Panaji, 30th June, 2022 (Asadha 09, 1944)
SERIES II No. 13
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 Registrar of Co-operative Societies
–––
Order
No. 3/11/2020/Urban/TS-II/SZ/RCs/874
Read:
1. Order No. 48-8-2001-TS-RCS/III/311 dated
21-4-2017.
2. Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TS II/
/PZ/2017/RCS/Suppl/5306 dated
10-02-2020.
3. Order No. 3/11/2020/Urban/TS II/RCs/
/2556 dated 26th October, 2020.
4. Letter No. CUCCS/Extension/2010/2021-
-2022 dated 13-12-2021.
5. Letter No. Cuccs/Extension/2010/2021-
-2022 dated 30-5-2022.
In exercise of powers conferred upon me under
Section 86 (1) & 123 B of the Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001, I, Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Panaji-Goa, hereby extend the term of Adv.
Ulhas Parwar, Savitri Apartment, Chaudi, Canacona-
Goa, as Registrars Nominee of the Cuncolim Urban
Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa
appointed vide order referred at Sr. No. 3 above for
further period of one year with retrospectives effect
from 26-10-2021 to adjudicate the dispute referred
to him by the society.
The other terms and condition mentioned in the
order referred to at Sr. No. 3 above shall continue to
remain in force.
The Registrar shall reserve the right to withdraw
the order at any stage without assigning any reason
thereof.
Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar (Co-operative
Societies).
Panaji, 20th June, 2022.
———uuu———
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Technical Education
College Section
–––
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/849
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated
27-04-2021 and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, 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 Professor of Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda.
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Date of CAS
1.
Shri Devendra G. Sutar
Assistant Professor in Electronics and
25-06-2017.
Telecommunication Engineering
The regular services w.e.f. 25-06-2012 to 12-11-2014 as Assistant Professor in Electronics and
Telecommunication Engineering at Don Bosco College of Engineering rendered by Shri Devendra G. Sutar,
1499
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
1500
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
are counted for purpose of Career Advancement as per recommendations of AICTE, New Delhi issued vide
letter No. F.47-3791-AICTE/5783 dated 10-09-1993 and Government of Goa, Directorate of Technical Education
Circular No. 17/9/18/AICTE/2000/DTE/1740 dated 12-10-2006 (Sr. No. 11-Counting of past services).
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
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 Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/850
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/VoI.VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated
27-04-2021 and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, 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 Professor of Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda.
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Date of CAS
1.
Ms. Kavita Sanjay Asnani
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
30-12-2014.
The regular services w.e.f. 03-07-2000 to 29-12-2014 as Lecturer and Assistant Professor in Computer
Engineering at Padre Conceicao College of Engineering, rendered by Ms. Kavita Sanjay Asnani are
counted for purpose of Career Advancement as per recommendations of AICTE, New Delhi issued vide
letter No. F.47-3791-AICTE/5783 dated 10-09-1993 and Government of Goa, Directorate of Technical Education
Circular No. 17/9/18/AICTE/2000/DTE/1740 dated 12-10-2006 (Sr. No.11-Counting of past services).
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
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 Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
—–––––—
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/851
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/I94 dated
27-04-2021 and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, 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 Professor of Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda.
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Date of CAS
1.
Shri Amit Pundalik Patil
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
16-09-2016.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1501
The regular services w.e.f. 16-09-2011 to 27-11-2014 as Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering at
Don Bosco College of Engineering, rendered by Shri Amit Pundalik Patil, are counted for purpose of Career
Advancement as per recommendations of AICTE, New Delhi issued vide letter No. F.47-3791-AICTE/5783
dated 10-09-1993 and Government of Goa, Directorate of Technical Education Circular No. 17/9/18/AICTE/
/2000/DTE/1740 dated 12-10-2006 (Sr. No. 11-Counting of past services).
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
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 Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/852
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/I94 dated
27-04-2021 and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, 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 Professor of Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda.
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Date of CAS
1.
Mrs. Soniya Shakil
Assistant Professor in Information Technology
02-06-2015.
Usgaonkar
The regular services w.e.f. 02-06-2010 to 23-10-2014 as Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
at Padre Conceicao College of Engineering rendered by Mrs. Soniya Shakil Usgaonkar are counted for
purpose of Career Advancement as per recommendations of AICTE, New Delhi issued vide letter No.
F. 47-3791-AICTE/5783 dated 10-09-1993 and Government of Goa, Directorate of Technical Education
Circular No. 17/9/18/AICTE/2000/DTE/1740 dated 12-10-2006 (Sr. No. 11-Counting of past services).
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
The above employee may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of the
order for fixing her pay.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
—–––––—
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/853
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated
27-04-2021 and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, 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 Professor of Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda.
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Date of CAS
1.
Ms. Nadine Amalia Dias
Assistant Professor in Information Technology
21-10-2014.
1502
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
The regular services w.e.f. 27-07-2007 to 31-12-2009 as Lecturer in Information Technology and
01-01-2010 to 20-10-2014 as Assistant Professor in Information Technology at Padre Conceicao College of
Engineering rendered by Ms. Nadine Amalia Dias are counted for purpose of Career Advancement as per
recommendations of AICTE, New Delhi issued vide letter No. F. 47-3791-AICTE/5783 dated 10-09-1993 and
Government of Goa, Directorate of Technical Education Circular No. 17/9/18/AICTE/
/2000/DTE/1740 dated 12-10-2006 (Sr. No.11-Counting of past services).
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
The above employee may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of the
order for fixing her pay.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/854
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated
27-04-2021 and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, 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 Professor of Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda.
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Date of CAS
1.
Ms. Palhavi P. Kerkar
Assistant Professor in Electronics &
01-06-2018.
Telecommunication Engineering
The regular services w.e.f. 01-06-2013 to 03-11-2014 as Assistant Professor in Electronics &
Telecommunication Engineering at Shree Rayeshwar Institute of Engineering and Information Technology
rendered by Ms. Palhavi P. Kerkar are counted for purpose of Career Advancement as per recommendations
of AICTE, New Delhi issued vide letter No. F.47-3791-AICTE/5783 dated 10-09-1993 and Government of Goa,
Directorate of Technical Education Circular No. 17/9/18/AICTE/2000/DTE/1740 dated 12-10-2006
(Sr. No. 11-Counting of past services).
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
The above employee may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of the
order for fixing her pay.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/855
Read: Order No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/3144 dated 21-12-2021.
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated 27-04-2021
and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, approval of the Government is hereby
conveyed to revise the date of grant of Pay Level-14 (Pre-revised Academic Grade pay of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1503
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 Pharmacy, Panaji, Goa.
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Revised date of CAS
1.
Shri Anand A. Mahajan
Associate Professor in Pharmaceutical
18-09-2015.
Analysis
The regular services w.e.f. 18-09-2012 to 21-07-2014 as Associate Professor at Sinhgad Institute of
Pharmacy, Pune, Maharashtra, rendered by Shri Anand A. Mahajan, are counted for purpose of Career
Advancement as per recommendations of AICTE, New Delhi issued vide letter No. F. 47-3791-AICTE/5783
dated 10-09-1993 and Government of Goa, Directorate of Technical Education Circular No. 17/9/18/AICTE/
/2000/DTE/I740 dated 12-10-2006 (Sr. No. 11-Counting of past services).
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
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 Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
———
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/856
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated 27-04-2021
and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, approval of the Government is hereby
conveyed to grant pay level-11 (Pre-revised Academic Grade pay of Rs. 7,000/- in the Pay Scale of Rs. 15,600-
-39,100) to the following Assistant Professor of Goa College of Pharmacy, Panaji, Goa.
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Date of CAS
1.
Shri Raveendra L. Hullolikar
Assistant Professor in Pharmaceutical
01-07-2015.
Chemistry
The regular services w.e.f. 01-07-2010 to 07-07-2014 as Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Chemistry at P. E. S’s
Rajaram and Tarabai Bandekar College of Pharmacy, Ponda-Goa rendered by Shri Raveendra L. Hullolikar,
are counted for purpose of Career Advancement as per recommendations of AICTE, New Delhi issued vide
letter No. F.47-3791-AICTE/5783 dated 10-09-1993 and Government of Goa, Directorate of Technical Education
Circular No. 17/9/18/AICTE/2000/DTE/1740 dated 12-10-2006 (Sr. No. 11-Counting of past services).
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
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 Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
1504
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/857
Read: Order No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/3145 dated 21-12-2021.
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated
27-04-2021 and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, approval of the Government
is hereby conveyed to revise the date of grant of Pay Level-11 (Pre-revised Academic Grade pay of Rs. 7,000/- in
the Pay Scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100) to the following Assistant Professor of Goa College of Pharmacy, Panaji, Goa.
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Revised date of CAS
1.
Asmita S. Arondekar
Assistant Professor in Pharmacology
13-09-2016.
@ Korgaonkar
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective posts, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
The above employee may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of the
order for fixing her pay.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
———
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/858
Read: Order No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/3142 dated 21-12-2021.
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, order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol. VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated 27-04-2021
and order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019, approval of the Government is hereby
conveyed to revise the date of grant of 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
Designation
Revised date of CAS
1.
Mahesh Dhawalikar
Associate Professor in Mechanical
11-03-2017.
Engineering
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective post, the above faculty
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
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 Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1505
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/859
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, order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated 27-09-2019
and order 17/2/58/2010/Vol. VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated 27-04-2021, approval of the Government is hereby
conveyed to grant 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
Designation
Date of CAS
1.
Ameeta G. Sinai Amonkar
Associate Professor in Electronics &
11-04-2011.
Telecommunication Engineering
With the placement of the faculty to the higher Academic Grade Pay, the respective posts, the above
faculty is currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing
faculty to the higher Academic Grade pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, Pay scale
and academic grade once the faculty cease to occupy the upgraded post.
The above employee may exercise an option if so desire within one month from the date of issue of the
order for fixing her pay.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
—–––––—
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/860
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, order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated
27-09-2019, and order No. 17/2/58/2010/VoI.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
Designation
Date of CAS
1.
Nilesh B. Fal Dessai
Associate Professor in Information Technology
27-07-2018.
With the placement of the faculty to the higher level of Pay, the respective post, the above faculty is
currently holding stands temporarily upgraded for the sole purpose of placement of the existing faculty
to the higher level of Pay. This post shall stand reverted to the original post, level of Pay, once the faculty
cease to occupy the upgraded post.
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 Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
—–––––—
Order
No. 16/289/CAS/Degree/DTE/2012/861
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
1506
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
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, order No. DTE/Estt/I-9-II/Pay Fixation/2009/782 dated
27-09-2019 and order No. 17/2/58/2010/Vol.VI/DTE/Part-III/194 dated 27-04-2021, approval of the Government
is hereby conveyed for grant of three non-compounded increments on completion of Ph. D degree while
in service to the following Assistant Professor of Goa College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda-Goa,
w.e.f. from the date mentioned against the name in column 4 of the table below:
Sr. No.
Name
Designation
Date of effect
1. Gajanan S. Gawde
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
29-06-2018.
2. Kavita S. Asnani
Assistant Professor in Computer Engineering
10-12-2018.
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 Additional Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
———uuu———
Goa Medical Council
–––
Notice
No. GMC/Election/2022/321
Election to Goa Medical Council
In the election held on 22-06-2022 for electing five members to the Goa Medical Council under Clause
(e) of sub-section 3 of Section 3 of Goa Medical Council Act, 1991, the counting of which was held on
24-06-2022 and 25-06-2022, the following five members have been declared elected in the order of the
largest number of votes polled by them.
Sr. No. in order of the
Name of the Candidate
Total votes polled
largest votes polled
01
Dr. Sawant Vishal Vishnu
845.
02
Dr. Rataboli Padmanabh Vaman
781.
03
Dr. Kamat Shaileshkumar Govind
750.
04
Dr. Patil Rajesh Tukaram
697.
05
Dr. Buvaji Vinayak Gundunath
675.
Dated: 25-06-2022
Sd/-
Place: Bambolim-Goa
(Gajanan Anand Keni),
Returning Officer
Election to Goa Medical Council.
V. No. AP-297/2022.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/02/2022-LAB/Part-I/225
The following award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
21-04-2022 in Ref. No. IT/72/2004 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, 05th May, 2022.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1507
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AND LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Ms. Bela N. Naik, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Ref. No. IT/72/2004
Workmen represented by
General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
Shetye Sankul, 3rd floor,
Tisk, Ponda-Goa.
…
Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s Glenmark Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. L-82/83, Phase-II,
Industrial Estate,
Verna–Goa.
…
Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Learned Advocate
Shri S. P. Gaonkar along with Advocate Ms. Eruskha
Dias.
Employer/Party II represented by Learned Advocate
Shri M. S. Bandodkar.
A W A R D
(Delivered on this the 21st day of the Month
of April of the Year 2022)
By Order dated 04-12-2004, bearing No. 28/10/
/2004-LAB/1072, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) 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.
“(1) Whether the following demands raised by the
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh before the management of
M/s Glenmark Laboratories Private Limited, are justi-
fied?
DEMAND NO. 1: PAY SCALES:
It is demanded that the pay scales be upgraded in
proper scales and workers be classified and fitted in
the below grades.
1. 1750-60-2050-70-2400-80-2800-90-3250-95-3725-
-100-4225-105-4750.
2. 1850-65-2175-75-2550-85-2975-95-3450-100-3950-
-105-4475-110-5025.
3. 1950-70-2300-80-2700-90-3150-100-3650-110-4200-
-115-4775-120-5375.
4. 2050-75-2425-85-2850-95-3325-105-3850-115-4425-
-120-5025-125-5650.
5. 2150-80-2550-90-3000-100-3500-110-4050-120-
-4650-125-5275-130-5925.
DEMAND No. 2: FLAT RISE:
It is demanded that all workers shall be given a
flat rise of Rs. 1000/- and the same shall be added to
the basic and fitted in the revised pay scale in the
higher stage.
DEMAND No. 3 : FIXED DEARNESS ALLOWANCE:
It is demanded that the workmen should be paid Fixed
Dearness Allowance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per
month.
DEMAND No. 4: VARIABLE DEARNESS
ALLOWANCE (VDA):
It is demanded that the Variable Dearness
Allowance shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 3/-
per point rise beyond All India Consumer Price
Index 2000 points (1960=100) the computation of VDA
shall be made quarterly based on the average
consumer price index of preceding quarter. The
amount of Variable Dearness Allowance upto 2000
points shall be merged in the basic.
DEMAND No. 5: HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE
(HRA):
It is demanded that House Rent Allowance should
be paid at the revised rate of 30% of Basic, dearness
allowance and variable dearness allowance, as the
cost of accommodation is very high in Goa being a
tourist State.
DEMAND No. 6: CHILDREN EDUCATION
ALLOWANCE:
It is demanded that the Children Education
Allowance shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 750/- per
workmen per month.
DEMAND No. 7 : CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE:
It is demanded that the workmen shall be paid
additional Conveyance Allowance at the rate of
Rs. 500/- per month.
DEMAND No. 8 LEAVE:
It is demanded that the workmen should be given
leave on the following basis:
Earned Leave: All the workmen should be given
earned leave at the rate of 36 days earned leave per
year with accumulation upto 150 days and leave shall
be allowed to be taken 10 times in a year.
Casual Leave: The workmen should be given
causal leave at the rate of 15 days per year with
encashment facility.
1508
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
Sick Leave: The workmen should be given sick
leave at the rate of 15 days per year and accumula-
tion upto 60 days.
DEMAND No. 9: LEAVE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE:
It is demanded that leave travel allowance should
be paid at the rate of one months’ gross salary
instead of present one month basic salary, with
minimum of four days earned leave. The amount shall
be paid one week before the commencement of the
leave.
DEMAND No. 10: PROMOTION POLICY:
It is demanded that separate promotion policy
should be promulgated in consultation with the
Union.
DEMAND No. 11: FESTIVAL ADVANCE:
It is demanded that the workmen should be
granted festival advance at the rate of two months
gross salary once in a year which shall be recovered
in 10 equal installments.
DEMAND No. 12: TRANSPORT:
It is demanded that free transport facility should
be provided to the workmen.
DEMAND No. 13: MEDICAL ALLOWANCE:
It is demanded that workmen shall be paid
Medical Allowance at the rate of Rs. 3500/- to meet
the incidental expenses as the Employees State
Insurance Corporation does not pay the incidental
expenses.
DEMAND No. 14: SUPPLY OF RAINCOATS AND
SAFETY WEARS:
It is demanded that workmen shall be given
rainwear and safety wear once in a year.
DEMAND No. 15: SHIFT ALLOWANCE:
It is demanded that those workmen who work in
shifts shall be paid Shift allowance at the rate of
Rs. 25/- per day if worked in the 2nd shift and Rs. 35/-
per day if worked in the third shift.
DEMAND No. 15A: STAGGERING ALLOWANCE:
It is demanded that the workmen be given
staggering allowance at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day
to staggered work.
DEMAND No. 15 B: SUPPLY OF SOAPS AND
TOWELS:
It is demanded that the workmen shall be given
soaps and towels.
DEMAND No. 15 C: LOANS:
It is demanded that the workmen shall be given
loan up to Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of scooters, house
hold items, towards marriage expenditure or house
repairs.
DEMAND No. 15 D: CONFIRMATION OF
SERVICES:
It is demanded that the workmen working in the
manufacturing area on permanent nature of work and
completed 240 days shall be confirmed and given all
the benefits of permanent workmen.
(2) If yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled?
2. On receipt of the reference, it was registered as
IT/72/2004 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Upon appearance, Party I filed
the Claim Statement at Exhibit 3 and Party II filed its
Written Statement at Exhibit 5.
3. The case of the Party I in short is that, the Party
I states that the “Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh” which
is hereinafter referred to as the “Sangh” is a
registered Trade Union under the Indian Trade
Unions Act, 1926 and is a recognized Union in the
factory. The Union is representing majority of the
workmen employed by the Party II at the Verna
factory.
4. The Party I states that M/s Glenmark
Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is a Company and has been
hereinafter referred to as the “Company” registered
under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having a
factory at Plot No. L-82/83, Phase II, Verna Industrial
Estate, Verna-Goa and is engaged in manufacturing
of pharmaceutical drugs and the Party I states that
the wages paid to the workers were very less and
there were no proper service conditions. The
workers were forced to work 12 hours shifts without
payment of over time in accordance with the
provisions of the Factories Act.
5. The Party I states that the workers in the
reference were independently working in shifts in
the following departments namely; (1) Gelatin (2)
Medicament, (3) Drying, (4) Printing, (5) Inspection,
(6) Cartoon over printing, (7) Blister packing, (8)
Packing BP 102-I, (9) Rapid Pack, (10) Packing BP. 602,
(11) Bulk Packing, (12) Tablet Granulation, (13)
Tablet Compression, (14) Coating, (15) Tablet
Inspection, (16) Stores, (17) Administration etc. and
to carry out the normal working, following number
of workers are required in each shift.
1. Gelatin: Two workmen in each shift.
2. Medicament: Two workmen in each shift.
3. Drying: Three workmen in each shift.
4. Printing: One workman in each shift.
5. Capsule polishing: One workman in each
shift.
6. Inspection: Five workmen in each shift.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1509
7.Cartoon over printing: Five workers in each
shift.
8. Blister packing: Six workmen in each shift.
9. Packing BP 102-I: Eleven workmen in each
shift.
10. Rapid Pack: Seven workmen in each shift.
11. Packing BP. 602: Twenty-six workmen in each
shift.
12. Bulk Packing: Forty Five workmen in each shift.
13. Tablet Granulation: Four workmen in each shift.
14. Tablet Compression: Five workmen in each shift.
15. Coating: Three workmen in first shift and two
each in second and third shift.
16. Tablet Inspection: Eleven workmen in each first
shift.
17. Stores: Six workmen.
6. The Party I states that the products
manufactured by these workers were sold in the
local market as well as exported and further stated
that the workmen were not given any facilities and
Party II continued to implement the several unfair
labour practices such as keeping the workers as
Trainees and though these workers were designated
as Trainee Packers/Technician, giving them breaks
and employing new workers in their place of work
on perennial nature of work and that due to the
harassment and violation of provisions of various
laws, almost all the production workers of the Party
II who had worked for more than 240 days had
resolved to join the Union and accordingly they joined
the Union namely Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh.
Immediately on joining the Union, the General
Secretary, Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh informed the
Management vide their letter dated 28-03-2004 that
almost all the workers had joined the Union. The
General Secretary also submitted the Charter of
Demands dated 28-03-2004 and on receipt of these
letters, the management started harassing the local
committee members and active workers of the Union.
7. The Party I states that as the Employer started
unfair labour practices, the Union vide their letter
dated 02-04-2004 requested the Deputy Labour
Commissioner for intervention and accordingly
several meetings were fixed but the Employer did
not participate in discussions/conciliation
proceedings and the matter ended in failure and that
on receipt of the said failure report, the Government
of Goa was pleased to refer the dispute for
adjudication to this Hon’ble Tribunal.
8. The Party I states that broadly the wage
structure can be divided into three categories. The
basic “Minimum wage” which provides the bare
subsistence and is at poverty-line level, a little above
is the “fair wage” and finally the “living wage” which
comes at a comfort level. It is well accepted that the
norms accepted by the Government, Employers and
the workers are laid down by the tripartite
committee of the Indian Labour Conference in 1957.
The Supreme Court in the case of Standard Vacum
Refining Co. of India V/s workmen and Anr. (1961)3
SCR 536 has approved these norms.
9. The Party I states that the tripartite committee
of the Indian Labour Conference held in New Delhi
in the year 1957 declared the wage policy, which
was to be followed during the second five year plan.
The committee accepted the following norms for
fixation of minimum wages:
1. In calculating the minimum wages a
standard working class family should be taken to
be comprised of three consumption units for the
earner, the earning of workmen, children and
adolescent being disregarded.
2. Minimum food requirement should be
calculated on the basis of Dr. Aykroyd’s
recommendations for average Indian Adults of
moderate activity.
3. Clothing requirements should be estimate at
72 yards per annum for a workers family of four
persons.
4. In estimating house rent for the purpose of
fixing the minimum wages, the rent for
corresponding minimum area provided under the
Government’s Industrial Housing scheme, should
be taken into consideration.
5. Fuel, lighting and other miscellaneous items
should constitute 20% of the total minimum wage.
NEED BASED MINIMUM WAGES.
The resolution gives to the wage fixation
authorities a new insight into social urgency of
fixing the wages on considerations which were not
earlier economic, that is why organization of labour,
have, since the resolution was passed based on their
claims, primarily on what is said to be social urgency
of the constitution of the conference which was
Tripartite in character. The conference constituted
of representatives of employers, employees and the
Government. Hence, those who were virtually
interested in the question of wage fixation had come
together to lay down agreed norms of quantifying
the Need Based Minimum Wages. The expectation
of labour, therefore that these norms should form the
basis of all wage fixation in future is quite justified.
The Government is committed and bound to enforce
the decision of the said conference, which is quite
consistent with the directive principles laid down
in the Constitution of India.
The following table “A” shows the computation of
Need Based Minimum Wages on the basis of a Bal-
1510
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
anced Diet of Dr. Aykroyd’s with a view to establish that there is little difference between this computation
and computation basis on Diet for Industrial Workers. The Minimum wages based on such diet is shown in
table “A”.
ANNEXURE “A”
CALCULATION OF MONTHLY COST OF FOOD BASED ON BALANCED DIET MENTIONED IN COLUMN (A)
IS AS UNDER:-
Item
Recommended by
Recommended per month
Per Kg.
Cost
Dr. Aykroyd’s in his
for three consumption
balance diet
units
formulas per head
Rice
7 OZ
18.27Kg
15
274.05
Wheat
4 OZ
10.44Kg
10
104.4
Bajari
3 OZ
7.83 Kg
8.6
67.33
Pulses
3 OZ
8.83 Kg
36
317.88
Vegetables
10 OZ
26.1
15
391.15
(Leaf & Root)
Vegetables
Oils
1 ½ OZ
3.92 Kg
60
235.20
(Ground nut)
Sugar &Jaggery
2 OZ
5.22 Kg
15
78.3
Vanaspati
Milk
½ OZ
1.31 Kg
60
78.60
Fish/Meat
10 OZ
26.10 Kg
14
365.4
Fruits
3 OZ
7.85 Kg
60
471
Eggs & Salt
4 OZ
18. Kg
12
216
Condiments
1 OZ
1.5 Kg
18
27
0.75 OZ
5 Kg
11.96
59.8
Total
2686.11
ANNEURE “A”
SUMMARY OF THE CALCULATION OF NEED BASED MINIMUM AT THE PRICE PREVAILING IN
DECEMBER, 1999 AT Goa AT CONSUMER PRICES INDEX NUMBER 2100 (1960=100).
Rs. ps.
Cost of Food
2686.11
Cost of clothing
(at average rate of Rs. 50/- per yard)
300.00
(72 yard per year)=25x72.
House rent Rs. 550/- pm
550.00
(paid by the State Government to
Class IV employees working in Goa)
Fuel, lighting and other
miscellaneous items of
Expenditure should
constitute 20% of total
691.40
Minimum wage.
Children education, medical
requirement Minimum recreation
including festivals/Ceremonies
and provision for old age,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1511
Marriages etc. should further
constitute 25% Of the total
minimum wage
1037.10
(Decided by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Standard Vacuum
Refining Company’s case
(Supra)
Total: Rs. 5185.50
The DA @ Rs. 2 per point
beyond 2100 to
2550 points (1960=100) Total: 6085.5
1. The house rent is taken on the basis of HRA of
Class IV Employees of the State Government.
2. The food prices are taken from Goa Bagayatdar
Sahakari Society Ltd. and the prices prevailing in
Goa Market.
In accordance with Section 4 (i) Minimum Wages
Act, 1936, a special allowance towards the cost of
living shall be implemented at linkage to AICPI 2100
(1960=100). The future revision should be done
periodically to take care of the high increase of prices
of essential commodities.
The above concept of fixing the Minimum Wage
was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
various judgments.
10. The Party I states that since Goa is a Tourist
State, the cost of living is highest in the country,
therefore their demands are fair, reasonable and just
and states that there is justification to each of its
demands which are as under.
11.
Demand No. 1: Pay Scales:
The Party I states that at present there is no pay
scale and hence the pay scale demanded by the
workmen are just and proper. The basic wages paid
to the workmen in the pharmaceuticals Units in the
region are very much higher then what is paid to the
concerned workmen in the present reference. At
present, the Basic Wage constitute hardly 30% of the
total salary inclusive of allowances and hence the
workmen of the company are justified in seeking
revision in the pay scales so as to bring them on par
with the conditions prevailing in the region and
nearby regions.
12. The Party I states that other grounds in
support of its claim for revisions in the basic scales of
Pay;
a) That the present wages do not come any way
near, or to fair wage or to meet daily requirement
of the workmen’s family. There is a wide gap
between the wages actually received and the
wages actually required for subsistence of a
family of three consumption units.
b) That the Company is one of the leading
companies in India in manufacturing of
pharmaceutical drugs and is well established in
its line of business and its financial position is
extremely sound.
c) That the Company has excellent future and
its profits would be many folds in next few years
considering working results of the Company in
the last three years.
d) That the Company has sufficient capacity to
bear financial burden that may be placed upon it
if the demand as it is conceded.
e) That the annual increments provided in the
existing scales of pay are equally low compared
to increments provided in scales of pay elsewhere.
f) Considering the low Basic Wage, the demand
of the workmen of flat rise of Rs. 1000/- is fair,
reasonable and genuine to overcome the huge gap
in ratio of Basic wage and allowance paid to the
workmen.
13. Demand No. 3: Fixed Dearness Allowance:
The Union states tha t the Fixed Dearness
Allowance should be paid at the rate of Rs. 1500/-
per month.
14. Demand No. 4: Variable Dearness Allowance:
The Party I states that there is no Variable
Dearness Allowance paid to the workmen hence it
does not neutralize the rise in prices. The Union
therefore respectfully states that it is necessary to
introduce the system of Variable Dearness
Allowance as demanded by the workmen in order to
compensate the high inflation rate and further states
that as there is no dearness allowance linked to the
cost of living index, the Union or workmen in
claiming for implementation of VDA as the consumer
price index numbers show rise trend as in the
instant case. In the present case there is no fixed
dearness allowance or Variable Dearness Allowance
linked to the working class consumer cost of living
numbers, therefore their demands for variable
dearness allowance linked to the consumer prices is
just & proper.
15. The Party I states that Mr. Meher, the former
President of the Industrial Court, Bombay made
three decades ago following observation in his Award
in the dispute between Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.,
Bombay and the workmen (Head Office staff
only) employed under it. “Though the Dearness
Allowance has been linked with the Consumer Price
900
1512
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
Index, it is to be borne in mind that it neutralizes
only a portion of the rise in the cost of living and as
the cost of living index has greatly increased the
percentage of neutralization has become less and
less.
16. The Party I states that the Supreme Court has
also observed in the case of Remington Rand and
also in the case of Karamchand Thaper that if the
cost of living index numbers show the tendency to
rise very high, the workmen would be entitled to
claim that there should be a change in the rate of
neutralization and as such a demand cannot be
rejected without examining its merits solely on the
ground that a provision has been made for
adjustment.
17. The Party I states that the present index
numbers do not take into consideration several
important items which go in the making of working
and middle class family budgets. Moreover items like
food taken for compilation of the index numbers are
not the items actually consumed by the workmen.
Similarly, the weightage given to many items in the
compilation of index numbers is improper. The price
taken for compiling of the index numbers are
controlled prices. But the consumable commodities
are not available in sufficient quantities at controlled
prices and at times these controlled items are not at
all available. The workmen are therefore required to
depend upon market prices which are very high. The
consumer price index numbers therefore do not
reveal the correct picture because of the aforesaid
infirmities. The Dearness Allowance linked up with
such index numbers therefore does not reflect the
correct rise in the prices.
18. The Party I states that the Company pays low
basic wage and no dearness allowance compared to
basic and dearness allowance payable to the
workmen elsewhere and with these results the
workmen find it difficult to make both ends meet. It
is further stated that low basic and no dearness
allowance also mean loss in provident fund, bonus,
gratuity and other fringe benefits. The workmen,
therefore, lose very heavily on indirect or fringe
benefits of both basic wage and no dearness
allowance.
19. The Party I states that following amongst other
reasons in support of the claims for revision in
dearness allowance rate;
a) That the basic wage rates are very low. With
low basic wages and no dearness allowance, the
pay packet of the workmen or take home pay is
low.
b) That any upward revision in the dearness
allowance is necessary when there is a
substantial rise in consumer price index numbers.
This has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in many of their land mark judgments.
20. In support of the demands, the Party I relied on
following Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(i) Burn & Co. V/s their workmen (1959-I LLJ.P.
457) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
that “with respect to dearness allowance for all clerks
and workmen, the Award of the Tribunal cannot be
interfered with. The cost of living has increased
since the agreement of 1950 and the finding of the
Tribunal is that the scale of pay shall still fall short
of living wages. These grounds are sufficient
justification for the award concerning the increase
allowed in the dearness allowance”.
(ii) French Motor Car Co. Ltd. v/s their
workmen (1962 II LLJ. P. 744 at P. 747), the Apex
Court has observed that ”the Tribunal has how-
ever, pointed out that there has been a large in-
crease in the cost of living index since 1955 and
cost of living index number for workmen had gone
up from 338 in 1955 to 420 in 1960. It had gone to
428 in 1961 when the award was made. In view of
this change in economic conditions, the Tribunal
was of the opinion that case had been made out for
further revision of wages-scales, particularly as the
dearness allowance was also revised in 1951 by
agreement and the effect of that was reduced
dearness allowance. We see no reasons, in these
circumstances, to disagree with the view of the
Tribunal that a case has been made out for revising
the wage structure”.
21. In view of the above submission the Union
states that the demand for revision in Dearness
Allowance is just, fair and proper and Hon’ble
Tribunal may be pleased to grant the same in the
terms in which it has been made.
22. It is further stated that the burden that may be
imposed upon the Company shall be much less as
the cost of labour is not even 2% of the sale.
Allowances:
23. The Party I states that the demands for grant of
the allowances are just and proper as the principles
of payment of allowance is being considered by the
Management. The officers of the Company are given
all the allowances, which are revised on yearly
basis. Besides the allowance, they are provided with
the accommodation, free transport, free education of
the children and hence, no separate justification is
required. It is further submitted that Goa being a
Tourist State, the cost of living is very high. The
consumer price index for Goa is always more than 12
points higher than any parts of the country and hence
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1513
their demands for higher rates of allowance are just,
fair and proper.
24. Demand No. 5: House Rent Allowance:
The Union submits that the demands of House
Rent Allowance at the revised rate of 30% of
Basic and Dearness Allowance, as the cost of
accommodation is very high in Goa due to Goa being
a Tourist State. The Employer has already accepted
principles of giving allowance and by accepting the
principles the Employer has extended the benefits
to its Officers. Hence, no separate justification is
required.
25. Demand No. 6: Education Allowance:
The Party I states that the demands of the
Education Allowance of Rs. 500/- per workmen per
month considering the high cost of education in Goa
is just and proper. The Employer has already accepted
the principles of giving education allowance/
/reimbursement to the Officers for their children and
fees are reimbursed by the employer. Hence no
separate justification is required and their demand
is just and proper.
26. Demand No. 7: Conveyance Allowance:
The Party I states that the demand of those
workmen who are not provided with the transport
facility shall be paid conveyance allowance at the
rate of Rs. 650/- per month as the cost of transport is
very high and public transport is not adequately
available and workers have to attend the duties by
spending very high amount from their pocket. The
Employer has already accepted the principles of
giving transport allowance to the Officers. Hence no
separate justification is required and their demands
are just and proper.
27. Demand No. 8: Leave:
The Party I states that the demands of the workers
to increase the leave mentioned below is just and
proper as the workers need rest after working hard
in order to maintain their health.
a) Earned Leave: Union demands that all the
workmen should be given Earned Leave at
the rate of 36 days E.L. per year.
b) Casual Leave: Union demands that all the
workmen should be given Casual Leave at
the rate of 15 days per year.
c) Sick Leave: Union demands that all the work-
men should be given sick leave at the rate of
15 days per year. And accumulation up to 60
days be given.
28. Demand No. 9: Leave Travel Assistance:
The Party I states that the demands of the LTA at
the revised rate of one month gross salary instead of
present one month Basic Salary per year is just and
fair as the same is accepted by the Central
Government while granting the LTA to the workers.
Based on accepted concept other Industrial Units
are paying the LTA in order to facilitate the workers
to go to their native place or for a holiday from the
hectic work atmosphere, and hence no separate
justification is required.
29. Demand No. 10: Promotion Policy:
The Party I states that their demand for
promotion policy is just and fair and considering the
nature of duties the workers are required to carry
out, the promotion policy is a must which is required
to reward the workers for the hard work they have
put in. The promotion is the accepted norms and to
avoid like and dislike policy of the Management, a
new promotion policy based on three years’ service
in one grade should be promoted to the higher grade.
30. Demand No. 11: Festival Advance:
The Party I states that their demand for Festival
advance is just and proper as for the festival
celebration additional money is required and
workers with such smaller salary cannot manage the
extra cost with the monthly wage and hence the
advance of two months’ gross salary for the festival
is necessary which may be recovered from ten equal
installments.
31. Demand No. 12: Transport:
The Party I states that the workmen are asked to
work in all the three shifts and there is no public
transport available in Goa and hence their demand
for transport facility from factory to Panaji, Ponda,
Vasco and Margao and vice versa is just and proper.
32. Demand No. 13: Medical Allowance:
The Party I states that their demands for medical
allowance is just and fair as the ESIC does not
reimburse day to day medicine required for minor
sickness.
33. Demand No. 14: Supply of Raincoats and
Safety wears:
The Union states that nowadays it is well
established practice of supplying the rain coats/
/Umbrellas to the workers once in year to protect
them from the rains. The Factory Act also provides
for the supply of protective gears such as safety shoes
etc. and hence no separate justifications are required
and therefore the demands for the supply of
Raincoats/Umbrellas & Safety shoes which is
followed in most of the industrial establishments in
the region is just and proper.
34. Demand No. 15: Shift Allowance
The Party I states that the shift allowance is fair,
just and proper. The authorities and the Honorable
1514
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
Courts in several cases have already accepted this
demand. The shift allowance is paid to compensate
the workers for the hardship caused due to shift
workings and hence their demand for shift
allowance is just and proper. The demands for the
yearly gift is just, fair and reasonable which is
followed in the most of the industrial establishments
in the region. Hence, this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased
to concede the same.
35. Demand No. 15A: Staggering Allowance:
The Party I states that their demands
for staggering allowance is just and proper.
Considering the hardship caused due to the
staggering working system in several factories, the
staggering allowance is paid and hence, no
separate justification is required.
36. Demand No. 15B: Supply of soaps and
Towels:
The Party I states that the demand for supply of
soap and towel is just and proper as the workers have
to work in the production area and due to chemical
and other material handled by the workers, it
requires proper cleaning and hence the soap and
towels are basic requirement at the work place.
37. Demand No. 15C: Loan:
The Party I states that the demands of the
workmen for Loan of Rs. 50000/- is just and proper, as
such amount is required to meet the additional
expenses such as Marriage, House repairs and/or
purchase of other house hold items such as Fridge,
Television & two wheelers etc.
38. Demand No. 15D: Confirmation of services:
The Party I states that all those workers who have
put more than 240 days continuous work of
permanent nature of work shall be confirmed. All the
male workers who have completed 240 days were
working independently in all three shifts on the
machines and the departments referred to in para 4
& 5 above. As the work is of permanent nature and
carried out by them independently and the female
workers were working in the first shift or in the
General shift in permanent nature of work. Hence,
their demand for confirmation of services is just and
proper.
39. It is therefore prayed that the Tribunal may
declare that the demands are genuine, reasonable
and grant the same from the date of the Charter of
Demands and to award any suitable order.
40. The Party II filed the Written Statement
denying the case put forth by the Party I and raising
the objections that the entire reference is bad in law
and not maintainable and it is vague and incapable
of adjudication. It is also their objection that none of
the workers presently employed by the Company are
the members of the Union and the Union has not
shown as to on whose behalf and to whom the Award,
if any, shall be applicable.
41. The case of the Party II is that as of today none
of the workers having so called affiliation with
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh are working in the
Company at the factory at Verna, whereas Gomantak
Mazdoor Sangh claimed to show membership of the
Union and if it is so, it is not possible to adjudicate
the matter in particular of the Charter of Demands
where no workers having allegiance with the
Gomatak Mazdoor Sangh are working with the
company and the workers who were originally
employed were raw workers and they had no
experience of pharmaceutical industry and therefore
raw workers are required to be trained for specific
purpose and unless persons are trained as per
satisfaction of the management these workers
cannot claim anything from the Company. The Party
II states that it is the prerogative of the Company to
employ trainees and there is nothing illegal about
the same and it is true that the Company did employ
raw workers as trainees and specific training of one
year was given to them in different departments. The
Party II further states that while giving training to
the workers, they had to learn also to work in
different shifts and for the purpose of said learning
and to understand the environment in different
shifts, the said trainee workers were deployed in their
own interest as desired by the company so that they
get sufficiently trained for their absorption, if at all
they complete the training period satisfactorily
depending upon the requirement of the company and
that if a workmen under training is not prepared to
get trained properly may be because of inherent
inefficiency in them or for whatever reason, the
company is not bound to employ them after
completion of the training period and that the policy
of the Company is that on satisfactory completion of
the training period, certain trainees were absorbed
in employment as regular workers. The Party II
further states that if performance of any trainee is
not satisfactory and inspite of informing the Trainee
about the same and if there is no improvement in
their performance, the question of considering them
in regular employment after completion of the
training period does not arise and appointment
letters issued to the trainees does not create any
obligation on the part of the company to make them
permanent.
42. It is also stated that the Sangh has tried to
impress upon the Tribunal to justify its demands by
defining the various categories of wages as
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1515
contemplated in tripartite committee of the Indian
Labour Conference in 1957. The calculation of
monthly cost of food based on balance diet as
mentioned in Annexure A is the creation of the said
Sangh and it has no relevance with the salary/wages
of the workers of the company and that the Sangh
has systematically avoided to consider the three
basic principles which are very important segments
while considering any charter of demands or any
increase in wage structure i.e. the Paying capacity,
comparable concern and industry cum regional
principles, the wage structure of the Company is just,
fair and proper and the Tribunal should not consider
any demand raised by the Sangh. It is stated that the
Pay scales mentioned in the schedule are very high
in nature and does not commensurate with the job
and responsibilities carried out by the workers. The
Company is paying adequate and sufficient wages
to its workers. The Party II further states that it has
started its manufacturing activities somewhere in
the year 2001 at Verna and therefore the wage
structure of any other company which have started
its activities 15 to 20 years back and have signed 5 to
6 settlements or more than that cannot be compared.
After considering the rise in price index and
inflation, the Party II is giving increases every year
during the month of April, which can dilute the
inflation and cost rise and in any event, there cannot
be any comparison with such companies and if at all
any comparison is considered, it has to be
considered with the establishments having same life
period of functioning. Therefore the comparison and
reasoning or justifications given by the Sangh is
irrelevant and is not correct or genuine and ought to
be rejected.
43. The Party II states that company is paying
reasonable and sufficient increments and giving
substantial increases in emoluments, considering the
inflation, rises in living etc. and the said increases or
the present wages are commensurate with the job
and responsibilities attached to the work of those
workers. The comparisons of wages/emoluments paid
to the workers of the company with the wages of
other units which have started their business 10 to
15 years back or before cannot be done and if at all
the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh intend to do any
comparison, it should be done with similar type of
units with the same age and that it is definitely
paying more than what other units of similar types
are paying to their workers. Therefore, the demand
of any increase in pay or increase in flat raise does
not have any justification and needs to be rejected.
44. It is also their case that there is no proper
justification or reasoning for demanding the F. D. A
at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month. The Party II states
that they are paying fair and reasonable amount of
emoluments to the workers and the demand of the
Sangh needs to be rejected and though it is true that
there is no component by name VDA, the annual
increases given in the month of April every year gives
substantial increase in emoluments to neutralize any
rise in price and it takes precaution of any inflation,
increase in price index, etc. In fact even if there is no
increase in price index or increase in inflation, the
company do pay the increases irrespective of the
increases of inflations and the workers of the
company are getting more amount than any other
organization where the VDA component is
implemented, therefore the demand of the VDA do
not hold good and needs to be rejected and that the
wage structure of the company is fair, proper and it
has considered all the concept including the prize
index, standard of living etc. therefore, there is no
requirement of VDA or allowances as demanded by
the Sangh. The justification given by the Sangh is
absolutely false and has no relevance in the subject
matter of the present case and as such there cannot
be any comparison with the amounts/emoluments
or benefits paid to the Officers of the Company with
the benefits paid to the workers, having regards to
the nature of work, responsibilities and risk factors.
The Party II states that almost all the workers
represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh are in
fact unmarried, therefore, demanding or paying
education allowances has no relevance but still the
Company is paying the educational allowances and
the demands are unjustified and the same needs to
be rejected. It is also their case that most of the
workers of the company are residing at nearby
locations or are using their own two wheelers,
therefore spending huge amount in transport do not
hold good and company is paying the adequate
conveyance allowances. The Party II also denies that
the Employer has already accepted the principles of
giving transport allowances as contemplated by the
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh. The Party II further states
that there cannot be any comparisons to the
benefits/perks provided to the Officers with that to
the workers considering the nature of work, risk, skill
and responsibilities etc. The Party II presently is
giving 10 days casual leave, 10 days sick leave and
20 days Earned leave which is more than the
practice prevailing in the industry and that in fact
the said leave benefits are much more than the leave
benefits provided to the workers under the relevant
provisions of law. Therefore, the workers are not
entitled to any additional leave as demanded by them
and their entire demand needs to be rejected.
45. It is further their case that the Sangh cannot
demand increase in L.T.A facility. The Company
1516
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
denies that the present Leave Travel Assistance of
the Company is inadequate and that L.T.A is based
on the prevailing practice in the industry and the
Sangh cannot compare the LTA facility available to
the Central Government Employees with the
industrial workers to demand the additional LTA
benefits. The Party II also states that the promotion
policy cannot be an industrial dispute or the subject
matter of the industrial adjudication. The Party II
states that the demand of the Sangh about the
promotion policy cannot hold good in the Charter of
Demands and it is entirely the prerogative of the
Management and that it has a promotion policy and
the company gives promotions to the eligible and
deserving workers as and when there exists vacancy.
In any event such demands cannot become part and
parcel of the Charter of demands and on this ground
itself it needs to be rejected.
46. The Party II states that the festival advance is a
facility provided by the Company to its workers as a
social obligation and Company do follow its
responsibilities about the social welfare of its
workers. The Company do provide the transport
facility as and when required to its workers, keeping
in mind the feasibility of public transport and other
circumstances. The workers in the nights shift are
picked up and dropped at the nearest place of their
residence. The company also provides a rest room to
the workers who do not wish to travel during the
odd timing. Therefore their demands are without any
footings. The workers of the Company are covered
under the provisions of the ESI benefits scheme
which is a welfare legislative measure implemented
by the Government to the workers of the industrial
establishment and the Company fully implements
the said facilities to its workers and all the workers
represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh are
covered under the said benefits scheme. The
Company further states that in addition to ESIC, the
Company is also providing equivalent to one month’s
basic salary as medical reimbursement to the
workers. Therefore any additional demand of the
workers is improper. The Party II also states that it
has complied with all the requirements of safety
measures to its workers including safety shoes as
and when required. The Company further states that
business of the company is formulations and there
are no hazardous activities being carried out. Not a
single employee is exposed to hazardous chemicals
or working on dangerous machineries which requires
the protective measures. The nature of duties of the
workers also are restricted within the Plant area and
they are not required to work in rain and outside the
covered premises, therefore they will not require any
raincoats or umbrellas and the entire demands of the
workers are improper.
47. The Party II states that normally the Company
is working in two shifts and in exigencies, third shift
is planned. The Company provides free nutritious
snacks to the workers who work in second or third
shift. The Company has also made the required
provisions for the workers working in the shift
including the provision for recreations and rest
rooms and that the demand of the yearly gift cannot
be a subject matter of industrial dispute or be
adjudicated by the industrial court and neither the
Union nor the workers should make such demands
and that the Tribunal should not entertain such
demands. The Party II states that the workers of the
Company are not facing any hardships out of any
staggering working system within the functioning
of the company therefore considering any demand
for allowances or benefits arising out of the
staggering shift like any other establishment as
contemplated by the Sangh would not have any
substance and the company is planning to introduce
staggered weekly off system so that the workers will
get the benefits of spending their weekly off with
their family members and enjoy the weekends. The
supply of soaps and towels could not be a subject
matter of the Charter of Demands or industrial
dispute to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal.
Party II also states that the sanctioning of any loan
for purchase of fridge, television, two wheelers etc.
cannot be justified or could not be the subject mat-
ter for adjudication by this Tribunal and the banks
and other financial institutions are providing the
loan for any of such or other purposes at very reason-
able rate of interest and with better modes of repay-
ment and that having regards to the financial posi-
tions of the Company, it cannot consider any demands
or take any financial burden and such types of de-
mand cannot be a subject matter to be decided by
the Industrial Tribunal and as such it is prayed that
the entire reference be rejected.
48. In the rejoinder at Exhibit 7, the Party I denied
the case put forth by Party II in the Written
Statement.
49. Based on the above mentioned pleadings, my
Learned Predecessor has framed the Issues which
are at Exhibit 8 and pursuant to the amendment
made to the pleadings an additional issue came to
be framed at Exh. 32 by my Learned Predecessor and
the same are as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the demands
raised by it are genuine and reasonable?
(2)Whether the Party II proves that its
employees are not the members of Party I
Union?
(3) What Order? What relief?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1517
50. Additional Issue No. 1A came to be framed on
12-08-2008.
1A. Whether the Party I proves that they were
Employees of the Party II on the date the
demand was raised?
51. Additional Issue No. 2A came to be framed at
Exhibit-32 dated 18-12-2013 which is as follows:
2A. Whether the Party II proves that Party I are
not the members of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and
hence it has no locus standi to represent them and
therefore what has been referred by this Court is not
an Industrial Dispute?
52. Additional Issue No. 2B came to be framed at
Exhibit-49 dated 11-09-2018 which is as follows:
2B. Whether the Party II proves that reference is
to be disposed of in terms of settlement dated
19-10-2005 signed with Glenmark Laboratories
Employees Union majority Union?
53. In support of the case, Party I examined Shri
Puti Gaonkar, General Secretary of the Union and
produced on record copies of two letters dated
28-03-2004 addressed to the Party II at Exhibit 17
Colly, copy of Charter of Demands dated 28-03-2004
at Exhibit 18, copy of letter dated 02-04-2004
addressed by the Union to DLC at Exhibit 19, copy of
Minutes of conciliation proceedings dated
20-05-2004 at Exhibit 20, copy of Failure Report dated
05-07-2004 at Exhibit 21, copy of letters dated
04-11-2004 and list of 163 workmen at Exhibit 22 Colly,
copy of Settlement dated 03-06-2006 between Party
I/ Union and Indico Remedies at Exhibit 23, copy of
settlement dated 22-05-2009 between M/s Geno
Pharmaceuticals and their workmen at Exhibit 24
and copy of Settlement dated 02-02-2010 between
Party I/Union and Cadila Health Care Ltd. at Exhibit
25. During cross-examination documents produced
on record are; copy of balance sheet dated
31-03-2002 at Exhibit 34, copy of balance sheet dated
31-03-2003 at Exhibit 35, copy of balance sheet dated
31-03-2004 at Exhibit 36, a copy of balance sheet of
Party II for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 at Exhibit 37
and 38 respectively, copy of Affidavit-in-Evidence
and cross examination of Shri Nityanand Kosmekar
in Ref. IT/33/04 at Exhibit 39, copy of format of
declaration addressed to the Party II at Exhibit 40
and certified copies of the documents before the Dy.
Labour Commissioner, Margao at Exhibit 41 Colly.
54. The Party II also examined Shri Seetharama
Buddaraju who was the Director of Party II as their
first witness and has produced on record copy of
wages shown from March, 2002 to April, 2004 for 17
workmen at Exhibit 44, copy of settlement dated
19-10-2005 at Exhibit 45 and copy of Annual reports
for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 at Exhibit 46
Colly.
55. Heard arguments Learned Advocate Shri S. P.
Gaonkar argued on behalf of Party I and Learned
Advocate Shri M. S. Bandodkar argued on behalf of
the Party II. Both the Parties have placed on record
written submissions.
56. 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
… In the Negative.
Issue No. 2 & 2A
… In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2B
… In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 1A
… In the Negative.
Issue No. 3
… As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Issue No. 2 and Additional Issue No. 2A.
57. Issue No. 2 and Additional Issue No. 2A are
discussed together for the sake of convenience and
also as their contents are almost the same being
inter-related. The Employer/Party II have examined
Shri Seetharama Buddaraju who is the Director of
Party II after which the Party II closed their case. He
has mentioned in his Affidavit-in-Evidence the
detailed case of the Employer and he states that
since he is associated with the Company from May,
2005 and he is conversant with the facts of the case.
He has placed on record the copy of the wages of the
17 workmen from March, 2002 to April, 2004 which is
at Exhibit 44 and the copy of the Settlement dated
19-10-2005 made between the Party II/Employer and
their workmen represented by Glenmark
Laboratories Employees Union which is a
Memorandum of Settlement arrived at u/s 2(p) r/w
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
58.Throughout the Written Statement it is the case
of the Party II that the present reference is vague and
incapable of adjudication as none of the workers
presently employed by the Company are the
Members of the Union and therefore according to
them the Union has not shown, as to on whose behalf
and to whom the Award, if any, shall be applicable.
He states that the Party II was established at Verna
Industrial Estate, Goa somewhere in the year 2001.
They received a letter dated 28-03-2004 purported to
have been signed by Shri P. Gaonkar claiming to be
the General Secretary of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh
(GMS) but no list of workers claiming to be their
1518
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
members were submitted. He has also stated that
without even verifying whether any workmen are its
members or not, he submitted the Charter of Demand
on the same date which showed that the Union was
in a hurry to submit the Charter of Demands without
properly verifying whether any workmen permanent
or otherwise have become their members or not and
on account of this defect also the present reference
is not maintainable. He also states further that the
correct factual position is that none of the workers
having allegedly the so called affiliation with GMS
are working in the Company at the Factory at Verna.
He has also stated that there is also another Union
known as Glenmark Laboratories Employees Union
which is having majority character and even they
have sent the Charter of Demands and the same has
arrived at a Settlement between them.
59. Now, coming to the cross-examination of this
witness, it is seen that the same could not be shaken
and the same has remained intact throughout. Most
of the cross-examination is full of denials and
suggestions and he has produced the Annual
Reports for the Year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 which
is at Exhibit 46 Colly. He has deposed on the basis of
the fact that he worked in this Company for 6 years
from 2005 to 2011 and during this period he is aware
of the functioning of the Company and states that
his deposition is thereafter based on the basis of an
independent Director of the Company. Since it is the
objection of the Party II that its employees are not
the members of the GMS and as such the Party I has
no locus standi to represent themselves in the
present matter and the same needs to be looked into
the fact that on the basis of the evidence and on the
documents relied upon by both the Parties it is seen
that none of the workers presently employed by the
Company are the Members of the Union and
therefore that the Union has not shown as to on whose
behalf and to whom the Award, if any, shall be
applicable as it is a settled law that it was necessary
on the part of the Union/Party I to file the list of
members with all the relevant details such as
Membership Registration, Membership Fees being
paid and authority given by the workmen to be
represent by the Union and so also it was necessary
to place on record the Authority given by the
workmen to the Union to show that the workmen
had authorized to raise an industrial dispute in
connection with the Charter of Demands. The
documents produced by the witness of the Party I,
Shri Puti Gaonkar which are from Exh.17 Colly to 24
and Exh. 17 Colly are the two letters dated
28-03-2004 made by the Union to Party II but a
perusal on this document shows that there is
nothing on record to show that all the names of these
workmen mentioned on Exh. 17 Colly are the
members of GMS, nor these workmen have passed
any resolution giving authority to the said Union to
represent them in the present dispute. Further, the
copy of the Charter of Demands also dated
28-03-2004 at Exh. 18 does not show anywhere that
any resolution has been passed by the workmen
asking the Union to represent them to raise the
Charter of Demands and therefore, I am in total
agreement with the arguments advanced by Learned
Advocate Shri M. S. Bandodkar for the Employer that
the Union was in a hurry to raise the Charter of
Demands on the same day i.e. 28-03-2004 and so they
went to the extent of not verifying the details of the
workmen whether they were members or no of the
Union. Even otherwise, the Party I have not produced
any resolution to show that they are the Members of
the Union. Exh. 19 is the copy of the letter dated
02-04-2004 made by the Union to the Dy. Labour
Commissioner which does not show anywhere that
the so called workers of the Company are the
Members of the Union and even otherwise, Exh. 20
which is the copy of Minutes of conciliation dated
20-05-2004 and Exh. 21 which is a Failure Report dated
05-07-2004 does not indicate that the General
Secretary Shri P. Gaonkar have filed any documents
such as the detailed list of the workmen, the
Membership Register, the Resolution and the Report
which is submitted to the Secretary, Labour does not
show any workers of the Company are the Members
of the Union or that the Resolution has been passed
by the workmen to raise the Charter of Demands. It
is also to be noted here that the Party I have not
examined any of the so called workmen of the
Company
but
they
only
chose
to
examine Shri P. Gaonkar who claims to be the
General Secretary of the Union.
60. Shri P. Gaonkar in his cross-examination at Page
11 has stated that “It is true that the workers who
are presently employed at Verna Factory are not the
members of the Party I Union”. Shri P. Gaonkar has
also admitted in his cross that a separate Union was
formed by the Officers of the Party II Company and
states that “It is true that Glenmark Laboratories
Employees Union was registered under the Trade
Union”. He has even admitted further in his cross
that the letters at Exh. 17 Colly and Exh. 18 are
having the same date which is 28-03-2004 and
further admits that the schedule to the Order of
Reference does not mention the date of demands. It
is pertinent to note here that he has admitted in cross
that at present he does not have any document to
show that the workers whose names are listed in the
list annexed to the letter dated 04-11-2004 at Exh. 22
Colly were working with the Company. He has
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1519
further admitted that he cannot produce the
Appointment Letters of the employees whose names
are mentioned in the list at Exh. 22 Colly and also
admitted that he cannot produce any document to
show that the Company had given the same
designations to the employees as mentioned against
their names in the list at Exh. 22 Colly.
61. In the cross-examination when it was asked to
Shri P. Gaonkar that Party I has not produced the
Register of Membership, Fees paid by the Members
before the Conciliation Officer at any time till the
Failure Report was submitted, he stated that he had
shown the Register of Membership as well as the
record of payment of fees by the Members to the
Conciliation Officer but has not produced the same.
This admission on part of Shri P. Gaonkar clearly
proves that because they had no documents they
failed to produce it before the Tribunal and this
statement that he had produced before the
Conciliation Officer is of no use nor it carries any
weightage as there is no support to this statement
by any documentary evidence or through the
testimony of any workmen. He goes to the extent of
stating that only after verification of all these
documents, the dispute was admitted in
conciliation is also a statement without having any
evidence of any nature and therefore the same is
baseless and moreover, he admits further that the
Failure Report dated 05-07-2004 at Exh. 21 Colly does
not mention that he had shown all the documents
such as the Register of Membership, Fees paid by
the Members before the Conciliation Officer. Hence,
this statement of Shri P. Gaonkar clearly proves the
objections raised by the Party II/Employer, therefore
I have no hesitation to believe that Party I are not the
members of GMS and hence they have no locus standi
to represent them in the present reference. Even,
further in his cross-examination when it was asked
to Shri P. Gaonkar that there is nothing on record to
show that any list of members whom he was
representing was produced before the Conciliation
Officer or before this Court, he stated that there is no
such list produced before this Court but he states
that he had produced the said list before the
Conciliation Officer which also he failed to prove
before this Court.
62. The Party I failed to show the nexus between
them and the Union and the workmen on whose
behalf the dispute has been espoused by it and so
also there is nothing on record to show that the
workmen had authorized Shri P. Gaonkar to
represent them in the present dispute. At this
juncture, I place reliance on the following
authorities:
1. Sindhu Resettlement Corporation V/s
Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat 1968(1) LLJ 834
and in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi
Tea Estate V/s Dimakuchi Tea Estate 1958
SCR 1156 the observations in which indicate
than an industrial dispute, as defined, must
be a dispute between employers and
employers, employers and workmen and
workmen and workmen and according to
him since in the case in hand there is
nothing to indicate that the workmen had
espoused the dispute and it has to be held
that Shri P. Gaonkar had no any authority on
behalf of the workmen and that Party I Union
has no locus standi to espouse the dispute.
2. Deepak Industries Ltd. V/s State of West
Bengal 1975 (I) LLJ 293 in which it is
observed as under “….if a group of workmen
raise a dispute that can also constitute an
industrial dispute within the meaning of the
Act, which may be referred to the Tribunal
in due course. But when the dispute is
sponsored or espoused by a Union, it seems
to have been uniformly held by the judicial
decisions that when the authority of the
Union is challenged by the employer, it must
be proved that the Union has been duly
authorized either by a resolution by the mem
bers or otherwise that it has the authority to
represent the workmen whose cause it is
espousing” and further observed that what
is required by the Union to espouse the
dispute on behalf of the workmen is either a
resolution or authorization by individual
workman.
63. Thus, the observations in the judgment in the
case of Sindhu Resettlement and Deepak Industries
(both cited supra) squarely apply to the instant case
because the dispute herein cannot be termed as the
one between the employer and the workmen. Hence,
Issue No. 2 and additional issue No. 2A are therefore
answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 1
64. The Party I workmen has placed on record the
Affidavit-in-Evidence of Shri Puti Gaonkar after
which they closed their case and the Party II
examined Shri Seetharama Buddharaju as their
witness after which the Party II also closed their case.
Shri P. Goankar states in his Affidavit-in-Evidence
that he is the General Secretary of Gomantak Mazdoor
Sangh and the Union is representing majority of the
workmen employed by the Party II at the Verna
Factory and according to him in the last week of
March, 2004 almost all the workers employed by Party
II joined his Union. The Party II has established the
1520
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
pharmaceutical Factory at Verna Industrial Estate
which manufactures various drugs and according to
him initially the Factory production was carried out
at Kundaim, however, since the year 2000 some of
the workmen at Kundaim Factory were transferred
to the new Factory at Verna and according to him
the Party II company is a major pharmaceutical
company engaged in manufacturing of drugs and
further states that the wages paid to the workers
were very less and there were no proper service
conditions and the workmen were not given any
facilities and Party II started implementing various
unfair labour practices and due to all these
harassment and committing violation of various laws,
almost all the production workers of the Party II who
worked for more than 240 days joined the Union
namely GMS and this was informed to the
Management vide their letter dated 28-03-2004 and
according to him almost all the workers have joined
the Union and they also submitted the copy of the
Charter of demands dated 28-03-2004 and on receipt
of this Charter of Demands, the Management started
harassing the Committee Members and the active
members of the Union.
65. Further, according to him as the Management
started unfair labour practices, the Union made
a letter dated 02-04-2004 to the Dy. Labour
Commissioner for intervention and inspite of
holding various meetings, the conciliation
proceedings ended in failure and as such upon the
Failure Report, the Government was pleased to refer
the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. It is also
the grievance of the Party I workmen that the wages
paid to them were very low and not sufficient to meet
their day to day needs and as such vide the Charter
of Demands the Party I put their demands with
respect to the pay-scales and various other facilities
to be provided to them. He has stated that the Party
II Company is one of the leading companies in India
in manufacturing the drugs and its financial
position is very strong and since the Company has
sufficient capacity to bear the financial burden the
Party I submitted the Charter of Demands.
66. Shri P. Gaonkar has admitted in his cross that
“It is true that the schedule to the Order of
Reference does not mention the date of demands”.
This also goes to show that the Charter of Demands
was submitted in a hurry and the same is therefore
vague and moreover it is admitted by the witness of
Party I.
67. Now coming to the cross-examination of
Shri P. Gaonkar, it is seen that the Balance Sheet of
Party II as on 31-03-2002 at Exh. 34 was shown to him
which was admitted by him and so also the Balance
Sheet of Party II as on 31-03-2003 at Exh. 35 and the
Balance Sheet of Party II as on 31-03-2004 at Exhibit
36 was shown to him which clearly shows that the
Company was making heavy losses during all these
years and when this question was posed to him,
Shri P. Gaonkar stated that he cannot say anything to
it. This answer goes to show that the first witness of
the Party I does not wish to state and admit that the
Company was in losses. Further, the Balance Sheets
of Party II for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 which
are at Exhibits 37 and 38 respectively were shown to
him and it was asked to him that normally
Companies are referred to the Board for Industrial
and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) when their
network is less than what Company owes to the Bank
or to Creditors, to which he stated that “I am not
aware”. It is pertinent to note here that he has
initially stated that he knows what is BIFR but inspite
of knowing it, he chose to state that he is not aware.
He also admitted that he can read the Balance Sheet
but according to him he does not understand its
terminology. Further also when it was asked to him
that the amounts shown on Exhibit 37 which is a
Balance Sheet and the bracketed portions in the
Balance Sheet are the losses, he stated that he is not
aware. Similarly, the copy of Affidavit-in-Evidence of
Shri Nityanand Kosmekar in IT/33/04 at Exhibit 39
was shown to him and he admitted the contents of
Exhibit 39. In his deposition it has come on record
that they had given a letter to GMS to enroll them as
the members of the said Union and the workers had
gone on strike from 31-05-2004 and all the workers
including those designated as Trainees had also
gone on strike from 31-05-2004. Hence, from these
documents it is clear that the Company was in losses
and the demands raised by them are not genuine in
view of the financial condition of the Party II.
Moreover, it has also come on record that none of the
workers having so called affiliation with GMS are
working in the Company at the Factory at Verna and
there is nothing on record to show that all these
workmen were members of the said Union and the
Party I have even gone to the extent that even
without verifying whether any workman is his
member or not, or which employees are his members,
they have submitted the Charter of Demands on the
same day i.e. on 28-03-2004 which is a letter at
Exh. 17 Colly wherein the Union informed the
Employer that a new Union has been formed and gave
a list of their local Committee and also submitted the
Charter of Demand dated 28-03-2004 at Exh. 18 and
in short the workers failed to show their
membership to the Union i.e. to GMS.
68. It is to be noted here that from the documents
produced more specifically the Company has filed
the Balance Sheet for the year 2002 to 2004, 2010-11
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1521
and 2011-12 and the demand is made in the year 2004.
The Balance Sheet for the year 2002 to 2004 clearly
shows that the year ending March, 2002, there is a
loss of Rs. 94,07,048/- and so also there is decrease in
inventories Rs. 6,62,39,965/- there is a loss for the year
March, 2003 which is of Rs. 77,63,330/- and the loss
for the year March, 2004 is of Rs. 1,08,55,481/- and as
the Balance Sheet shows consistent loss, it is
impossible for any Company to accept the demands
raised by the workmen which are not justified. Even
further, on-going through the Statement of Profit and
Loss Account for the year ending 2010-11, the loss is
of Rs.13,757.23/- and for the year 2011-12 of
Rs. 18,106.61/-. Hence, in the various Balance Sheets,
the Profit and Loss Account shows that the
Company was making losses for the year 2002 to 2004.
69. It has come on record vide amendment made
to the pleadings that the Party II entered into a
settlement dated 19-10-2005 with the Union namely
Glenmark Laboratories Employees Union, Verna
Industrial Estate, Goa u/s 18(1) of the Industrial
Disputes Act wherein the majority of the workmen
accepted the benefits of this settlement and no
dispute was raised by the said substantial majority
workmen. Learned Adv. Shri S. Gaonkar on behalf of
Party I places reliance on the following authorities.
1. (Copy Exh. 50 – Para 16)
1. Hindustan Lever Ltd. V/s B. N. Dongre
(1994) 6 SCC 157, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed that “as is so well known,
wages are among the major factors in the eco-
nomic and social life of the working classes.
Workers and their families depend almost
entirely on wages to provide themselves with
the three basic requirements of food, cloth-
ing and shelter. The other necessities of life
like children’s education, medical expenses,
etc. must also come out of the emoluments
earned by the bread-winner. Workers are
therefore concerned with the purchasing
power of the pay-packet they receive for their
toil. If the rise in the pay-packet does not keep
pace with the rise in prices of essentials the
purchasing power of the pay-packet falls re-
ducing the real wages leaving the workers
and their families worse off. Therefore, if on
account of inflation prices rise while the pay-
packet remains frozen, real wages will fall
sharply. This is what happens in periods of
inflation. In order to prevent such a fall in real
wages, different methods are adopted to
provide for the rise in prices. In the cost-of-
living sliding scale systems the basic wages
are automatically adjusted to price changes
shown by the cost-of-living index. In this way
the purchasing power of workers’ wages is
maintained to the extent possible and
necessary.”
2. Biddle Sawyer Limited V/s Chemical
Employees Union (2003) 5 Bom CR 125
wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
has observed that “the entire attitude
adopted by the Petitioner seems to be that
the workmen should not get any upward
revision in wages in accordance with the
Impugned Award although the financial
capacity is available and there has been a
monstrous rise in the cost of living index. The
gap between the last settlement and the
present Award is also large in fact, as held by
a catena of decisions of the Apex Court,
then there is an erosion in real wages due to
inflation or when there is a steep rise in the
consumer price index or if the gap between
the last wage fixation and the present one
substantial, and upward revision in wages is
justified. There can be no obstacle to grant-
ing such a revision if the Company is in a
position to bear the financial burden.”
3. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. V/s
Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport &
General Kamgar Union, 2002 SCC OnLine
Bom 437 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay has observed that “The Apex Court
has held in a number of cases that the
Industrial Tribunal must strive to endeavor
to see that workers are paid fair wages and
not merely the minimum wages. Fair wages
are something less than the living wages,
which are the ultimate goal, and more than
the minimum wages which must be paid in
any event. Fair wages which are fixed at a
particular time may not remain fair with
passage of time and the price increase and,
therefore, a revision in wages is necessary.
To a certain extent, this disparity is made up
by payment of dearness allowance, but as the
Apex court has consistently taken a view that
100% neutralization is not advisable, it is
necessary to sufficiently bridge the gap
between the wages and cost of living by
revision of the wages as also the dearness
allowance. The mere fact that there is an
increase in the Consumer Price Index,
justifies an upward revision.”
4. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union V/s
State of Maharashtra & Others 1995 (2) Mh.
L.J. wherein it is observed that “Dispute
between an individual workman and
1522
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
employer with regard to discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or termination of services is
deemed to be an industrial dispute under
Section 2(k) notwithstanding that no other
workman or union of workmen is party to
the dispute and in reference proceedings
arising out of dismissal of workmen, employer
objecting to the maintainability of dispute
as it was not supported by resolution of the
Executive Committee of the Union – Union
actively pursuing demand of workmen. Even
otherwise, Appropriate Government having
been appraised about existence of dispute
between parties, that gave it jurisdiction to
make reference under Section 10(1)(c).
5. J. H. Jadhav V/s Forbes Gokak Ltd. (2005)
3 Supreme Court Cases 202 wherein it has
been held that there is no particular form
prescribed to effect such espousal – Normally
Union must express itself in the form of a
resolution which should be proved if in
issue, however, proof of support by Union
may also be available in other ways – It
would depend on facts of each case”.
70. I have perused all the above authorities in
deciding the instant case and there is no dispute as
regards the position of law as held in all the said
cases but the facts of the present case are totally
different from the above authorities. Therefore, these
authorities do not benefit the Party I in any manner.
71. Further it is seen that the Party I are relying
and comparing their Company with two other
Companies namely Indico Remedies situated at
Verna–Goa and Geno Pharmaceuticals Company Ltd.
and states that they are also entitled for the same
facilities which are made available to the workers of
the above mentioned two Companies but to this it is
seen that the Party I has not produced nor mentioned
any details to show as to on what basis the benefits
provided in both the above two Companies can be
extended to them and according to him the Party II
company is making consistent loses which is seen
from the Balance Sheet produced which are at vari-
ous exhibits as discussed above. More specifically
the Balance sheet for the year 2003 which clearly
shows in detail the financial position and the loss of
the Party II because as per the said Balance Sheet
there is a marking of BRF which shows that it is a loss
making Company and more over it is to be noted here
that the Party I have gone to the extent of seeking
various demands without giving any justification to
each of the demands. The demands are not justified
with any cogent reasons and therefore the compari-
son made by the Party I of their Company with the
above mentioned Companies cannot be looked into
as various other factors such as the profitability of
the Company, the production capacity, the location
and the age factor of all the three Companies are
totally different and therefore the Geno Company and
the Indico Company cannot be compared with the
Party II Company which is just a three years old Com-
pany and the Party II Company is admittedly making
heavy losses and moreover the Party I has not led any
evidence nor produced anything on record to show
as to in what manner both these Companies can be
compared to the Party II as no Balance Sheet has been
produced of these two Companies to compare the
financial position and above all the Party I has failed
to show that these workers employed by the Com-
pany are the members of the Union and as such the
Union themselves have failed to show on whose be-
half the Award, if any, shall be applicable. There are
no details to show the list of the members with the
membership registration, membership fees paid and
there is no authority given by the workmen to repre-
sent them on their behalf and there is no resolution
to that effect that the workmen has authorized to
raise industrial dispute in connection with the Char-
ter of Demands. Shri P. Gaonkar has admitted in his
cross that he has not produced the Balance Sheets of
both the above mentioned so called comparable con-
cerns. He has also admitted that “It is true that the
letter dated 02-04-2004 at Exhibit 19 does not make
any allegations against the Company.
72. I have already discussed in detail while
deciding issue No. 2 and additional issue No. 2-A
that any of the workmen mentioned in Exh.17 are the
members of GMS, nor the said workmen have passed
any resolution giving authority to the said Union to
represent them. Exhibit 18 which is a letter of
Charter of Demand dated 28-03-2004 does not point
out anywhere if any Resolution is passed by the
workmen asking the union to represent them or to
raise the Charter of Demands. Therefore, the very
raising of the Charter of Demands is bad in law. Even
Exhibit 19 which is a letter dated 02-04-2004 made to
the Dy. Labour Commissioner also do not indicate
anywhere that the so called workers of the Company
are the members of the Union and as such according
to me the dispute itself is bad in law and therefore
Exhibit 23 and 24 respectively which are the
Settlements dated 03-06-2006 made by the Party I
Union and Indico Remedies and the Settlement dated
22-05-2009 between Geno Pharmaceuticals and their
workmen have no bearing nor they can be made
applicable to the case at hand. Therefore, the
demands listed in the Claim Statement cannot be
termed as genuine demands. The raising of the
present dispute is bad in law as it is a settled law
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1523
that for adjudication of a dispute, the same has to be
definite and this is because the Courts cannot
enlarge the scope of reference or travel beyond the
points specifically referred for its adjudication. It is
only after when the Court comes to the conclusion
that the dispute is precise and defined, it would be
possible for the Court to look into the other aspects
such as the paying capacity of the Employer, or if the
wages are not in consonance with Consumer price
Index. At this juncture I place reliance on the
authority reported in the case of M/s India Tourism
Development Corporation, New Delhi v/s Delhi
Administration 1982 Lab. I. C. 1309 to canvas the
proposition that the dispute raised has to be definite
and clear and if the same is indefinite and vague it
might disqualify itself as an industrial dispute.
Further, it is held that the Tribunal cannot go
beyond the terms of reference, so also that the
Tribunal cannot adjudicate the matters not within
the purview of the dispute referred. Hence in view of
the above reasons, issue No.1 is answered in the
negative.
Additional Issue No. 2B
73. That during the pendency of the present case,
the Party II made an amendment to the pleadings in
the Written Statement stating that the reference is
to be disposed off in terms of the settlement dated
19-10-2005 signed with Glenmark Laboratories
Employees Union/Majority Union. This additional
issue came to be framed in view of the fact that
during the pendency of the present reference, the
Party II entered into a settlement with the majority
Union namely Glenmark Laboratories Employees
Union dated 19-10-2005 under Section 18(1) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and further stated that
the substantial majority of the workmen have
accepted the benefits of the said settlement and
placed on record the copy of the said settlement and
prayed that in these circumstances an Award in
terms of the said Settlement dated 19-10-2005 be
passed in the present reference and that Party I Union
has no locus standi to raise any industrial
dispute at all. Upon framing of this additional issue
both the Parties admitted in writing that they will
not lead any evidence on this issue since it is a law
point which is an admitted position. It has come on
record that there is another Union known as Glenmark
Laboratories Employees Union which is having ma-
jority character and they also sent a Charter of De-
mand and upon discussions, both the Parties arrived
at a settlement and as such the Management has
signed the Settlement with the Glenmark Laborato-
ries Employees Union.
74. The first witness of the Party II Shri Seetharam
Buddharaju has placed on record the copy of this
Settlement dated 19-10-2005. I have perused Exhibit
45 and perusal on the same clearly shows that the
majority of the workmen have signed the said
settlement with the management and therefore the
Parties are bound by Exhibit 45. Even otherwise, it is
proved by the Party II that its employees are not the
Members of the Party I Union while deciding issue
No. 2 and therefore this additional issue which is
based on a law point of execution of the Deed of
Settlement dated 19-10-2005, the Parties are bound
by it and accordingly, the Party I has no locus standi
to raise an industrial dispute at all on any of the
issues. The settlement dated 1910-2005 speaks for
itself and the Parties are bound by it and the witness
of the Party II admitted in cross that the settlement
dated 19-10-2005 at Exhibit 45 is applicable to
permanent workmen and they have revised their sala-
ries. Accordingly, additional issue No. 2B stands an-
swered in the affirmative.
Additional Issue No. 1A
75. Since, it is the contention of Party I that they
are the employees of the Party II on the date the
dispute was raised, this issue has been framed with
a burden on them to discharge the same and the Party
I have miserably failed to prove that they were the
employees of the Party II on the date when the
present dispute was raised. I have discussed in
detail while deciding issue No. 2 and additional
issue No. 2A that its employees are not the members
of the Party I Union and apart from that, the Party I
has not led any evidence to show that they were the
employees of the Party II on the date when the
present dispute was raised.
76. Shri P. Goankar, the only witness examined by
Party I failed to prove that these workers were
employed with the Party II at the relevant time as the
Union has not examined any of the workmen of the
Company and though the Company received a letter
dated 28-03-2004 signed by Shri P. Gaonkar claiming
to be the General Secretary of the GMS but no list of
workers was submitted. Without verifying whether
any workmen were its members or not, and which
employees were the members, the Charter of
Demands came to be submitted to the management.
The details of the workers are not mentioned in any
manner. If one peruses Exh. 22 Colly, which is a letter
dated 04-11-2004 addressed to the Additional Labour
Commissioner it is seen that the said list does not
even remotely indicate that the said workmen are
working with the Company, or that they are the
members of the said Union, or that they are the em-
ployees of the Company and that any resolution has
been passed on their behalf to raise the demand/
/dispute. Shri P. Gaonkar has not produced any
Appointment Letter or any Wage Slip to show that
1524
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
they were the employees of the said Company and
merely because a list of persons is produced does
not mean that they are the employees of the Party II
Company. Shri P. Gaonkar has admitted in his
cross-examination “At present I do not have any
document to show that the workers whose names
are listed in the list annexed to the letter dated
4-11-2004 were working with the Company. How-
ever I can produce the same” but failed to produce
the same.
77. Further, it has come in his cross-examination
that Exhibit 22 does not indicate as to when these
employees were employed and inspite of giving an
opportunity to Shri P. Gaonkar to produce the
Appointment Letters of the said workmen, he stated
in his cross that he cannot produce the Appoint-
ment Letters of the employees whose names are
mentioned in the List at Exhibit 22 Colly. He also
further stated that he cannot produce any document
to show that the Company had given the same des-
ignations to the employees as mentioned against
their names in the List at Exhibit 22 Colly. Hence, it
has to be understood that Exh. 22 Colly is a half docu-
ment which has no authenticity to prove the claim
of the Party I. He has also admitted in his cross that
the workers who are presently employed at Verna
Factory are not the members of the Party I Union
and he also stated that a separate Union was formed
by the Officer of the Party II Company and Glenmark
Laboratories Employees Union was registered un-
der the Trade Union and the said Union was regis-
tered after the Party I Union had submitted their de-
mands. This also goes to prove that he is aware of the
formation of the second Union. He has also admitted
in his cross that the workers had gone on strike on
01-06-2004 and states further that this strike was with-
drawn on 18-10-2004 but this statement cannot be
believed in the light of the fact that Shri Nityanand
Kosambekar in IT/33/2004 stated in his cross that the
workers had gone on strike on 31-05-2004 and ac-
cording to him all the workers including those des-
ignated as Trainees had gone on strike from 31-05-
2004 therefore the statement of Shri P. Gaonkar that
the workmen went on strike on 01-06-2004 is not cor-
rect. Hence, all this goes to show that Party I failed to
prove additional issue No.1A and accordingly the
same is answered in the negative.
Accordingly, I pass the following Order:
O R D E R
(1) The Award stands dismissed.
(2) No Order as to cost.
(3) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Bela N. Naik),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
Dated:- 05-05-2022.
Place:-
Porvorim-Goa.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
–––
Order
No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt)/Part-I/927
The Government of Goa is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following Civil Registrar-
-cum-Sub Registrar (C.R.S.R.), Group ‘B’, Gazetted Officers of Registration Department, with immediate
effect, in public interest:-
Sr. No.
Name of Officials
Present place of posting
Place of Transfer
1.
Smt. Soniya Sidhyesh Halarnkar
C.R.S.R., Bardez
C.R.S.R., Bicholim.
2.
Smt. Shradha Subhash Bhobe
C.R.S.R., Bicholim
C.R.S.R., Bardez.
The above Officers shall draw their pay and allowances against their respective posts at the place of
transfer from the date of taking charge, they shall complete the process of handing over/taking over of
charge and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law -Estt).
Porvorim, 24th June, 2022.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1525
Office of the District Magistrate, North Goa
––
Corrigendum
No. 15/1/2017-MAG/SC-ST Atrocities/1247
Read: Order No. 15/1/2017-MAG/SC-ST Atrocities/2195 dated 04-08-2021.
In partial modification of the order read above the names at Sr. No. 11 and Sr. No. 12 and may be read
as: “Shri Chandrakant Jadhav and Shri Rohidas Jalmi” respectively instead of “Shri Chandrashekhar
Jadhav and Ravi Jalmi”.
The other contents of the order remain unchanged.
Gopal A. Parsekar, Additional District Magistrate (North -Goa).
Panaji, 20th May, 2022.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 6/10/2017-PER/Part/3254
On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer
and posting of the following Senior Scale officers of Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with immediate
effect:-
Sr. No.
Name and present posting of the Officer
Posted as
1. Shri Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar of
Managing Director, Goa Education Development
Co-operative Societies
Corporation with additional charge of Managing
Director, Goa State ST Finance and Development
Corporation Ltd.
2. Shri Vishant S. Naik Gaunekar, Managing
Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
Director, Goa Education Development Corporation
3. Shri Sanjeev C. Gauns Dessai, OSD Small
Managing Director, Goa Tourism Development
Savings and Lotteries
Corporation.
4. Smt. Laura Britto e Madre Deus, Secretary
Special Officer, Planning & Statistics.
State Police Complaint Authority
Shri Dipak M. Bandekar, Director of Information & Publicity shall hold additional charge of Director of
Archives, in addition to his own duties.
The officers appointed on ex-cadre deputation post shall be governed by the standard terms of deputation.
Smt. Laura Britto e Madre Deus shall draw salary against the vacant post of Leave and Training Reserve.
The officers shall complete handing over and taking over process within three days of issue of this order
and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 17th June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 6/10/2020-PER/PF/3286
Read: 1.
Order No. 6/10/2020-PER/5406 dated 17-12-2020.
2.
Memorandum No. 6/4/2020-PER/3206 dated 14-12-2021.
Whereas, on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on
16-12-2020, as conveyed by Goa Public Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/42(3)/2020/
/851 dated 17-12-2020, the Junior Administrative Grade officers of Goa Civil Service were promoted to
1526
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
Selection Grade, in Level 13 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2016
vide Order dated 17-12-2020 read at Sr. No. 1 in the
preamble;
And whereas, Smt. Meena Naik Goltekar was not
eligible for promotion to Selection Grade at that
relevant time as the recommendations in respect of
Smt. Naik Goltekar were kept in sealed cover in the
DPC held on 15-10-2018 for promotion to Junior
Administrative Grade;
And whereas, upon receipt of vigilance
clearance, the GPSC vide letter No. COM/II/11/42(3)/
/2011/673 dated 16-10-2020 conveyed their
recommendation in respect of Smt. Meena Naik
Goltekar and she was promoted to Junior
Administrative Grade of Goa Civil Service in Level
12 of the CCS (RP) Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 23-10-2018 in
the order of her merit with due regard to the
seniority within the respective grading vide order
No. 6/11/2017-PER/5323 dated 07-12-2020;
And whereas, the seniority of the Junior
Administrative Grade officers of the Goa Civil
Service has been re-casted vide Memorandum
No. 6/4/2020-PER/3206 dated 14-12-2021 on
promotion of Smt. Meena Naik Goltekar with due
regards to her seniority;
And whereas, a review DPC was held by GPSC
on 27-05-2022 based on the re-casted seniority to
review the DPC held on 16-12-2020 for considering
eligibility of Smt. Meena Naik Goltekar for promotion
to Selection Grade;
And whereas, the GPSC vide letter No. COM/II/
/11/42(3)/2020/116 dated 30-05-2022 has conveyed
the recommendations of the Review DPC held on
27-05-2022 to promote Smt. Meena Naik Goltekar to
the post of Selection Grade of Goa Civil Service on
regular basis;
Now therefore, on the recommendation of the
review Departmental Promotion Committee held on
27-05-2022, the Governor of Goa is pleased to
promote Smt. Meena Naik Goltekar in terms of Rule
33 of Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016 to the post of
Selection Grade, in the Level 13 of Central Civil
Services (RP) Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 17-12-2020 with the
consequential monetary benefits and place her
below Shri Damodar S. Morajkar and above Smt.
Laura Britto e Madre Deus in the promotion Order
dated 17-12-2020 read at Sr. No.1 in the preamble.
The officer shall exercise 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 officer shall continue to hold
the post presently held by her.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 21st June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 22/8/2007-PER/3307
The Governor of Goa is pleased to order transfer and posting of the following IPS Officers, with
immediate effect, in public interest:-
Sr. No.
Name of the Officers
Posted as
1. Shri Abhishek Dhania, IPS, Looking
Superintendent of Police (South).
after the charge of SP (South)
2. Shri Bosco George, IPS SP (Security)
Commandant IRBn with additional charge of SP
(Security); FRRO and SP (SPCR).
Shri Shobhit D. Saksena, IPS, Superintendent of Police (North) shall hold additional charge of
Superintendent of Police (ANC).
Shri Shekhar Prabhudesai, Superintendent of Police, shall also hold the additional charge of
Superintendent of Police (Anti-Corruption Branch).
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Nathine S. Araujo, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 21st June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 15/22/96-PER/Part-II/3336
Read: 1) Notification No. 15/22/96-PER/Part-I dated 04-10-1999 published in the Official Gazette, Series I No.
30 dated 21-10-1999.
2) Notification No. 15/22/96-PER-I/Part-I dated 27-07-2011 published in the Official Gazette, Series I
No. 21 dated 25-08-2011.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1527
3) Notification No. 01/25/87-PER(Pt.II) dated 06-02-2013 published in the Official Gazette, Series I
No. 46 dated 14-02-2013.
4) Notification No. 15/22/96-PER/Part-II/2588 dated 14-10-2021 published in the Official Gazette,
Series I No. 31 dated 28-10-2021.
5) Letter No. COM/I/5/42(1)/2022/414 dated 09-06-2022 of the Deputy Secretary, Goa Public Service
Commission, Panaji-Goa.
The Result of the Departmental Examination of the following Officers in the cadre of Block Development
Officers conducted by the Goa Public Service Commission in pursuance to the Notifications at Sr. Nos. (1),
(2), (3) & (4) read in preamble held from 25-04-2022 to 29-04-2022, is declared, as indicated against their
name:
Sr.
Name
Results
Remarks
No.
of the officer
1. Shri Siddesh S. Kerkar
Pass
……
2. Shri Ashwin alias Sadashiv K. Dessai
Pass
……
3. Shri Paritosh U. Fal Dessai
Pass
……´
4. Shri Suryajirao V. Rane
Fail
Failed in Paper IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, & IX.
5. Shri Anil L. Dhumaskar
Fail
Failed in Paper II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII & IX.
6. Shri Gurudatta P. Naik
Fail
Failed in Paper VIII.
7. Shri M. B. Parwar
Fail
Failed in Paper I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII,
IX and X.
8. Shri Anil S. Naik
Fail
Absent in Paper I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII,
IX and X.
This is issued based on the result of the above candidates communicated by the Goa Public Service
Commission vide letter read in preamble at Sr. No. (5).
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 22nd June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 5/19/2021-PER/3345
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/42(1)/
/2022/148 dated 17-06-2022, the Governor of Goa is
pleased to promote and appoint under Rule 17 of
the Goa Civil Service Rules, 2016, the following
Officers holding the posts included in Schedule-II
of the said Rules to the post of Junior Scale Officer
of Goa Civil Service, Group ‘A’, Gazetted, in the
Level 10 of Central Civil Services (RP) Rules, 2016
with immediate effect:-
1. Shri Shivprasad S. Naik.
2. Shri Krishnakant Sakharam Pangam.
3. Shri Manesh Hari Kedar.
4. Kum. Prajakta Dina Goltekar.
5. Shri Bhagwant Anay Karmali.
6. Shri Prasiddh Prakash Naik.
7. Shri Shrikant Babi Pednekar.
8. Shri Amitesh Anant Shirvoikar (ST).
9. Shri Milindra Ganesh Velip (ST).
10. Shri Prakash Redkar.
11. Shri Sandeep Sahadev Gawde.
12. Shri Raghuraj Arun Faldesai.
13. Smt. Avelina Dsa E Pereira.
14. Smt. Durga D. Kinlekar.
The Officers shall be on probation for a period of
two years from the date of their joining and shall
submit their Annual Assessment Report during the
probation period. 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 posts presently held by them until further
orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
1528
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
Department of Planning
Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation
and
Office of the Chief Registrar of Births & Deaths
––
Notification
No. DPSE/RBD/CRS-Notification/2017/1207
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
-section (2) of Section 4 of the Registration of Births
and Deaths Act, 1969 (Central Act No. 18 of 1969),
the Government of Goa is hereby pleased to appoint
Shri Digambar V. Kalapurkar, Deputy Director of
Directorate of Planning, Statistics and Evaluation,
Government of Goa as the “Additional Chief
Registrar of Births and Deaths”.
Shri Digambar V. Kalapurkar will hold the
additional charge of the post of Additional Chief
Registrar of Births and Deaths in addition to his
own duties with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vijay B. Saxena, Director/Chief Registrar (Births
and Deaths).
Porvorim, 22nd June, 2022.
———uuu———
Department of Public Heath
––
Order
No. 46/2/2006-I/PHD/983
Read: Order No. 46/2/2006-I/PHD/849 dated
03-06-2022.
Government is pleased to post Dr. Angelica Siona
Gomes, Deputy Director (Public Health) at Goa State
AIDS Control Society on working arrangement with
immediate effect.
Dr. Angelica Siona Gomes shall draw her salary
from the post of Dy. Director (Public Health).
This supercedes the earlier Order dated 03-06-
2022 read in preamble.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 20th June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 44/28/2017-I/PHD/987
Dr. Anil Humraskar, Health Officer, STD Clinic
Baina presently holding the charge of Sub District
Hospital, Chicalim is hereby deployed to work at
Community Health Centre, Valpoi with immediate
effect.
Consequent to above, Dr. Sujata Kamat, Medical
Officer, Sub District Hospital, Chicalim shall hold
the charge of STD Clinic Baina and SDH, Chicalim.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
————
Order
No. 44/26/2017-I/PHD/999
Government is pleased to transfer the following
doctor under Directorate of Health Services, with
immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name of
Present place
Posted at
No.
Doctor
of posting
1. Dr. Tejan
South Goa
Primary Health
Lotlikar,
District Hospital, Centre,
Medical
Margao deployed Cortalim.
Officer
at PHC, Cortalim
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 23rd June, 2022.
———uuu———
Department of Water Resources
Office of the Chief Engineer
–––
Notification
No. 4/4/CE-WRD/EO/2022-23/98
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1)
of Section 14 of “The Dam Safety Act, 2021” (No. 41
of 2021) of Government of India which extends to
whole of India, the Government of Goa hereby
constitutes The Goa State Dam Safety Organization
(Goa-SDSO), headed by Superintending Engineer,
Circle-IV, Water Resources Department, head
quartered at Gogal, Margao, Goa. The office of
Superintending Engineer, Circle IV is now named as
The Goa State Dam Safety Organization (Goa-SDSO).
The above organization shall comprise of the
following officers:
Sr.
Designation
Address
No.
1. The Superintending
Gogal, Margao-Goa.
Engineer, Circle-IV, WRD
2. The Executive Engineer,
Pajimol, Sanguem,
Works Division-X, WRD
Goa.
3. The Executive Engineer,
Karapur, Sanquelim,
Works Division-V, WRD
Goa.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
1529
1. All Specified dams in the state shall fall under
the jurisdiction of Goa-SDSO in matters relating to
dam inspections, analysis of information,
investigation reports or recommendations regarding
safety status and remedial measures to be undertaken
for prevention of dam failure related disasters and to
ensure their safe functioning.
2. Goa-SDSO shall be responsible to and report to
the Chief Engineer (Water Resources) & Ex-Officio
Addl. Secretary to Government of Goa.
3. Goa-SDSO shall-(a) keep perpetual surveillance;
(b) carry out inspections; and (c) monitor the
operation and maintenance of all specified dams
falling under their jurisdiction to ensure continued
safety of such specified dams and to suggest such
measures as may be necessary to address safety
concerns that are noticed with a view to achieve
satisfactory level of dam safety assurance as per such
guidelines, standards and others directions on dam
safety as may be specified by the regulations.
4. Goa-SDSO for the purpose of enabling it to make
decisions compatible with public safety, shall make
or cause to be made such investigations and shall
gather or cause to be gathered such data as may be
required for proper review and study of the various
features of the dam design, construction, repair and
enlargement of dams, reservoirs and appurtenant
structures under their jurisdiction.
5. Having regards to the number of specified dams
in the State, such number of officers and employees
shall be provided to the State Dam Safety
Organization as it may consider necessary for the
efficient functioning of the said organization:
6. The functions and powers of the officers and
employees appointed under Section (7) shall be such
as may be prescribed by the State Government.
7.The Organizational structure and work
procedures of the State Dam Safety Organization shall
be such as may be prescribed by the State
Government.
8. The Goa-SDSO may invite the representative of
the owner of any specified dam and such other
experts in dam safety (including international
experts) as it may consider appropriate for the
discharge of its functions. The fee and allowances
paid to the expert invitees shall be such as may be
prescribed by the State Government. The
administrative and other expenses of the State Dam
Safety Organization shall be borne by the State
Government.
9. The State Dam Safety Organization shall classify
each dam under their jurisdiction as per such
vulnerability and hazard classification criteria as may
be specified by the regulations.
10. State Dam Safety Organization shall maintain
a log book or database for each specified dam under
their jurisdiction recording therein all activities
related to the surveillance and inspection and all
important events related to dam safety and with such
details and in such form as may be specified by the
regulations and shall furnish all such information to
the Authority as and when required by them.
11. State Dam Safety Organization shall report the
event of any dam failure under their jurisdiction to
the Authority, and furnish any information as and
when required by them and shall maintain the
records of major dam incident of each specified dams
under their jurisdiction, furnish all such information
to the Authority as and when required by them.
12. State Dam Safety Organization shall render its
instructions to the owner of a specified dam on the
safety or the remedial measures required to be taken
with respect to it.
13. The above composition of Goa-SDSO shall be
in force from the date of this notification. Government
of Goa can Re-Constitute the said Goa-SDSO as felt
necessary from time to time, to fulfill its functions.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
P. B. Badami, Chief Engineer & ex officio
Additional Secretary (WRD).
Porvorim, 24th June, 2022.
————
Notification
No. 4/4/CE-WRD/EO/2022-23/99
In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 14 of “The Dam Safety Act, 2021” (No. 41 of
2021) of Government of India which extends to whole of India, the Government of Goa hereby constitutes Goa
State Committee on Dam Safety, for the Dams in the State of Goa. The said Committee shall come in force from
the date of notification with the following composition:
1530
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 13
30TH JUNE, 2022
Sr.
Name of the Official Post/Representative on behalf of Government
Designations
No.
(i) The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department & Ex Officio Additional
Chairperson.
Secretary to Government
(ii) a) Superintending Engineer, Circle-IV, WRD, Gogal, Margao, Goa
Member.
(iii) b) Superintending Engineer, Central Planning Organization, WRD,
Member.
Porvorim-Goa
(iv) Three Expert Members nominated by Government for Dam Safety Panel
Members.
from time to time
(v) Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Altinho, Panaji-Goa
Member.
(vi) Director, Instrumentation, Central Water Commission, Room No. 411, 4th floor
Member.
(South), Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066
(vii) Director, Hydro Project Appraisal (HPA) Division, Central Electricity
Member.
Authority, Ministry of Power Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066
(viii) The Head of the Civil Engineering Dept. Goa Engineering College-Farmagudi,
Member.
Ponda, Goa
1)
The above Committee shall discharge its functions as specified in the Third Schedule of Dam Safety
Act, 2021 as may be necessary to prevent dam failure related disasters under this Act as per guidelines,
standards and other directions on dam safety issued by the Authority.
2)
The State Dam Safety Committee, in discharge of its functions, shall be assisted by such sub-
-committees as it may consider necessary, and the Secretarial assistance to the State Committee as
well as its sub-committees shall be provided by the concerned State Dam Safety Organization.
3)
The State Dam Safety Committee may invite the representative of the owner of any specified dam
and such other experts in Dam Safety as it may consider appropriate, for the discharge of its functions.
4)
The State Dam Safety Committee shall meet at such times and places and shall observe such rules
of procedure in regards to the transaction of business at its meetings as may be prescribed by the State
Government: provided that the State Dam Safety Committee shall meet twice in a year and one
meeting shall be held before the onset of the monsoon season.
5)
The above composition of State Committee on Dam Safety shall be in force for three years from the
date of this notification, and thereafter the committee shall re-constituted for every three years
thereafter.
6)
The expenditure incurred on the meetings of the State Committee shall be in the manner as may be
prescribed by the State Government.
7)
The specialist members & other experts invitees who attend the meeting of the State Committee or
its sub-committee shall be paid such fees and allowances as may be prescribed by the State
Government.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
P. B. Badami, Chief Engineer & ex officio Additional Secretary (WRD).
Porvorim, 24th June, 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. 32.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—96/150—6/2022.