Panaji, 3rd March, 2022 (Phalguna 12, 1943)
SERIES II No. 49
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-2023
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,
Shree
Brahmeshwar
Vividha
Self
help
Group Co-op Society Ltd., Fanaswadi, Navelim,
Bicholim- Goa is registered under Code Symbol
No. RCSBZ2021220003.
Rajendra B. Naik Satardekar, Asstt. Registrar,
Bicholim Zone (Co-operative Societies).
Sankhali, 09th February, 2022.
Certificate of Registration
“Shree Brahmeshwar Vividha Self help
Group Co-op Society Ltd.”, Fanaswadi, Navelim,
Bicholim-Goa, has been registered on 09-02-2022 and
its
bears
registration
Code
Symbol
No. RCSBZ2021220003 and it is classified as
“General Society” under sub-classification
No. 12-(c)-others in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa
Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.
Rajendra B. Naik Satardekar, Asstt. Registrar,
Bicholim Zone (Co-operative Societies).
Sankhali, 09th February, 2022.
————
Notification
In exercise of the powers vested in me under
Section 8 of Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, The
Madhuban Quela Co-operative Housing Maintenance
Society Limited, The Madhuban Quela, Opp.
Venkatesh Leela Hotel, Quela, Ponda-Goa is registered
under Code Symbol No. RCSPZ2021-220006.
Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda Zone
(Co-operative Societies).
Ponda, 07th February, 2022.
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
1325
Certificate of Registration
“The
Madhuban
Quela
Co-operative
Housing Maintenance Society Limited”, The
Madhuban Quela, Opp. Venkatesh Leela Hotel, Quela,
Ponda-Goa, has been registered on 07-02-2022
and its bears registration Code Symbol
No. RCSPZ2021-220006, 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).
Ponda, 07th February, 2022.
————
Notification
In exercise of the powers vested in me under
Section 8 of Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,
Sayyadri Awaas Co-operative Housing Maintenance
Society Ltd., Near Navjivan Hospital, Haveli, Curti,
Ponda-Goa is registered under Code Symbol
No. RCSPZ2021220004.
Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda-Zone
(Co-operative Societies).
Ponda, 16th November, 2021.
Certificate of Registration
“Sayyadri Awaas Co-operative Housing
Maintenance Society Ltd.”, Near Navjivan Hospital,
Haveli, Curti, Ponda-Goa, has been registered on
16-11-2021 and its bears registration Code Symbol
No. RCSPZ2021220004 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).
Ponda, 16th November, 2022.
1326
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
Notification
In exercise of the powers vested in me under
Section 8 of Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,
Sumit Mount Building No. 1 Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., Bazar Mol, behind St. Marys High
School, Ponda-Goa is registered under Code Symbol
No. RCSPZ2021220005.
Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda-Zone
(Co-operative Societies).
Ponda, 14th December, 2021.
Certificate of Registration
Sumit Mount Building No.1 Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., Bazar Mol, behind St. Marys High
School, Ponda-Goa has been registered on
14-12-2021 and its bears registration Code Symbol
No. RCSPZ2021220005 and it is classified as
“Co-operative
Housing
Society”
under
sub-classification No. 7-(b)-Co-partnership Housing
Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative
Rules, 2003.
Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda-Zone
(Co-operative Societies).
Ponda, 14th December, 2021.
———uuu———
Department of General Administration
__
Notification
No. 26/1/88-GAD/651
Read: Notification No. 26/1/88-GAD/251 dated
29-4-2015.
Upon posting of Shri Sanjiv Gadkar, IAS, as
Director of Vigilance vide order No. 6/10/2017-PER/
/3073 dated 29-11-2021, the Government of Goa is
pleased to declare the post of Director of Vigilance
as Ex-Officio Special Secretary to Government with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shripad Arlekar, Under Secretary (GA).
Porvorim, 23rd February, 2022.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 28/05/2022-LAB/97
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s. Varda Enterprises, Margao
Industrial Estate, St. Jose de Areal, Margao, Goa
and it’s workmen, represented by the Goa Trade
and Commercial Workers’ Union, 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 (c) 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 Labour Court-II
of Goa at Panaji, Goa, constituted under Section 7(1)
of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Varda Enterprises, Margao Industrial
Estate, St. Jose de Areal, Margao, Goa in
terminating the services of workmen shown
in Annexure hereto upon closure of the
establishment, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 22nd February, 2022.
Annexure
Sr.
Name of the
Date of
No.
workmen
termination
1. Gokuldas O. Velip
01-02-2020.
2. Ramchandra A. Naik
01-02-2020.
3. Raksha R. Naik
01-02-2020.
4. Francisco Xavier Castanha
01-02-2020.
5. Martinho Fernandes
01-02-2020.
6. Ivon Dias
01-02-2020.
7. Andrew Gomes
01-02-2020.
8. Aleixana Fernandes
01-02-2020.
9. Sucorina Fernandes
01-02-2020.
10.
Severina Noronha
01-02-2020.
————
Notification
No. 28/2/2022-LAB/87
The following Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
1327
07-02-2022 in Ref. No. IT/87/2000 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 18th February, 2022.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Ms. Bela N. Naik, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Ref. No. IT/87/2000
Shri E. A. Dhumaskar (Technician),
Rep. by the President,
Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd.,
Employees Union (Goa),
P. O. Zuarinagar-Goa
…
Workman/Party I.
V/s
M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd.,
Jaikisan Bhavan,
Zuarinagar-Goa
…
Employer/Party II.
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. V.
Menezes along with Adv. Ms. S. Narvekar.
Employer/Party II represented by Learned Adv. G.
K. Sardessai along with Adv. Ms. S. Bangera.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 7th day of the month
of February of the year 2022)
By Order dated 24-11-2000, bearing No. IRM/CON/
/SG/(47)/2000/5888, the Government of Goa in
exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘The Act’),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s Zuari Industries Ltd., Jaikisan Bhavan,
Zuarinagar-Goa, in terminating the services of Shri E.
A. Dhumaskar, technician, with effect from
18-07-2000, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/87/2000 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim Statement at Exb. 2 and Party II
filed its Written Statement at Exhibit 4.
3. In short, the case of the Party I/Workman is that
the Zuari Agro Chemicals Employees Union, Goa is
herein referred to as “the Union” which is a Trade
Union registered under the Trade Union’s Act, 1926
and represents an overwhelming majority of the
workmen of M/s Zuari Industries Limited (Fertilizer
Division), with its Factory at Zuarinagar, Goa which
is a sole bargaining agent of the workmen of
M/s Zuari Industries Limited which is herein referred
to as the “the Company”. The Zuari Industries
Limited is a limited Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at
Jaikissan Bhavan, Zuarinagar, Goa and the present
dispute is in respect to one of its workmen namely;
Shri E. A. Dhumaskar, employed at the fertilizer
factory at Zuarinagar, Goa and the said Company is
one of the most reputed organization in the
manufacture of chemical fertilizers in the Country
having a large factory at Zuarinagar and its financial
position is very strong.
4. The Party I/Workman further states that the Party
II Company indulged in unfair labour practices
within the factory premises and has illegally
terminated the Party I member-workman of the Union.
The workman was orally directed to put in writing,
details with respect to certain happenings in shift III
and I on 19-05-2000 and 20-05-2000 with respect to
purported entry of acid into Stream III during
regeneration of Stream II as it was alleged that
during the said process on 19-05-2000 and 20-05-2000,
there were purported abnormalities. The workman
accordingly placed the details of the happenings in
his shift by letter dated 25-01-2000, however,
surprisingly by letter dated 24-05-2000 the workman
was issued a charge-sheet which was illegal based
on allegation that the workman while carrying out
the operation of regeneration of Stream II, while
injecting acid in Cation II, acid also entered into
Stream III causing contamination of polished water
and that the workman ignored the continuous
flashing on the computer screen which indicated that
there was an abnormality to be attended to and
thereby failed to take remedial action at the
appropriate time, as a result of which, the plant had
to be stopped leading to delay in recommencement
of production. The charges mentioned in the charge-
sheet did not concur with the facts set out in the
charge-sheet. The misconduct alleged, even if proved
would not be grave enough to warrant the
punishment of dismissal from service.
5. The Party I further claimed that the Party II vide
same letter dated 24-05-2000 also illegally suspended
his services without assigning any reason. The
charge-sheet dated 24-05-2000 informed the Party I
that the management has decided to initiate a
1328
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
Domestic enquiry into the said charges and the
enquiry has been fixed on 30-5-2000 at 10.00 a.m. and
called upon him to submit his explanation which
clearly shows premeditated intention on the part of
the management to dismiss him without affording
any hearing or proper enquiry. The workman replied
to the said charge-sheet denying the charges set out
therein and also sought time for submitting the
explanation which was denied to him by the
management and his request to permit him to be
represented by an advocate was also turned down
by the management and also requested that the
Domestic enquiry scheduled for 30-05-2000 be
rescheduled by further one week which request was
also denied. The workman also requested revocation
of his suspension order and the same was duly
denied. He also requested for the copies of the
documents that the management would rely upon
for the Domestic enquiry to be given to him in
advance so as to enable him to reply to the charge-
sheet and prepare his defence for the enquiry which
was never given to him along with the list of
witnesses of the management.
6. The Party I further claimed that the
representative of the workman, Shri Nicholas D’Mello
by letter dated 25-06-2000 informed the management
that Shri L. M. Chandrashekharan who had been
appointed as Enquiry Officer was an interested party
and that he should be replaced and the company
thus changed and appointed Shri V. K. Goyal,
Dy. General Manager as new Enquiry Officer and
rescheduled the enquiry for 01-06-2000. The Enquiry
Officer took on record the appointment letters
without furnishing the copies of the same to the
workman. The workman’s representative objected to
Shri V. N. Sahakari being appointed as management
representative being interested Party which
objection was denied by the Enquiry Officer. The
Management Representative (MR) gave his statement
after which the workman representative insisted on
cross examining the MR which request was denied
causing the workman prejudice in his defence and
thereafter several documents which were requested
to be produced by the workman were refused by the
Enquiry Officer and the management was directed
to lead the evidence through its witness, Shri R. G.
Prabhugaonkar. The workman through its
representative sought longer adjournment as three
days were not sufficient to prepare cross examination
which was denied to him. The charge-sheet,
suspension order or dismissal letter were not signed
by a person who was empowered to sign the same.
The management was in a hurry to complete the
enquiry and denied the workman an opportunity to
defend himself.
7. The representative of the workman was also
forced to cross-examine the witness, Shri R. G.
Prabhu. The evidence of Shri R. G. Prabhu indicates
that no fault would have been attributed to the
workman for any negligence or default in carrying
out his normal duties. The documents including the
log books showing recordings on 19-05-2000 was not
given to him. The safety buzzer which would alert
the workman about any malfunction or emergency
was not working at the relevant time and the
situation on that date was not normal and the
workload was more than usual. The computer was
showing erratic reading in the past and the alarm
which was not working was repaired after the
incident. The Enquiry Officer was in a hurry to
conduct the enquiry and was purposely not affording
the workman a reasonable opportunity to defend
himself during the enquiry. The workman was not
paid adequate subsistence allowance in accordance
with the Certified Standing Orders. The request for
furnishing several documents and details to place a
proper defence was denied and principles of natural
justice has not been followed. The workman states
that he had an unblemished past service of 22 years
with the company. He was illegally and unjustifiably
dismissed from the service of the company. The
termination of the workman is illegal, predetermined
by the management and was only a façade to
victimize him. The Union approached the office of
the Labour Commissioner to take the matter in
conciliation. The conciliation proceedings, however
ended in failure and the appropriate Government
vide order dated 24-11-2000 referred the dispute for
adjudication. Hence, the reference.
8. In the Written Statement, the Party II has stated
that the charge-sheet was issued to Party I workman
who was employed as a technician at its fertilizer
unit alleging that he injected acid in Cation II and
while carrying out operations, the acid also entered
into Stream III thus causing contamination of
polished water which was the result of failure on
the part of Party I workman to close the appropriate
valves at the time of injection of acid and check the
conductivity meters in the line of other Streams as
part of normal procedure adopted during
regeneration operation. The Party I workman ignored
continuous flashing on the computer screen which
indicated that there was an abnormality to be
attended to and that he failed to take remedial action
at the appropriate time and as a result of this
contamination, the Plant had to be stopped causing
huge financial loss to the company and damage to
the Plant and MKachinery. A charge-sheet was
issued and Shri V. K. Goyal was appointed as Enquiry
Officer and after conclusion of the enquiry, the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
1329
Enquiry Officer submitted a reasoned finding on
30-06-2000. The enquiry was conducted in
accordance with the principles of natural justice and
every conceivable opportunity was extended to Party I.
The Management on receipt of the enquiry
considered the said report and concurred with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer. The management also
considered the past record of the employee and did
not find any extenuating circumstances and
considering the gravity of the proved misconduct
decided to impose on Party I workman grave
punishment of dismissal. He was issued a show cause
notice as to why he should not be dismissed from
service along with the enquiry report. Party I
submitted his reply and the management after
perusing the said reply did not find the explanation
satisfactory and therefore, decided to dismiss him
from his service and accordingly was dismissed by
letter dated 18-07-2000. The termination by way of
dismissal of Party I workman was legal and justified
and therefore, reference deserves to be dismissed.
9. In the Rejoinder at Exhibit 5, the Party I denied
the case put forth by Party II in the Written Statement.
10. Based on the above mentioned pleadings, my
Learned Predecessor has framed the Issues at Exhibit 6
and the same are as follows:
I S S U E S
1. Whether the Party I/Union proves that the
domestic enquiry conducted against the
workman Shri E. A. Dhumaskar is not fair and
proper?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the workman Shri E. A. Dhumaskar
are proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal
by acceptable evidence?
3. Whether the Party I/Union proves that
termination of services of the workman Shri
E. A. Dhumaskar is by way of victimization
and unfair labour practice?
4. Whether the Party I/Union proves that action
of the Party II in terminating the services of
the workman Shri E. A. Dhumaskar w.e.f.
18-07-2000 is illegal and unjustified?
5. Whether the workman Shri E. A. Dhumaskar
is entitled to any relief?
11. It is matter of record that the issue Nos. 1 and 2
were ordered to be treated as preliminary issues and
in the course of evidence on the remaining issues,
the Party I/Shri E. A. Dhumaskar examined himself as
its first witness and brought on record copy of the
inquiry proceedings which is at Exh. E-1 Colly, copy
of the letter dated 25-05-2000 from Party II at Exh. W-1,
copy of the letter dated 25-05-2000 from the Workman
at Exh. W-2, Xerox copy of the letter dated 02-06-2000
at Exh. W-3, Xerox copy of the letter dated 05-06-2000
at Exh.W-4. During cross-examination a copy of letter
dated 25-05-2000 is taken on record and marked as
Exh. E-2.
12.The Party I examined its 2nd witness Shri
Shailesh S. Narvekar and through this witness
brought on record a copy of the letter dated
26-05-2000 at Exh. W-5, copy of the letter dated
01-06-2000 at Exh. W-6 and a copy of the letter dated
05-06-2000 at Exh.W-7. Later, this witness was
recalled and through him brought on record copies
of applications for leave dated 28-01-2005, 17-02-2005,
12-04-2005 and 23-11-2004 at Exh.19 Colly, copies of
applications for leave (3 in nos.) at Exh. 20 Colly,
copies of LTA form of employees at Exh. 21, copies of
medical reimbursement forms (4 in nos.) at Exh. 22
Colly, copy of the letters dated 23-06-2005,
18-11-2004, 09-06-2004, 12-04-2004, and 16-10-2004 at
Exh. 23 Colly, copy of nomination in form ‘A’ at
Exh. 24, copy of nomination form ‘F’ at Exh. 25, and
copies of applications dated 18-06-2003, 12-09-1985,
21-08-2000 and 07-01-1999 at Exh. 26 Colly and the
Party I closed his evidence.
13. On the other hand, the Party II examined Shri
Vijay Kumar Goyal and closed its evidence.
14. Heard arguments. Learned Advocate Shri V.
Menezes argued on behalf of Party I and Learned Adv.
Shri G. K. Sardessai argued on behalf of Party II. Both
the Parties have placed on record their written
submissions.
15. I have gone through the records of the case
and has duly considered the arguments advanced
and also the arguments placed on record and after
going through the same, I have given my reasons
and findings on the issues which are framed and the
same are as follows:
Issue No.1 and 2
….
Already decided in Part
Award.
Issue No. 3
….
In the Negative.
Issue No.4
….
In the Negative.
Issue No.5
….
As per the final Order.
REASONS
16. Issue No. 1 is answered in the negative by my
Learned Predecessor by virtue of passing the Part
Award dated 26-07-2018 by holding that the inquiry
conducted against the workman/Party I is fair and
proper. Issue No. 2 is answered in the affirmative by
holding that the charges of misconduct leveled
against the workman/Party I are proved to the
satisfaction of the Tribunal by acceptable evidence.
Hence, this Tribunal now has to decide only
Issue No. 3, 4, and 5.
1330
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
Issue No. 3:
17.The Party I Shri E. A. Dhumaskar filed his
Affidavit-in-Evidence and examined himself as first
witness and, Shri Sailesh Narvekar, the Secretary of
the Employees Union of M/s Zuari Agro Chemicals
Ltd. as the second witness after which the Party I
closed his case. On behalf of the Employer/Party II
they examined Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal (retired) who
was working as a Dy. General Manager with the Party II.
18. The Party I has mentioned in his Affidavit-in-
Evidence the detailed facts of his case and has also
produced various documents in support of his case
and I have perused all these documents in deciding
the instant case. That according to him, he is an
active member of the said Union and in the past he
had never received any charge-sheet, Memo or
Warning Letter for any act of misconduct alleged by
the Company since the time he joined his services on
19-07-1978 as a Trainee. He states that from Junior
Technician he was promoted as a Senior Technician
and he has worked without any adverse action
against him by the Management in 22 years of his
service till his illegal termination. He has also
mentioned in detail as to how the alleged incident
occurred and he states that he received the charge-
sheet dated 24-05-2001 which is at Exh. E-1 Colly at
page-4 and the charges made against him are false.
He has even mentioned the details of the enquiry
and the manner in which it was conducted and these
facts are not necessary to be discussed now as they
are already decided while deciding issue No.1.
19. It is his allegation that he was illegally and
unjustifiably dismissed from the services of the
Company by way of victimization. In order to decide
this issue, it becomes necessary to look into the
evidence of the Party I and the material documents
relating to this issue. But as far, as the plea of
victimization is concerned, the Party I has not led
proper and sufficient evidence and the nature of
alleged victimization carried out by the Party II. It is
a settled law that the plea of victimization or the
burden of proving this issue always lie on the Party
making such allegations. In the instant case, there
are no precise pleadings and vague suggestions are
not enough to prove the nature of victimization. My
Learned Predecessor has held that the charges of
misconduct leveled against the Party I have been
proved by the Party II and has also come to the
conclusion that Party I was responsible for
commission of the acts of misconduct and due to his
carelessness and negligence there was loss and
damage to the property of the Party II. The
Management conducted an inquiry into the charges
against the Party I and after the conclusion of the
inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a reasoned
finding dated 30-06-2000 holding the charged
workman guilty of the charges. On receipt of the
Inquiry Report, the Party II considered the said report
and concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer
considered the past record of the employee and did
not find any extenuating circumstances and
considering the gravity of proved misconduct and
the Party II decided to impose the grave punishment
of dismissal and the Party I was issued a show cause
notice as to why he should not be dismissed from
service and a copy of the inquiry report was furnished
to him along with the show cause notice. The Party I
submitted his reply dated 14-07-2000 and the Party II
after perusing the said reply did not find the
explanation to the show cause notice satisfactory
and therefore decided to dismiss the Party I from
service of Party II and accordingly the Party I was
dismissed from services by letter of dismissal dated
18-07-2000.
20. As regards to the charges of misconduct
leveled against the Party I under Clause 22 (XIII) and
Clause 22 (XVII) of the Certified Standing Orders of
the Party II Company is concerned, this Tribunal in
its part Award dated 26-07-2018 observed as follows:
“It is therefore evident that the system was not
faulty, instruments were not defective, video
flashing was visible in computer monitor and
conductivity details were visible, which shows that
the Party I is solely responsible for the
contamination due to his willful and irresponsible
act of ignoring the flashing alarms on computer
showing rise in conductivity.
Needless to mention, the Party I/Workman was on
duty at the water treatment Plant and that he had
done regeneration of Stream II, so also he was
conversant with the normal procedure to be
adopted for regeneration. There is also no dispute
that during regeneration of Stream II, acid had
entered into Stream II causing contamination of
polished water and dropping of pH of polished
water resulting in damage to the Plant and work
process. The Party I/Workman was in-charge of the
said section during the aforesaid period and
therefore was responsible for commission of the acts
of misconduct due to his carelessness and negligence
under the Certified Standing Orders of the
Company.
The evidence led by the Parties before the Inquiry
Officer and before the Court proves that the acid
injection valve which was in closed condition was
opened by Party I due to his carelessness and
subsequently ignored the flashing alarm on the
computer which showed rise in conductivity and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
1331
inspite of that failed to inform the superior. During
the domestic inquiry Shri S. D. Nadkarni has stated
that Shri Dhumaskar continued to remain in the
shift in place of Shri D. C. Lotlikar and if
Shri Lotlikar had taken charge of DM section, he
would have detected the problem in DM section by
going through computer page and would have
detected that Stream III had gone bad in the
beginning of the shift itself. Nor he informed the
shift manger and chose to continue in the same
section, without taking corrective action, which
was required thereby being guilty of gross neglect
of work and loss and damage to the property of the
Party II.
20. Learned Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai has placed
reliance on the following authority:
(1) Bharat Iron Works v/s Baghubhai Balubhai
Patel and others AIR 1976 SC 98–para 15
wherein it has been held that “7. Ordinarily a
person is victimized, if he is made a victim or a
scapegoat and is subjected to persecution,
prosecution or punishment for no real fault or guilt
of his own. If actual fault or guilt meriting
punishment is established, such action will be rid
of the taint of victimization.
Victimization may partake of various types, as
for example, pressurizing an employee to leave the
Union or Union activities, treating an employee in
a discriminatory manner or inflicting a grossly
monstrous punishment which no rational person
would impose upon an employee and the like.
Victimization is a serious charge by an employee
against an employer and, therefore, it must be
properly and adequately pleaded. The charge must
not be vague or indefinite. The fact that there is a
Union espousing the cause of the employees in
legitimate trade Union activity and an employee is
a member or active office-bearer thereof, is per se no
crucial instance.
The onus of establishing a plea of victimization
will be upon the person pleading it. Since a charge
of victimization is a serious matter reflecting to a
degree, upon the subjective attitude of the employer
evidenced by acts and conduct, these have to be
established by safe and sure evidence. Mere
allegations, vague suggestions and insinuations
are not enough. All particulars of the charge
brought out, if believed, must be weighed by the
Tribunal and a conclusion should be reached on
totality of the evidence produced.
Victimization must be directly connected with
the activities of the concerned employee inevitably
leading to the penal action without the necessary
proof of valid charge against him”.
21. I have perused the above authority in deciding
the instant case and the ratio applied in the above
authority gets attracted to the facts of the present
case and guided by the above authorities and in view
of the above reasons it is abundantly clear that the
Party I/Workman failed to prove that the Employer
followed unfair labour practice and so also failed to
prove the allegations of he being victimized which
led to his dismissal in services. Accordingly, issue
No. 3 is answered in the negative.
Issue No. 4
22. It is the contention of the Party I Union that the
action of the Party II in terminating the services of
the workman Shri E. A. Dhumaskar w.e.f. 18-07-2000
is illegal and unjustified and based on this allegation,
the present issue has been framed with a burden on
Party I to prove the same. In my considered opinion,
the major aspects and the facts relating to this issue
have already been discussed by my Learned
Predecessor while deciding issue No. 1 and 2 while
passing the Part Award but nevertheless, it is useful
and necessary to decide this issue in view of the
evidence led by both the Parties before this Tribunal
vis-à-vis their documents and also by taking into
consideration the contents of the domestic inquiry
conducted by the Inquiry Officer of the Management
has submitted the detailed findings dated 30-07-2000
holding the workman guilty of the charges.
23. The charges against the Workman in the
charge-sheet dated 24-05-2000 relates to the
incidence dated 19-05-2000 and 20-05-2000 which
took place between 21.30 hrs. and 8.30 the next
morning and the first charge specifically states that
the Workman failed to close the appropriate valves
at the time of injection of acid during the regeneration
operation. The workman who examined himself has
not led any evidence to prove that there was a system
failure and if one goes through his entire deposition
it only states that the manner in which the inquiry
was conducted and his grievance to that effect. There
is no supporting evidence to this effect.
24. The second charge against the workman is that
he failed to notice the flashing on the computer
screen which indicated abnormality which came to
the notice of the Asst. Manager at 4.30 a.m. From the
evidence of the Parties and by virtue of the Part Award
it is abundantly clear that the inquiry was conducted
in a fair manner by complying with all the principles
of natural justice and the Party I was given every
opportunity to defend himself and a fair hearing was
conducted and through this it stands established
that the Party I workman was on duty at the above
mentioned time at the Water Treatment Plant and he
was working in the morning shift in the Cooling
1332
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
Section. It has also come on record that the Party I
workman had made a mutual change in the shift with
his colleague who worked in the same Cooling
Section with the Party I. Therefore there is no doubt
that Mr. Dhumaskar was on duty from 16.00 hrs. of
19-05-2000 to 8.00 hrs. of 20-05-2000 and during this
period he worked in the DM Section of the Water
Treatment Plant. There is no evidence denying this
fact. It has also come on record through the evidence
of the Management Witness-2 that when he came
for duty at 16.00 hrs. on 19-05-2000 he found on the
Computer Monitor that all the three systems were in
line and Stream-II was nearing exhaust and the
Workman in his cross-examination has stated that
he completed the Stream-II regeneration at 4.30 hrs.
of 20-05-2000 approx. and took Stream-II online which
goes to show that the work of regeneration was
required to be done and had been done by the
Workman while he was on duty from 19-05-2000 to
20-05-2000.
25. It has also come on record that around 5.30 hrs.
of 20-05-2000 that, it was informed by the Shift
Manager of the Power Plant that there was a problem
in one of the Boilers and after noticing the problem it
was decided to stop the Boiler. The first witness of
the Management has clearly stated that when they
were making arrangements to start another Boiler, it
was informed by the Shift Manager of the Water
Treatment Plant, that the polished water pH had
dropped and after confirming from the Laboratory
results, that the pH of polished water was low, the
plant was stopped. The turbo generator was tripped
and all the Boilers stopped subsequently. He has also
stated that the pH level had become so slow that
they could not keep the Plant running as it could
cause further damage to the Plant. The
Management’s first witness has stated in his cross-
examination that low pH had caused damage to the
Boilers, turbines, pipings and the Plant was shut
down for almost ten days which led to heavy
production loss and according to him if this low pH
operation had continued for some days, this would
have caused a major accident in the Plant and would
have damaged the machinery more seriously. All this
goes to show that this happened on account of sheer
negligence on art of the workman who failed to follow
the normal proceedings which are necessary to be
carried out during regeneration. The Workman did
not lead any evidence to show that he had closed
the appropriate acid injection valves of other Streams
at the time of injection of the acid and he also ignored
the continuous flashing on the Computer screen
which indicated that there was abnormality which
had to be looked into. The Workman did not take
remedial action at the appropriate time nor he
checked the drop in the pH of polisher and polished
water.
26. Hence, it stands proved that the workman
Mr. Dhumaskar was on duty from 16.00 hrs. of
19-05-2000 to 8.00 hrs. of 20-05-2000 at the Water
Treatment Plant and he had done regeneration of
Stream-II. During the regeneration of Stream-II, acid
entered into Stream-III causing contamination of
polished water and dropping of pH of polished water
causing damage to the Plant and Machinery which
resulted to stoppage of work and of Plant for ten days
which in turn caused a financial loss and on account
of this negligent act of the Workman and as such he
is guilty of gross neglect of work under clauses
22(XIII) of the Certified Standing Orders. The
Workman is also responsible and guilty for causing
loss and damage to the property of the establishment
in view of Clause 22(XVII) of the Certified Standing
Orders. The evidence also shows that the Workman
had opened the valve out of sheer negligence and he
further committed gross neglect by ignoring the
flashing alarms on Computer which showed rise in
conductivity and further chose not to inform his
superiors and choosing to continue in the same
section proves that the Workman had not taken
proper precautions but was negligent and careless.
For this act of the Workman the Management
conducted a fair and proper domestic inquiry as per
the Standing Orders by following the principles of
natural justice and after the inquiry was conducted
and upon receipt of the report prepared by the
Inquiry Officer who gave reasoned findings dated
30-06-2000/Exh.E-1 Colly, the Management
considered the said report along with the findings of
the Inquiry Officer and a show cause notice was
issued to the Workman as to why he should not be
dismissed from services to which Mr. Dhumaskar, the
Workman submitted his reply dated 14-07-2000 and
the Management did not find any sound and
satisfactory explanation to the said show cause
notice and as such decided to dismiss him from the
services and accordingly he was dismissed by the
Letter of Dismissal dated 18-07-2000. Therefore, this
also goes to show that the action of the Party II in
terminating the services of the Workman/Shri E. A.
Dhumaskar w.e.f. 18-07-2000 is legal and justified.
Accordingly, issue No. 4 is answered in the negative.
The evidence of Shri Shailesh Narvekar, the second
witness of the Party I does not help the workman in
proving this issue anywhere.
27. The evidence led by the Management through
Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal again shows the manner in
which the inquiry was conducted. He was appointed
as an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges
leveled against the Party I. His findings dated
30-06-2000 are at Exh.E-1 Colly and according to him
they are the proceedings of the inquiry conducted
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
1333
by him along with his findings which are true and
correct records of the inquiry. He has stated in his
cross that the documents produced by the
Management in the course of the inquiry were
furnished to the Party I. He has also stated in cross
that he did not allow Party I to cross-examine the
Management Representative on the same date as he
wanted to give an opportunity to the Party I to go
through the entire evidence produced by the
Management and thereafter to cross-examine the
Management Representative on the said evidence.
He has also stated that he gave some time to the
Party I to inspect the Log Book.
Issue No. 5.
28. Issue No.5 needs to be answered in the
negative because the Party I has failed to prove that
the termination of services of the Workman Shri E. A.
Dhumaskar was illegal, unjustified, was by way of
victimizations and by following unfair labour
practice. The said Workman filed his Affidavit-in-
Evidence at Exh. 40 stating that he never in the past
received any charge-sheet, Memo or any Warning
letter for any act of misconduct as alleged by the
Company since the time he joined his services on
19-06-2978 as a “Trainee”. That according to him his
termination is illegal and according to him Shri R. G.
Prabhu, the Chief Manager (Utilities) is also equally
responsible for the failure in the system and the
Management has made discrimination against him
and has victimized him by terminating his services.
Further, according to him, the services of Shripad
Nadkarni were terminated after his order of
termination was issued and said Shripad Nadkarni
and one Officer Shri G. P. Konkar who had stood as a
witness in the inquiry conducted against him had
deposed against him and that both these persons
were forced to depose against him on false grounds
and under threat of action. But the workman/Party I
has not led any evidence to prove these allegations.
29. Further, according to the Party I/Workman as
per the Certified Standing Orders of the Company it
provides for lesser punishment such as suspension,
loss of increment and demotion, but in his case the
Management has taken a grave and a serious action
which is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct
as alleged by the Management and therefore he has
prayed to set aside the order of dismissal and reduce
the punishment given to him and by substituting
the same with a lesser punishment as prescribed
under the Certified Standing Orders. To this, I have
already discussed above that a fair and proper
domestic inquiry has been conducted by the
Management and the negligent act of the workman
happens to be serious in nature which caused a great
loss to the Company and also damaged the
machinery and merely because no such incident in
the past was not committed by the Workman does
not necessarily mean that he is entitled for an order
of setting aside his dismissal. The quantum of
punishment given to the Workman is certainly
proportionate to the negligent act committed by the
Workman who was solely responsible to the same.
The charges leveled against the Workman are all
serious in nature and he alone was responsible for
the said work and all the machinery was fully
automatic to which no proper attention was paid by
the Workman.
30. Learned Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai has placed
reliance on the authority reported in the following
cases:
(1) Hombe Gowda Educational Trust and Another
V/s State of Karnataka and Others, 2006 (1) SCC
430, the Apex Court has held that
“In several decisions of this Court, it has been
noticed that how discipline at the workplaces/
industrial undertaking received a setback. In view
of the change in economic policy of the country, it
may not now be proper to allow the employees to
break the discipline with impunity. Our Country is
governed by rule of law. All actions, therefore, must
be taken in accordance with law. Law declared by
this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution
of India, as noticed in the decisions, Supra noticed
categorically demonstrates that the Tribunal would
not normally interfere with the quantum of
punishment imposed by the employers unless an
appropriate case is made out therefore. The
Tribunal being inferior to that of this Court was
bound to follow the decisions of this Court which
are applicable to the fact of the present case in
question. The Tribunal can neither ignore the ration
laid down by this Court nor refuse to follow the
same”.
(2) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v/s N. B.
Narawade, 2005 I CLR 802 SC wherein it is held
that “it is well settled that the discretion which
can be exercised by the Tribunal under
Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act in
interfering with the quantum of punishment
awarded by the Management, where the workman
concerned is found guilty of misconduct, is
available only on the existence of certain factors,
like punishment being disproportionate to the
gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience
of the Court, or the existence of any mitigating
circumstances which require the reduction of
sentence or the past conduct of the workman and
in the absence of such factors existing, the Tribunal
1334
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the
power under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce
the punishment.”
(3) L&T Komatsu Ltd. v/s N. Udayakumar, 2008
I CLR 978 wherein it is held that “the jurisdiction
to interfere with the punishment when it is a
discharge or dismissal can be exercised by the
Court only when it is satisfied that the discharge
or dismissal is not justified or that it finds that the
punishment imposed is shockingly dis-
proportionate to the charges proved. Punishment
of termination can be said to be disproportionate,
if it would appear unconscionable and actuated
by malice. The jurisdiction vested with the Court
to interfere with the punishment is not to be
exercised capriciously or arbitrarily. It is also well
settled that when charges proved are grave vis-à-
vis the establishment, interference with the
punishment of dismissal is not justified. In short,
the jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment
should be exercised only when the punishment is
shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved
or that it is unconscionable and actuated by
malice”.
(4) Chairman & Managing Director, United
Commercial Bank and other V/s P. C. Kakkar
reported in 2003 LLR 436, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has held that “the court should not
interfere with the administrator’s decision unless
it was illogical or suffers from procedural
impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of
the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of
logic or moral standards, only where the Court
finds that a punishment is shockingly dis-
proportionate it must record reasons for coming
to such conclusion and mere expression that the
punishment is shockingly; disproportionate could
not meet the requirement of law. Further the
charges against the Respondent not being casual
in nature, but being serious, the High Court was
not justified interfering with the quantum of
punishment.
(5) Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. V/s M.
Chandrashekar Reddy and Others (2005) 2 SCC
481.
“That apart the reasons given by the Labour Court
to reduce the penalty are reasons which are not
sufficient for the purpose of reducing the sentence
by using its discretionary power. The fact that the
misconduct now alleged is the first misconduct
again is no ground to condone the misconduct. On
the facts of this case as recorded by the Labour
Court the loss of confidence is imminent…….”
31. Hence, guided by the above authorities and in
view of the above reasons, issue No. 5 is answered in
the negative and it is held that the Workman is not
entitled for any relief.
Accordingly, I pass the following Order:
O R D E R
1. The action of the Party II/M/s Zuari Industries
Ltd., Jaikisan Bhavan, Zuarinagar-Goa, in
terminating the services of Shri E. A. Dhumaskar,
Technician, with effect from 18-07-2000, is legal
and justified.
2. The Workman/Shri E. A. Dhumaskar is not
entitled for any reliefs as prayed.
3. No Order as to cost.
4. Inform the Government accordingly.
Dated: 07-02-2022.
Place: Panaji, Goa.
Sd/-
(Bela N. Naik),
Presiding Officer Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, North Goa
––
Notification
No. DSC/HOL/121/2021/05
Approved List of Holidays and Vacations for the Year 2022 for the District and Subordinate
Courts in the North Goa District
Sr. No.
Holidays
Date
Days of the week
01.
New Year Day
01-01-2022
Saturday.
02.
Republic Day (*)
26-01-2022
Wednesday.
03.
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Jayanti
19-02-2022
Saturday.
04.
Mahashivratri
01-03-2022
Tuesday.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
1335
1
2
3
4
05.
Holi
18-03-2022
Friday.
06.
Gudi Padava
02-04-2022
Saturday.
07.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti (*)/
14-04-2022
Thursday.
/Maundy Thursday
08.
Good Friday
15-04-2022
Friday.
09.
Ramzam-Id/Id-Ul-Fitr (**)
03-05-2022
Tuesday.
10.
Moharrum (**)
09-08-2022
Tuesday.
11.
Independence Day (*)
15-08-2022
Monday.
12.
Janmashtami
18-08-2022
Thursday.
13.
Hartalika
30-08-2022
Tuesday.
14.
Ganesh Chaturthi (First Day) (*)
31-08-2022
Wednesday.
15.
Ganesh Chaturthi (2nd Day)
01-09-2022
Thursday.
16.
Dussehra
05-10-2022
Wednesday.
17.
Diwali Holidays
24-10-2022 to
Monday to
29-10-2022
Saturday.
18.
Feast of St. Francis Xavier
03-12-2022
Saturday.
19.
Feast of Immaculate Conception
08-12-2022
Thursday.
20.
Goa Liberation Day (*)
19-12-2022
Monday.
No Days have been proposed as Holidays on Account of:-
(1)
May Day(*)
01-05-2022
Sunday.
(2)
Id-Ul-Zuha (Bakri Id) (**)
10-07-2022
Sunday.
(3)
Mahatma Gandhi Jayanti
02-10-2022
Sunday.
(4)
Id-e-Milad (**)
09-10-2022
Sunday.
(5)
Christmas Day (*)
25-12-2022
Sunday.
Summer Vacation
From: 09-05-2022 to 05-06-2022 (Both days inclusive).
Winter Vacation
From: 24-12-2022 to 31-12-2022 (Both days inclusive).
Note:
1)
Please note that the Hon’ble High Court has clarified that the notified holidays and vacations are likely to
be modified in near future as per the recommendations of Shetty Commission and directions issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition No. 1022/89 (All India Judges’ Association Vs. Union of India
and others).
2)
(*) The Holidays at Sr. Nos. 2, 7, 11, 14 and 20 are paid holidays for daily rated staff if they are in service
on the preceding and the succeeding working days and also at Sr. No. (1) and (5) of the list of
holidays that have not been proposed on account of Sunday.
3) (**) The holidays at Sr. Nos. 9 and 10 will be availed on the days, the Government of Goa declares
public holidays and also at Sr. Nos. (2 ) and (4) of the list of holidays that have not been proposed
on account of Sunday.
B. P. Deshpande., Principal District Judge & Sessions Judge, North Goa.
Panaji, 30th December, 2021.
—–––––—
No. DSC/MAR/HOL-69/2022/1297
List of Holidays and Vacations for the Year 2022 for the District and Subordinate Courts in
South Goa District
Sr. No.
Holidays
Date
Days of the week
01.
New Year Day
01-01-2022
Saturday.
02.
Republic Day
26-01-2022
Wednesday.
1336
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
1
2
3
4
03.
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Jayanti
19-02-2022
Saturday.
04.
Mahashivratri
01-03-2022
Tuesday.
05.
Holi
18-03-2022
Friday.
06.
Gudi Padwa
02-04-2022
Saturday.
07.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti/
14-04-2022
Thursday.
/Maundy Thursday
08.
Good Friday
15-04-2022
Friday.
09.
Ramzam-Id/Id-Ul-Fitr
03-05-2022
Tuesday.
10.
Moharrum
09-08-2022
Tuesday.
11.
Independence Day
15-08-2022
Monday.
12.
Janmashtami
18-08-2022
Thursday.
13.
Hartalika
30-08-2022
Tuesday.
14.
Ganesh Chaturthi (First Day)
31-08-2022
Wednesday.
15.
Ganesh Chaturthi (Second Day)
01-09-2022
Thursday.
16.
Dussehra
05-10-2022
Wednesday.
17.
Diwali Holidays
24-10-2022 to
Monday to
29-10-2022
Saturday.
18.
Feast of St. Francis Xavier
03-12-2022
Saturday.
19.
Feast of Immaculate Conception
08-12-2022
Thursday.
20.
Goa Liberation Day
19-12-2022
Monday.
No Days have been proposed as Holidays on Account of:-
(1)
May Day
01-05-2022
Sunday.
(2)
Id-Ul-Zuha (Bakri Id)
10-07-2022
Sunday.
(3)
Gandhi Jayanti
02-10-2022
Sunday.
(4)
Id-e-Milad
09-10-2022
Sunday.
(5)
Christmas Eve
24-12-2022
4th Saturday.
(6)
Christmas Day
25-12-2022
Sunday.
Summer Vacation
From: 09-05-2022 to 05-06-2022 (Both days inclusive).
Winter Vacation
From: 24-12-2022 to 31-12-2022 (Both days inclusive).
Sd/- Irshad Agha, Principal District & Sessions Judge, South Goa.
Margao, 10th February, 2022
————.
Notification
No. 6-28-92/LD(Misc-I)(Estt)/Misc-I/171
Read: Government Notification No. 6-28-92/
/LD(Misc-I) Part-I/1762 dated 18-12-2022.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c)
of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 (Central Act 39 of 1987)
(hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), read with
sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Goa State Legal Services
Authority Rules, 1996, the Government of Goa, in
consultation with the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the
High Court of Bombay, hereby nominates the
following persons as non-official members of the
State Legal Services Authority, with immediate
effect.
1. Adv. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate,
Panaji-Goa.
2. Adv. Shri Shailendra Bhobe, Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Bombay at Goa.
3. Adv. Shri A. Clovis Da Costa, Advocate, 1st
Floor, Commerce House Building, Next to
Canara Bank, Margao, Goa.
4. Adv. Shri Jatin Ramaiya, 340, Gera’s Imperium
Star, Patto, Panaji-Goa.
5. Prof. Saba D’Silva, Principal, Kare College of
Law, Margao, Goa.
6. Mr. V. B. Prabhu Verlekar, CA, Govinda
Building, M.G. Road, Panaji-Goa.
7. Dr. Amita Quenim, icebreaQers, 18, First Floor,
Landscape Shire, Caranzalem, Goa.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
1337
8. Mr. Avelino Nicolau De Sa, La Cadita, 482
Miramar, Panaji-Goa.
The above members shall be entitled to
travelling and daily allowance as prescribed under
sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Goa State Legal Services
Authority Rules, 1996.
The other terms and conditions will be governed
as per the Goa State Legal Services Authority Rules,
1996.
This issues in supersession of the earlier
Government Notification No. 6-28-92/LD(Misc-I)/
/Part-I/1762 dated 18-12-2012.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 16th February, 2022.
—–––––—
Notification
No. 11/2/2019-LD/(Estt.)/215
On the recommendation of the Chief Justice,
High Court of Bombay at Mumbai and Patron-in-
-Chief, Goa State Legal Service Authority, conveyed
vide letter No. A.1201/G/2022/302 dated 16th
February, 2022, the Government of Goa is pleased
to appoint Ms. Vijaya V. Ambre, President, Children’s
Court, Panaji for the State of Goa as full time Member
Secretary of Goa State Legal Service Authority,
Penha-De-Franca,
Porvorim,
Goa,
under
Section 6 (3) of the Goa Legal Service Authority,
1987 to exercise the power and perform the function
conferred on or assigned by the Executive Chairman
of the said Authority.
The expenditure on the salary and other
allowances shall be debited on the Budget Head
“2235–Social Security and Welfare, 60–Other Social
Security and Welfare Programmes, 200–Other
Programmes, 02–State Legal Service Authority
(Non-Plan), 01–Salaries” under Demand No. 62.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 1st March, 2022.
—–––––—
Notification
No. 12/18/2020-LD (Estt.)/216
The following Notification No. A-1201/G/2022/
/303 dated 16-02-2022 which has been issued by
the High Court of Judicature Appellate Side,
Bombay, is hereby published for general information
of the public.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 1st March, 2022.
–––––––
Notification by the High Court of Judicature
Appellate Side, Bombay
No. A-1201/G/2022/303
Read: 1. Government of Goa Notification No. 12/
/12/2019-LD (Estt.)/329 dated 12-02-2020.
2. Government of Goa Order No. 12/18/
/2020-LD(Estt.)/549 dated 05-03-2021.
The High Court has been pleased to transfer and
post Ms. Durga V. Madkaikar, District Judge-3 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Margao as Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Special Court, Panaji, Goa for
expeditious trial and disposal of rape cases and
cases of offences under the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (Central
Act No. 32 of 2012), with jurisdiction over whole of
State of Goa.
High Court, Bombay
M. W. Chandwani,
Dated: 16th February, 2022.
Registrar General.
—–––––—
Notification
No. 12/14/2014-LD(Estt)/217
On the recommendation of the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay, vide letter No. A.1218/2022/301
dated 16-02-2022, the Government of Goa is pleased
to appoint Ms. Sayonara T. Laad, Member Secretary,
Goa State Legal Services Authority, Penha-de-
-Franca, Porvorim, Goa, as the President, Children’s
Court, Panaji, for the State of Goa, with immediate
effect.
The expenditure towards her salary and other
benefits shall be debited to the Budget Head of
Women & Child Development under Demand
No. 58.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt).
Porvorim, 1st March, 2022.
1338
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 5/4/2022-PER/433
Consequent upon the marriage of Ms. Ashwini
Abhay Gauns Desai, Junior Scale Officer of Goa
Civil Service with Shri Vidwal Mohan Bhagat,
r/o Bhagatwada, Canacona, registered in the Office
of the Civil Registrar, Canacona under Certificate of
Marriage No. 298/2018, her name “Ashwini Abhay
Gauns Desai” stands changed to “Ashwini Vidwal
Bhagat”.
And her residential address stands changed from
“Bldg-F-1/3, Silvergate Estate, Nr. Forest
Department, Aquem” to “H. No. 218, Bhagatwada,
Canacona, 403702”.
Henceforth, her name and residential address in
all official records/purpose shall be as per above
changes.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 28th February, 2022.
Order
No. 7/23/2016-PER/438
Read: 1. O.M.No. 6/8/2022-EO(MM-I) dated
11-02-2022.
The Governor of Goa is pleased to relieve
Shri J. Ashok Kumar, IAS (AGMUT:2008) Secretary
to Chief Minister from the State Administration with
effect from 28-02-2022 (a.n.) to join his new posting
as Director in the Department of Personnel &
Training, Delhi, under the Central Staffing Scheme.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 28th February, 2022.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 23/20/2014-I/PHD(Part) IV/294
Read: Order No. 23/20/2014-I/PHD(Part)/63 dated 08-01-2022.
The Government Order dated 08-01-2022 read in preamble stands withdrawn.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 22nd February, 2022.
_______
Order
No. 7/1/2001-I/PHD/Part-II/296
On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/54(2)/2021/505 dated 31-01-2022, the Government is pleased to declare satisfactory completion of
probation period as well as Confirmation of the following Officer under the Directorate of Food & Drugs
Administration, Bambolim, in the post shown against her name with effect from the date of completion
of the probation period, as under:-
Sr.
Name of
Date of joining in
Date of completion
Confirmed in the
No.
the Officer
regular service as
of probation period
post of
Technical Officer
1. Kum. Sulaksha
09-06-2016
08-06-2018
Technical Officer
Bhagwant Mardolkar
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 24th February, 2022.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 49
3RD MARCH, 2022
1339
Department of Urban Development
Directorate of Municipal Administration/ Urban Development
__
Notification
No. 10/671/2015-DMA/4698
The Government has constituted a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in the name and style of Imagine Panaji
Smart City Development Limited (IPSCDL) for operationalizing the Smart City Projects with Board of
Directors (BoD) vide Notification No. 10/671/2015-DMA/658 dated 9th June, 2016, Notification No. 10/671/
/2015–DMA/2170 dated 26th October, 2017, Notification No. 10/671/2015–DMA/3683 dated
08th March, 2019, Notification No. 10/671/2015–DMA/4858 dated 14th October, 2020, Notification No. 10/
/671/2015–DMA/4830 dated 14th January, 2021, Notification No. 10/671/2015–DMA/5282 dated
16th February, 2021, Notification No. 10/671/2015–DMA/170 dated 19th April, 2021. The Government of Goa
hereby re-constitutes the Board of IPSCDL with, Ex Officio members as per designation given in Column
(2) in Table A below and, Non Ex Officio members as given in Table B below:
Table A
Sr. No.
Designation
Name
IPSCDL Board Designation
1
2
3
4
1. Chief Secretary & Secretary (Finance), Shri Puneet Kumar Goel, IAS
Chairman.
Government of Goa
2. Secretary (Urban Development),
Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS
Director.
Government of Goa
3. Collector, North Goa
Shri Ajit Roy, IAS
Director.
4. Director/Addl. Secretary (Urban
Shri Gurudas P. Pilarnekar
Director.
Development), Government of Goa
5. Commissioner, Corporation of
Shri Agnelo A. J. Fernandes
Director.
the City of Panaji
6. Principal Chief Engineer, PWD,
Shri Uttam Parsekar
Director.
Government of Goa
Table B
Sr. No
Name
IPSCDL Board Designation
1
2
3
1. Shri Ravi Dhawan, IAS
Managing Director & CEO, IPSCDL.
2. Shri Deepak Kochar, US (Finance), Ministry of Housing &
Director.
Urban Affairs, Government of India
3. Shri Antanasio Monserrate, MLA, Panaji Constituency
Director.
4. Shri Rohit Joe Monserrate, Mayor, Corporation of the City of Panaji
Director.
The Department of Urban Development/Directorate of Municipal Administration will issue notifications
reconstituting the board in respect of Ex Officio Members of the Board as and when there is a change of
the incumbents holding the posts and for the other members as per Government order from time to time.
This is issued in supersession of all earlier Notifications issued in this regard.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Municipal Administration/Urban
Development).
Panaji, 24th February, 2022.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 15.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—386/150—3/2022.