SERIES II No. 38

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-2023

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Education

––

Order

No. DE/102/Adm.I/B/Re-naming GHS-GHSS/2022/659

The below mentioned Government High Schools

and Government Higher Secondary Schools shall

be renamed as proposed by Head of Institutions

with consultation of PTA/SMC of the schools in

accordance with the Martyr’s list provided by

Department of Home (General), Secretariat,

Porvorim-Goa.

Sr.

Name of

Renaming of

No.

Government

Government High

High School

School as

1. Government High

J. A. Chopdekar

School, Agarwada,

Memorial

Pernem-Goa

Government High

School, Agarwada,

Pernem-Goa.

2. Government High

Shahid Ram Singh

School, Torse,

Memorial

Pernem-Goa

Government High

School, Torse,

Pernem-Goa.

Panaji, 22nd December, 2022 (Pausa 1, 1944)

2671

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

Note:- There is one Supplement and four Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 37 dated

15-12-2022 as follows:—

(1) Supplement dated 15-12-2022 from pages 2659 to 2660 regarding Order from Department of Revenue.

(2) Extraordinary dated 15-12-2022 from pages 2661 to 2662 regarding Notification from Goa Legislature

Secretariat.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 15-12-2022 from pages 2663 to 2666 regarding Order and Notification from

Department of Panchayati Raj and Community Development.

(4) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 16-12-2022 from pages 2667 to 2668 regarding Notification from Department

of Finance.

(5) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 20-12-2022 from pages 2669 to 2670 regarding Notification from Department

of Town and Country Planning.

3. Government High

Tulshiram

School, Gaothanwada,

Balkrishna Hirve

Ozari, Pernem-Goa

Memorial

Government High

School,

Gaothanwada,

Ozari, Pernem.

4. Government High

Hutatma Bala Gopal

School, Dadachiwadi,

Dessai Memorial

Dhargal, Pernem-Goa

Government High

School,

Dadachiwadi,

Dhargal, Pernem-

-Goa.

5. Government High

Krishna Shaba Shet

School, Alto-Betim,

Memorial

Porvorim, Bardez-Goa

Government High

School, Alto-Betim,

Porvorim, Bardez-

-Goa.

6. Government High

Hutatma Babuli

School, Kasarpal,

Narayan Gawas

Bicholim, Goa

Memorial

Government High

School, Kasarpal,

Bicholim-Goa.

2672

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

7. Government High

Ramnath Naik

School, Tarmatha Bhile,

Memorial

Surla, Bicholim-Goa

Government High

School, Tarmatha-

Bhile, Surla,

Bicholim-Goa.

8. Government High

Soma Rama Malik

School, Morlem Colony,

Memorial

Sattari

Government High

School, Morlem

Colony, Sattari.

9. Government High

Purshottam Kerkar

School, Dona Paula,

Government High

Tiswadi

School, Dona Paula.

10. Government High

Parshuram Memorial

School, Merces,

Government High

Tiswadi-Goa

School, Merces,

Tiswadi-Goa.

11. Government High

Camilo Pereira

School, Sadar,

Memorial

Ponda-Goa

Government High

School, Sadar,

Ponda-Goa.

12. Government High

Rajnikant Kenkre

School, Vidyanagar,

Memorial

Aquem, Margao

Government High

School, Vidyanagar,

Aquem, Margao.

13. Government High

Rajnikant Kenkre

School, Vasco Main,

Memorial

Mormugao

Government High

School, Vasco Main,

Mormugao.

14. Government High

Camilo Pereira

School, Baina,

Memorial

Vasco-da-Gama

Government High

School, Baina,

Vasco-da-Gama.

Sr.

Name of

Renaming of

No.

Government Higher

Secondary Schools

Secondary Schools as

Government Higher

Krishna Vasudev

Secondary School,

Parab Memorial

Khandola, P. O.

Government Higher

Marcela, Ponda-Goa

Secondary School,

Khandola, P. O.

Marcela, Ponda-Goa.

Government Higher

Ramnath Naik

Secondary School,

Memorial

Baina, Vasco-Goa

Government Higher

Secondary School,

Baina, Vasco-Goa.

This issues with the approval of Government of

Goa vide U. No. 3677/F dated 05-12-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shailesh R. Sinai Zingde, Director (Education) &

ex officio Jt. Secretary.

Porvorim, 15th December, 2022.

————

Directorate of Technical Education

Polytechnic Section

––

Order

No. 17/3/26/2010/DTE/Vol I/Part II/2971

Read: Notification No. 23/1/87-GA&C(Vol V)/1984

dated 06-06-2022.

Shri Subhash P. Borkar, Principal, Government

Polytechnic Bicholim shall look after the charge of

Principal, Government Polytechnic Panaji, in

addition to his own duties, with immediate effect

until further orders.

This is issued with approval of the Government

vide U. O. No. 3897/F dated 08-12-2022.

This order supersedes order No. 17/3/26/2010/

/DTE/Vol I/Part II/2756 dated 30-11-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director (Technical Education)

and ex officio Additional Secretary.

Porvorim, 14th December, 2022.

————

College Section

––

Order

No. 16/4/101/GAD/Arch/DTE/22/2973

Read: Memorandum No. 16/2/25/2001/DTE/Vol.IV/

/1904 dated 26-09-2022.

On the recommendations of the Goa Public

Service Commission conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/I/5/5(1)/2018/284 dated 24-08-2021,

Government is pleased to appoint Ms. Gouri Ashok

Desai on temporary basis to the post of Associate

Professor in Architecture (Group ‘A’ Gazetted) at

Goa College of Architecture, Altinho, Panaji-Goa,

on an initial pay at Level 13A1 [i.e. initial pay of

Rs. 37,400/- (pre-revised) in the Pay Scale of

Rs. 37,400 - 67,000 (pre- revised) + Academic Grade

Pay of Rs. 9000/- (pre-revised)] w. e. f. the date of

joining as per the terms & conditions contained in

the Memorandum cited above.

The appointment is against the post of Assistant

Professor in Architecture vacant since creation vide

Order No. 16/1/10/2002-DTE/1444 dated 04-08-2003

& subsequently revived vide Order DTE/ADC/16/

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

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

2673

Ms. Gouri Ashok Desai will be on probation for

a period of two years.

She should join duties within 30 days of the

receipt of this order, failing which this order is

liable to be cancelled without further notice.

She has been declared fit by Medical Board, Goa

Medical College & Hospital, Bambolim vide letter

No. 4/105/85-H/GMC/2022/774 dated 02-11-2022.

Her character and antecedents have been verified

and nothing adverse is reported against her as

conveyed by the Office of the Superintendent of

Police (District Special Branch), Kolhapur vide No.

DSB/A/B/C/243/2022 dated 05-12-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director (Technical Education)

and ex officio Addl. Secretary.

Porvorim, 14th December, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Environment & Climate

Change

—

Corrigendum

No. 7/4/98/ENVT&CC/DIR/PartI/1247

Read: Notification No. 7/4/98/STE/DIR/PartI/1191

dated 07-02-2022.

In the Notification read above, in the schedule

therein for Sr. 4 and Sr. 17 are omitted from the said

notification and the time during night hours from

10.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m. mentioned in the second

last line of the first para may be substituted to read

as from 10.00 p.m. to 12.00 a.m.

Dasharath M. Redkar, Director (Environment & CC).

Panaji, 15th December, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of General Administration

–––

Order

No. 35/4/2005-GAD-III/2717

Order No. 35/4/2005/GAD-III dated

27-05-2013.

Order No. 35/4/2005/GAD-III dated

10-03-2017.

Addendum No. 35/4/2005-GAD-III/927

dated 31-03-2017.

In lines to Addendum dated 31-03-2017 read in

preamble (3), whenever there is no Superintendent

(Legal)/Superintendent (Law)/Superintendent

(Legislative Affairs)/Superintendent (Drafting)

posted in Law (Legal) Department, the Under

Secretary (Legal)/Under Secretary (Law)/Under

Secretary (Legislative Affairs)/Under Secretary

(Drafting) respectively shall function as the “Public

Information Officer”.

This issued with the approval of Secretary (GA).

Shreyas Dsilva, Under Secretary (GA-I)/Link.

Porvorim, 14th December, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

––

Notification

No. 28/02/2022-LAB/Part-II/699

The following Judgment passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa, on 21-10-2022 in Case No.

LC-II/LCC/105/2021 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, 13th December, 2022.

–––

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/LCC/105/2021

Mr. Bapu Y. Ambekar,

R/o H. No. 967/A, Ambrina,

Succorro, Alto Porvorim,

Bardez, Goa, 403521

…

Applicant.

V/s

1. Hotel Mandovi,

(A unit of Mandovi Hotels Private Limited),

D.B. Bandodkar Marg,

Panaji-Goa

… Opponent (1).

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

Managing Director, Hotel Mandovi,

R/o. Ashirwad, D-6, Ocean Park,

Dona Paula, Goa

… Opponent (2).

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

R/o. Ramnath Prasad Building,

Near Mahalaxmi Temple,

Panaji-Goa

… Opponent (3).

Panaji, Dated: 21-10-2022.

Applicant represented by Adv. Shri Suhas Naik.

Opponent absent, marked as Ex-parte.

2674

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

JUDGEMENT

1. This Judgment and Order shall determine the

claim application of the Applicant dated

11-11-2021, filed U/S 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

2. By the present claim application, the Applicant

claimed from the Opponents an amount of

Rs. 3,19,444/- (Rupees Three lakhs nineteen thousand

four hundred and forty four only) being Rs. 23,484/-

towards bonus for the year 2018-2019 and for the year

2019-2020, Rs. 9,917/-towards LTA and Medical

allowance for the year 2018-2019 and for the year

2019-2020, Rs. 71,176/- towards salary increase arrears

and Rs. 82,867/- towards unutilized privileged leave

113 days.

The Applicant stated that he retired from the

Opponent No. 1 establishment on 31st August, 2019.

However, in spite of his retirement, the Opponents

have failed to pay his legal dues. He stated that as

the Opponent No. 1 failed to pay his legal due, he

made several written communications to the

Opponent No. 1. The Opponents failed to pay his

legal dues. He stated that Opp. No. 2 and 3 are the

Managing Director/Partners of the Opponent No. 1

establishment and as such all the Opponents are

jointly and severally liable to pay his legal dues as

stated above. He stated that the inordinate delay in

making payment to him has caused severe prejudice,

financial losses and inconvenience to him besides

economic starvation. He submitted that he is entitled

to receive the aforesaid amount alongwith interest

@10% p. a. from the day of its maturity till its

realization. The applicant therefore prayed that the

opponents be directed to pay to him the aforesaid

amount of Rs. 3,19,444/- (Rupees Three lakhs nineteen

thousand four hundred and forty four only) alongwith

interest @10% p. a. till its actual realization.

3. All the Opponents have been duly served. The

Opponents have however, failed to appear

before this Hon’ble Court on the scheduled

dates of hearings for the reasons best known

to them. This Hon’ble Court marked an ex-parte

against the Opponents after giving ample

opportunities to appear and pursue their case.

4. This Hon’ble Court framed the following issues

on 14-10-2021 at Exb. 4.

1. Whether the Applicant proves that he is

entitled to receive from the Opponents an

amount of Rs. 3,19,444/- (Rupees Three lakhs

nineteen thousand four hundred forty four

only), Rs. 23,484/- towards bonus, Rs. 9,917/-

medical allowances 2018-19 and 2019-20,

Rs. 71,176/- towards salary increase arrears and

Rs. 82,867/- towards unutilized privileged

leave (113 days) respectively?

2. What order?

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

(a) Issue No. 1

In the affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

As per final order.

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

Suhas Naik appearing for the Applicant. On the

contrary, none remained present for the Opponents.

I have carefully perused the entire records of the

present case. I have also carefully considered the

submissions advanced by the Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas

Naik, appearing for the Applicant.

REASONS:

Issue No. 1:

6. By the present claim application, the Applicant

claimed a total amount of Rs. 3,19,444/- (Rupees Three

lakhs nineteen thousand and forty four only) being

Rs. 23,484/- towards bonus, Rs. 9,917/- towards LTA,

medical allowances, Rs. 71,176/- towards salary

increase arrears, Rs. 82,867/- towards unutilized

privileged leave respectively.

To support his claim, the Applicant has produced

on record documentary evidence in support of his

oral evidence. The said evidence, oral as well as

documentary adduced by the Applicant on record

remained unchallenged for want of denial.

(a) Unpaid Salary:

The Applicant claimed from the Opponent an

amount of Rs. 1,32,000/- towards his pending

salaries for the period from October, 2019 to

3rd March, 2020.

The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant joined the service of the Opponent No. 1

as Jr. Accounts on 04-01-1982. The evidence on record

indicates that the monthly net salary of the Applicant

was Rs. 20,153/- after deducting the P.F. and LIC

amounting to Rs. 1,847/- in the month of August 2019.

On 28-08-2019, the evidence on record

indicates that the Applicant has not been paid his

earned salaries for the month from October, 2019 till

3rd March, 2020. The evidence on record indicates

that the monthly total net salary of the Applicant

was Rs. 20,153/-. Thus, the Applicant is entitled to

receive from the Opponent a sum of Rs. 1,02,780/-

(Rupees One lakh two thousand seven hundred

eighty only) towards his unpaid salaries for the period

from October, 2019 till 3rd March, 2020.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

2675

(b) Bonus:

9. The Applicant claimed bonus foran amount of

Rs. 23,484/- for the year 2018-2019 and for the year

2019-2020.

The bonus is paid to the employee under the

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

provides for the eligibility of the bonus. Section 9 of

the Act provides for disqualification for the bonus.

Section 10 of the Act, provides for minimum bonus.

The provisions of Section 10 provides for the minimum

bonus of 8.33% of the salary or wage earned by the

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

whichever is higher, whether or not the Employer

has any allocable surplus in the accounting year.

Similarly, Section 11 of the Act, provides for payment

of maximum bonus.

10. The evidence on record indicates that the

Applicant has failed to produce on record relevant

materials to grant maximum bonus. In the

circumstances, the Applicant is entitled for minimum

bonus @ 8.33% of the salary or wage earned by the

employee during the accounting year or Rs. 100/-

whichever is higher, whether or not the Employer

has any allocable surplus in the accounting year.

11. The Applicant claimed from the Opponent an

amount of Rs. 23,484/- for the year 2018-19 and for the

year 2019-20 towards bonus. Taking into

consideration the monthly salary of the Applicant of

Rs. 22,000 /-, the minimum bonus for the year 2018-19

and for the year 2019-20 @ 8.33% amounts to Rs. 3,665/-

(Rupees Three thousand six hundred sixty five only).

Thus, the Applicant proved that he is entitled to

receive from the Opponent No. 1 a total amount of

Rs. 3,665/- (Rupees Three thousand six hundred sixty

five only) towards bonus for the year 2018-19 and for

the year 2019-20.

12. The Applicant claimed LTA and medical

allowance for the year 2018-2019 and for the year

2019-2020 for an amount of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees

Twenty two thousand only).

The Applicant has produced on record a letter of

the Employer dt. 01-08-2013 (Exb. 9) in support of his

oral Evidence. The said letter of the Employer on

record at Exb. 9 indicates that the applicant is

entitled for Medical Allowance annually for Rs. 7,000/-

and LTA (Leave Travel Allowance ) has been dropped.

Thus, the Applicant claimed for Medical Allowance

for the year 2018 -2019 and for the year 2019-2020

would be Rs. 14,000/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand

only). The Applicant is not entitled for LTA in

pursuant of the letter at Exb. 9. Hence it is held at

the applicant proved that he is entitled to receive

from the Opponent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 14,000 towards

the Medical allowance. The Applicant failed to prove

that he is entitled for any amount towards LTA.

(d) Salary Increase Arrears:

13. The Applicant claimed an amount of

Rs. 71,176/- towards the arrears in his increase in

salary from 01-04-2017 till 30-11-2018.

The evidence on record indicates that the net

salary of the Applicant was Rs. 16,611/- w. e. f.

01-04-2017 which was subsequently increased to

Rs. 20,153/- w. e. f. 01-04-2018 as per the salary

revision for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 dated

26-12-2018 (Exb. 5). Thus, there was increase in salary

of Rs. 3542/- per month from 01-04-2017 till 30-11-2018

(for 20 months) which comes to Rs. 70,840/-. Thus,

the Applicant is entitled to receive from the

Opponent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 70,840/- (Rupee Seventy

thousand eight hundred and forty only) towards

arrears of increase in salary.

(e) Unutilized Privileged Leave:

14. The Applicant claimed an amount of

Rs. 82,867/- towards 113 days of his unutilized

privileged leave. The net salary of the Applicant was

Rs. 20,153/- per month. Taking into consideration the

monthly salary of the Applicant, the Applicant is

entitled for an amount of Rs. 75,910/- towards his

unutilized privileged leave. Thus, the Applicant is

entitled to receive from the Opponent a sum of Rs.

20,153/- (Rupees Twenty thousand one hundred fifty

three only) towards his unutilized privileged leave.

15. In the case of New Standard Engineering

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

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

Court of Bombay, after relying upon a judgment of

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

Sakharam Chowgule and Anr. v/s. M/s. Parel Cotton

Press Factory (1994 SUPP. (3) SCC 704), held that

“though the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, do

not expressly empowered the Industrial Court to grant

interest, the court is entitled to grant interest

depending upon facts of each case”.

16.

In the case of Haryana State Federation of

Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. v/s.

Siri Kishan and Anr., reported in 1996 II CLR 688,

the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has

held that “where the Employer has retained what was

required to be disbursed to the Workman, by denying

their rightful dues for almost a period of 12 years,

during which the value of their money has

considerably diminished due to inflation i. e. prevalent

2676

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

in the country, the Labour Court is perfectly entitled

to say that the workman should be compensated by

way of payment of interest”.

17.

Thus, it is settled principle of law that the

Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal is empowered to

grant interest depending upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. In the instant case as

stated above, it has been proved that the Applicant

is entitled to receive from the Opponent No. 1 a total

amount of Rs. 2,67,195/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty

seven thousand one hundred and ninety five only)

towards unpaid salaries, bonus, arrears of salary

increase, unutilized privileged leave and Medical

Allowance. The Applicant is therefore entitled to

receive from the Opponent No. 1 being Employer and

Opponent No. 2 and Opponent No. 3 being partners

of the Opponent No. 1 the said amount of Rs. 2,67,195/

-(Rupees Two lakhs sixty seven thousand one

hundred and ninety five only) alongwith simple

interest @ 10% p. a. from the date of passing the

present order till its actual realization.

In view of above and with regards to the facts and

circumstances of the case, I pass the following order:

ORDER

1. The present claim application of the Applicant

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

allowed. The Opponents are hereby directed to pay

to the Applicant, Mr. Bapu Y. Amberkar, a sum of

Rs. 2,67,195/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty seven thousand

one hundred and ninety five only) along with simple

interest @10% p. a. from the date of passing of the

present order till the actual realization of the said

amount.

No order as to cost.

Pronounced in the open court.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

————

Notification

No. 28/02/2022-LAB/Part-V/703

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 28-11-2022 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/C-IT/01/2018 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, 14th December, 2022.

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/C-IT/01/2018

Shri Damu Kudalkar,

H. No. 56, Mungal,

Margao-Goa.

…… Complainant/Workman

V/s

M/s Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Paraisio de Goa,

Alto Porvorim, Goa.

…… Opponent/Employer

Complainant represented by Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar.

Oppnent represented by Adv. Shri P. Agarwal.

Panaji, Dated: 28-11-2022.

AWARD

1. This Award shall determine the complaint of

the Complainant dt. 23-01-2018 filed u/s 33-A

of the I.D. Act 1947.

2. It is the case of the complainant in short that

he was appointed as “Peon” (Multi Tasking

Staff) by order dt. 21-08-1982 and permanently

posted at Head Office, Porvorim, Goa. He stated

that he is designated as Peon (MACPS-III). He

stated that he raised a dispute in respect of

non-extending dues of the benefits of 3rd

up gradation after completion of 30 years of service

in accordance with Modified Assured Carrier

Progression Scheme before the ALC, Panaji, Goa

which ended in failure. He stated that the

dispute was referred for the adjudication to

the Labour Court-II and was registered as

Reference No. LC-II/IT-54/16. He stated that he

closed the evidence and the matter was fixed

for the evidence of the Employer wherein the

affidavit of Shri V. D. Harmalkar, retired Personal

Manager was filed. He stated that during the

pendency of the reference before the Labour

Court-II, the Personnel Officer issued an Order dt.

12-1-2018 thereby he was re-designated as Peon

(Multi Tasking Staff) in the revised payband of Rs.

5200-20200+ Rs. 1800 Grade Pay in 6th Pay

Commission. He stated that at the time of the

order, the dispute pertaining to the non-granting of

3rd financial up gradation under the Modified

Assured Progression Scheme was pending before

the Labour Court-II which has the direct nexus

pertaining to pay fixation and therefor the Employer

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

2677

could not have passed any order altering the service

conditions of the Workman as the dispute was

pending.

3. He stated that the Personnel Officer is liable

for the violation of the service conditions and

necessary action deemed fit will be taken

against the Personnel Officer. He stated that the

Personnel Officer has no right of whatsoever

nature to pass the impugned order altering the

service condition to his prejudice. He stated

that however, in the instant case in the flagrant

abuse of the process of law and during the

pendency of the proceedings before the Labour

Court-II. The Personnel Officer acted in abuse of

process of law and is liable for action for violation

of provision of Section 33-A of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947. The Workman therefore prayed that the

complaint be allowed and this Hon’ble Court be

pleased to quash and set aside an order dt.

12-01-2018 whereby, he is re-designated as Peon

(Multi Tasking Staff) in the Revised Pay Band of Rs.

5200-20200+GP Rs. 1800 under the 6th Pay

Commission and be pleased to initiate proceedings

against the Personnel Officer Shri R. D. Naik for

alteration of service conditions in violation of the

Modified Assured Progression Scheme during the

pendency of the dispute before the Labour

Court-II.

4. The Employer resisted the claim of the Workman

by filing its reply dated 15-06-2018 at Exb. 7. The

Employer, as and by way of its preliminary

objections, submitted that the complaint is liable to

be dismissed as there is no alteration of service

conditions as alleged by the complainant and that

what is referred for adjudication is not a

complaint as defined u/s 33-A of the I.D. Act.

5. The Employer stated that it is a Government

Company registered under Section 617 of the

Companies Act, 1956. The Employer stated that

it is a State Transport Undertaking under the

purview of the Motor Transport Act, 1988. The

Opponent stated that the complainant working

as Peon and the dispute in reference No. IT/54/

/2016 was raised by the complainant regarding the

non-extending of the benefits of 3rd up gradation

(MACP) after completion of 30 years of his service.

6. The Opponent sated that the Complainant, vide

letter dt. 12-08-1982, was offered appointment

on temporary basis for the temporary increase

in work for 6 months without any right of

permanency. The Opponent stated that on

acceptance of the offer, the complainant was

issued temporary appointment letter dt.

21-08-1982 appointing him in the post of Peon

with them. The Opponent stated that vide order dt.

24-05-1983, 14 employees who were employed on

temporary basis including the complainant, were

taken on probation w.e.f. 21-02-1983. The Opponent

stated that the complainant was thereafter confirmed

in their services w.e.f. 01-10-1984 vide order

dt. 19-10-1984. The Opponent stated that on the

recommendation of the Departmental Promotion

Committee (DPC), the complainant including

the other workmen were extended the benefits

of the Modified Assured Career Scheme (MACP).

The Opponent stated that as per the MACP

Scheme Clause No. 1, an employee is entitled for three

up-gradation during his service tenure. The

Opponent stated that the complainant has been

given all the three financial up gradation

up to now and was communicated the same from

time to time. The Opponent stated that they

had properly made the fixation of wages after

giving the up gradation. The Opponent stated that

the complainant was issued the pay fixation order

dt. 12-01-2018 whereby consequent upon adoption

of the Office Memorandum dt. 21-11-2016 vide BOD

Resolution No. 140/60 dt. 13-12-2016 the pay of the

complainant which was fixed vide order dt.

08-10-2010 revised and refixed to Rs. 6590+ Rs.

1800/-G.P. w.e.f. 01-01-2006 by re-designating him as

Peon (MTS) in the revised Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200+

Rs. 1800 Grade Pay under the 6th Pay Commission.

The Opponent stated that on implementation of

above revised pay scale, the complainant was then

entitled to arrears w.e.f. 01-01-2016. The Opponent

stated that the said arrears amounting to Rs.

25,824/- was paid to the complainant along with his

salary of April, 2018. The Opponent submitted that

the issuance of order dt. 12-01-2018 granting benefits

to the complainant, do not amount to any alteration

of service conditions to his prejudice as alleged in

the complaint. The Opponent therefore submitted

that the complaint is not entitled for any relief as

claimed by him in the present complaint. The

Opponent catagorily denied the overall allegation

as pleaded by the complainant and prayed for

dismissal of the same.

7. Opportunities were given to the Complainant

to file his re-joinder. However, Ld. Adv. A.

Kundaikar appearing for the workman submitted

that he is not filing re-joinder.

8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

parties’ hereinabove, this Hon’ble Labour

Court-II framed the following issues on 19-07-2018

at Exb. 8.

2678

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the Employer contravened the provisions of

Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947 pending a

reference bearing No. LC-II/IT/54/16 before

the Labour Court II?

Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the present complaint filed by the Workman

is liable to be dismissed in view of the

reasons stated in para 2 (a) and (b) as well as

para 10 of its written statement?

Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to

any relief?

What order? What award?

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

(a)

Issue No. 1

In the negative.

(b)

Issue No. 2

In the affirmative.

(c)

Issue No. 3 & 4

As per final order.

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

Agarwal, appearing for the Employer. On the

contrary Ld. Adv. Shri A. Kundaikar appearing for

the Workman remained absent. I have carefully

perused the entire records of the present case. I have

also carefully considered the oral arguments

advanced by the Ld. Adv. Shri P. Agarwal appearing

for the Employer and is of the firm opinion as under.

REASONS

10. Issue No. 1 and 2:

Indisputably, the Workman was appointed as

Peon by the Employer on probation w.e.f.

21-02-1983 and thereafter confirmed at the service of

the employer w.e.f. 01-10-1984, vide order dt.

19-10-84. The complainant has been given all the

three financial up gradation such as granted TBPS

in the pay scale of Rs. 2610-60-3150-65-3540 w.e.f.

01-11-2001 as first up gradation, granted ACPS in the

pay scale of Rs. 2650-65-3300-70-4000 w.e.f. 30-08-2006

as second up gradation and granted MACP III after

completion of 30 years of service in the pay scale of

Rs. 5200-20200+1900 GP as third up gradation and

the basic pay of the complainant was fixed by the

said order at Rs. 8940+Rs. 1900 Grade Pay w.e.f.

30-08-2012. Thus the complainant was given all the

three up gradation and communicated the same from

time to time. The Complainant was also paid the

arrears amounting to Rs. 25824 alongwith his salary

of April 2018. A dispute was raised by the

complainant pertaining to the non-extending dues

of benefits of the 3rd upgradation after completion

of 30 years of service in accordance with MACPS

Scheme. The said Reference was referred for

adjudication to the Labour Court and was registered

as Case No. LC-II/IT/54/16 pertaining to the legality

and justifiably of the action of the Employer in non-

extending the benefits of 3rd up gradation after

completion of 30 years of service to him thereby

depriving him of the monetary benefits and if not

what relief he is entitled to.

11. By the present complaint, the complainant

claim to be in violation of Section 33-A of the I.D.

Act,1947 by the Employer by issuing the said order

dated 18-11-2016 thereby granting him MACP

Scheme. The pre-condition for the grant of the

Section 33-A of the said Act is that the Workman shall

prove that the employer has contravened

Section 33 of the said Act. Section 33 (1) of the

said Act states that during the pendency of any

conciliation proceedings before the conciliation

Officer or a board of any proceedings before (an

arbitrator or) a Labour Court or Tribunal or

National Tribunal in respect of an industrial

dispute, no employer shall–

(a) In regard to any matter connected with the

dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen

concerned in such dispute, the conditions of

service applicable to them immediately before

the commencement of such proceedings or

(b) For any misconduct connected with the

dispute, discharge or punish, whether by

dismissal or otherwise, any workmen

concerned in such dispute, save with the

express permission in writing of the authority

before which the proceeding is pending.

12. In the case of Stanley Mendex v/s. Glovanola

Binny Ltd. and Ors., reported in (1968) II LLJ 470,

the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in para 5 of its

judgment has held as under:

“5. In a complaint made to the tribunal under

Section 33A, the primary question that fails to be

considered by tribunal is whether there has been

a contravention by the employer of the provisions

of Section 33 of the Act, and it is only in case it is

found that there has, in fact, been such contravention

that occasion arises for the tribunal to embark upon a

further adjudication of the complaint on its merits; in

other words, the tribunal has to be satisfied initially

that there has, in fact, been a contravention by the

employer of the provisions of Section 33 by effecting

during the pendency of other proceedings before it,

an alteration to the prejudice of the Workman

concerned, of the conditions of his service which were

applicable to him immediately before the

commencement of such proceedings”.

13. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala is well established and also

applicable to the case in hand. Applying the law laid

down by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

2679

case in hand, pending the reference bearing No.

LC-II/IT/54/16, before this Labour Court II for its

adjudication pertaining to the legality and

justifiability of the action of Employer in non

extending the benefits of 3rd up-gradation after

completion of 30 years of service to the

complainant thereby depriving him of the

monetary benefits and if not what relief the workman

will be entitled to. During the pendency of said

reference, the Employer was pleased to pass pay

fixation order dt. 12-01-2018 signed by Personal

Officer Shri R. D. Naik. The complainant alleged that

the Personal Officer is liable for the violation of

alterations of the conditions service.

14.

Bare reading of the pay fixation order dt.

12-01-2018 at Exb.10 states that consequently

upon adoption of the Office Memorandum dt.

21-11-2016 vide BOD Resolution No. 140/16 dt.

13-12-2016 the pay of the complainant which was

fixed vide order under reference is revised and

refixed to Rs. 6590+Rs. 1800 GP w.e.f. 01-01-2006 by

re-designating him as Peon (Multi Tasking Staff) in

the revised pay band of Rs. 5200-20200+Rs. 1,800 GP

under the 6th Pay Commission. The said document

further states that on implementation of the above

revised pay scale, the complainant is entitled for

arrears w.e.f. 01-01-2016. The Complainant was also

paid an arrears of Rs. 25,825/- in his salary of April,

2018; Upon careful perusal of the said order at Exb.10,

it is beneficial and not prejudicial to the

complainant in any manner. The said order at

Exb.10 does not alter the conditions of service of the

complainant. Hence it is held that the complainant

failed to prove that the employer contravened the

provisions of Sec. 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947 pending the

reference bearing No. LC-II/IT/54/16 before this

Labour Court-II. Issue No. 1 is therefore answered in

the Negative and the Issue No. 2 is answered in the

Affirmative.

15. Issue No. 3:

While deciding the issue No. 1 and 2, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that there is

no alteration of service condition of the

complainant and as such the complainant failed to

prove that the Employer contravened the

provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947

pending reference bearing No. LC-IT/54/16

before the Labour Court-II. The Complainant

therefore is not entitled to any relief. The issue

No. 3 is therefore answered in the Negative.

In view of above, I pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The complaint of the Complainant dt.

23-01-2018 filed by the Complainant u/s 33-A of

the I.D. Act, 1947 is hereby dismissed.

2. The complainant is not entitled to any relief.

3. No order has to cost.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

————

Notification

No. 28/02/2022-LAB/705

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 02-11-2022 in Case No.

LC-II/IT/02/2022 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, 15th December, 2022.

––––

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Case No. LC-II/IT/02/2022

Shri Manguesh Tendulkar,

Opp. Bhagwati Temple,

Margao-Panaji Bypass Road,

Dhavali, Ponda-Goa. (403 401) …… Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Volkswagen Goa,

Mody Auto Corp. Private Limited,

Plot No. L-26-A, Phase II,

Verna Industrial Estate,

Verna, Salcete-Goa. (403 722) …… Employer/Party II

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

Party-II/Employer marked as Ex-parte.

Panaji, Dated: 02-11-2022.

AWARD

In Exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c)

of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial

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

2680

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

Government of Goa by Order dated 11-01-2022,

bearing No. 28/57/2021-LAB/29 referred the

following dispute for adjudication by the Labour

Court-II, Panaji-Goa.

“(1)

Whether action of the management of M/s.

Volkswagen Goa, Mody Auto Corp. Private

Limited, Plot No. L-26-A, Phase II, Verna

Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa in

refusing the employment to Shri Manguesh

V. Tendulkar, Driver, with effect from

08-05-2021, is legal and justified?

“(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?”.

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/02/22 and registered

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

the said notice, the Parties put in their appearance.

On 02-03-2022 the Workman/Party-I (for short

‘Workman’), along with his representative Shri P.

Gaonkar remained present. The facts of the case as

pleaded by the Workman that he was initially

appointed as “Driver” by the Employer/Party-II (for

short ‘Employer’). He stated that since the day of his

appointment as Driver from 12-11-2018, he was in

continuous service of the Employer without any

break. He stated that on 07-05-2021, he reported for

duty at around 9.00 a.m. and carried out his normal

work. He stated that at around 11.00 a.m., he was

called by the General Manager and told him to

submit his resignation without stating reasons. He

stated that he was told not to report for work from

08-05-2021. He stated that on 08-05-2021, when he

went to report for duty, he was not allowed to report

for duty. He stated that Mr. Nikhil Naik, HR Officer

sent him a whatsapp message on his Mob. No.

8007275280 that he should submit his resignation,

company ID card and other belongings. He stated

that he was not issued any memo, show cause notice

or charge sheet for alleged misconduct if any, before

refusal of employment. He stated that he raised an

industrial dispute before the Dy. Labour

Commissioner, Margao vide his letter dated

12-05-2021. He stated that the said letter dated

12-05-2021 was forwarded to the Asst. Labour

Commissioner, Vasco. He stated that the ALC Vasco

called both parties for conciliation proceedings

which ended in failure.

3. He contended that before refusal of employment,

he was not given a one month notice or one month

pay in lieu of notice, retrenchment compensation and

other dues as required under Section 25F of the

Industrial Dispute Act 1947. He submitted that

before refusal of employment, the management has

not conducted any inquiry and has not followed the

principles of natural justice. He therefore, submitted

that termination of his services is illegal, unjustified

and bad-in-law. He submitted that after refusal of

employment, the Employer had advertised for the

post of Driver at Verna and new drivers were

employed in his place of work. He submitted that the

Employer has not followed the principles of “last

come first go” and Jr. Drivers are still in the

employment of the Employer. He submitted that the

termination of his services is in violation of Section

25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act, 1947. He submitted

that after the termination of his services, he is

unemployed and has not been able to find out any

suitable job despite his effort, hence entitled for full

back wages and continuity in services. The Workman

therefore, prayed that an award be passed holding

that the termination of his services is illegal,

unjustified and bad-in-law and to direct the Employer

to reinstate him in service with full back wages and

continuity in service with consequential benefits

thereof.

4. The Employer filed its reply to the aforesaid

claim of the Workman by his reply dated nil at Exb.5.

The Employer submitted that the claim of the

Workman is unjustified.

5. An opportunity was given to the Workman to

file his Rejoinder however, Ld. Representative Shri P.

Gaonkar appearing for the Workman submitted that

he does not wish to file any Rejoinder.

6. Based on the pleading, this Hon’ble Court framed

the following issues on 28-07-2022.

1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that he

was refused employment by the Employer/Party II

w.e.f. 08-05-2021.

2. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that the

action of the Employer/Party II in refusing him

employment amounts to termination of his services?

3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that the

action of the Employer in refusing him employment

w.e.f. 08-05-2021, is illegal and unjustified?

4. Whether the Workman is entitled to any relief?

5. What order? What award?

7. My answers to the aforesaid issues are under:

(a)

Issue No. 1

In the affirmative.

(b)

Issue No. 2

In the affirmative.

(c)

Issue No. 3

In the affirmative.

(d)

Issue No. 4 & 5:

As per final Order.

REASONS:

Ld. Rep. Shri P. Gaonkar, appearing for the

Workman filed his synopsis of written arguments. On

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

2681

the contrary the Employer remained absent and was

marked an Ex-Parte. I have carefully perused the

entire records of the present case including the

synopsis of written argument filed by the Workman.

I have also carefully considered the submissions

advance before me.

8. Issue No. 1 & 2:

In order to prove the issue No. 1 & 2, the Workman

has examined himself and produced on records,

certain documents in support of his oral evidence.

The said oral evidence as well as documents adduced

by the Workman on record remained unchallenged

for want of denial.

9. The evidence on records indicates that the

Workman was appointed as driver by the Employer

on 12-11-2018. The evidence on records indicates

that the Workman was in continuous service of the

Employer from the date of his appointment from

12-11-2018 till he was refused employment w.e.f.

08-05-2021. The evidence on records indicates that

on 07-05-2021 at around 11.00 a.m. the Workman was

called by the General Manager and told him to

submit his resignation without stating any reasons

and that he further told him not to report for work

from 08-05-2021. The evidence on record further

indicates that on 08-05-2021, when he went to report

for duty, he was not allowed to resume duty and

further the HR Officer Mr. Nikhil Naik sent him a

whatsapp message on Mob. No. 8007275280 that he

should submit his resignation, company I.D. card and

other belongings. The aforesaid evidence on records

clearly indicates that the Workman was refused

Employment by the Employer on 08-05-2021. The

aforesaid evidence on record clearly indicates that

the action of the Employer in refusing Employment

to the Workman amounts to termination of his

services by way of illegal retrenchment. Hence, it is

held at the Workman proved that he was refused

employment by the Employer w.e.f. 08-05-2021 and

that the refusal of the action of the Employer in

refusing employment to the Workman amounts to

termination of his services. The Issue No. 1 & 2 are

therefore answered in the affirmative.

10. Issue No. 3:

While deciding the issue No. 1 & 2 hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

Workman was refused employment by the Employer

w.e.f. 08-05-2021 and that the refusal of the action of

the Employer in refusing an employment to the

Workman amounts to termination of his services.

The evidence on records indicates that the

services of the Workman were terminated without

issuing any show cause notice or charge sheet for

the alleged misconduct nor issued one month notice

or one month pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment

compensation before termination of his services. In

the circumstances, the refusal of employment to the

Workman amounts to violation of Section 25F of I.D.

Act, 1947. The termination of services for the

Workman is also in violation of principles of natural

justice. Though the Workman claimed that the

Employer had advertised for the post of Driver at

Verna and new drivers were employed in his place of

work, the Workman has failed to produce on records

a copy of the advertisement nor produced the names

of the person who has been appointed in his place of

work. It is held that the Workman failed to prove that

the action of the Employer is in violation of Section

25G and 25H of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence, it is held at

Workman proved that the action of the Employer in

terminating his services w.e.f. 08-05-2021 is illegal

and unjustified. The issue No. 3 is therefore

affirmative.

11. Issue No. 4:

While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that the action

of the Employer in refusing the employment to the

Workman w.e.f. 08-05-2021 is illegal and unjustified.

The evidence of records indicates that the

Workman is unemployed from the date of termination

of his services inspite of his best efforts. The Workman

is therefore, entitled for reinstatement in services

with full back wages and consequential benefits

thereof.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following

Order:

ORDER

1. It is held at the action of the management of

M/s. Volkswagen Goa, Mody Auto Corp. Private

Limited, Plot No. L-26-A, Phase II, Verna Industrial

Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa in refusing the

employment to Shri Manguesh V. Tendulkar, Driver,

with effect from 08-05-2021, is illegal and unjustified.

2. It is held that the Employer, M/s. Volkswagen

Goa, Mody Auto Corp. Private Limited, Plot No.

L-26-A, Phase II, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,

Salcete, Goa, is hereby directed to reinstate the

Workman, Shri Manguesh Tendulkar with full back

wages and continuity in service with consequential

benefits thereof.

3. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-I.

2682

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

Notification

No. 28/02/2022-LAB/Part-III/706

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

02-12-2022 in Ref. No. IT/03/2004 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, 15th December, 2022.

––––

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Anil Scaria, Hon’ble Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/03/2004

Shri Vinayak Gaonkar,

Rep. by Goa MRF Employees Union,

Kaulem, Ponda-Goa.

…… Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. MRF Ltd.,

Usgao,

Ponda, Goa.

…… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by none.

Employer/Party II represented by Learned Advocate

Shri S. B. Karpe along with Adv. Ms. S. Vaigankar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 2nd day of the month of

December of the year 2022)

By order dated 16/12/2003, bearing No. 28/46/

2003/LAB/1016, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘The Act’),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. MRF Ltd., Usgao-Goa in terminating

the services of Shri Vinayak Gaonkar with

effect from 12-01-02 is legal and justified?

(2)

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”

2. The Workman/Party I has filed his Statement of

Claim. The workman states that he was suffering

from survical spondylitis with pulmonary

tuberculosis. That on this account he was

absent from work for the period from 24-05-2001

to 26-01-2002. That he had submitted 8 ESI

Certificates commencing from 24-05-2001 and

ending with 26-12-2001. That the Employer/

Party II refused to acknowledge receipt of the

same. The Employer sent charge-sheet dated

07-12-2001 by registered post A/D to the

workman. That, it so happened that the

workman (Vinayak Gaonkar) has a neighbor by

the same name of Vinayak Gaonkar. That the

charge-sheet was wrongly delivered at the

workman’s

neighbour’s

house

and

the

neighbour’s wife namely Mrs. Vinanti Vinayak

Gaonkar received the same.

3. That the workman was not aware of the charge-

sheet. That the Employer completed the inquiry

in a single day and dismissed the workman for

absenteeism by Order dated 12-01-2002. That

the workman received the Order on 13-01-2002.

That along with the Order were enclosed a copy

of the charge-sheet dated 07-12-2001 and a copy

of what purports to be the records of an inquiry

proceeding. That the workman did not get an

opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry

proceeding. That by letter dated 05-02-2002, the

workman asked the Employer to set aside the

Order of Dismissal from service. The Union to

which he belongs also made a similar demand

by letter dated 15-11-2002. That the Union also

demanded compensation for mental torture at

the rate of 2 days’ wages for every one day of

enforced unemployment.

4. That IT/33/97 is pending with respect to the

Charter of Demands. That the Employer has not

complied with the provisions of Section 33(2)(b)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That the

workman is being victimized for his trade union

activities. That conciliation proceedings have

ended in failure and the Government has

referred the dispute for adjudication. There, it

is prayed that the workman be reinstated with

continuity of service and full back wages. That

compensation at the rate of 2 days wages for

every one day of enforced unemployment be

paid to the workman.

5. The Employer has filed its Written Statement. It

is the case of the Employer that the workman

had been in unauthorized absence for 134 days.

That the workman was charge-sheeted by

Charge-sheet dated 07-12-2001 setting out

charges as under:-

“ It is observed from your attendance record that

despite earlier warning letters, and show cause notices

in the past for your unauthorized absence, you are

still in the habit of remaining absent from work

without leave or intimation as detailed below:

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

2683

June 2001

1-30

(26 days)

July 2001

1-31

(26 days)

August 2001

26-31

(05 days)

September 2001

1-30

(26 days)

October 2001

3-30

(25 days)

November 2001

1-30

(26 days)

Your absence from work as above is therefore

unauthorized and amounts to gross misconducts

under items XXV, L and LII of Clause 21 of the

Certified Standing Orders in force in the Company,

which reads as under:

Cl. 21 Item XXV :

Habitual absence without

leave or absence without

leave

for

than

consecutive

days

overstaying the sanctioned

leave without satisfactory

explanation.

Cl. 21 Item L

Habitual breach of any

provision of the Standing

Orders

any

law

applicable to the Company

or any rules of instructions

for the maintenance and

the

working

any

department.

Cl. 21 Item LII

Any acts subversive of

discipline.

and with which you are charged.”

6. That the charge-sheet was served by registered

post A/D on the workman. That the workman did not

attend the enquiry that followed. That the Enquiry

Officer proceeded ex-parte against the workman.

That the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were

proved against the workman. That considering the

seriousness and gravity of the misconduct, the

Employer dismissed the workman. It is denied that

the workman is victimized for his trade union

activities. That Goa MRF Employees Union has no

locus standi to raise the present dispute. That the

signatory to the Claim Statement is not authorized

to raise any dispute on behalf of the workman. It is

denied that the workman is entitled to reinstatement,

back wages or compensation. That the present

reference is made without application of mind and

that it is bad in law. Therefore, it is prayed that the

reference be rejected.

7. The workman has filed his Rejoinder. The

workman has summarily denied all the averments

made against him in the written statement.

8. The following issues were framed at Exhibit 8:

1. Whether the Party I/Union proves that it has

the locus standi and authority to raise the dispute

on behalf of the workman?

2. Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

domestic enquiry held against the workman is not

fair and proper?

3. Whether charges of misconduct leveled against

the Party I are proved to the satisfaction of the

Tribunal by acceptable evidence?

4. Whether the Party I/Union proves that the Party

II did not follow the mandatory provisions of Sec.

33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, 1947 before dismissing the

workman from service?

5. Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

action of the Party II in terminating the services of

the workman w.e.f. 12-01-2002 is not legal and

justified?

6. Whether the workman is entitled to any relief?

7. What Award?

9. The workman died and his legal heirs have

been brought on record.

10. During the course of proceedings, the Employer

and the heirs of the Workman filed Consent terms

(Exh. 34 Colly) as under:

“The present dispute was referred by the

Government of Goa for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by

Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as the Applicant Shri

Vinayak Gaonkar had challenged his order of

Dismissal dated 12-01-2002 by the Opponent.

During the pendency of the said proceedings, said

Shri Vinayak Gaonkar expired on 29-12-2011 and upon

his demise, his wife Smt. Veena Vinayak Gaonkar and

his three children Miss Priyanka Vinayak Gaonkar,

Shri Prajyot Vinayak Gaonkar and Miss Pranali

Vinayak Gaonkar who are his sole and universal heirs

came to have been added as parties to the present

proceedings.

Miss Priyanka Vinayak Gaonkar expired on

14-05-2021 and considering the fact, that the original

Applicant Shri Vinayak Gaonkar is no more living,

the widow of the Applicant i.e. said Smt. Veena

Vinayak Gaonkar and her remaining two children

approached the Opponent and have sorted out the

matter amicably and in settlement of the claims and

disputes between the Parties, the Applicants have

agreed that subject to payment of lump sum amount

of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand

only) which being the Company Settlement offer to

be paid by the Opponent to the Applicants, the

Applicants shall have no claim of whatsoever nature,

2684

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

not with standing any other issues pending between

the Applicants Company/Management and various

Trade Unions.

The Opponent after having resolved settle the

disputes with the Applicant agreed to pay an amount

of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand

only) as full and final settlement of all the claims of

the Opponent in terms of settlement arrived between

the Parties. The Opponent has hereby issued a

cheque dated 17-11-2022 drawn on HDFC Bank,

Ponda branch in favour of Smt. Veena Vinayaik

Gaonkar for sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs

fifty thousand only) as full and final settlement of all

the claims and disputes of the Opponent in the

present matter.

The Applicants hereby acknowledge having

received the said sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three

lakhs fifty thousand only) from the Opponent and

declare that the Applicants have no claim of

whatsoever nature against the Opponent as all their

legal dues including Gratuity have already been

settled and further declare and acknowledge that

the termination effected of the said i.e. late

Mr. Vinayak Gaonkar by the Opponent vide Order of

Dismissal dated 12-01-2002 is perfectly legal and

valid.

The Applicants state that they have no further

interest or claim of whatsoever nature against the

Opponent in Reference No. IT/33/97, WP/592/2017,

/WP/805/2018, CP/2/2016, LCC/29/96, LCC/40/98, IT/

/17/2004, WP/2307/2021, IT/06/2007, IT/61/2002, IT/

/09/2010, IT/22/2012, WP/172/2017 and other similar

matters pending before various Courts in Goa filed

by the Union against the Opponent Company of

which Union the late Shri Vinayak Gaonkar claims to

be the member and in any other matter filed by any

other Union against the Opponent Company.

The Applicant further states that they are the sole

surviving legal Heirs of late Shri Vinayak Gaonkar

and undertakes to indemnify the Opponent in case

any claim/dispute is raised by any other person

against the Opponent claiming to be the legal Heir

of late Shri Vinayak Gaonkar in view of matter of

settlement arrived at between the Applicant and the

Opponent as per the present terms of settlement

agreed and signed.

Either of the Parties declare that they have no

claim of whatsoever nature against each other.”

Note: In these Consent Terms the word

“Applicant” denotes the “workman” and the word

“Opponent” denotes the Employer”.

11. I have gone through the records of the case

and the Consent Terms (Exh. 34 Colly) and I am

convinced that the Consent Terms filed by the Parties

are just and fair and are in the interest of the heirs of

the Workman/Party I and the Employer/Party II and

therefore the same are accepted.

Hence, I pass the following Order:-

Order

(i)

The reference in IT/03/2004 stands awarded

as per Consent Terms at Exhibit 34 Colly.

The Consent Terms are as follows:-

“The present dispute was referred by the

Government of Goa for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by

Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as the Applicant Shri

Vinayak Gaonkar had challenged his order of

Dismissal dated 12-01-2002 by the Opponent.

During the pendency of the said proceedings, said

Shri Vinayak Gaonkar expired on 29-12-2011 and

upon his demise, his wife Smt. Veena Vinayak

Gaonkar and his three children Miss Priyanka

Vinayak Gaonkar, Shri Prajyot Vinayak Gaonkar and

Miss Pranali Vinayak Gaonkar who are his sole and

universal heirs came to have been added as Parties

to the present proceedings.

Miss Priyanka Vinayak Gaonkar expired on

14-05-2021 and considering the fact, that the original

Applicant Shri Vinayak Gaonkar is no more living,

the widow of the Applicant i.e. said Smt. Veena

Vinayak Gaonkar and her remaining two children

approached the Opponent and have sorted out the

matter amicably and in settlement of the claims and

disputes between the Parties, the Applicants have

agreed that subject to payment of lump sum amount

of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand

only) which being the Company settlement offer to

be paid by the Opponent to the Applicants, the

Applicants shall have no claim of whatsoever nature,

notwithstanding any other issues pending between

the Applicants Company/Management and various

Trade Unions.

The Opponent after having resolved settle the

disputes with the Applicant agreed to pay an amount

of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand

only) as full and final settlement of all the claims of

the Opponent in terms of settlement arrived between

the Parties. The Opponent has hereby issued a

cheque dated 17-11-2022 drawn on HDFC Bank,

Ponda branch in favour of Smt. Veena Vinayaik

Gaonkar for sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs

fifty thousand only) as full and final settlement of all

the claims and disputes of the Opponent in the

present matter.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

2685

The Applicants hereby acknowledge having

received the said sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three

lakhs fifty thousand only) from the Opponent and

declare that the Applicants have no claim of

whatsoever nature against the Opponent as all their

legal dues including Gratuity have already been

settled and further declare and acknowledge that

the termination effected of the said i.e. late

Mr. Vinayak Gaonkar by the Opponent vide Order of

Dismissal dated 12-01-2002 of is perfectly legal and

valid.

The Applicants states that they have no further

interest or claim of whatsoever nature against the

Opponent in Reference No. IT/33/97, WP/592/2017,

WP/805/2018, CP/2/2016, LCC/29/96, LCC/40/98,

IT//17/2004, WP/2307/2021, IT/06/2007, IT/61/2002,

IT/09/2010, IT/22/2012, WP/172/2017 and other

similar matters pending before various Courts in Goa

filed by the Union against the Opponent Company of

which Union the late Shri Vinayak Gaonkar claims to

be the member and in any other matter filed by any

other Union against the Opponent Company.

The Applicant further states that they are the sole

surviving legal Heirs of late Shri Vinayak Gaonkar

and undertakes to indemnify the Opponent in case

any claim/dispute is raised by any other person

against the Opponent claiming to be the legal Heir

of late Shri Vinayak Gaonkar in view of matter of

settlement arrived at between the Applicant and the

Opponent as per the present terms of settlement

agreed and signed.

Either of the parties declare that they have no

claim of whatsoever nature against each other.”

Note: In these Consent Terms the word

“Applicant” denotes the “workman” and the word

“Opponent” denotes the Employer”.

(ii) No Order as to Cost.

(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Anil Scaria)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court-I.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

––

Notification

No. 7/34/2022-PER/5046

In supersession of all notifications issued in this regard, the following shall be the standing arrangement

of Link Officers for disposal of work relating to the offices/Divisions under the charge of Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests/Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests/Chief Conservator of Forests/

/Dy. Conservator of Forests, when they are on tour/training/leave etc.

Sr. No.

Officer/Post

Link Officer

Second Link Officer

Principal Chief Conservator

Additional Principal Chief

Chief Conservator of Forests

of Forests, Panaji

Conservator of Forests, Panaji

(Development), Panaji.

Additional Principal Chief

Chief Conservator of Forests

Conservator of Forests,

(Development), Panaji

(Administration, Wildlife &

Panaji

Eco-Tourism), Panaji.

Chief Conservator of Forests

Conservator of Forests

(Development), Panaji

(Administration, Wildlife &

(Conservation), Panaji.

Eco-Tourism), Panaji

Chief Conservator of Forests

Conservator of Forests

(Administration, Wildlife &

(Development), Panaji

(Conservation), Panaji.

Eco-Tourism), Panaji

Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

(Conservation), Panaji

Headquarters, Panaji

Working Plan Division, Panaji.

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator ofForests,

Headquarters, Panaji

Planning & Statistics, Panaji

Monitoring & Evaluation,

Panaji.

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator ofForests,

Planning & Statistics, Panaji

Headquarters, Panaji

Monitoring & Evaluation,

Panaji.

2686

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 38

22ND DECEMBER, 2022

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator ofForests,

Monitoring & Evaluation,

Headquarters, Panaji

Planning & Statistics, Panaji.

Panaji

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Wildlife & Eco-Tourism

Working Plan Division,

Monitoring & Evaluation,

(North), Panaji

Panaji

Panaji.

10. Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Working Plan Division,

Wildlife & Eco-Tourism

Planning & Statistics Panaji.

Panaji

(North), Panaji

11. Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

North Goa Division, Ponda

Social Forestry, Parks &

Soil Conservation Division,

Gardens Division, Ponda

Ponda.

12. Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Social Forestry, Parks &

Soil Conservation Division,

North Goa Division, Ponda.

Gardens Division, Ponda

Ponda

13. Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Soil Conservation Division,

Social Forestry, Parks &

North Goa Division, Ponda.

Ponda

Gardens, Ponda

14. Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

South Goa Division, Margao

Research & Utilization

Wildlife & Eco-Tourism

Division, Margao

(South), Margao.

15. Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Research & Utilization

Wildlife & Eco-Tourism

South Goa Division, Margao.

Division, Margao

(South), Margao

16. Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Dy. Conservator of Forests,

Wildlife & Eco-Tourism

Research & Utilization

South Goa Division, Margao.

(South), Margao

Division, Margao

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

Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 13th December, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

—

Order

No. 7/16/88-I/PHD/1564

Consequent upon promotion of Dr. Ismail Shaikh,

Junior Orthopaedic Surgeon to the post of Senior

Orthopaedic Surgeon vide Order No. 7/16/88-I/PHD/

/1333 dated 28-10-2022, is hereby posted at

Hospicio South Goa District Hospital, Margao with

immediate effect.

Dr. Ismail Shaikh, Senior Orthopaedic Surgeon

shall draw the salary against the post of Senior

Orthopaedic Surgeon revived vide Order No. 48/1/

/2020-I/PHD/1549 dated 07-07-2021.

Consequently, Dr. Nelishka Gomes, Senior

Pathologist, North Goa District Hospital, Mapusa

shall draw the salary against the post of Senior

Pathologist.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 13th December, 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. 16.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—346/100—12/2022.