings was in the process in the office of
Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji-Goa.
He submitted that the Employer has malafidely and
with colourable exercise misused the procedure of
domestic enquiry. He submitted that the Employer
does not believe in following any rules, laws and
procedures in its establishment and following the
aggressive cost cutting company policies which
effects the life and liberty of the employees and the
Employer have no respect or even fear of law. He
stated that no transfer letter, appointment letter,
salary statement and promotion letter was given
showing that he belongs to the supervisory cadre,
managerial and administrative.
8. This Court framed following issues on
23-02-2021 at Exb. 11. The said issues have been
up-dated on 17-03-2021 at Exb.18 on account of
amendment to the written statement by the Employer.
1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that he
is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section
2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947?
2. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
the Employer contravened the provisions of
Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947 pending a
reference bearing No. LC-II/IT/14/17 before
this Labour Court II?
3. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the present complaint filed by the Workman
is liable to be dismissed in view of
preliminary objections raised by them in para
a, b and c of its written statement?
4. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to
any relief?
5. What order? What award?
9. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:
(a) Issue No. 1
:
In the negative.
(b) Issue No. 2
:
In the negative.
(c) Issue No. 3
:
In the affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4 and 5
:
As per final order.
The Party I as well as Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar
filed their synopsis of written arguments
respectively. I have carefully perused the entire
records of the present case including the synopsis
of written submissions filed by the respective
parties hereinabove and is of the opinion as under:
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
10. As the Employer denied that the Party I is a
‘workman’ within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, the burden was cast on the Party I
to prove that he is a ‘workman’ within the meaning
of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is therefore
necessary to refer to the definition of the ‘workman’
as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 defines the
term ‘workman’ and it means “any person
(including an apprentice) employed in any
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
916
industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work
for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be expressed or implied and for the
purposes of any proceedings under this act in
relation to an industrial dispute, includes any
such person who has been dismissed, discharged
or retrenched in connection with or a
consequence of that dispute or dismissal,
discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute, but does not include any such person:
(1) who is subject to the AIR Force Act, 1950 (45
of 1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or
the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or
(2) who is employed in the police service or as an
Officer or other employee of a prison or
(3) who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity
(4) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity
draws wages exceeding Rs. 1,600/- per
mensem or exercises either by the nature of
the duties attached to the office or by reason
of the powers vested in him, functions mainly
of a managerial nature.”
Thus, from the bare reading of definition of
“Workman” under the I. D. Act, 1947, it is clear that
in order to prove the concerned employee is a
‘Workman’ or not within the meaning of the said
act, he/she must prove that he/she was employed
in an ‘Industry’ as defined under the said Act and
secondly he/she was employed to perform any of
the work such as to do any manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory
work for hire or reward.
11. In the case of H. R. Adyanthaya v/s Sandoz
(I) Ltd. reported in 1994 (69) FLR 593, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held that “a person claiming
to be a Workman under the I. D. Act, 1947 must
show that he was employed to do the work of any
of the category which of manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory and that
is not enough that he was not covered by either of
the four exceptions to the definition of the Workman.”
12. In the case of Management of M/s Sonepat
Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s Ajit Singh
reported in 2005 LAB IC 1315, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India observed that “the question as to
whether the Employee has been performing a clerical
work or not is required to be determined upon
arriving at the findings as regards the dominant
nature of duty with a view to give effect to the
expression to do “any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work”,
the job of the concerned employee must fall within
one or other category thereof It would therefore not
be correct to contend that merely because the
employee had not been performing any managerial
or supervisory duties, ipso facto, he would be a
Workman”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid both judgments is well
recognized.
13. Thus, it is crystal clear that the employee
must prove that he was performing the duties of
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work and it is not sufficient
to prove that the concerned employee was not
falling in any of the exceptional category i.e.
administrative, managerial and/or supervisory in
nature and drawing a salary of more than Rs.
7,500/- p.m. It is well settled law that whether a
person is a ‘workman’ or not as defined u/s 2 (s) of
the I. D. Act, 1947 has to be decided on the basis
of the predominant nature of duties performed by
concerned person at the relevant time, it cannot
lay down any straight jacket formula.
14. In the case of Shankar Chakrawarti v/s
Britannia Biscuits Co. Ltd. reported in 1979 SC
1652, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held
that “it is well settled principles of law that the
allegation which was not pleaded and even if the
evidence is adduced in that regards cannot be
examined because the other side has no notice of it
and if such evidence is entertained it would
tantamount to granting unfair advantage to the
Party who had not pleaded his case properly”.
15. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid judgment is well settled and
applicable to the case in hand. In the case in hand,
it appears that the Party I was designated as
‘Sr. Casino Dealer’ at the time of dismissal from the
service of the Employer. The Party I was required to
plead his predominant nature of duties in his
pleadings i.e. his claim statement as well as re-
joinder and also prove the same, which he was
performing as a Sr. Casino Dealer, while working
with the Employer. Failure to plead his pre-dominant
nature of duties, the Party I failed to prove that he
is a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947. This finds merits in the written submissions
of Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, representing the
Employer. Hence, it is held that the Party I failed to
prove that he is a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of
the I.D. Act, 1947. The issue No. 1 is therefore
answered in the negative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
917
Issue No. 2:
16. The Party I claimed that the Employer violated
Section 33 (1) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as such he
filed the present complaint u/s 33-A of the Act. The
burden was cast upon the Party I to prove the same.
The pre-conditions for violation of Section 33-A
of the I.D. Act is the contravention of Section 33 of
the I.D. Act, 1947. It is therefore necessary to refer
the Section 33 of the I. D. Act, 1947 and it reads as
under:
Section 33:
Conditions of service, etc. to remain unchanged
under certain circumstances during the pendency
of the proceedings:- (1) During the pendency of any
conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer
or a Board of any proceedings before [an arbitrator
or] a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal
in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer
shall—
(a) in regard to any matter connected with the
dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen
concerned in such dispute, the conditions of
service applicable to them immediately before
the commencement of such proceeding; or
(b) for any misconduct connected with the
dispute, discharge or punish, whether by
dismissal or otherwise, any workmen
concerned in such dispute;
save with the express permission in writing of
the authority before which the proceeding is
pending.
(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding
in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may,
in accordance with the standing orders applicable
to a workman concerned in such dispute [or, where
there are no such standing-, orders, in accordance
with the terms of contract, whether express or
implied, between him and the workman]-
(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected
with the dispute, the conditions of service
applicable to that workman immediately before
the commencement of such proceedings; or
(b) for any misconduct not connected with the
dispute, discharge or punish, whether by
dismissal or otherwise, that workman:
Provided that no such workman shall be
discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid
wages for one month and an application has been
made by the employer to the authority before which
the proceeding is pending for approval of the action
taken by the employer.
(3) ................................................................................................
(4) ..............................................................................................
(5) where an employer makes an application to a
conciliation officer, Board, an arbitrator, a Labour
Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal under the
proviso to sub-section (2) for approval of the action
taken by him, the authority concerned shall, without
delay, hear such application and pass [within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of
such application], such order in relation thereto as it
deems fit].
[Provided that where any such authority considers
it necessary or expedient so to do, it may: for reasons
to be recorded in writing, extend such period by
such further period as it may think fit.
Provided further that no proceedings before any
such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that
any period specified in this sub-section had expired
without such proceedings being completed.]
17. Thus, the pre-condition of Section 33 (1) and
Section 33 (2) are as under:
(a) there should be a pendency of any
conciliation proceeding in respect of an
industrial dispute;
(b) the workman claiming protection should not
only be a ‘workman’ within the meaning of
Section 2(s), but he should also be a workman
concerned in the pending dispute;
(c) the alteration in question should have the
effect of making a change in the conditions
of service applicable to such workman which
were applicable to him immediately before
the commencement of such proceeding and
such alteration should be prejudicial to his
interest; and/or the action proposed to be
taken should be ‘discharge’ or ‘punishment’
whether by dismissal or otherwise;
(d) such alteration should be in regard to any
matter connected with the pending dispute
or such discharge or punishment should be
in regard to any misconduct connected with
the pending dispute.
18. In the case of Suresh Vithoo Nare v/s.
Dharamsi Moraji Chemicals, reported in 1991 (63)
FLR 359, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in para
4 of its judgment observed as under:
4. It was observed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court in East Asiatic and Allied
Companies v/s Shelke (B.L.) (1961) 1 LLJ 162 that
“It is the duty of the conciliation officer to
satisfy himself before undertaking conciliation
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
918
proceedings as to whether the grievance which
the union has put forward is genuine or not.
Since the law confers a discretion upon the
conciliation officer whether he should enter
upon conciliation or not, it is only right and
proper that he should satisfy himself by all
means available to him about the propriety of
undertaking conciliation. If for satisfying
himself in this respect, he holds preliminary
discussions with the representatives of the
parties and even conveys proposals made by,
one of the parties to the other, it could not be
said that he has commenced conciliation
proceedings. He could do so to satisfy himself
as to whether there is any genuine dispute and
whether it is a matter in which he should
undertake conciliation.
These observations made by this Court also clearly
show that a mere issue of notice by the conciliation
officer does not amount to instituting a conciliation
proceeding. Again, a single Judge of this Court
(Jamdar, J.) in the case of Mahendra Gajanan Khasar
and Ors. v/s. Zonal Manager, Maharashtra State
Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. FLR 1984
(49) 232 had observed that even assuming that
sending a copy of the approach application to the
Assistant Commissioner of Labour amounts to
institution of conciliation proceedings, it would not
bar a complaint under the unfair labour practices
Act because as held above, conciliation proceedings,
under the ID. Act are not proceedings contemplated
by Section 59 of the Unfair Labour Practices Act
which would act as bar to subsequent proceedings
under the Unfair Labour Practices Act. Again, while
dealing with a similar contention, a Division Bench
of this court in Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co.
(India) Ltd. v/s. R.A. Gadekar and Ors., FLR 1986
(52) 467 had observed.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in its aforesaid judgment is well
established and also applicable to the case in hand.
19. In the instant case, the Party I is required to
prove the aforesaid ingredient of Section 33 of the
I.D. Act by a cogent and reliable evidence. The
evidence on record indicates that the services of
the Party I were terminated by the Employer by
way of dismissal, vide letter dated 27-12-2016 (Exb.
27) and the said reference bearing No. LC-II/IT/14/
/17 is pending for its adjudication before this Labour
Court II. However, there is nothing on record to
prove that the Party I or any other person/union on
behalf of the Party I has raised an ‘industrial dispute’
which is pending before any conciliation authority
or a board or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National
Tribunal and/or that the Party I is concerned in any
of the pending alleged dispute. Merely alleging
that the Party I has filed a complaint of the Employer
to the office of the Commissioner, Labour and
Employment, Panaji, Goa pertaining to his alleged
issues does not fall within the meaning of ‘industrial
dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
There is nothing on record to show that the said
complaint of the Party I has been admitted by the
conciliation authority at any point of time. Thus,
the Party I has failed to prove that there is a
pendency of the industrial dispute before the
conciliation authority, Labour Court, Industrial
Tribunal or before any Arbitrator etc.
20. The Party I had summoned records and
proceeding of the alleged conciliation proceedings
held before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (ALC)
and Conciliation Officer, Panaji, Goa. Neither the
Party I has produced on record the records and
proceedings of the said conciliation proceedings
held before ALC and conciliation Officer, Panaji,
Goa nor examined the said Conciliation Officer, so
as to read the said documents in evidence. Even
otherwise, upon careful perusal of the said records
and proceedings held before the ALC and
Conciliation Officer, Panaji, Goa, it appears that the
Party I had made a complaint of the Employer to
the Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji,
Goa, pertaining to the inability to reply to his forty
queries/issues raised by him pertaining to the rights
of the employees working in the establishment of
the Employer, vide letter dated 20-05-2016. In
pursuance to the same, Ld. Conciliation Officer,
Panaji, Goa directed the Employer to file their
comments. The Employer also filed its comments.
There is nothing in the said file summoned from
the ALC and Conciliation Officer, Panaji, Goa that
an industrial dispute was raised by the Party I or
any other person/union oil behalf of the Party I and
that he is concerned with the said dispute. More so
ever, the alleged dispute has not been admitted in
the conciliation proceedings at any point of time.
Thus, the pendency of the said alleged conciliation
proceedings before the ALC and Conciliation Officer
cannot be said to be an ‘industrial dispute’ as
defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
Thus, the Party I failed to prove that the Employer
contravened Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947.
21. In the case of Stanley Mendex v/s Glovanola
Binny Ltd. and Ors., reported in (1968) II LLJ
470, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in para 5 of
its judgment has held as under:
“5. In a complaint made to the tribunal under
Section 33A, the primary question that falls to be
considered by tribunal is whether there has been a
contravention by the employer of the provisions of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
919
Section 33 of the Act, and it is only in case it is found
that there has, in fact, been such contravention that
occasion arises for the tribunal to embark upon a
further adjudication of the complaint on its merits;
in other words, the tribunal has to be satisfied
initially that there has, in fact, been a contravention
by the employer of the provisions of Section 33 by
effecting during the pendency of other proceedings
before it, an alteration to the prejudice of the workman
concerned, of the conditions of his service which
were applicable to him immediately before the
commencement of such proceedings”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala is not applicable to the case in
hand.
Hence, it is held that the Party I failed to prove
that the Employer contravened the Section 33 of
the I.D. Act, 1947, pending reference bearing No.
LC-II/IT/14/17 before this Labour Court II. The issue
No. 2 is therefore answered in the negative.
Issue No. 3:
22. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections, submitted that the present complaint
filed by the Party I cannot be construed as an
‘Industrial Dispute’ as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D.
Act, 1947, that the present application filed by the
Party I with malafide intentions, with ulterior
motives and as such the claim be dismissed with
limine, that the present application filed by the
Party I is bad-in-law and not maintainable, that the
Party I was appointed by the management. of the
Employer as “Sr. Casino Dealer” in supervisory
cadre and duties discharged by him are purely of
a supervisory nature and he cannot be construed
as ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and
that the Party I performed essentially and pre-
dominantly
supervisory,
managerial
and
administrative functions, his duties and functions
and his exercise of powers over the subordinates
excludes him from the purview of the definition of
the ‘workman’ under the I.D. Act, 1947. The
Employer submitted that the grades, scales and
allowances applicable to the Party I were of
management cadre and as such this Hon’ble Court
does not have the jurisdiction to entertain present
petition. The burden was therefore cast on the
Employer to prove the issue No. 3.
23. While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove,
I have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the Party I failed to prove that he is a ‘workman’
within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947 and as such dispute raised by him is not an
industrial dispute as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D.
Act, 1947. Hence, it is held that the present claim
filed by the Party I is liable to be dismissed in view
of the preliminary objections raised by the
Employer. The issue No. 3 is therefore answered in
the affirmative.
Issue No. 4:
24. While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove,
I have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the Party I failed to prove that he is a ‘workman’
within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947. Similarly, while deciding the issue No. 2
hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the
conclusion that the Party I also failed to prove that
the Employer contravened the provisions of Section
33 of the I.D. Act, 1947, pending reference bearing
No. LC-II/IT/14/17 before this Labour Court II. The
Party I is therefore not entitled to any relief.
In view of above, I proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
1. The present complaint filed by the Party I
u/s 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
stands dismissed.
2. The Party I, Shri Sunil Chauhan is not entitled
to any relief.
3. No order as to cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
_______
Notification
No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-I/561
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 27-10-2021 in Case No.
LC-II/IT/11/10 is hereby published as required under
Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 16th November, 2021.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/11/10
Shri Jeronimo Gomes,
R/o. Toutem, Morod,
P.O. Cansaulim,
Salcette-Goa
.... Workman/Party-I
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
920
V/s
M/s Ramada Caravela Beach Resort,
Varca Beach,
Varca, Salcette-Goa
…. Employer/Party-II
Party-I/Workman represented by Ld. Rep. Shri
Subhash Naik Jorge.
Party-II/Employer represented by Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar.
Panaji, Dated: 27-10-2021.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 28-06-2010,
bearing No. 28/22/2010-LAB, referred the following
dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal
of Goa. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-
-cum-Labour Court in turn assigned the present
dispute to the Labour Court-II, vide its Order dated
16-08-2010.
“(1) Whether the action of the Management of
M/s Ramada Caravela Beach Resort, Varca,
Salcette-Goa, in terminating the service of Shri
Jeronimo Gomes, Fitter Mechanic, w. e. f.
25-04-2008 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/11/2010 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
06-12-2010 at Exb. 4. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/
/Party-II (for short ‘Employer’) is a five star hotel,
having large number of rooms, restaurants and
casinos. He stated that the employees of the
Employer Hotel are the members of a Trade Union
by name Ramada Caravela Hotel Employees Union,
hereinafter referred to as ‘said union’. He stated
that he was the General Secretary of the said Union
for several years. He stated that he was initially
employed with the Employer as ‘Fitter-Mechanic’
since 15th January, 1990 and thereafter promoted
as ‘Senior Fitter-Mechanic’ and finally promoted as
‘Shift In-charge’. He stated that he has worked for
the Employer Hotel for over 18 years. He stated that
he was issued Meritorious Certificates from time to
time for his honest and efficient work. He stated
that he was not issued any Memo, charge-sheet,
etc. except the charge-sheet dated 21-06-2006.
3. He stated that on 25-05-2006, an incident
happened in the Employer Hotel after his working
hours. He stated that on 24-05-2006, he was working
in night shift in the Employer Hotel and his working
hour’s starts from 10.30 p.m. to 7.30 a.m. of
25-05-2006. He stated that his next shift of working
was from 10.30 p.m. of 25-05-2006 to 7.30 a.m. of
26-05-2006. He stated that he did not attend his
duty on 25-05-2006 at 10.30 p.m. as he was sick. He
stated that at the relevant time, the Employer Hotel
was closed for renovation work and the renovation
work was in progress.
4. He stated that he was issued a charge-sheet
dated 21-06-2006 alleging certain acts of
misconduct against him. He stated that in the
charge-sheet dated 21-06-2006 issued to him, it was
alleged that he had left the shift in the morning of
25th May, 2006 after his duty hours, without
handing over charge to the next person and as a
result, there was overheating of the Generator. He
stated that it was further alleged that overheating
of the Generator resulted in loss to the
Management. He stated that the charges levelled
against him were false as there were persons on
duty when he left after finishing his duty. He stated
that he had informed before leaving the hotel. He
stated that he had replied to the charge-sheet dated
21-06-2006 issued to him vide its letter dated
25-05-2006 by denying the charges levelled against
him. He stated that initially, Mr. Sharad Chodnekar,
an advocate, was appointed as Ld. Enquiry Officer
to conduct the enquiry. He stated that the Employer
was represented by Ms. Uma Krishnan in the
enquiry. He stated that the said Ms. Krishnan was
the Head of the Department of the Employer Hotel.
He stated that the said Ld. Enquiry Officer was
totally biased in favour of the Employer. He stated
that he had complained about the aforesaid fact
and therefore, the Employer removed Mr. Sharad
Chodnekar and appointed Mr. Prasanna Chawdikar,
an advocate to conduct the enquiry against him.
He stated that as the said Enquiry Officer was
biased in favour of the Employer, he raised an
objection for the same. He stated that Mr. Prasanna
Chawdikar did not start the enquiry proceedings
de novo, but continued the proceedings from where
Mr. Chodnekar had left. He stated that no typist
was made available to type the proceedings of the
enquiry even during the tenure of Mr. Chawdikar
as Enquiry Officer, but the Management
Representative used to write the enquiry
proceedings in her own handwriting and the same
was get it typed and made available on the next
date of hearing.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
921
5. He submitted that the Employer did not
examine any eye witness to the alleged incident
during the enquiry proceedings. He submitted that
during the enquiry proceedings held on 11-07-2006,
the Management Representative, Ms. Krishnan
presented the case of the Management. He stated
that Ms. Krishnan also recorded her own statement
in her own handwriting and got it typed from home
on the next date of enquiry proceedings. He stated
that Ms. Krishnan would make whatever changes
she desired in the typed copies. He stated that the
records of the typed copies are not in conformity
with the handwritten copies of the enquiry
proceedings. He submitted that the enquiry
proceedings were held in Panaji and Margao,
whereas the Employer hotel is situated at Varca.
He submitted that he was not paid travelling
expenses to attend enquiry proceedings and to
bring his Representative. He submitted that he had
examined himself and witnesses in support of his
defence in the enquiry. He stated that infact, he
wanted to examine more witnesses, but Ld. Enquiry
Officer did not allow him to examine the said
witnesses by closing his evidence and abruptly
conducted the enquiry. He submitted that a copy
of the enquiry proceeding held on 06-02-2008 has
not been supplied to him. He stated that Ld. Enquiry
Officer thereafter submitted his findings dated
19-03-2008 holding him guilty of the charges
levelled against him.
6. He submitted that the findings of Ld. Enquiry
Officer are perverse and not based on record of the
enquiry proceedings. He submitted that the findings
of Ld. Enquiry Officer are biased in favour of the
Employer without proper application of mind and
without any valid reasons. He submitted that Ld.
Enquiry Officer could not have arrived at the
findings that he is guilty of the charges, when the
Employer did not examine any witness in the
enquiry. He submitted that the enquiry was
conducted in total violation of the principles of
natural justice as well as accepted norms of the
enquiry. He submitted that the proceedings of the
enquiry were recorded by the Management
Representative in her own handwriting and typed
at her house and the proceedings were furnished
to him on subsequent date of enquiry by obtaining
the signatures of all the parties. He submitted that
there is no evidence on record of the enquiry
proceedings to prove the charges of misconduct
levelled against him vide charge-sheet dated
21-06-2006.
7. He stated that the Employer hotel has service
rules which categorize the misconduct as minor
and major misconduct. He stated that the
punishment for minor misconduct has been
mentioned as warning, censure and suspension for
7 days. He submitted that neither the Employer
produced original documents nor exhibited any
document in the enquiry. He submitted that he
was shocked to receive letter dated 25-04-2008 from
the Employer dismissing him from the services.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Employer in
wrongly terminating his services, he raised an
industrial dispute against the Employer demanding
reinstatement in service with full back wages and
continuity in service, which ended in failure. He
submitted that since the date of termination of his
service, he is unemployed and is trying hard to find
the job. He submitted that due to the stigma
attached to his termination of service, he is not
getting jobs in other hotels in the area. He submitted
that he is surviving out of savings and support from
his family and relatives. He submitted that
assuming and without admitting that the charges
of misconduct levelled against him are proved, the
punishment imposed upon him is highly
disproportionate and unjustified taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case. He therefore prayed that he be reinstated in
service with full back wages and continuity in
service.
8. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
01-03-2011 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objections, submitted that the
reference is null and void as no industrial dispute
exists as defined u/s 2(k) of the I. D. Act, 1947 and
that the reference has been made by the
Government of Goa without any material on record,
in haste and without application of mind.
9. The Employer however, admitted that the
Workman was employed with them as ‘Fitter
Mechanic’ since 15-01-1990 and thereafter promoted
as ‘Sr. Fitter Mechanic’ and again promoted as ‘Shift
In-charge’. The Employer stated that the Workman
was issued a charge sheet dated 21-06-2006 alleging
that on the morning of 25-05-2006, he had left the
work station after finishing his regular duty hours
and without handing over the responsibility of
operating the generator to the next person
concerned, inspite of personnel from the
engineering team being present on duty. It was
further mentioned in the charge-sheet dated
21-06-2006 issued to the Workman that the aforesaid
act on his part resulted in overheating of the engine
and the resultant damage caused to the generator
set is to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- and that because
the generator could not function till conditions
required for its proper functioning were rectified,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
922
the entire hotel had to be without power for at
least half an hour. It was further mentioned in the
charge-sheet that he had absented himself from
duty from the night shift on the 25-05-2006 and the
operations in the engineering department are
suffering due to unauthorized absence. The
Employer stated that the Workman was issued a
show-cause notice requiring him to submit his
explanation in respect of the above said incident.
The Employer stated that the explanation submitted
by the Workman, vide letter dated 28-05-2006, was
not found to be satisfactory. The Employer stated
that they have observed that the Workman have
remained absent unauthorizedly on 06-01-006,
11-01-2006, 08-03-2006, 09-03-2006, 10-03-2006,
11-03-2006, 16-03-2006, 29-03-2006, 30-03-2006,
31-03-2006, 23-04-2006, 26-04-2006 (for half a day),
13-05-2006, 25-05-2006 and 28-05-2006. It was further
alleged that the aforesaid acts alleged against the
Workman constitute the following acts of
misconduct under the Model Standing Orders:
1. Wilful insubordination or disobedience,
whether alone or in combination with others,
to any lawful and reasonable order of a
superior.
2. Wilful damage to or loss of Employer’s goods
or property.
3. Habitual absence without leave or absence
without leave for more than 10 days.
4. Habitual negligence or neglect of work.”
10. The Employer stated that the enquiry was
conducted initially by Mr. Sharad Chodnekar and
subsequently by Mr. Prasanna Chawdikar. The
Employer stated that the Workman was represented
by his co-worker and an office bearer of Ramada
Caravela Hotel Employees Union. The Employer
stated that the enquiry was conducted against the
Workman by both the Enquiry Officers in an
impartial manner. The Employer stated that every
opportunity was given to the Workman to defend
the charges of misconduct levelled against him.
The Employer stated that Ld. Enquiry Officer
submitted his findings dated 19-03-2008 after
appreciating the facts of the case. The Employer
stated that Ld. Enquiry Officer held the Workman
guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against
him. The Employer submitted that it has considered
the proceedings of the enquiry and the findings of
the Enquiry Officer dated 19-03-2008 and concurred
with the same. The Employer submitted that it has
considered the past records of the Workman, but
did not find any extenuating circumstances. The
Employer submitted that considering the gravity of
proved misconduct as well as the contents of the
reply dated 08-04-2008 to the show-cause notice
issued to the Workman, it has dismissed the
Workman from service with immediate effect, vide
their letter dated 25-04-2008.
11. The Employer stated that Mr. Sharad
Chodnekar was not removed by them, but they
rejected the objections raised by the Workman, vide
its letter dated 24-03-2007. The Employer stated
that they have decided that Mr. Sharad Chodnekar
will continue as Enquiry Officer. The Employer
stated that it is only on account of the personal
difficulty of Mr. Chodnekar, he had decided not to
continue as an Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated
that the enquiry was thereafter continued by
Mr. Prasanna Chawdikar. The Employer admitted
that during the enquiry, there was no typist. The
Employer stated that it was mutually decided to
record the proceedings in hand and get it typed on
the next date of hearing. The Employer stated that
the aforesaid fact has been recorded by Ld. Enquiry
Officer in the enquiry proceedings from time to
time. The Employer admitted that the enquiry
proceedings were recorded in the handwriting of
Ms. Krishnan, the Head of Personnel department as
well as Management Representative and copy of
the original handwriting was taken by Ms. Krishnan,
after the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings.
The Employer further admitted that on the next
date of enquiry, the signatures of all the parties
were obtained, after being duly verified by them
alongwith Ld. Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated
that the original handwritten copies were destroyed
after obtaining signatures of all the parties on the
typed copies. The Employer stated that the
Workman was given the carbon copy of the
proceedings of the enquiry. The Employer stated
that the Workman as well as his Representative
have recorded their signatures on the said
proceedings in approval and confirmation and
hence cannot now resile from the same. The
Employer stated that after Mr. Prasanna Chawdikar
took over as Enquiry Officer, he started conducting
the enquiry at Margao-Goa. The Employer further
admitted that Mr. Chawdikar did not start the
enquiry proceedings de novo, but continued the
enquiry proceedings from where Mr. Chodnekar had
left. The Employer submitted that the Employer
destroyed the said original handwritten records of
the enquiry proceedings and as such the same
cannot be produced. The Employer stated that the
fact of such destruction of the proceedings have
been recorded in the enquiry from time to time.
12. The Employer submitted that the testimony
of eye witness to the incident alleged against the
Workman is not the only basis on which he could
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
923
be held guilty. The Employer submitted that the
documentary and circumstantial evidence
produced at the enquiry is sufficient to hold the
Workman guilty of the charges leveled against him.
The Employer submitted that the Workman was
not entitled to the travelling expenses to attend
enquiry and to bring his representative. The
Employer stated that the Workman had examined
four witnesses on identical facts and wanted to
produce more witnesses to depose on the said facts.
The Employer stated that Ld. Enquiry Officer,
Mr. Chawdikar, vide his order dated 29-01-2008
disallowed the Workman to examine more
witnesses. The Employer admitted that after the
enquiry proceedings held on 29-01-2008, the next
date of enquiry was fixed on 06-02-2008 at 3.30
p.m. The Employer denied that the findings
submitted by Ld. Enquiry Officer are perverse and
not based on records of the enquiry proceedings.
The Employer denied that the enquiry was
conducted in total violation of the principles of
natural justice as well as accepted norms of
conducting an enquiry. The Employer denied the
overall case of the Workman as pleaded in his
statement of claim. The Employer submitted that
the Workman is gainfully employed from the date
of his dismissal from service and prayed for
dismissal of the present reference.
13. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
on 05-04-2011 at Exb. 6. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, denied each and every statement,
averments and submissions made by the Employer
vide their Written Statement filed in the present
proceedings and reiterates and confirms the
statements, averments and submissions made by
him in his statement of claim. The Workman stated
that the written statement filed by Shri Vinesh
Gupta on behalf of the Employer is null and void
as the said Shri Vinesh Gupta is not authorized to
sign the said written statement on behalf of the
Employer. The Workman stated that Ld. Enquiry
Officer obtained the signatures of the Workman on
the typed proceedings by misrepresentation and
by his ignorance.
14. Based on the pleadings filed by the
respective parties this Hon’ble Court framed the
following issues on 18-04-2011 at Exb. 7.
1. Whether a fair, proper and impartial enquiry
has been conducted against the Party I in
consonance with the principles of natural
justice?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the party-I have been proved by
acceptable evidence to the satisfaction of this
court?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that the
action of the Employer/Party II in terminating
the
services
of
the
Workman/
/Party I w.e.f. 25-04-2008 is illegal and
unjustified?
4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the present order of reference is null and void
in view of preliminary objection raised in para
(i) and (ii) of the Written Statement?
5. Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?
6. What Order? What Award?
15. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
: In the negative.
(b) Issue No. 2
: In the negative.
(c) Issue No. 3
: In the negative.
(d) Issue No. 4
: In the negative.
(e) Issue No. 5 and 6 : As per final order.
Both parties have filed their synopsis of written
arguments respectively. I have carefully perused
the entire records of the present case. I have also
carefully considered the submissions made therein.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 2:
16. Vide order dated 19-04-2013, passed in my
findings on preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I have
discussed and come to the conclusion that the
domestic enquiry held against the Workman/Party I
is not fair and proper and hence, the enquiry is set
aside. The issue No. 1 and 2 are therefore answered
in the negative.
Issue No. 3:
17. While deciding the issue No. 1 and 2
hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the
conclusion that the domestic enquiry held against
the Workman/Party I is not fair and proper and
hence, the enquiry is set aside. The Employer
therefore, led fresh evidence before this Hon’ble
Court by examining its two witnesses namely, Shri
Eric Pereira, its Project Management Consultant and
Smt. Uma Krishnan, its Sr. Manager, HR and IR of
Minescape Minerals Pvt. Ltd. The evidence
adduced by the management by examining Ms.
Uma Krishnan and Mr. Eric Pereira is corroborative
to each other. On the contrary, the Workman
examined himself and two other witnesses namely,
Shri Arun Salunke r/o Karwar and Shri Gurudas
Verlekar r/o. Fatorda, Goa in support of his defence.
The evidence of the Workman in defence is
uncorroborative and untrustworthy.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
924
18. By charge-sheet dated 21-06-2006, the
Workman was issued a charge-sheet and it reads as
under:
“(a) On the morning of the 25th of May, 2006, you
had left your work station after finishing your
regular duty hours and without handing over
the responsibility of operating the generator
to the next person concerned – inspite of
personnel from the engineering team being
present on duty. This resulted in overheating
of the engine and the resultant damage caused
to the generator set is to the tune of
Rs. 4,50,000/-. Further, because the generator
could not function till conditions required for
its proper functioning were rectified, the entire
hotel had to be without power for at least half
an hour.
(b) Secondly, you have absented yourself from
duty for the night shift the 25th of May, 2006.
The operations in the Engineering department
are suffering due to your unauthorised
absence.”
You were issued a show cause notice requiring
you to submit your explanation in respect of the
above said incident. You submitted an explanation
dated 28th May, 2006. We do not find your
explanation satisfactory.
It has been also observed that you have remained
absent unauthorisedly on the following days – 6th
of January, 2006, 11th of January, 2006, 8th of March,
2006, 9th of March, 2006, 10th of March, 2006, 11th
of March, 2006, 16th of March, 2006, 29th of March,
2006, 30th of March, 2006, 31st of March, 2006, 23rd
of April, 2006, 26th of April, 2006 (for half a day),
13th of May, 2006, 25th of May, and 28th of May,
2006.
The acts of misconduct alleged against you
constitute the following acts of misconduct under
Model Standing Orders:
(a) Wilful insubordination or disobedience,
whether alone or in combination with others,
to any lawful and reasonable order of a
superior.
(b) Wilful damage to or loss of Employer’s goods
or property.
(c) Habitual absence without leave or absence
without leave for more than 10 days.
(d) Habitual negligence or neglect of work.
19. Undisputedly, the Workman was working as
a supervisor/shift in-charge in the Employer hotel.
The Workman was issued a show-cause notice dated
25-05-2006 (Exb. 24) alleging the said acts as stated
in para (a) and (b) of the said charge-sheet dated
21-06-2006 (Exb. 64). The Workman filed his reply
dated 28-05-2006 (Exb. 25) to the aforesaid
showcause notice issued to him. Thereafter, the
Workman was issued a charge-sheet dated
21-06-2006 at Exb. 64 and hold enquiry against him.
The Workman however, did not file any reply to the
aforesaid charge-sheet.
20. Indisputedly, the Workman was drafted for
duty in the third shift of 24-05-2006 to be started at
10.30 p.m. and ended on 7.30 a.m. of 25-05-2006. The
evidence on record indicates that it was an
understanding that they should work till 9.00 a.m.
of 25-05-2006. The Workman left the hotel premises
at 6.34 a.m. of 25-05-2006. The Workman admits that
it was his duty to attend the generator by looking
after water, diesel, oil, battery as well as to verify
the said generator is giving power. The Workman
admits that he did not wait till 9.00 a.m. as per the
instructions of Mr. Victor, Engineering Executive.
The Workman also did not handover the charge to
the next shift in-charge/Supervisor of first shift of
25-05-2006 nor obtained prior permission from
competent authority of the Employer to leave the
hotel early. As per the reply of the Workman at Exb.
25, he requested and informed Mr. Anthony, the
Electrician that he is going early to attend his
uncle’s first death anniversary mass. It is pertinent
to note that in the past, the Workman was given
verbal warning when he left the Employer hotel
without handing over the charge to the next
supervisor who had not joined duty of first shift on
23-05-1999 thereby leaving the Engineering
department in the hands of one electrician, in
pursuance to the letter dated 24-05-1999 of Shri
B. S. Negi to Shri Satyajit Patnaik (Exb. 37). The
evidence on record indicates that the generator
operations remained unattended, got overheated
and stopped functioning. Due to overheating of the
generator, the unit was heavily damaged and had
to send for necessary repairs. The evidence on
record indicates that the generator was repaired
from Western India Service Centre, Madkai, Ponda
on 27-06-2006 and due to the above, the loss caused
to the Employer was Rs. 4,25,413/-. The aforesaid
acts on the part of the Workman amounts to
disobedience to any lawful and reasonable order of
a superior as well as loss of Employer’s goods or
property. The aforesaid act on the part of the
Workman also proves the negligence of the
Workman.
21. The Workman was also charged for habitual
absence without leave or absence without leave
for more than 10 days. The evidence on record
indicates
that
the
Workman
remained
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
925
unauthorizedly absent without leave or intimation
on 06-01-006, 11-01-2006, 08-03-2006, 09-03-2006,
10-03-2006, 11-03-2006, 16-03-2006, 29-03-2006,
30-03-2006, 31-03-2006, 23-04-2006, 26-04-2006 (for
half a day), 13-05-2006, 25-05-2006 and 28-05-2006.
The Workman did not give any explanation of the
aforesaid days of absence except 25-05-2006. The
explanation given by the Workman for his absence
on 25-05-2006 of his transport difficulty. The
Workman was shown his leave card at Exb. 40,
wherein it has been written that the leave for
25-05-2006 has not been sanctioned by writing
“not granted, absent without intimation” by the
leave sanctioning authority. The aforesaid
evidence on record clearly indicates that the
Workman remained absent unauthorizedly for
around 14 and half day from January, 2006 till
May, 2006 without intimation or prior permission.
Therefore, it is proved that the said acts on the
part of the Workman is habitual absence without
leave. Hence, it is held that the Employer proved
that all the four charges levelled against the
Workman have been proved to the satisfaction of
this court by acceptable evidence.
22. Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik, relied upon a
judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi v/s.
Punjab National Bank and Ors., reported in
(2009) SCC 570 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
in support of his contention that the Employer
failed to prove the charges of misconduct. The
facts of the present case are totally different than
the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble Apex Court
and as such the principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable to th case
in hand.
23. The Employer is having its House Rules
and Service Conditions at Exb. W/11. It appears
that the said House Rules and Service Conditions
has not been certified by the Certifying Authority
and the Employer has issued a charge-sheet at
Exb. 64 under the Model Standing Orders and as
such a Model Standing Orders is applicable to
the case in hand. The evidence on record indicates
that the evidence on record indicates that all the
charges proved against the Workman are grave
and serious.
24. The evidence on record indicates that the
Workman joined in the services of the Employer
as a ‘Fitter Mechanic’ since 15-01-1990 and
thereafter promoted as ‘Sr. Fitter Mechanic’ and
again promoted as ‘Shift In-charge’. The Workman
was issued certificate of appreciation of long
service of 5 years, 9 years, 10 years, 11 years and
13 years. He was also awarded a certificates of
merit in the year 1990-1995 and certificate of
appreciation. The union, vide its letter dated 24-08-
1995 (Exb. 34) addressed to the Personnel Manager
of the Employer informed that the Workman, Shri
Joaquim D’Costa and Shri Francis Gonsalves have
been elected as office bearers of the said union.
Vide letter of the Employer dated 26-08-1995 (Exb.
33) addressed to the office bearers of the said union,
it has been brought to the notice that some of you,
have been found to be remiss in the performance of
your duty as also in the specific instance of
insubordination and disobedience and therefore
directed to ensure that you are correctly informed
of your obligations. Vide letter dated 02-01-1997
(Exb. 35), the Workman was warned for his acts of
indiscipline of remaining absent without any
permission from 21-12-1996 to 01-01-1997, no off and
weekly off could be taken and that on 31-12-1996 is
new year eve, where the Engineering department
work round clock. Vide letter of the Employer dated
21-11-1997 (Exb. 56) addressed to the Workman, he
was directed to join duty immediately on receipt of
the said letter failing which they would be
constrained to accept that you have abandoned
your job and strike out your name from the
company’s roll in line with the House Rules and
Service Conditions applicable to him by pointing
out his attendance record that he has overstayed
his sanctioned leave without any information/
/intimation from 14-11-1997 till issuance of the said
letter.
25. Vide inter office memo dated 24-05-1999
issued by Shri B. S. Negi to Mr. Satyajit Patnaik
(Exb. 37) informed that the Workman remained
absent without leave from 16-05-1999 and joined
his duty on 22-05-1999 (third shift) and left without
handing over to the next supervisor who had not
joined duty (first shift on 23-05-1999) thereby leaving
the Engineering department in the hands of one
electrician by observing that the Workman has
behaved in a very irresponsible manner and he,
being the Union President, he is expected to set
examples for others. The Workman was therefore
given a verbal warning on his request to Mr. Negi
and disciplinary action had postponed. Vide letter
of the Employer dated 18-04-2006 (Exb. 38)
addressed to the Workman, he was informed that
he has been verbally warned by his department
head that his attendance is erratic and not in order
and that he has been absenting himself from duty
at his own whims and fancy and that hampers daily
operations and the smooth functioning of the
department. It is further stated that the Workman
was also issued a memo by his department head on
30-01-2006 for his remaining absent without
information and that inspite of the above his
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
926
attendance for March, 2006 has been very poor and
they have received an intimation from the
department regarding his irregularities. The
Workman was therefore warned at last that his
irresponsible behaviour cannot be entertained and
further instructed that if he remains absent without
information or have an erratic attendance record,
stern disciplinary action would be initiated and
that he was instructed to discharge his
responsibilities with zeal and dedication and take
up the responsibilities as one of the most senior
members of the team.
26. The Workman was issued show-cause notice
dated 26-03-2008 at Exb. W/16 directing him to
show cause within seven days of the said notice as
to why he should not be dismissed from service.
The Workman filed his reply to the said show-cause
notice, vide its reply dated 08-04-2008. The Workman
was thereafter issued a letter of dismissal dated
25-04-2008 at Exb. W/15.
27. Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik, representing the
Workman submitted that the punishment of
dismissal imposed on the Workman is highly
disproportionate and relied upon a judgment of
Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, in the
case of Bashir Ahmed Khan v/s. Union of India
and Ors., passed on 18-08-2021. The principle laid
down by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir in its aforesaid case is not applicable to
the case in hand as the facts of the case before the
Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir is totally
different than the case in hand.
28. On the contrary, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar,
representing the Employer submitted that the
punishment of dismissal imposed on the Workman
for the proved grave and serious misconduct is just,
fair and proper and that it does not shock the
judicial conscience of the court and relied upon
two following judgments of the Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay.
29. One, in the case of Dinkar Murlidhar Anap
v/s. Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation through its Divisional Controller,
reported in 2016 LLR 226, the Petitioner was
appointed as bus conductor in 1993 and was issued
a charge-sheet with reference to ticketless
passengers travelling on his bus on 02-08-1997. The
Petitioner was dismissed from service after holding
enquiry. The Industrial Court confirmed the
punishment awarded to the Petitioner. The
Petitioner challenged said judgment and order of
the Industrial Court by filing writ petition before
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. The Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay dismissed the said writ
petition filed by the Petitioner by observing in para
18 of its judgment as under:
“18. With having settled the issue as above, I am
required to look into whether, the punishment
awarded to the Petitioner could be set to be
shockingly disproportionate. It is trite law that
merely because the punishment may appear to
be disproportionate would not call for any
interference by the courts. The punishment has
to appear shockingly disproportionate so as to
shock the judicial conscience of the court. Such
punishment should appear to be an outrageous
defiance of moral standard and logic”.
30. Another, in the case of Niraj Kumar Singh
v/s. Union Bank of India and Anr., reported in
2008 LLR 209, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
held as under:
“14. In the light of the well-established principles
of law and the seriousness of the article of charges
proved against the petitioner, it is difficult for
this Court to hold that the view taken by the
authorities below in imposing the punishment
of dismissal from service is shockingly
disproportionate or would shock the judicial
conscience of the Court. The relationship of the
Bank and its customer is relationship of great
faith and any small dent to this relationship de
hors the quantum of amount unauthorizedly
withdrawn is likely to have adverse effects of
wide magnitude upon the business of the bank.
The Appellate Authority considered the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in
its correct perspective and we are unable to find
any error of jurisdiction in the orders passed by
the respective respondents. We have also noticed
that the enquiry was held in consonance with
the prescribed procedure and principles of
natural justice”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in its aforesaid case is applicable
to the case in hand.
31. In the case in hand, though the Workman
was in the services of the Employer as fitter
mechanic since 15-01-1990 and thereafter promoted
as Sr. Fitter Mechanic and again as Shift In-charge.
The Workman was also issued certificates for his
long service in the organisation of the Employer. In
the past, the Workman was issued warnings for
three times for his misconducts. The Workman was
found guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled
against him and imposed a punishment of dismissal
from service by issuing show-cause notice to him.
In my considered opinion, the misconduct proved
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
927
against the Workman are grave and serious, causing
loss to the Employer. The punishment of dismissal
imposed upon the Workman does not appears to be
shockingly disproportionate to shock the judicial
conscience of the court. The punishment of dismissal
imposed upon the Workman is just, fair and proper
and this court shall not interfere with the
punishment imposed on the Workman.
In view of above, it is held that the Workman
failed to prove that the action of the Employer in
terminating his services w.e.f. 25-04-2008 is illegal
and unjustified. The issue No. 3 is therefore
answered in the negative.
Issue No. 4:
32. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections, submitted that the reference is null and
void as no ‘industrial dispute’ exists as defined
u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and that the reference
has been made by the Government of Goa without
any material on record, in haste and without
application of mind. The burden to prove the said
allegations is therefore on the Employer.
33. Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 defines
‘Industrial Dispute’ and it means, “the term
‘industrial dispute’ has been defined u/s 2 (k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 and it means any dispute of difference
between Employers and Employers, or between
Employers and workmen, or between workmen and
workmen, which is connected with the employment
or non-employment or the terms of employment or
with the conditions of labour, of any person”. In the
case in hand, it is not in dispute that the Party I is
a ‘Workman’ within the meaning of Sec. 2 (s) of the
I.D. Act, 1947. Therefore, the present dispute raised
by the Workman pertaining to his non-employment
w.e.f. 25-04-2008 is an ‘industrial dispute’ within
the meaning of Sec. 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The
Employer has also not produced on record any
material to substantiate its statement that the
reference has been made in haste and without
application of mind. Hence, it is held that the
Employer failed to prove that the present order of
reference is null and void in view of the preliminary
objections raised in para (i) and (ii) of the written
statement. The issue No. 4 is therefore answered in
the negative.
Issue No. 5:
34. While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove,
I have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the Workman failed to prove that the action of the
Employer in terminating his services w.e.f.
25-04-2008 is illegal and unjustified. The Workman
is therefore 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 the Management
of M/s Ramada Caravela Beach Resort, Varca,
Salcette-Goa, in terminating the service of Shri
Jeronimo Gomes, Fitter Mechanic, w. e. f.
25-04-2008 is legal and justified.
2. The Workman, Shri Jeronimo Gomes, 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/563
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 25-10-2021 in Case No.
Ref. LC-II/IT/16/2019 is hereby published as required
under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 16th November, 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/16/2019
Shri Diago Lucas (since deceased),
Through his legal heirs:
1. Smt. Rosita Privia Gama and
2. Ms. Dasha Lucas
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
Tisk, Ponda-Goa
….. Workman/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Indoco Remedies Limited,
L-14, Verna Industrial Estate,
Verna-Goa
…. Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
928
Employer/Party-II Represented By Adv. Shri G. K.
Sardessai.
Panaji, Dated: 25-10-2021.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 10-12-2019,
bearing No. 28/32/2019-LAB/814, referred the
following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Indoco Remedies Limited, L-14, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa, in refusing
employment to Shri Diago Lucas, Operator,
with effect from 16-07-2018, 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/16/2019 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
17-02-2020 at Exb. 4. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that he was initially
employed as an ‘Operator’ by the Employer/
/Party-II (for short ‘Employer’) since 1999. He stated
that in the month of April, 2018 and May, 2018, he
was forced to remain at home due to sickness of his
wife. He stated that he had sent an intimation to
his co-worker that he is unable to attend the duties
due to major sickness of his wife. He stated that in
the first week of June, 2018, he went to report for
duty, but he was asked to submit detailed reply
and tender apology. He stated that on receipt of
the apology, he was allowed to resume duty from
18-06-2018.
3. He stated that he had obtained a loan from the
bank and cheques were given towards the
repayment of the loan instalments. He stated that
the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient
funds in his account. He stated that a case was
filed u/s. 138 N.I. Act. He stated that he was arrested
and remained in the custody. He stated that after
releasing from the custody, he went to resume the
duty in the first week of July, 2018. He stated that
initially, the HR Manager informed him to join duty
after two days as he will consult the head office
and will inform about his resuming the work. He
stated that inspite of several oral request, he was
not allowed to resume duty. He stated that on
16-07-2018, he went to resume duty and submitted
his letter. He stated that as he was not allowed to
resume the duty, he raised an industrial dispute
before the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Panaji through
his union, vide its letter dated 30-08-2018. He stated
that on receipt of the notice of the conciliation
proceedings, the management has issued him a
suspension order from 27-10-2018. He stated that
he was refused employment from 16-07-2018. He
stated that as he raised the dispute in August,
2018, he was issued a suspension order to come out
from the dispute of refusal of employment.
4. He submitted that neither the management
has issued to him any charge-sheet nor conducted
enquiry against him before refusal of employment.
He submitted that before refusing the employment,
the management has not conducted any enquiry
nor followed the principles of natural justice. He
submitted that before refusal of his employment,
the management has not complied with Section
25-F, 25-H and 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947 and violated
the provisions of law in force. He submitted that
the Employer is employing more than 200 workers
in the said factory and hence, Chapter V-B of the
I.D. Act, 1947 is applicable to the Employer. He
submitted that before refusal of his employment,
the management has not obtained any permission
for retrenchment as required u/s 25-N of the I.D.
Act, 1947. He submitted that the refusal of
employment to him is illegal, unjustified and bad-
in-law. He submitted that he is entitled for
reinstatement with full back wages and continuity
service. He submitted that he is unemployed since
illegal refusal of his employment and has not been
able to find any suitable job despite his efforts. The
Workman therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble
Tribunal be declared that the refusal of employment
is illegal, improper and unjustified and direct the
Employer to reinstate him with full back wages
and continuity in service with consequential
benefits.
5. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
08-06-2020 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objections, submitted that the
reference is not maintainable and bad-in-law as it
is not an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined under the
I.D. Act, 1947 and that there is non-application of
mind by the Appropriate Government while
referring the present dispute.
6. Without prejudice to its aforesaid contention,
the Employer stated that it is engaged in the
manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and has its
factory at Verna Industrial Estate, Verna-Goa. The
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
929
Employer stated that the Workman was employed
with them since November, 1999. The Employer
stated that the Workman remained absent from duty
on 02-04-2018, from 04-04-2018 till 28-04-2018,
02-05-2018, 04-05-2018, 05-05-2018 and from
09-05-2018 till 31-05-2018. The Employer stated that
since the work was affected due to unauthorized
absence of the Workman, a letter dated 26-05-2018
was sent to the residential address of the Workman
by registered A/D, by instructing him to resume
duty within 48 hours from the receipt of the said
letter with proper written explanation. The
Employer stated that on 04-06-2018, the Workman
reported at their gate without giving any justified
explanation to their letter dated 26-05-2018 for his
prolonged absence from work. The Employer stated
that the Workman was asked to submit the
explanation for his unauthorised absence. The
Employer stated that since the Workman had not
submitted any explanation, the Workman was given
a second copy of the said letter dated 26-05-2018
on 04-06-2018, so that he can give explanation on
the said letter. The Employer stated that the
Workman submitted his reply dated 04-06-2018,
wherein he claimed that his wife was seriously sick
and had undergone major surgery. He stated that
he was compelled to remain absent during the said
period to attend to his wife and take care of the
house and children. The Employer stated that the
management was not satisfied with the said
explanation and therefore the Workman was asked
to produce documentary proof to show that his
wife was sick. The Employer stated that the
Workman failed to produce the necessary evidence
of sickness of his wife.
7. The Employer stated that on 18-06-2018, the
Workman reported for work and submitted a letter
dated 18-06-2018, apologizing for not submitting
medical proof of his wife’s sickness. The Employer
stated that the Workman claimed that the said
reports were misplaced and that he had requested
Goa Medical College for duplicate copies of the
documents which they are not ready to handover.
The Employer stated that thereafter, from
18-06-2018 to 29-06-2018, the Workman performed
his duties and from 30-06-2018 he continuously
remained absent without intimation and/or
information. The Employer stated that the Workman
submitted his letter dated 16-07-2018 requesting
them to allow him to resume duty. The Employer
stated that however, they received information
about serious charges of offence have been levelled
against the Workman by the Superintendent of Civil
and Criminal Court, Vasco. The Employer stated
that since the said offence amounts to moral
turpitude, the Workman was asked to get a
clearance letter from the said authorities, so that
he can resume duty.
8. The Employer stated that they are in the field
of manufacturing ‘lifesaving drugs’ which are
certified by various overseas regularity authorities.
The Employer stated that any stigma on any
employee can totally prejudice not only their
reputation but also create non-compliance of this
regularity authorities, resulting financial impact on
business. The Employer stated that therefore, the
Workman was asked to get clearance letter from
the (State Authority) Superintendent of Civil and
Criminal Court, Vasco. The Employer stated that
surprisingly, instead of getting a clearance letter,
the Workman submitted a letter dated 29-08-2018
claiming reinstatement with full back wages and
continuity of service.
9. The Employer stated that on 30-08-2018, the
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh (GMS) made a
representation before the Labour Commissioner for
intervention in the matter of refusal of employment
to the Workman. The Employer stated that after
going through the said letter of GMS, it was
observed that the General Secretary of the union
had made some false and mischievous allegations
against them about refusal of employment to the
Workman. The Employer stated that after
discussions held before the ALC, they filed their
reply dated 18-01-2019 denying the allegations
made therein. The Employer stated that as there
was no possibility of any amicable settlement, the
failure of conciliation was recorded on 27-08-2019.
10. The Employer stated that by letter dated
31-08-2018, the Employer sought information under
RTI Act from the Vasco Police Station regarding FIR
No. 81/2018 filed by Mr. Arvind S. Redkar
(Superintendent of Civil and Criminal Court, Vasco)
against the Workman u/s. 465, 468, 471, 419 and 205
of IPC dated 30-06-2018. The Employer stated that
on 05-09-2018, they received the information sought
from the office of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Vasco.
The Employer stated that a criminal complaint was
filed against the Workman for cheating by
appearing before the Court as Mr. Martinho Jose
Xavier leading to impersonation, in criminal case
No. OA/182/NIA/2017/A (VPK Urban Co-op. Credit
Society Ltd. v/s. Martinho Jose Xavier). The
Employer stated that they therefore, issued a show
cause notice dated 25-10-2018 for the acts of
misconducts as per its Certified Standing Orders to
the Workman by registered post A/D and
subsequently considering the seriousness in the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
930
matter, a suspension order pending enquiry dated
27-10-2018 was issued to the Workman. The
Employer stated that the Workman filed his reply
to the show-cause notice on 05-11-2018 and since
the Employer having found the reply unsatisfactory,
issued a charge-sheet dated 30-01-2019 to the
Workman. The Employer stated that the enquiry
proceedings with respect to the said charge-sheet
was initiated on 30-01-2019 and is presently
pending. The Employer stated that since its
management has already initiated disciplinary
proceedings against the Workman for acts of
misconducts and the management has not refused
the employment to the Workman, as such, no case
of ‘industrial dispute’ is made out by the Workman.
The Employer denied the overall case as pleaded
by the Workman and submitted that the Workman
is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in his
claim statement and therefore, reference may please
be rejected.
11. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
dated 15-01-2021 at Exb. 6. The Workman, by way
of his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
12. Based on the pleadings, filed by the
respective parties hereinabove, this Hon’ble Court
framed the following issues on 29-01-2021 at Exb. 7.
1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that he
was refused employment by the Employer/
/Party II w.e.f. 16-07-2018?
2. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
the action of the Employer in refusing him
employment w.e.f. 16-07-2018, is illegal and
unjustified?
3. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the reference is bad-in-law in view of the
reasons stated in para (a) and (b) of its written
statement?
4. Whether the Workman is entitled to any
relief?
5. What order? What award?
13. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for evidence
of the Workman. The Workman also filed his affidavit
in evidence. The Hon’ble Court also recorded his
examination in chief and the case was fixed for
cross-examination by the Employer. It is at this stage,
Ld. Rep. Shri P. Gaonkar, representing the Workman
submitted that the Workman has been expired and
filed an application for bringing his legal heirs on
record. The said application filed by Ld. Rep.
Shri P. Gaonkar has been allowed.
14. On 12-08-2021, Ld. Rep. Shri P. Gaonkar
representing the deceased legal heirs of the
Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Mrs. N. Gaonkar
appearing for the Employer remained present and
orally submitted that the matter is likely to be
settled amicably between the parties and sought
time. Accordingly, on 19-10-2021, Ld. Rep. Shri P.
Gaonkar representing the deceased legal heirs of
the Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Mrs. N. Gaonkar
appearing for the Employer remained present. Both
the representatives submitted that they have
settled the matter amicably between the parties
hereinabove and prayed for disposing off the
reference as consent award. The parties produced
on record a copy of the terms of settlement duly
signed by both the parties along with their
respective representatives which is on record at
Exb. 22. The terms of settlement as settled between
the parties are reproduced herewith.
1. The management agrees to pay to the legal
heirs of Mr. Diago Lucas, Smt. Rosita Privia
Gama a sum of Rs. 9,55,000/- (Rupees nine
lakhs fifty five thousand only) in full and
final settlement of all his claims including
gratuity, by cheque No. 288718 dated
16-08-2021 drawn on HDFC Bank.
2. Accordingly, Smt. Rosita Privia Gama, the
legal heir of Mr. Diago Lucas, agrees to accept
the payment and not to pursue any dispute
raised individually or through any union
before any Tribunal, Court, Authority or
Forum and agrees that in the event of such
dispute being raised that the same shall be
treated as withdrawn/settled.
3. It is agreed between the parties that this
settlement shall be filed before the Labour
Court in LC-II/IT/16/2019 for a consent
Award/Order. The Management also agrees
to close the disciplinary proceedings/enquiry
initiated against Mr. Diago Lucas.
4. Smt. Rosita Privia Gama, the legal heir of Mr.
Diago Lucas, agrees to settle all the dues of
the Banks or other Financial Institutions or
any borrowings by the deceased Mr. Diago
Lucas and agrees to indemnify the Company
as against any claims of whatsoever nature
as against the above said amount paid to the
deceased.
5. It is agreed between the parties that on
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
931
payment of the said amount, the parties shall
have no claim of whatsoever nature against
each other and all the matters of late
Mr. Diago Lucas are conclusively settled.
I have carefully perused the said terms of
settlement at Exb. 22 signed by and between the
parties hereinabove. The said terms of settlement
are beneficial to both the parties. Hence, I consented
for the same. Since the dispute under reference is
settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute
under present reference does not survive.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that action of the management of
M/s. Indoco Remedies Limited, L-14, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa, in refusing
employment to Shri Diago Lucas, Operator,
with effect from 16-07-2018, is legal and
justified, does not survive.
2. The Workman, Shri Diago Lucas, Operator, is
not entitled to any relief.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
___
Order
No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/2582
Government of Goa is pleased to accept the
resignation tendered by Adv. Ankita Avdhut Kamat
as Additional Government Advocate before the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji with
effect from 30-11-2021.
Adv. Ankita A. Kamat shall return all the briefs
pending with her if any, to the Office of
Ld. Advocate General, Porvorim, Panaji under
intimation to this Department.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 23rd December, 2021.
Department of Panchayati Raj &
Community Development
Directorate of Panchayats
___
Notification
No. 17/22/DP-ACCTS/IIISFC/2021-22/8908
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (2) of Section 199 of the Goa Panchayat Raj
Act, 1994 (Goa Act 14 of 1994) and in supersession
of Government Notification No. 26/DP/III.S.F.C./
/2016/7858 dated 28th December, 2016 published in
the Official Gazette, Series II No. 40 dated
05-01-2017, the Government of Goa is pleased to
constitute afresh “The Third State Finance
Commission” consisting of the following members,
namely:-
Third State Finance Commission:
1 Shri D. A. Hawaldar
—
Chairman.
2. Shri Gurunath Potekar
—
Member.
3. Dr. Y. Durgaprasad,
—
Member.
Director of Planning,
Statistics & Evaluation
In addition to above, Director (Municipal
Administration), Director (Panchayats), Joint
Secretary/Additional Secretary (Finance) and
Director (Accounts) shall be invitees to the State
Finance Commission.
Dr. Y. Durgaprasad shall act as Member Secretary
of the Commission.
Term of Office of the Chairman and Members:
The Chairman and the Members shall initially
hold full time office for a period of one year and
submit its report before expiry of its term.
Conditions of service, salaries and allowances of
the Chairman and Members:
The salaries or fee or honorarium or other such
allowances shall be fixed by the Government in
consultation with the Finance Department.
Terms of Reference:
1. The State Finance Commission shall make
recommendation to the Governor as to:-
(a) the principles which should govern -
i. the distribution between the State and the
local bodies of the net proceeds of the
taxes, tolls and fees leviable by the State,
which may be divided between them
under this part and the allocation
between these bodies at all levels of their
respective shares of such proceeds;
ii. the determination of the taxes, duties, tolls
and fees which may be designed to, or
appropriated by the local bodies;
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
932
iii. the grants-in-aid to the local bodies from
the Consolidated Fund of the State;
(b) the measures needed to improve the
financial position of the local bodies; and
(c)
Any other matter referred to the Finance
Commission by the Governor in the interest
of sound finance of local bodies.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Siddhi Halarnkar, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Panchayats).
Panaji, 31st December, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
___
Order
No. 5/1/2021-PER/3266
Read:1) Order No. 6/16/2013-PER/Part dated
21-04-2021.
2) Order No. 6/16/2013-PER/Part/431 dated
06-02-2020.
In terms of Rule 28 of the Goa Civil Service Rules,
2016 and on the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/12/42(1)/2021/453 dated 14-12-2021, the
Governor of Goa is pleased to declare the following
Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service, to have
satisfactorily completed their period of probation in
Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service and confirmed in
the grade with effect from the date of their
completion of probation period as mentioned
against their names below:-
Sr.
Name of the
Date of completion
No.
probationer
of probation period
1. Shri Tushar Halarnkar
24-11-2021.
2. Shri Vishal Kundaikar
24-11-2021.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Meghana Shetgaonkar, Joint Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 20th December, 2021.
_______
Order
No. 13/12/2021-PER/3338
The Governor of Goa is pleased to grant extension
in service to Shri Raju Chotiyal, Driver, Goa Sadan,
New Delhi beyond the date of his superannuation
for a period of 01 year w.e.f. 01-03-2022 to 28-02-2023
or till the post is filled on regular basis whichever
is earlier in public interest.
This order is issued with the concurrence of
Finance Department vide U.O. No. 5560 dated
16-12-2021 and approval of the Cabinet in its LXth
meeting held on 22-12-2021.
The extension is further subject to termination
without assigning any reasons during the period of
extension.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 24th December, 2021.
_______
Order
No. 6/11/2020-PER/3382
Ref: 1)
Order No. 6/11/2010-PER(part)/2209A dated
03-09-2021.
2)
Order No. 6/11/2010-PER(part)/2417 dated
28-09-2021.
The following Senior Scale/Junior Scale Officers
of Goa Civil Service, stands relieved with immediate
effect to enable them to perform the time bound
election related work on full time basis, in the office
of Chief Electoral Officer till completion of entire
process of General Election to Goa State Legislative
Assembly, 2022:
Sr.
Name & designation
Link Officer
No.
of the Officer
1
2
3
1. Shri Brijesh D. Manerkar,
Shri Shankar B.
SLARO, Economic
Gaonkar, Director
Development Corporation
(Administration),
Limited with additional
Sports Authority
charge of Member
of Goa.
Secretary, Goa Football
Development Council.
2. Shri Tushar T. Halarnkar,
Shri H. B. Khedekar,
Deputy Director,
Deputy Director
Department of Higher
(Administration),
Education with additional
Forest
charge of Under Secretary,
Department.
Higher Education
The Officers in Column No. 2 shall continue to
draw their salary against the posts held by them
prior to their appointment as Nodal Officers vide
Orders read in the preamble.
The Link Officers shown in Column 3 shall hold
the additional charge of the post of the relieving
officers, during the ensuing Assembly Election, in
addition to their own duties.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 30th December, 2021.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
933
Order
No. 6/11/2019-PER/3385
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/42(1)/
/2020(Part file)/474 dated 30-12-2021, the Governor
of Goa is pleased to promote the following Junior
Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service to Senior Scale of
the Goa Civil Service (Group ‘A’ Gazetted), under
Rule 31 of Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, in Level 11
of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016, with immediate effect:-
1.
Smt. Maya Pednekar.
2.
Dr. Geeta Suresh Nagvenkar.
3.
Shri Clen Madeira.
4.
Shri Rohit Ashok Kadam.
5.
Shri Akshay Gurunath Potekar.
6.
Smt. Neha Amey Naik Panvelkar.
7.
Shri Kapil Chandrakant Phadte.
8.
Shri Kedar Ashok Naik.
9.
Shri Prasad Gurudas Volvoikar.
10.
Shri Deepesh Narayan Priolkar.
11.
Shri Ajay Ramchandra Gaude.
12.
Smt. Sangeeta S. Naik.
13.
Shri Pundalik V. Khorjuekar.
14.
Shri Sudin A. Natu.
15.
Shri Vishant S. Naik Gaunekar.
16.
Shri Shashank V. Thakur.
17.
Shri Tushar Halarnkar.
18.
Shri Manuel P. Barreto.
19.
Shri Shripad Arlekar.
20.
Shri Chandresh C. Kunkalkar.
21.
Shri Vishal C. Kundaikar.
The Officers shall exercise their option for
fixation of pay in promotional grade in terms of
F.R. 22(I)(a)(1), within a period of one month from the
date of issue of the order. The option once exercised
shall be final.
On promotion, the Officers shall continue to hold
the post presently held by them, until further orders.
The above promotions shall be subject to the
outcome of the Writ Petition No. 240/2021 filed in
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Anju S. Kerkar, Joint Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim, 30th December, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
___
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part/2109
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa
Public Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/
/11/16(1)/2017/471 dated 23-12-2021, the Govern-
ment is pleased to promote the following Assistant
Engineers (Elect.) to the post of Executive
Engineers (Elect.), Group ‘A’ Gazetted in the Pay
Matrix Level 11 on regular basis, with immediate
effect and posted at the places shown below against
their names, until further orders.
Sr.
Name of
Place of
No.
the Officer
posting on promotion
1. Shri Walter P.
O/o the Executive
Souza
Engineer (Training),
CEE’s office, Panaji.
2. Shri Jayant Y.
O/o the Executive
Prabhudessai
Engineer, Elect.,
Division XVI, Margao.
3. Shri Arun R. Patil
O/o the Executive
Engineer, Elect.,
Division I, Panaji.
4. Shri S.F. Sulebhavi
O/o the Executive
Engineer, Elect.,
Division IV, Margao.
2. The promotee Officers shall be on probation for
a period of two years. They should exercise an
option for fixation of pay under F.R-22(1) (a) (i) within
one month from the date of promotion.
3. This issues with the approval of the
Government vide Inward No. 3019 dated 28-12-2021.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuvir G. Keni, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex
officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 30th December, 2021.
_______
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part/2124
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa
Public Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/
/11/16(1)/2012/475 dated 30-12-2021, the Gover-
nment is pleased to promote the following
Executive Engineers(Elect.) to the post of
Superintending Engineers(Elect.), Group ‘A’
Gazetted in the Pay Matrix Level 12 on regular basis,
with immediate effect and posted at the places
shown below against their names, until further
orders.:
Sr.
Name of
Place of
No.
the Officer
posting on promotion
1. Shri Stephen Fernandes
O/o the Superinten-
-ding Engineer, Circle-
II (N), Panaji.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
934
1
2
3
2. Shri Mayur Padmanabh
Superintending
Hede
Engineer (Planning),
O/o the Chief
Electrical Engineer,
Panaji.
3. Shri Shailesh Kashinath
Superintending
Naik Burye
Engineer (Comm.)
O/o the Chief
Electrical Engineer,
Panaji.
2. They should exercise an option for fixation of
pay under F.R-22(1) (a) (i) within one month from the
date of promotion.
3. This issues with the approval of the
Government vide Inward No. 3034 dated 31-12-2021.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuvir G. Keni, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex
officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 31st December, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
___
Order
No. 22/2/2020-I/PHD/2918
Read: 1) Memorandum No. 22/2/2020-I/PHD dated
26-03-2021.
2) Order No. 22/2/2020-I/PHD/2453 dated
17-11-2021.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/I/5/24(2)/2020/785 dated 27-11-2020, Government
is pleased to appoint the following candidate at
Sr. No. 6 to the post of Tutor in Institute of Nursing
Education under Directorate of Health Services
(Group “B” Non-Gazetted) on temporary basis in
the level-6 of Pay Matrix of 7th Pay Commission (Pay
Band-3 Rs. 9,300-34,800+Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/-
(pre-revised) with immediate effect and as per the
terms and conditions contained in the
Memorandum cited above:-
6. Ekta Venkat Karkal.
Accordingly, the Sr. No. 6 appearing in the order
read at preamble shall be read as 7 so on.
The above candidate shall be on probation for a
period of two years.
The character & antecedents of the candidate
have been verified.
The above candidate has been declared medically
fit by the Medical Board.
The appointment is made against the vacancies
occurred due to creation of the posts vide Order
No. 22/5/2013-I/PHD dated 30-05-2016 and
subsequently revived vide order No. 22/7/2020-I/
/PHD635 dated 24-03-2021.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 24th December, 2021.
_______
Order
No. 22/2/2020-I/PHD/2922
Read: 1) Memorandum No. 22/2/2020-I/PHD dated
23-08-2021.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/I/5/24(2)/2020/124 dated 16-07-2021, Government
is pleased to appoint the following candidates to
the post of Tutor in Institute of Nursing Education
under Directorate of Health Services (Group “B”
Non-Gazetted) on temporary basis in the level-6 of
Pay Matrix of 7th Pay Commission (Pay Band-3
Rs. 9,300-34,800+Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- (pre-
revised) with immediate effect and as per the terms
and conditions contained in the Memorandum cited
above:-
1.
Joelita D’souza.
2.
Bertilla Scarlet D’silva.
The above candidates shall be on probation for a
period of two years.
The above candidates have been declared
medically fit by the Medical board.
The character & antecedents of the above
candidates have been verified by District Magistrate
of South Goa District, Margao-Goa.
The appointment are made against the vacancies
occurred due to creation of the posts vide Order
No. 22/5/2013-I/PHD dated 30-05-2016 and
subsequently revived vide order No. 22/7/2020-I/
/PHD635 dated 24-03-2021.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 24th December, 2021.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
935
Order
No. 21/1/99-I/PHD/2925
Government is pleased to accept the notice of
voluntary retirement dated 19-10-2021 tendered by
Dr. Lizette F. C. D’Souza, Public Health Dentist,
Primary Health Centre, Cansaulim under Directorate
of Health Services under Rule 48-A of CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972 and to relieve her from the post of Public
Health Dentist under Directorate of Health Services
with effect from 19-01-2022 (a.n.).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 27th December, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Social Welfare
Directorate of Social Welfare
___
Order
No. 13/46/2019/Admn/SWD/Part/4939
Read: No. 13/46/2019/ADMN/SWD/PART/3018
dated 28-09-2021.
On recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/44(1)/2019/192 dated 03-08-2021,
Government is pleased to appoint Smt. Pradnya
Naveen Desai to the post of Assistant Director
(Welfare of the Differently Abled), Group ‘B’
Gazetted, under Directorate of Social Welfare,
Government of Goa, in the Level-7 of Pay Matrix
[Pay Band-2 Rs. 9,300- 34,800+ Grade Pay Rs. 4,600/-
(pre-revised)].
Smt. Pradnya Naveen Desai shall be on probation
for a period of two years.
Smt. Pradnya Naveen Desai has been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board and that the
character & antecedents has been verified by the
District Magistrate, South Goa, Margao vide letter
dated 36/09/2021/MAG/245/Part VI/14064 dated
24-11-2021 and it is revealed that there is nothing
adverse reported against her.
The expenditure towards Pay and Allowances of
the Officer shall be debited to the Demand No. 57
under the Budget Head of Accounts “2235 — Social
Security and Welfare, 02—Social Welfare,
101—Welfare of Handicapped, 02—Strengthening
of the Department under Social Welfare Wing (Non-
Plan), 01—Salaries”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (SW).
Panaji, 16th December, 2021.
Order
No. 13/46/2019/Admn/SWD/Part/4938
Read: No. 13/46/2019/ADMN/SWD/PART/3017
dated 28-09-2021.
On recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/I/5/44(1)/2019/192 dated 03-08-2021, Government
is pleased to appoint Ms. Rashmi Narayan Rawal to
the post of Assistant Director (Welfare of the
Differently Abled), Group ‘B’ Gazetted, under
Directorate of Social Welfare, Government of Goa, in
the Level-7 of Pay Matrix [Pay Band-2 Rs. 9,300-
34,800+ Grade Pay Rs. 4,600/- (pre-revised)].
Ms. Rashmi Narayan Rawal shall be on probation
for a period of two years.
Ms. Rashmi Narayan Rawal has been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board and that the
character & antecedents has been verified by the
District Magistrate, South Goa, Margao vide letter
dated 36/09/2021/MAG/245/Part VII/M.O.60 dated
23-11-2021 and it is revealed that there is nothing
adverse reported against her.
The expenditure towards Pay and Allowances of
the Officer shall be debited to the Demand No. 57
under the Budget Head of Accounts “2235 —Social
Security and Welfare, 02—Social Welfare,
001—Directions & Administration, 01—Directorate
of Social Welfare (NP) 01— Salaries”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (SW).
Panaji, 16th December, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of Urban Development
(Municipal Administration)
___
Order
No. 27/1/84-DMA/Part/3537
Read: Order No. 13/7/2000/GAD(I) dated 30-08-
2001.
The Departmental Selection Committee (DSC)
and Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in
respect of Group ‘C’ posts in the Department of
Urban Development has been re-constituted as
follows in view of Order dated 24th November, 2021
published in the Official Gazette Series II No. 36
dated 2nd December, 2021 issued by the Department
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
06TH JANUARY, 2022
936
of Personnel, Secretariat-Porvorim:-
1)
Director of Urban Development
— Chairman.
2)
Additional Director of Urban Development
— Member.
3)
Deputy Director (Admn.) of Urban Development
— Member.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director (Urban Development).
Panaji, 23rd December, 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. 32
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—315/150–01/2022.