SERIES II No. 2
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-2023
Panaji, 13th April, 2023 (Chaitra 23, 1945)
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
–––
Order
No. 2/14/95/Agri(Part)/Vol-II/40
Government is pleased to order the transfer and
post Shri Mahesh L. Kankonkar, Assistant
Agricultural Officer, Zonal Agriculture Office,
Margao, Group ‘B’ Gazetted against the newly
created post of Assistant Agriculture Officer, Zonal
Agriculture Office, Marmugao under the B.H. “2401-
-00-001-01-01 Salaries, with immediate effect.
This is issued with the approval of Government
vide entry No. 826 dated 19-01-2023.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nevil Alphonso, Director (Agriculture) & ex officio
Jt. Secretary.
Tonca, Caranzalem, 5th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Archives
–––
Order
No. 9/12/8/EDN/2020/Part file-AAGR(I)/05
Read: Memorandum No. 9/12/8/EDN/2020/Part
File-AAGR(I)/2287 dated 17-02-2023.
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service
Commission vide letter No. COM/I/5/4(1)/2016/439
Note:- There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 1 dated 06-04-2023 namely,
Extraordinary dated 08-04-2023 from pages 29
to 37 regarding Orders and Notifications from
Goa State Election Commission.
39
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
dated 18th January, 2023, Ms. Dolvyn Saviona
Braganza is appointed on temporary basis to the
post of Assistant Archivist Grade I, Group ‘B’
Gazetted in the Department of Archives, Government
of Goa in the Pay Scale of PB-2, Level-6 (Rs. 9300-
34800+Grade Pay 4200) with immediate effect.
Ms. Dolvyn Saviona Braganza has been declared
fit by the Medical Board of Goa Medical College
forwarded vide letter No. 4/105/85-H/GMC/2023/220
dated 23-03-2023. Further, her character and
antecedents have been verified by the concerned
authority and communicated that nothing adverse
is reported against her.
Ms. Dolvyn Saviona Brazanza will be on probation
for a period of two years.
The expenditure on her pay and allowances shall
be debited to the Budget Head of Accounts as
follows.
Demand No. 45
2205—Art and Culture;
00—
104—Archives;
01—Archives Department (NP);
01—Salaries.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dipak M. Bandekar, Director (Archives)/ex officio
Additional Secretary.
Panaji, 3rd April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs
–––
Corrigendum
No. DCS/ADCS/CC/DCPC/115/2022-23/73
Read: Notification No. DCS/ADCS/CC/DCPC/115/
/2022-23/2396 dated 19-10-2022.
In the above read Notification, the Column No. 2
at Sr. No. 5 under the Members of District Consumer
40
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
Protection Council, North Goa and under the
Members of District Consumer Protection Council,
South Goa, may be read as “Scientist E/Director
and Head, Bureau of Indian Standards, Southern
Region (Hubli Branch Office), Karnataka and
Column No. 2 at Sr. No. 27 under the Members of
District Consumer Protection Council, North Goa,
may be read as “Officer In charge-All India Radio,
Panaji”.
Rest of the contents of the said notification
remains unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Gopal A. Parsekar, Director (Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs) & ex officio Joint Secretary.
Panaji, 10th April, 2023.
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
–––
Order
No. 3-20-2004/EST/RCS/17
In exercise of the powers conferred under Section
11 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)
Act, 2019 (Central Act No. 40 of 2019), the Deputy
Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Admn.) of this
Department is hereby designated as “Complaint
Officer” to deal with complaints relating to violation
of the provisions of the said Act.
Given under the seal of this office.
Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative
Societies).
Panaji, 4th April, 2023.
————
Order
No. 9-26-2023/EST/RCS/5093
Read: 1. Order No. 43/2/2005/TS/RCS/1246 dated 26-06-2018.
2. Order No. 43/2/2005/TS/RCS/5931 dated 11-03-2020.
In supersession of the Orders read above and all earlier orders to that effect and in exercise of the powers
conferred under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(Central Act 22 of 2005), I, the undersigned Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Goa do
hereby designate the following Officers as the Public Information Officers (P.I.O.), Assistant Public Information
Officers (A.P.I.O.) and the First Appellate Authority (F.A.A.) in the respective offices for respective subjects/
wings/sections as below.
Sr.
Name & Address
Particular Wing/
Public Information
Assistant Public
First Appellate
No.
of the Office/
/Section/Branch
Officer (P.I.O.)
Information
Authority
/Public Authority
of the office
designated
Officer (A.P.I.O.)
(F.A.A.)
designated
designated
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
O/o. the Registrar of
Establishment
Superintendent
Head Clerk
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
Section
of Co-operative
Sahakar Sankul, 4th
Societies (Admin).
& 5th Floors, Patto
Plaza, Panaji, Goa
2.
O/o. the Registrar of
Accounts
Assistant
Accountant
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
Section
Accounts Officer
of Co-operative
Sahakar Sankul, 4th
Societies (Admin).
& 5th Floors, Patto
Plaza, Panaji, Goa
3.
O/o. the Registrar of
Planning
Asstt. Registrar
Co-operative
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
Section
of Co-operative
Officer posted
of Co-operative
Sahakar Sankul, 4th
Societies (Wing V)
in Wing V
Societies (Tech.).
& 5th Floors, Patto
Plaza, Panaji, Goa
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
4.
O/o. the Registrar of
Wing-I
Asstt. Registrar
CO-II and
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
of Co-operative
CO-IV
of Co-operative
Sahakar Sankul, 4th
Societies (Wing I)
Societies at Head
& 5th Floors, Patto
Office who is the
Plaza, Panaji, Goa
District Level
Incharge (D.L.I.) of
respective Zonal
Offices under
concerned Wing.
5.
O/o. the Registrar of
Wing-II
Asstt. Registrar
CO-I
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
of Co-operative
of Co-operative
Sahakar Sankul, 4th
Societies (Wing II)
Societies at Head
& 5th Floors, Patto
Office who is the
Plaza, Panaji, Goa
District Level
Incharge (D.L.I.) of
respective Zonal
Offices under
concerned Wing.
6.
O/o. the Registrar of
Wing-III
Asstt. Registrar
CO-II
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
of Co-operative
of Co-operative
Sahakar Sankul, 4th
Societies (Wing III)
Societies at Head
& 5th Floors, Patto
Office who is the
Plaza, Panaji, Goa
District Level
Incharge (D.L.I.)
of respective
Zonal Offices
under
concerned Wing.
7.
O/o. the Registrar of
Wing-IV
Asstt. Registrar
CO-III
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
of Co-operative
of Co-operative
Sahakar Sankul, 4th
Societies (Wing IV)
Societies at Head
& 5th Floors, Patto
Office who is the
Plaza, Panaji, Goa
District Level
Incharge (D.L.I.)
of respective
Zonal Offices
under
concerned Wing.
8.
O/o. the Registrar of
Wing-V
Asstt. Registrar
CO-V
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
of Co-operative
of Co-operative
Sahakar Sankul, 4th
Societies (Wing V)
Societies at Head
& 5th Floors, Patto
Office who is the
Plaza, Panaji, Goa
District Level
Incharge (D.L.I.)
of respective
Zonal Offices
under
concerned Wing.
9.
O/o. the Assistant
In respect of all
Asstt. Registrar of
Seniormost
Deputy Registrar
Registrar of Co-operative
ABN/EXE cases
Co-operative
Senior
of Co-operative
Societies, ABN/EXE,
pertaining to
Societies, ABN/EXE,
Auditor
Societies/District
42
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
1
2
3
4
5
6
North Goa District,
North Goa
North Goa District
posted at
Level Incharge
Sahakar Bhavan,
District
ABN/EXE
(D.L.I.) (North).
Curti, Ponda, Goa
Section
10. O/o. Assistant
In respect of all
Asstt. Registrar
Seniormost
Deputy Registrar
Registrar of Co-operative
ABN/EXE cases
of Co-operative
Senior
of Co-operative
Societies, ABN/EXE,
pertaining to
Societies, ABN/EXE,
Auditor
Societies/District
South Goa District,
South Goa
South Goa District
posted at
Level Incharge
Quarters C-2, C-3
District
ABN/EXE
(D.L.I.) (South).
and C-4, SIP Bldg.,
section
PWD Complex, Fatorda,
Margao, Goa & part
section housed at WRD
premises in Sy. No. 31/6,
village Navelim at
St. Pedro Moll, Mandop,
Salcete, Goa
11. O/o. Assistant
In respect of all
Asstt. Registrar
Seniormost
Dy. Registrar of
Registrar of
information pertaining
of Co-operative
Senior Auditor
Co-operative
Co-operative
to Co-operative Societies Societies,
or Junior
Societies/District
Societies, Camp
held at Camp Court
Camp Court,
Auditor
Level Incharge
Court, (VPK Urban
Office under the
(VPK Urban
deployed
(D.L.I.) (South).
Co-op. Credit
provisions of the Goa Co-op. Credit
(if any)
Society Ltd.),
Co-operative Societies
Society Ltd.), Ponda
Ponda, Goa
Act, 2001 and Rules
framed thereunder
12. O/o. Assistant
In respect of all
Assistant Registrar
Senior most
Dy. Registrar of
Registrar of
information pertaining of Co-operative
Sr. Auditor
Co-operative
Co-operative
to Co-operative
Societies, Camp
or Junior Auditor Societies/District
Societies, Camp Court
Societies held at
Court (Goa Urban
deployed (if any) Level Incharge
(Goa Urban Co-op.
Camp Court Office
Co-op. Bank Ltd.),
(D.L.I.) (North).
Bank Ltd.), Panaji-
under the
Panaji, Goa
Goa
provisions of the Goa
Co-operative Societies
Act, 2001 and Rules
framed thereunder
13. O/o. Assistant
In respect of all
Assistant Registrar
Seniormost
Dy. Registrar of
Registrar of
information
of Co-operative
Sr. Auditor
Co-operative
Co-operative Societies, pertaining to
Societies, Camp
or Junior
Societies/
Camp Court
Co-operative Societies
Court (Madgaon
Auditor
District Level
(Madgaon Urban
held at Camp Court
Urban Co-op. Bank
deployed
Incharge (D.L.I.)
Co-op. Bank Ltd.),
Office under the
Ltd.), Margao
(if any)
(South)
Margao
provisions of the
Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001
and Rules framed
thereunder
14. O/o. Assistant
In respect of all
Assistant Registrar
Seniormost
Dy. Registrar of
Registrar of
information pertaining
of Co-operative
Sr. Auditor
Co-operative
Co-operative
to Co-operative Societies
Societies, Camp
or Junior
Societies/District
Societies, Camp
held at Camp Court
Court (Goa State
Auditor
Level Incharge
Court (Goa State
Office under the
Co-op. Housing
deployed
(D.L.I.) (North).
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
Co-operative
provisions of the
Finance &
(if any)
Housing Finance &
Goa Co-operative
Federation Ltd.,
Federation Ltd.),
Societies Act, 2001
Panaji
Panaji
and Rules framed
thereunder
15. O/o. Assistant
In respect of all
Assistant Registrar
Seniormost
Dy. Registrar of
Registrar of
information pertaining
of Co-operative
Sr. Auditor
Co-operative
Co-operative
to Co-operative Societies Societies, CADA,
or Junior
Societies (Admn.)/
Societies, CADA
held at CADA Cell
Gogal, Margao,
Auditor
District
Cell, WRD
Office under the
Goa
deployed
Level Incharge
Complex, Gogal,
provisions of the
(if any)
(South).
Margao, Goa
Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001
and Rules framed
thereunder
16. O/o. the Registrar of
In respect of all
Officer who is
Co-operative
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies
information
Wing Incharge
Officer of the
of Co-operative
Sahakar Sankul, 4th
pertaining to
of concerned
respective
Societies at Head
& 5th Floors, Patto
Co-operative
Society at Head
Wing under
Office who is
Plaza, Panaji, Goa
Societies held by
Office to whom
which the
the District
any
the information
Society
Level Incharge
a) Registrar’s
relates. Such
concerned
(D.L.I.) of
Nominees
Officer shall
relates
respective Zonal
b) Auditors on
procure the
Offices under
panel of
information
concerned Wing.
Auditors
from concerned
c) Reconciliators
person and
d) Administrators
furnish to the
e) Liquidators
applicant
Other such persons
or a committee
appointed or
constituted by the
Registrar under the
provisions of the Goa
Co-operative Societies
Act, 2001 and Rules
framed thereunder
Given under the seal of this office.
Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative Societies).
Panaji, 31st March, 2023.
————
Order
No. 9-26-2023/EST/RCS/5094
Read: 1. Order No. 43/2/2005/TS/RCS/1246 dated 26-06-2018.
2. Order No. 43/2/2005/TS/RCS/5931 dated 11-03-2020.
In supersession of the Orders read above and all earlier orders to that effect and in exercise of the powers
conferred under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(Central Act 22 of 2005), I, the undersigned Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Goa do
hereby designate the following Officers as the Public Information Officers (P.I.O.), Assistant Public
44
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
Information Officers (A.P.I.O.) and the First Appellate Authority (F.A.A.) in the respective offices for respective
subjects/wings/sections as below.
Sr.
Name & address
Particular Wing/
Public Information
Assistant Public
First Appellate
No.
of the Office/
/Section/Branch
Officer (P.I.O.)
Information
Authority
/Public Authority
of the office
designated
Officer (A.P. I.O.)
(F.A.A.)
designated
designated
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
O/o. Assistant Registrar of
1) Establishment
Assistant Registrar
Head Clerk
Deputy Registrar
Co-operative Societies,
Administration
of Co-operative
of Co-operative
Bicholim Zone, “Aai”
Accounts Sections
Societies who is
Societies (Admin.),
building Karapur Tisk,
of the Zonal Office
the Head of Office
Head Office,
Sankhali, Goa
2) All residuary
incharge of Zonal
Panaji.
matters of Zonal
Office
office not specifically
covered under other
PIOs
In respect of all
Officer who is
Officer/Official Deputy Registrar
information
Unit Incharge
who is sub-
of Co-operative
pertaining to
of concerned
-unit Incharge
Societies at Head
Co-operative
Society at Zonal
of concerned
Office who is the
Societies held at
Office
Society at
District Level
Zonal office under
Zonal Office
Incharge (D.L.I.)
the provisions of the
of respective
Goa Co-operative
Zonal Office.
Societies Act, 2001
and Rules framed
thereunder
In respect of all
Officer who is
Officer/Official Deputy Registrar
information
Unit Incharge
who is sub-
of Co-operative
pertaining to
of concerned
-unit Incharge
Societies at Head
Co-operative
Society at Zonal
of concerned
Office who is
Societies held by
Office to whom
Society at
the District
any
the information
Zonal Office
Level Incharge
a) Registrar’s
relates
to whom the
(D.L.I.) of
Nominees
information
respective Zonal
b) Auditors on
relates
Office.
panel of
Auditors
c) Reconciliators
d) Administrators
e) Liquidators
Other such persons
or a committee
appointed or
constituted by the
Registrar under the
provisions of the Goa
Co-operative Societies
Act, 2001 and Rules
framed thereunder
Given under the seal of this office.
Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative Societies).
Panaji, 31st March, 2023.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
45
Notification
No. 18/11/2016/SUC/TS/RCS/5100
Read: 1. Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TS II/PZ/
/2017/RCS/Suppl.5306 dated 10-02-2020.
2. Order No. 18/11/2016 SUC/TS/RCS/1803
dated 19-08-2020.
3. Order No. 18/11/2016 SUC/TS/RCS/971
dated 12-07-2021.
4. NotificationNo.TS-II/SZ/2017/RCS/Vol/I/
/1721 dated 25-08-2022.
5. Letter No. SUCSSL/40/22-23/141 dated
31-12-2022.
Whereas vide Notification at read at Sr No. 1
above issued by the Government exercising the
powers under Section 126 A of the Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001 (Goa Act 36 of 2001) (hereafter
referred to as ‘Act’), the provision of sub-section (1)
of Section 91 D of the Act was modified and the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies was authorized
to appoint Officers of Co-operative Credit Societies,
V.K.S.S. Societies having credit counters and
Multipurpose Societies as Recovery Officer/Sale
Officer upon receipt of individual proposals subject
to the terms and conditions as may be incorporated
in the Order.
And whereas vide Order read at Sr. No. 2 above
issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
the General Manager of the Sada Urban Co-operative
Credit Society Ltd., [Reg. No. 8-RES-(a)-94/South/
/2000] with registered office as Headland Sada,
Mormugao-Goa was delegated with the powers to
recover certain sums by attachment and sale of
property vested in Registrar of Co-operative
Societies under Section 91 D of the Act, read with
Rule 124 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules,
2003, subject to the following conditions:-
1. The Officer appointed and delegated with the
powers of Sales-cum-Recovery Officer shall
work
under
the
general
guidance,
superintendence and control of the Asstt.
Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Arbitration/
/Execution, South Goa District, Margao-Goa.
2. The Board of Directors of the society shall be
fully responsible along with the Chief
Executive Officer for any acts in contravention
of the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws.
3. The Board of Directors shall review the
performance of the General Manager every
month and ensure compliance.
And whereas the said delegation of powers was
in force till 31-03-2021 which was further extended
vide order read at Sr. No. 3 and the notification read
at Sr. No. 4 above for a period of one year from
01-04-2021 to 31-03-2022 and from 01-04-2022 to
31-03-2023 respectively.
And whereas vide letter read at Sr. No. 5 above,
the Chairman of the Sada Urban Co-operative Credit
Society Ltd., Mormugao, Goa has informed that due
to the resignation of Mr. Pratosh Lotlikar, the
General Manager of the Said Society, the Society in
a Board meeting held on 29-12-2022 has resolved to
appoint the Asst. General Manager, Mr. Augustine
Fernandes to act as Sale-cum-Recovery Officer for
their society in place of Mr. Pratosh Lotlikar.
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred
upon undersigned under Section 123B of the Goa
Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 read with
Notification read at ref. No. 1 above, the powers so
delegated to the General Manager of the Sada Urban
Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Mormugao-Goa are
hereby delegated to Mr. Augustine Fernandes, Asst.
General Manager of the said society with effect
from 29-12-2022 i.e. the date of board resolution to
31-03-2023.
All the terms and conditions mentioned in the
Order referred to at Sr. No. 2 above shall continue
to apply. The undersigned reserves the right to
withdraw this Order at any stage without assigning
any reasons.
Given under the seal of this office.
Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative
Societies).
Panaji, 28th March, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Education
–––
Order
No. Acad/Bar/Take-Over/STBHS/870
Read: Show Cause Notice No. Acad/MGT/21/-
Bardez/98/1926 dated 25-08-2022.
Whereas, the above referred show cause notice
was sent to the Chairman of the School Managing
Committee of St. Thomas Boys High School, Aldona,
Bardez-Goa.
And whereas, the Chairman of the School
Managing Committee replied for the same vide
email of 11-10-2022 under the caption of Preliminary
reply in continuation with my letter dt. 4-10-2022
for Show Cause letter dated 25-08-2022 and
26-09-2022 while awaiting a copy of the complaints
and the proof official letter via email. The contents
of the reply is as under:-
46
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
1. We are in receipt of your subject show cause
notice and at the outset deny each and every
allegation made therein.
2. The Fransalians manage over 150 schools
throughout the world for over hundred years under
Fransalian
Education
Societies
and
the
management is committed to the welfare of the
student communities.
3. St. Thomas Boys High School, Aldona, Goa is
one of those Christian Minority Schools which is
directly under the President/Provincial Superior
along with the Governing Body of Fransalian
Education Society, Goa.
4. As a preliminary submission, it is stated that
the Show Cause Notice issued by your office is itself
beyond jurisdiction under the Goa, Daman and Diu
School Education Act and Rules, 1984 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Act”) as under Section 20 of the
Act, the authority to take over the management of a
school is vested in the Administrator of the union
territory. It is submitted that in the present time, the
position of the Administrator of the union territory
will correspond to that of the Hon’ble Governor of
the sate and therefore the Directorate of Education
does not have any power to invoke Section 20 of the
Act.
5. Further, the grounds taken, as mentioned in the
Show Cause Notice do not satisfy the ingredients of
Section 20 of the Act. Neither is there any explanation of
how the provisions of Section 20 are attracted to the
matter at hand nor is there any material on record
before this Authority for it is to exercise any
jurisdiction under Section 20.
6. Furthermore, the show cause notice issued by
your office states that the conditions mentioned in
sub-clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Section 20 of the
Act are attracted in the present case however, there
is no explanation as to how the said sub-clauses are
applicable in the present case. There are no details
in the show case notice as to how the managing
committee or manager of the school have
contravened any provision of this Act or any rule or
order made thereunder, has neglected to perform any
duty or obligation imposed on it by or under this Act,
has mismanaged the affairs of the school or
misappropriated or misapplied any money
standing to the credit of any fund of the school, and
has managed the affairs of the school in a manner
prejudicial to the public interest which are the
predicates of sub-clause (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Section
20 of the Act. Therefore, it is stated that Section 20 of
the Act cannot be invoked in the present matter.
7. Moreover, the threshold to invoke Section 20 of
the Act is quite high. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court
has held in St. Anthony’s High School
Trust & anr. V. State of Goa & anr. (1996) 5 Bom
CR 33 “14 .... Before an action under Section 20 can
be justified not only one or the other of the seven
grounds appearing in Section 20 have to be made
good, but also it has to be found that
the action of taking over the management is
expedient in public interest or in the interest
of the school education or in order to secure
the proper management of the school. It is only when
both these ingredients are held to have
been satisfied that an action of taking over
management under Section 20 of the Act can
be justified”.
8. As stated earlier, the show cause notice issued
by you gives no explanation as to how the taking
over of the management of the school is expedient in
public interest or in the interest of the school
education or any corroboration of improper
management of the school by the manager of the
society.
9. We had forwarded letter dated 22-07-2022 to
your Department of Education requesting the
approval of the new members of School
Managing Committee, though the same is not
mandatory under the Act. We had even sent
reminders and till date we have not received
any reply from the Department of Education.
That is the reason I was surprised to receive
the Show Cause Notice. Please furnish the
approved list of the new School Managing
Committee. The selective delay of the
Directorate of Education for the approval of the School
Managing Society of St. Thomas Boys High School is
also not allowing the Management to function
effectively.
10. Please note that neither the Chairman of the
School Managing Committee nor the President/
/Provincial Superior of St. Thomas Boys High
School under Fransalian Education Society, Goa has
received any such complaints as stated by your show
cause notice.
11. The complaints against the Management are
fabricated, misleading, malicious and a
conspiracy of the Headmaster Fr. Valerian
Carvalho in order to derail the internal inquiry and
pending decision by the Society against
Fr. Valerian Carvalho for his various gross
misconduct, massive financial irregularities
and abuse of power which have been received
various times by the Chairman of the School
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
47
and your office respectively and for the same
the directive was issued on 11-07-2021 and the same
copy of the letter was issued to your office of the
Directorate.
12. I strongly agree with you that lives of the
students should not be endangered. All repairs and
maintenance must be done and students
should have safe environment to study and it is the
foremost priority of the present Management.
13. I would like to state that so far, the Headmaster
had not communicated with me regarding the school
repairs and maintenance, until recently, I had no
knowledge of the repair works that need to be done.
The Headmaster has to learn the chain of
communication. He has been misleading the
Department of Education and maligning the name of
the Society.
14. The letters addressed (showcause notice) to the
Chairman of the School Managing Committee
were criminally kept with Fr. Valerian Carvalho for
over a month without sending to the Chairman of
the School Managing Committee of St. Thomas Boys
High School, Aldona not returning to the Directorate
of Education if the Headmaster pretended of not
knowing the address.
15. As per the letter dated 26-06-2021 by the
Manager, the Headmaster has repeatedly
threatened, intimidated and publicly insulted the
Manager several times and did not allow
the Manager to exercise his responsibilities.
16. A new Manager was appointed on 27-09-2022
for salary related works and consequent to his
appointment, the new Manager visited the St.
Thomas Boys High School, Aldona, several
times for the salary related works of the staff
but the office staff did not oblige the new
Manager (Letters dated 03-10-2022 and on
08-10-2022 which was also duly communicated to
the Director of Education). The investigation on the
deliberate delay of the respective office staff or by
the Headmaster is under process.
17. In the above context, the Management strongly
protests and believes that Fr. Valerian
misleadingly and maliciously campaigned
against the Management in order to derail the
internal inquiry and decision making process of the
Fransalian Education Society against the criminal
activities of Fr. Valerian Carvalho.
18. The President/Provincial Superior of St.Thomas
Boys High School, Aldona under Fransalian
Education Society, Goa has not received any
such complaints dated 27-07-2022.
19. The Chairman of the School Managing
Committee of St. Thomas Schools has not
received any such complaint letter as dated
27-07-2022.
20. We assure you that as soon as the Chairman of
School Managing Committee or the President/
/Provincial Superior of the Fransalian Education
Society, Goa receives the copy of the complaint letter
dated 11-07-2022 and the proofs of leaking roof, the
Management will do the immediate repairs if there
are any. (Kindly note the Common Office for all St.
Thomas Schools under Fransalian Education Society,
St. Thomas Higher Secondary School, Aldona, Bardez,
Goa.
21. It is a criminal intention of the Headmaster Fr.
Valerian that maintenance grants have not
been properly utilized:
a. The Headmaster never handed over the keys
of the school campus to the Manager to
exercise his duties as the Manager, until just
recently, on 1st of November, 2022, a small
bunch of about 5 keys were handed over to him,
though not all the keys of the school. The
Manager was always locked out of the school
campus and could not do the maintenance
work during the school holidays or whenever
the children were out of the school keeping in
mind the safety of the children during any major
works.
b. As per the directives of the School Chairman,
the maintenance records and service
conditions of the school were not handed over
by the Headmaster for maintenance of the
school (cf r. Letter dated 30-05-2022).
c. The Manager twice asked the Headmaster on
30-05-2022 and on 12-08-2022 and also asked
him to transfer the rent money for the
maintenance of the school, but the Headmaster
never obliged to transfer the rent money from
the maintenance grants.
d. The account of the Maintaining Society, Aldona
Fransalian Society, and few other accounts were
criminally frozen by Fr. Valerian Carvalho on
24-10-2019 on his frivolous reasons and thus the
Headmaster criminally did not allow the
Management to maintain the school.
e. The Headmaster was asked several times to
unfreeze the account of the Managing Society
in order to legally carry out the maintenance
works of the school by the Management but
the Headmaster did not keep the interest of the
students, school and the society in mind.
48
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
f. The Bank details reveal that the Manager has
always obliged the daily maintenance of the
school by regularly supplying the fund. The
Headmaster’s reason of borrowing money from
others is only a lie to divert the attention from
his unlawful activities in the school in name of
borrowing which needs a prior permission as
per the directives of the Chairman dated
11-07-2021.
g. It is the endeavour of the Management to carry
out all necessary maintenance including
repairs out of the rent amount received,
however hurdles are being placed by the
Headmaster towards this work for reasons best
known to him. Quotations/estimates need to be
obtained from Engineers/Contractors who need
to inspect the premises. While the Manager is
not interfering in the administrative &
academic work of the Headmaster/School, the
Manager faces bottlenecks in discharge of his
duties especially towards maintenance. The
Manager is made a stranger in the school owned
by his Management. The last letter written by
Manager to Headmaster for transfer of
maintenance grants to Society for purpose of
taking up repairing work was dated 12-08-2022
but the Headmaster did not transfer the
maintenance fund when it was required for the
repairs.
22. Allegations on non-appointment of Teachers
etc. is totally denied as per the complaints of the
Headmaster.
a) The letter dated 11-07-2022 of Fr.Valerian
Carvalho is not available to the Management.
However, taking what is considered in para 2 of
your letter, it is denied that the Management is
not co-operating and/or acting on pressing
issues faced by the school.
b) As per various complaints, the Headmaster has
always interfered in the works of the Manager.
The complaints reveal that the Headmaster
himself unlawfully prepared the documents
without any prior permission from the Manager
on the recruitment of the staff and threatened
the Manager to sign the documents of new staff
without any procedure.
c) We promise you to look into all the appointments
for which NOC has been obtained. The process
of appointment and recruiting of the staff is
already in motion and will be completed at the
earliest.
23. It is denied that the Management has not
arranged for consumables, stationery etc. necessary
for running of the school. The Manager has been
issuing cheques periodically for this purpose, details
of some cheques No. 893944-893947, 535341-50).
However, neither the bills nor copies nor the accounts
were submitted by the school staff/Headmaster to
the Manager for his records and accounting until
recently. Just before the last date of hearing, the
Headmaster was handed over certain audited
statements and bills to the present Manager, Fr.
Winston Barboza, on 1st of November, 2022 and the
Management is in the process of going through the
bills and clearing the same.
24. Question of Renewal of Contract staff: The
Headmaster never allowed the Manager to exercise
his responsibilities but only threatened the Manager
to sign the documents without following any
procedures.
25. Concerning NOC for permanent as well as
temporary: As per the written directives of the
Chairman of St. Thomas Boys High School dated
11-07-2021, the Headmaster interfered in the work
of the school and did not seek the written permission
of the Chairman in order to effect the appointment
of the staff.
26. On the malicious allegation of presently roof
is leaking etc.:
a. Although repairs to school building had been
carried out extensively in the past but the
Headmaster never handed over the service
agreements of past ones who did the work in
the past for better follow up by the
Management and hence, there is a real
conspiracy in the sudden leaking of the roof of
the school building.
b. Though the school belonged to the
Management, the Headmaster refused to
give the keys of school in order to inspect and
initiate the repair works in the absence of the
students. Only recently did he hand over a
small bunch of 5 keys on 1st November, 2022.
c. The Headmaster never gave the keys of the
building to the Manager to inspect the
building through the experts and never
shown any places of repair works of the roof
but only shoots off letters to implicate the
Manager and the Management in order to take
over the school through his nexus of people
against Management.
d. In spite of the malicious and manufactured
lies of the Headmaster, we assure you that the
complete school building will be inspected
by engineers/contractors immediately and
their views, quotations/estimates will be
sought. Work will be undertaken for which all
round co-operation of Headmaster is
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
49
necessary. In spite of all the keys not been
given, already a contractor has visited the
school alongwith the Manager during the
school hours on 11th November, 2022, and
has seen the work to be undertaken and
needed repairing work will be carried out
soon.
27. Due procedures have been followed in
matters concerning the Registration of the Society
and a case in the Honourable High Court has also
been filed. The Headmaster Fr. Valerian Carvalho
had interfered for vested interests in order to derail
the process of investigation against him. He seems
to be not interested in working with the Fransalian
Education Society of Aldona.
28. There are some practical hurdles the
Headmaster Fr. Valerian Carvalho has been creating
with the help of some vested interests. We should
be able to overcome all of them and run the school
smoothly.
29. For the above mentioned reasons, the show
cause notice is strongly protested and the
Management should be allowed to initiate
investigation and the consequent decision in the
best interest of the students community and as per
the due procedures of the Fransalian Education
Society, Goa
30.In view of the above, it is requested that the
show cause notice be withdrawn and the matter be
closed.
And whereas after going through the reply to
the show cause notice, the undersigned decided to
hear the matter under Section 20 of the Goa School
Education Act, 1984. The hearing was kept on
03-11-2022. During the course of hearing, Adv.
Shivraj Gaonkar appeared on behalf of the
Fransalian Education Society. He filed his
Vakalatnama and submitted a copy of the reply.
The Headmaster Fr. Valerian Carvalho of St. Thomas
Boys High School was present alongwith the PTA
President Shri Menino D’Souza. The matter was
adjourned and kept for hearing and submission of
reply on 15-11-2022.
And whereas on 15-11-2022, Adv. Shivraj Gaonkar
appeared on behalf of the School authorities. The
Headmaster and PTA Chairman remained absent.
During the course of hearing, the reply was filed on
behalf of the Manager and the same was taken on
record. The matter was adjourned and kept for
hearing on 02-12-2022. During the course of hearing,
both the parties remained present. The matter was
adjourned and kept for final hearing on 08-12-2022
at 4.30 p.m.
And whereas the matter has been heard on
13-01-2023. During the course of hearing, the
Headmaster of the school was represented by Adv.
Avinash Nasnodkar. The Advocate of the
respondent stated that the issue is between the
Headmaster and the Management and the issue
can be sorted out. The representation of the PTA is
not sufficient to qualify to take over the
management under Section 20. The grant in aid
provided by the Directorate of Education is credited
to the Society account. In case of appointment, it is
for the management to select a candidate and
appoint them. He further submitted that the
Society’s instructions were not followed by the
Headmaster and only after the Headmaster was
removed from the society, these allegations have
cropped and personal elements cannot be reasons
to take over the school. It was also submitted that
the entire episode is to avoid the eventual
suspension of the Headmaster as inquiry is
contemplated.
And whereas Advocate Nasnodkar stated that
fund was transferred to the Society which itself is
illegal. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa set
aside the order of appointment of Principal of St.
Thomas Higher Secondary School run by the same
management. He also stated that NOCs were issued
by the Directorate of Education, but the posts were
not filled. He further stated that the maintenance
grants have not been utilized. He also stated that
there is no provision of hearing the matter under
Section 20 of the Goa School Education Act, 1984.
And whereas Adv. Padgaonkar representing the
parents submitted the Vakalatnama and intervened.
Advocate for the respondent objected as there was
no formal representation and they were not party to
the hearing.
Adv. Padgaonkar submitted that most important
factor to be borne in mind is the student and that
the Headmaster and the Management is
inconsequential.
He also submitted that the allegations by the
Headmaster have been admitted by the
Management and that there was no attempt by the
Management to sort out the issue and provide relief
to the public, i.e. students/parents.
And whereas the Headmaster of St. Thomas Boys
High School, Aldona, Bardez-Goa filed his reply
dated 21-11-2022 under the caption of response to
the allegations made against him by the School
Managing committee, vide reply dated 15-11-2022.
50
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
1. In his reply, he has stated that the reply makes
apparent nothing, but the vindictive attitude of the
present members of the Fransalian Society which
has infact resulted in a total downfall of the
administration of the school.
2. While denying all the allegations made
against him, he has stated that it is rather
unfortunate the he has been sought to be made a
scapegoat and the entire blame has now been
fastened upon him.
3. He stated that he was appointed the
Headmaster of St. Thomas Boys High School in the
year June 2013.
4. He stated that for several years until 2019
when the dispensation of the executive members
and more particularly Fr. Jayaseelan Selvaraj who
became the Chairman, when the functioning of St.
Thomas Boys High School saw a complete downfall.
5. He stated that the Society has conducted the
affairs of the said school in a completely
lackadaisical manner as often resorted to various
illegalities over the functioning of the said school.
6. To illustrate one such incident, Fr. Jerard
Sahayaraj was appointed as the Principal of St.
Thomas Higher Secondary School, Aldona in the
absence of essential qualification, which
appointment was set aside by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 1354/
/2021 (F)
7. It is stated that the School Managing
Committee as well as the Society have been
constantly harassing the staff members which often
go unreported as the teaching and working staff
are afraid of dire consequences.
8. Various vacancies have been lying unfilled for
several years to the post of Primary School,
Maternity leave, CCL Leave, Non-Renewal of the
appointments of the Librarian and Watchman etc.
The said issues were highlighted to the School
Managing Committee on several occasions, despite
which no steps were taken by the Society to fill the
said vacancies despite required NOCs being
granted by the Directorate of Education.
9. In so far as the issue of maintenance is
concerned, the undersigned personally addressed
various communications to the School managing
Committee for last several years despite which no
action has been taken by the Society to carry out
any such maintenance.
10. It is stated that only belatedly and perhaps as
a knee-jerk reaction to the Show Cause Notice
issued by this Department, whereby the
Management is now trying to create an impression
to show that they are infact in control of the
situation and taking remedial measures, which if he
may submit in only on paper and no action whatsoever
is taken by the Management to improve the
dwindling state of the affairs of the school.
11. The Director of Education during an hearing
scheduled on 3rd November, 2022 4.00 p.m. wherein,
he clearly pointed out that the school Manager
cannot function till he has approval from the
Directorate of Education. Despite this observation,
the Management, in total disregards has replied to
the show cause notice dated 25-08-2022 issued by
your office and the same has been signed by one Fr.
Winst Barboza who is an incompetent authority.
This makes manifestation, the Managements
challenging stand to the directives of the Director
of Education.
12. He stated that he is producing copies of
various representations made by him the issue from
time to time and have deliberately refrained from
dealing para wise to the allegations made against
him as the records of the matter itself and perusal
of the letters as enclosed herewith will completely
belie the case of the Management. Moreover, he is
not in a crusade against the Society but have
throughout acted in the interest of his students and
staff members alike and perhaps for not having
aided the Society in their oblique ways of
functioning as well as intentions he has today
became more of an eyesore for them is why they are
acting with a personal vengeance against him.
And whereas after going through the reply filed
by the Headmaster of the school, it has been found
that the School Managing Committee of the St.
Thomas Boys High School, Aldona has contravened
the provisions of the Goa School Education Act,
1984 and Rules made thereunder:-
1. Neglected to perform duty/obligation imposed
on it.
2. Mismanaged the affairs of the school.
3. Managed the affairs of the school in a manner
prejudicial to the public interest.
Now therefore, after detailed examination of the
reply submitted by the school authorities and the
Headmaster of the school, the Government is
convinced of the circumstances which call for
immediate taking over of the Management of St.
Thomas Boys High School, Aldona by invoking the
provision of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Goa
School Education Act, 1984.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
51
Therefore, in accordance to the provisions of the
said sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Goa School
Education Act, 1984, the Government hereby orders
to take over the Management of St. Thomas Boys
High School, Aldona with immediate effect for a
period of three years in the first instance and Shri
Melvin D’Costa, Assistant Director, Education,
Directorate of Education is hereby appointed as
Authorised Officer on behalf of the Director of
Education, Government of Goa to manage the affairs
of the school. The Authorised Officer shall discharge
his duties as per the provision of Goa School
Education Act, 1984 and the Rules made thereunder
and as per the instructions issued to him by the
Directorate of Education from time to time. Among
other things, the Authorised Officer shall:-
1. Exercise full control over administrative,
financial and academic matters of the school and
ensure that all the employees of the school are
punctual in attendance and prompt in discharge of
the duties entrusted to them by general or special
orders as deemed fit.
2. Be responsible for maintaining strict discipline
on the part of all the employees including the
headmaster and students of the school.
3. Be responsible to ensure that all the employees
of the school including the Headmaster are present
in the school during office hours as prescribed by
the Authorised Officer and no employee including
the Headmaster shall be allowed to leave the
premises of the school without prior written
permission of the Authorized Officer and that
representations, if any, shall be routed through the
Authorised Officer.
4. Be responsible to visit the school frequently a
possible so as to ascertain that the school functions
at right time and all the employees of the school
including the Headmaster discharge their duties
sincerely, honestly and efficiently to the satisfaction
of the public and the Department.
5. Ensure that in case of the employees, including
the Headmaster act in contravention of the
instructions of the Authorised Officer or if there is
any act of indiscipline or insubordination or flouting
of the instructions issued by the Authorised Officer,
such cases shall be dealt with a per the provision
of Goa School Education Act, 1984 and the Rules
made thereunder.
The Government is also pleased to order that:
(i) The ex School Managing committee of St.
Thomas Boys High School, Aldona shall
hand over the entire school files and other
records to the Authorised Officer
immediately;
(ii)
The school staff account fund and the
pupils fund shall be made available to the
Authorised Officer for being spent for the
purpose in respect of the school and that;
(iii)
The Authorised Officer shall have the right
to open any account in any Bank or draw
money from the school fund or School Staff
Account Fund as referred to in Section 10 of
the Goa School Education Act, 1984. After
the Management of the school at any time
before the date on which the Management
of the school is taken over shall have the
right to draw money from the school fund or
school staff account fund.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shailesh R. S. Zingde, Director (Education) & ex
officio Joint Secretary.
Porvorim, 3rd April, 2023.
———u———
Directorate of Technical Education
College Section
–––
Addendum
No. 16/244/PF/RSD/GEC/DTE/08-09/48
Read: Order No. 16/228/Recuit-Posts/DTE/GEC/
/P. F. I/467 dated 26-02-2010.
In the order referred to above, following para
shall be added after the first para,
“Kum. Rachel Selva Dhanaraj is appointed under
Person with Disabilities (Locomotor Disability)
category”.
Other contents of the order shall remain the
same.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director (Technical Education)
& ex officio Additional Secretary.
Porvorim, 6th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Finance
Finance (Budget) Division
–––
Notification
No. 1/17/2007-Fin (Audit)/703
Ref.: (1) Notification No. 9/1/79/Fin (Bud)/Part File-I
dated 16-07-2002.
(2) Notification No. 1/17/2007/Fin(Aud) dated
17-07-2007.
(3) Notification No. 1/17/2007/Fin (Aud) dated
04-03-2011.
(4) Notification No. 1/17/2007/Fin (Aud) dated
13-10-2016.
52
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
The Governor of Goa in consultation with the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India, is pleased
to entrust in public interest, the audit of accounts
of Goa Housing Board, Porvorim-Goa, under Section
19(3) of the Comptroller & Auditor General’s (Duties,
Power and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971, to the
Comptroller & Auditor General of India for a further
period of 05 (five) years from 01-04-2022 to 31-03-2027
on the terms and conditions specified in the
Annexure appended hereto.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Pranab G. Bhat, Under Secretary, Finance
(Budget-I).
Porvorim, 27th March, 2023.
————
ANNEXURE
Terms and Conditions
1. The CAG of India may suggest the
appointment of a Primary Auditor to conduct the
audit on his behalf and on the basis of directions/
/guidelines issued by him. Where such an auditor
is appointed, the fees will be payable by the
Institution to that auditor. Where such an auditor is
not appointed, expenditure incurred by CAG of
India in connection with the audit will be payable
to him by the Institution.
2. In addition to audit to be conducted by the
Primary Auditors, where so appointed, CAG of India
will have the right to conduct test check of the
accounts and to comment on and supplement the
report of the Primary Auditor.
3. The CAG of India or any person appointed by
him in connection with the audit shall have the
same rights, privileges and authority as the CAG
has in connection with the audit of Government
accounts.
4. The result of audit will be communicated by
CAG or any person appointed by him to the
Governing body who shall submit a copy of the
report alongwith its observations to the
Government. The CAG will also forward a copy of
the report direct to Government.
5. The audit is entrusted to the CAG in public
interest will be for a period of 5 (five) years accounts
from 01-04-2022 to 31-03-2027 in the first instance,
subject to review of the arrangement after that
period.
6. The scope, extent and manner of conducting
audit shall be as decided by the CAG of India.
7. The CAG will have the right to report to
Parliament/State Legislature the results of audit at
his discretion.
———uuu———
Department of Fire & Emergency Services
Directorate of Fire & Emergency Services
–––
Order
No. DFES/CONF/08-Vol.VII/2022-23/30
Read: 1. O. M. No. DFS/EST/U-1/PGO/06-07/3312 dated 17-01-2007.
2. O. M. No. DFS/EST/U-1/PGO/06-07/3612 dated 30-01-2007.
3. O. M. No. DFS/EST/U-1/PGO/08-09/1550 dated 30-06-2008.
4. O. M. No. DFS/CONF/PGO/2010-11/2982 dated 13-09-2010.
5. O. M. No. DFES/EST/U-1/PGR/2014-15/5036 dated 30-01-2015.
6. Order No. DFES/CONF/08-Vol.VII/2021-22/5028 dated 15-12-2021.
In supersession of the Office Memorandum/Orders cited under reference and in pursuance to Government
instructions issued vide Office Memorandum No. 12/4/2005-DPG dated 16-03-2005, the following Officers
are designated as Public Grievance Officers.
Sr. No.
Public Grievance Officer
Role/Responsibility
1.
Deputy Director (Fire Services), Central
Public Grievances related to jurisdiction
Zone, Ponda
of Central Zone having Ponda, Bicholim, Old-
Goa, Kundaim and Valpoi Fire Stations.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
53
1
2
3
2.
Deputy Director (Fire Services), South
Public Grievances related to jurisdiction
Zone, Margao
of South Zone having Margao, Verna, Curchorem,
Canacona and Cuncolim Fire Stations.
3.
Assistant Divisional Officer, North Zone,
Public Grievances related to jurisdiction
Panaji
of North Zone having Panaji, Mapusa, Pernem,
Vasco, Pilerne and Porvorim Fire Stations.
The Public Grievance Officer shall redress the grievances pertaining to the Fire Stations mentioned
above and shall dispose off the cases.
The Public Grievance Officer shall strictly comply with the instructions of the Government and be
available to the public in their respective offices on every Tuesday from 10.00 hours to 13.00 hours.
The Public Grievance Officer shall maintain updated Register of the grievances received and shall also
submit a fortnightly report as required in the said Government Office Memorandum.
This superseded Order No. DEFS/CONF/08-Vol.VII/2022-23/1276 dated 31-05-2022.
Nitin V. Raiker, Director (Fire & Emergency Services).
Panaji, 4th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Forests
–––
Order
No. 19/1/2023-FOR/92
Read: Order No. 2/243/Part file/2019-FD/352
dated 07-11-2019.
The Committee formed under the provisions of
para 9(ii) of operational guidelines for the Centrally
Sponsored Scheme: Forest Fire Prevention and
Management Scheme (FPM) is hereby renamed as
“State Monitoring Committee on Forest Fire” and
shall comprise of the following:-
1. Hon’ble Minister (Forest)
— Chairman.
2. Principal Chief Conservator
— Member.
of Forests
3. Chief Wildlife Warden
— Member.
4. Chief Conservator of Forest
— Member.
(Development)
5. Conservator of Forest
— Member.
(Conservation)
6. Collector, North Goa District
— Member.
7. Collector, South Goa District
— Member.
8. Director, Fire and Emergency
— Member.
Services
9. Deputy Conservator of Forest
— Member.
(North Goa Division)
10. Deputy Conservator of Forest
— Member.
(South Goa Division)
11. Deputy Conservator of Forest
— Member
(Working Plan Division)
Secretary/
Nodal
Officer.
The Committee shall address all issues arising
out of Forest Fire, effectively implement the State
Action Plan on Forest Fire, periodically monitor,
review the schemes and ensure submission of
monitoring & review report annually.
The Committee shall meet at least once in six
months.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nathine S. Araujo, Under Secretary (Forest).
Porvorim, 6th April, 2023.
————
Order
No. 4-2-2011/FOR/94
Read: Order No. 4-2-2011/FOR/64 dated 25-04-2022.
The approval of the Competent Authority is
hereby conveyed for extension of deputation period
of Shri Nandakumar E. Parab, Assistant Conservator
of Forests as General Manager of Goa Forest
Development Corporation Ltd., for a further period
of 01 year w.e.f. 01-03-2023 to 28-02-2024, on the
same terms and conditions, as proposed by the Goa
Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and
recommended by the Goa Forest Department.
Nathine S. Araujo, Under Secretary (Forest).
Porvorim, 6th April, 2023.
54
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
Department of Home
Home—General Division
–––
Notification
No. 30/01/2015-CBI/HD(G)/975
In pursuance of the provisions of Section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act
No. 25 of 1946) and all other powers enabling it in
this behalf, the Government of Goa hereby accords
its consent for exercise of powers and jurisdiction
by the members of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment in the whole of the State of Goa, for
investigation of CBI case RC2212022E0045/CBI/EO-
-III/New Delhi registered by CBI on 07-09-2022
punishable under Section 67B of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (Central Act 21 of 2000) and
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
(Central Act 32 of 2012) and also in respect of any
other offences punishable under any other law that
may come to light during investigation of the said
CBI case including any attempt, abetment and
conspiracy in relation to or in connection with one
or more such offence(s) and or any other offence(s)
committed in the course of the same transaction or
arising out of the same facts.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vivek K. Naik, Under Secretary (Home-I).
Porvorim, 30th March, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
–––
Notification
No. 3/17/2021-IND/77
Read: Government Notification No. 3/17/2021-IND/
/54 dated 10-03-2023, published in the
Official Gazette, Series I No. 51 dated
23-03-2023.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
-section (1) of Section 43 of the Goa Investment
Promotion and Facilitation of Single Window
Clearance Act, 2021 (Goa Act 19 of 2021), the
Government of Goa hereby appoints a Planning,
Development and Construction Committee,
consisting of the following members, for the
Investment Promotion Area declared by the
Government vide Notification cited above:-
i. Chief Secretary
— Chairperson.
ii. Secretary (Industries)
— Member.
iii. Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Industries, Trade and
Commerce
iv. Chief Town Planner (Planning)
— Member.
v. Director, Directorate of
— Member.
Health Services
vi. Director of Fire and
— Member.
Emergency Services
vii. Chief Inspector of Factories
— Member.
and Boilers
viii. Chief Electrical Engineer,
— Member.
Electricity Department
ix. Principal Chief Engineer,
— Member.
Public Works Department
x. Principal Chief Conservator
— Member.
of Forests
xi. Member Secretary, Goa State
— Member.
Pollution Control Board
xii. Member Secretary, Goa
— Member.
Coastal Zone Management
Authority
xiii. District Collector, North Goa
— Member.
xiv. District Collector, South Goa
— Member.
xv. Chief Executive Officer of the — Member
Board
Secretary.
The said Committee shall exercise all the powers,
such as, control or erection of building, etc. and all
other powers conferred on it by the Goa Investment
Promotion and Facilitation of Single Window
Clearance Act, 2021 (Goa Act 19 of 2021).
This Notification shall come into force on the
date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 4th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
––
Notification
No. 28/02/2023-LAB/Part-III/154
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 30-01-2023 in Case No.
Ref. LC-II/IT/16/16 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, 24th February, 2023.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
55
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case. No. Ref. LC-II/IT/16/16
Shri Susen Jalmi,
H. No. 225,
Bhamai, Pale (403705)
.... Workman/Party-I.
V/s
The Managing Director,
M/s. Pfizer Ltd.,
Plot No. L-137, Phase III-A,
Verna Industrial Estate,
Verna, Salcete-Goa (403722)
.... Employer/Party-II.
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
Subhash Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G.K.
Sardessai.
Panaji, dated: 30-01-2023.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 08-07-2016,
bearing No. 28/27/2016-LAB/492 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court-II at Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Pfizer Limited, Verna, Salcette, Goa, in
dismissing its workman, namely Shri Susen
Jalmi, Operator, with effect from 23-12-2015, is
legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/16/2016 and
registered A/D notice was issued to the parties. In
pursuance to the said notice, the parties put in
their appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short
‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on
30-01-2017 at Exhibit-4. The facts of the case in brief
as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/
/Party-II (for short ‘Employer’) is a Multinational
Pharmaceutical Company engaged in the
production of tablets at its factory at Verna
Industrial Estate, Salcette, Goa. He stated that the
Employer was initially established at Verna in the
year, 2001 as Wyeth Lederle Ltd. which was
subsequently changed as Pfizer Ltd. in the year,
2009. He stated that he was employed with the
Employer as “Operator-Production” since
03-12-2001. He stated that he has not received a
single memo or a single charge-sheet except the
charge-sheet which is the subject matter of the
present reference. He stated that during his service
with the Employer, he received awards from the
Employer for his performance. He stated that he
also received several “employee of the month”
awards, long service awards, best nominee of the
month awards, certificates for improving
productivity and development, etc. He stated that
after formation of a trade Union in 2014, all the
workers of the Employer Company joined the said
union. He stated that he was elected as an office
bearer of the said union and as such he was a
Protected Workman as per the provisions of the I.D.
Act, 1947. He stated that initially all workmen
including himself were employed as Operator-
-Production. He stated that in the year, 2006, the
designations of all workmen were changed to that
of management associates Grade MA-01 and in year
2011, the grade of workers were changed to MA-02
although the duties performed by them remained
the same. He stated that all the workmen of the
Employer including himself were issued
appointment letters when they joined service and
all of them were confirmed in the service of the
Employer.
3. He stated that in June, 2014, workers formed a
Trade Union for the first time, when all the workers of
the Employer factory became members of Gomantak
Mazdoor Sangh Trade Union. He stated that the
Employer was informed about the formation of the
Trade Union. He stated that names of seven Union
office bearers of the Union including himself were
also communicated to the Employer. He stated that
the Employer did not appreciate the decision of the
workers to form a Trade Union and started harassing
the workers by withdrawing existing benefits and
existing facilities. He stated that with effect from
20-04-2015, the Employer did not allot any work to
workers inside the factory and kept them idle as the
Employer was not happy with the workers forming a
Trade Union. He stated that with effect from
24-04-2015, all workmen were kept outside the
factory gates and were not allowed to resume work
inside the factory. He stated that this continued for
several months and later the Employer stated that
they would not allow the workmen to report for work
unless they gave an undertaking, the contents of
which were not disclosed to them. He stated that
later on, the Employer allowed all workmen to report
56
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
for work without undertaking and all workmen
reported for work with effect from 17-08-2015. He
stated that the Employer has till date not paid wages
of the workers from 20-4-2015 to 16-08-2015. He stated
that however, eleven workmen, who were issued
suspension orders pending enquiry, were not allowed
to report for work. He stated that mean while, after
formation of the Trade union, the Employer
suspended the services of all office bearers of the
Union namely, Ramdas Mayenkar, Sagar Dhume,
Krishnakant Gawas, Navin Gaude, himself, Suraj
Kurtikar, and Suraj Salgaonkar.
4. He stated that all the aforesaid workers were
issued charge-sheets on trumped up and fabricated
charges. He stated that he himself and others replied
to the charge-sheets denying the allegations levelled
against them. He stated that the suspension of seven
union office bearers including himself was from
21-04-2015. He stated that four more workmen were
also suspended from service with effect from
23-04-2015 pending enquiry namely, Ankush
Gaonkar, Mangaldas Gaude, Umakant Chari, and
Samesh Naik. He stated that all eleven workmen
were suspended and were issued charge-sheets
based on false and fabricated charges.
He stated that as the workers were not happy with
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh Union because of the
developments which took place which the workers
least expected. He stated that all the workers after
holding a General Body Meeting decided to resign
from the said Union and became the members of
Kamgarancho Ekvott Trade Union of which Shri
Subhash Naik George is the President with effect
from 20-05-2015 after resigning from Gomantak
Mazdoor Sangh. He stated that these developments
were informed to the Employer in writing. He stated
that the said Union Kamagarancho Ekvott raised
several Industrial Disputes with the Employer such
as Charter of Demands on behalf of the workers,
illegal and unjustified refusal of work with effect from
24-04-2015, unfair labour practice, non-payment of
bonus, illegal termination of services of workmen and
illegal imposition of punishments to workers etc. He
stated that as the Employer did not accept the
demands, the union raised disputes before Dy. Labour
Commissioner who is also Conciliation Officer of
Government of Goa, where all industrial disputes are
pending conciliation and some disputes have been
referred to this Hon’ble Tribunal for adjudication.
5. He stated that although all seven union office
bearers including himself were issued separate
charge-sheets, the Employer decided to hold
common enquiry. He stated that Shri Prashant
Agarwal, Advocate who was appointed as an Enquiry
Officer to conduct the enquiries in respect of charge-
-sheets issued to seven union office bearers. He
stated that Shri Prasanna Chawadikar, Advocate was
appointed as Management Representative. He
stated that initially, Puti Gaonkar was the Defense
Representative on behalf of charge-sheeted workmen
and later on, Shri Subhash Naik George was
appointed as Defense Representative by himself and
other charge-sheeted workers. He stated that on
02-06-2015 a date was fixed by the Enquiry Officer
Mr. Agarwal to hold the enquiry. However, on that
day Ld. Enquiry Officer did not attend the enquiry at
the hearing fixed at Panaji-Goa. He stated that the
Management Representative, Shri Prasanna
Chawadikar, who was present for the enquiry,
informed that Ld. Enquiry Officer had gone to his
native place to bring his wife and he could not get
tickets to return to Goa due to vacation rush and
that he was still travelling in the train. He stated
that the Management Representative informed him
and all other charge-sheeted workmen as well as
Defense Representative that Ld. Enquiry Officer,
Mr. Agarwal had resigned from the post of Enquiry
Officer and that he could not come for the enquiry
due to his personal reasons. He stated that
Management Representative informed that the next
date of enquiry would be communicated after the
management appointed a new Enquiry Officer.
6. He stated that after 5th June, 2015, no
communication either oral or writing was received
by him or his Defense Representative about the date
of enquiry or appointment of a new Enquiry Officer.
He stated that after few months, the Employer
dismissed the service of the four union office bearers
with effect from 16-06-2015 claiming that they held
the enquiry against them and claiming that Ld.
Enquiry Officer held them guilty of the charges
namely, Sagar Dhume, Krishnakant Gawas, Navin
Gaude, and Suraj Salgaonkar. Aggrieved by the said
blatantly illegal and unjustified terminations, the
Workman and three other workmen raised an
industrial disputes with the Employer and later on
with the Conciliation Officer/Dy. Labour
Commissioner which ended in failure.
7. He contended that during the pendency of such
disputes as per provisions of Section 33 of the I. D.
Act, 1947, the Employer cannot terminate the services
of the workmen without prior permission or without
approval of action taken by them. He submitted that
the Employer, as an afterthought, terminated the
services of remaining three office bearers namely,
Ramdas Mayenkar, himself, and Suraj Kurtikar with
effect from 23-12-2015. He submitted that with these
termination, Employer have terminated all seven
office bearers who were elected after formation of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
57
Trade Union which clearly proves that this is a clear
case of victimization for trade union activities. He
submitted that since he himself, Sagar Dhume and
Suraj Kurtikar were protected workmen as per
provisions of I.D. Act, prior permission before
termination ought to have been obtained from this
Hon’ble Tribunal and/or Dy. Labour Commissioner,
failing which the termination is bad-in-law. He
submitted that the charge-sheet issued to him and
six other office bearers of the union and four other
union activists were fabricated and cooked up
besides being false. He submitted that the same were
issued to him and others to victimize them for their
trade union activities as they had formed a union for
the first time in the company. He submitted that
Shailesh Redkar, whom the Employer claims to have
been appointed as Enquiry Officer, was never
appointed as Enquiry Officer and no intimation to
that effect has been sent to him. He submitted that
no intimation of dates of enquiry by the said Enquiry
Officer if any was sent to him. He submitted that the
records of enquiry proceedings alleged to have been
conducted by Shailesh Redkar have not been
supplied to him till date. He submitted that the
Employer, before terminating his service has not
issued him a show cause notice enclosing copy of
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, if any, and records
of enquiry proceedings if any, seeking his views
before dismissal which is mandatory. He submitted
that no enquiry was held in respect of charges
levelled against him in the charge-sheet issued to
him. He submitted that the copy of the findings of
the enquiry if any, were not supplied to him before
termination of his services. He submitted that since
the date of dismissal, he is unemployed and is
dependent on his family and friends on sustainance.
He submitted that his termination is illegal and
unjustified as he has been dismissed from service in
total violation of principles of natural justice. He
submitted that no opportunity of whatsoever was
given to him to defend himself in the enquiry. He
submitted that the management witnesses were not
allowed to cross-examine by him. He submitted that
the charges levelled against him have not been
proved in a fair and impartial manner and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice. He
submitted that his dismissal from services is
malafide, vindictive, and by way of victimization for
trade union activities, besides the same being
discriminatory. The Workman therefore prayed that
he be reinstated in service with full back wages and
continuity of service with costs.
8. The Employer controverted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
03-05-2017 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as an by way of
its preliminary objections, submitted that the
reference is not maintainable and it ought to be
rejected as there is no “Industrial Dispute” as defined
under the I.D. Act, 1947, that the Workman has
accepted all the legal dues arising out of termination
in full and final settlement and hence, the Workman
is estopped from raising the present dispute, that
there is non application of mind by the Appropriate
Government while referring the present dispute and
that the present reference is therefore null and void.
9. The Employer stated that it is a Private Limited
Company incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at
the Capital, 1802, 1901 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra
(East), Mumbai and the factory located at Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcette-Goa. The Employer
stated that it is engaged in the manufacturing of
pharmaceuticals at its factory located at Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna-Goa.
10.The Employer stated that the Workman was
issued a charge-sheet dated 07-05-2015 alleging as
under:
“It has been observed that from the month of
December, 2014, the workmen have deliberately and
willfully reduced production as a result of which the
Management suffered heavy losses”. The fall in
production which commenced from the month of
December, 2014 gradually reached to a stage where
during the preceding week the production was
reduced to around 25% of the normal”.
The management has consistently requested the
workmen to stop the unfair practice of lowering the
production and to restore normalcy. However, the
workmen continue with the unfair labor practice of
lowering the productive process.
Subsequent there to by Notice dated 7th February,
2015, letter dated 14th April, 2015 and through
various communications, Management invited the
attention of the workmen to the fall in production
and requested the workmen to restore normalcy.
However, instead of restoring normalcy, to the utter
shock and surprise of the Management, the workmen
in a concerted manner stopped production from the
commencement of Second shift of 20th April, 2015
and started squatting within the factory premises.
As a consequence thereto the entire productive
process came to a grinding halt. The Management
has suffered huge losses till date and continues to
do so. The Employer/Party II is engaged in the
manufacturing of drugs which include life-saving
drugs like Wysolone, Folvite, Pacitane, Overal-L etc.
58
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
All these products are listed in the National List
of Essential Medicines (NLEM), issued by Ministry of
Health, Government of India. Wysolone is a life-
saving steroidal drug with anti-inflammatory
properties and controls the painful symptoms of a
temporary autoimmune condition called Polymyalgia
Rheumatic (PMR), Folvite, essentially taken by
women during the first trimester of pregnancy for
development of the foetus and also used for all kinds
of anaemic conditions, Pacitane, drug used by
Patients suffering from early symptoms of Parkinson’s
Disease and Overal-L. You are fully aware that the
discontinuation due to non-availability of these
drugs can have an adverse effect on the patients and
the society at large.
We have received various communications from
our dealers, hospitals and doctors informing us of
the serious consequences arising as a result of drugs
not being available in the market and the suffering
of the patients, especially those who had already
been prescribed such drugs and consuming the same.
The consequence of sudden discontinuation of
supply to the patients has an expected adverse
consequences on the health of the patients.
You are an office bearer of Gomantak Mazdoor
Sangh. The Management had been consistently
communicating with and the workmen who have
been participating in the go slow/stoppage of work
to desist from the unfair labour practice of reducing
willfully and deliberately the production. The fall in
production was a consequence of the instigation and
incitement of the workmen to commence and
continue with the reduction of production. It has also
been observed that you have been actively inducing
the workmen to continue with the go slow.
The participation in the willful go slow and the
instigation and incitement of the workmen to initiate
the go slow and continue, wilful damage to or loss of
employers good or properties as such amounts to a
serious misconduct under the Model Standing
Orders.
11. The Management had therefore decided to
conduct an enquiry into the misconduct alleged
against you. You were suspended pending enquiry
by suspension order dated 21-04-2015.
Your above acts on your part constitute the
following Acts of Misconducts under the Model
Standing Orders:
a. Willful insubordination or disobedience,
whether alone or in combination with others,
to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior.
b. Willful damage to or loss of employer’s good or
property.
c. Habitual absence without leave or absence
without leave for more than 10 days.
d. Habitual breach of any law applicable to the
establishment.
e. Riotous or disorderly behavior during working
hours at the establishment or any act subversive
of discipline.
f. Neglect of work.
g. Striking work or inciting others to strike work
in contravention of the provision of any law, or
rule having the force of law”.
12. The Employer stated that the workmen was
suspended pending enquiry. The Employer stated
that Mr. Prashant Agarwal was appointed as Enquiry
Officer and Mr. Prasanna Chawadikar was appointed
as the Management Representative. The Employer
stated that Mr. Puti Gaonkar was appointed as
Defense Representative by the Workmen. The
Employer stated that Mr. Agarwal conducted the
enquiry on 15-05-2015 and 22-05-2015. The Employer
stated that thereafter the enquiry was fixed on
02-06-2015 at 3.30 p.m. The Employer stated that on
02-06-2015, Ld. Enquiry Officer was in personal
difficulty and hence, the enquiry could not held on
the said date. The Employer stated that in the mean
while Mr. Prashant Agarwal by his letter dated
04-06-2015 informed them due to prior commitments,
he is unable to continue with the conduct of the
enquiry and therefore has decided to withdraw from
the enquiry. The Employer stated that in view of
inability, of Mr. Prashant Agarwal to continue with
the enquiry, Mr. Shailesh Redkar was appointed as
an Enquiry Officer vide appointment letter dated
05-06-2015. The Employer stated that on 05-06-2015,
by notice dated 05-06-2015 the Workmen were
informed that in view of the change of the Enquiry
Officer, and the appointment of new Enquiry Officer,
the enquiry was fixed on 06-06-2015 at 4.30 p.m. at
the same venue. The Employer stated that the letter
of appointment of new Enquiry Officer was also
served on the charge-sheeted workmen. The
Employer stated that the charge-sheeted workmen
however, refused to accept the notice of enquiry as
well as the letter of appointment and the amended
charge-sheet. The Employer stated that on
06-06-2015, none of the charge-sheeted workmen
were present. The Employer stated that the charge-
-sheeted workmen stayed away from the enquiry
deliberately with the sole object of delaying the
enquiry proceedings in spite of being informed about
the enquiry fixed on 06-06-2015 at 4.30 p.m. The
Employer stated that Ld. Enquiry Officer on the basis
of documents on record and considering the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
59
contentions of the Management Representative and
after being satisfied that it is a fit case to proceed
ex-parte and held enquiry ex-parte against the
charge-sheeted workmen. The Employer stated that
the enquiry was conducted by the Ld. Enquiry Officer
in an impartial manner and every opportunity was
given to the Workman to defend the charge-sheet
levelled against the charge-sheeted workmen. The
Employer stated that Ld. Enquiry Officer submitted
his findings dated 13-06-2015 and after appreciating
the evidence on record held the Workman guilty of
charges levelled against him. The Employer stated
that they considered the proceedings of the enquiry,
the findings of the Enquiry Officer and concurred
with the same. The Employer stated that they
considered the past record and did not find any
extenuating circumstances for mitigation of
punishment of dismissal from its service. The
Employer stated that considering the gravity of
proved misconduct, the Workman was dismissed from
its service vide letter dt. 23-12-2015.
14. The Employer stated that the Workman was
paid full and final settlement of all his dues vide
cheque bearing No. 106322 drawn on Deutche Bank,
Mumbai for an amount of Rs. 1,83,176/- alongwith
the full and final computation statement on
30-01-2016 that includes basic pay, P. L. encashment,
house rent allowance, conveyance allowance,
medical allowance and LTA alongwith gratuity. The
Employer stated that the said amount has been
received by the Workman and has been credited to
his account on 24-03-2016. The Employer stated that
the Workman has also collected all his Provident
Fund dues and for the purpose of Employees
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,
1952, is an excluded employee. The Employer stated
that, since the Workman is prosecuting this matter
after having received benefits/full and final
settlements of all legal dues arising out of termination,
it would be equitable to direct the Workman to return
the benefits so received from them with 8.5% interest
on the said money for prosecuting the reference on
merits on the principle of “Who seeks equity must
do equity”. The Employer therefore prayed that the
Workman will be directed to deposit the entire
amount in the Court and in the event the Workman
fails to deposit the amount within the period
stipulated in this Hon’ble Court, the defense of the
Workman may be struck off and the reference be
rejected or the Workman may be stopped from
mediating the present reference.
15. The Employer stated that by notice dated
20-04-2015, the management informed the employee
that their act of stoppage of work from the second
shift amounts to willful stoppage and gross
indiscipline. The Employer stated that the
management advised the employees to report for
work as per the shift schedule. The Employer stated
that however, the employees continued with the
stoppage and continued squatting within the factory
premises. The Employer stated that they, by notice
dated 21-4-2015, invited the attention of the workmen
in the third shift of 20th April, and first shift of
21st April, 2015, to the wilful stoppage of work and
again advised them to report for work. The Employer
stated that however, they failed to report for duty
and continued to squat within the factory premises.
The Employer stated that the management also
decided to issue charge-sheets to some of the
employees for the misconducts committed by them.
The Employer stated that in view of the seriousness
of the misconducts alleged against them and in the
interest of conducting a proper inquiry, and to avoid
any interference with such inquiry, the management
decided to suspend them pending inquiry and formal
charge-sheets. The Employer stated that the said
workmen were suspended pending inquiry vide
letter of suspension dated 21-4-2015. The Employer
stated that in the letter of suspension, the
management informed the workmen that the
management has decided to institute an inquiry into
the acts of misconduct alleged against them. The
Employers stated that as the employees continued
with the work stoppage and failed to report for work
and on the contrary were sitting within the factory
premises, the management, by letter dated 23-4-2015,
invited the attention of General Secretary of the
union Mr. Puti Gaonkar to the stoppage of work by
the employees from 20-4-2015 and to the notices
displayed on its notice board requesting the striking
employees to report for work. The Employer stated
that in the said letter, management informed the
union that the management is required to take
written undertaking from all the workmen that they
will perform their duties of manufacturing and
restored normalcy in the factory premises. The
Employer stated that the said letter was also
displayed on its notice board. The Employer stated
that alongwith the copy of the said undertaking the
workmen was also required to sign a notice displayed
on its notice board and copies of the same were
placed at the security gate. The Employer stated that
on and from commencement of general shifts of
24-4-2015, the employees who had reported at the
security gate were advised to sign the undertaking.
The Employer stated that however, they refused to
do so and squatted outside the factory premises in
front of the security cabin from where all the
employees entered inside the factory premises
thereby, causing inconvenience to the employees
who reported for duty. The Employer stated that the
action of the employees of stoppage of work from
28-4-2015 is a converted manner and continuing such
stoppage amounts to a strike which is illegal and
unjustified.
60
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
16. The Employer stated that by notice dated
27-4-2015 displayed on 27-4-2015, the management
invited the attention of the Workman the stoppage
of work by way of illegal strike from 28-4-2015 and to
the undertakings which they declined to submit to
the management by giving an assurance of
restoration of normalcy. The Employer stated that by
the said notice, they were informed not to sit at the
security gate and squat outside the security gate as
it caused inconvenience as well as atmosphere of
fear and threat in the mind of managerial and other
employees as well as the customers, welders who
are entering the factory premises. The Employer
stated that the employees were therefore advised
not to squat near the factory gate and to stay away
from the said place. The Employer stated that as the
workmen continued to commit illegalities, the
management filed a suit for permanent as well as
temporary injunction on 27-4-2015. The Employer
stated that the Hon’ble Court after hearing them
passed order stating that the defendent union and
its members only those who are employed with them,
their agents, friends, relatives and representatives
are restrained from squatting within a radius of 200
metres from its factory premises at Verna, Salcette,
Goa and from blocking the entrance thereof and/or
preventing egress and ingress there from the other
staff and employees, customers, goods, vehicles, raw
material suppliers, there from till filing their reply
thereto. The Employer stated that in the meanwhile,
the management, vide its letter to the individual
workmen dated 02-06-2015, called upon the workmen
to withdraw the agitation and report for work by
giving the declaration/undertaking as mentioned
therein. The Employer stated that the workmen
however, did not respond. The Employer stated that
they again, by its letter dated 23-6-2015 sent to
individual Workman requested to join the duties. The
workmen did not respond. The Employer stated that
the management once again vide its appeal dated
31-07-2015 sent to individual workers requested the
workmen to report for work in their shift as per their
regular shift. The Employer stated that on 16-7-2015,
four employees who were the members of
“Kamgarancho Ekvott” resumed the duty. The
Employer stated that thereafter, one more appeal was
sent to the workmen on 11-08-2015 wherein,
reference was given of the appeal of 23-06-2016,
3-07-2015, and 31-07-2015 to report for work in the
shift and the shift schedule was annexed therewith.
The Employer stated that finally on 17-08-2015 the
remaining workers resumed duties.
17. The Employer submitted that the Ld. Enquiry
Officer followed the principles of natural justice and
granted every conceivable opportunities to the
workmen to be present but however, failed to
participate in the enquiry and therefore Ld. Enquiry
Officer had no option but to conduct the inquiry
ex-parte. The Employer submitted that Ld. Enquiry
Officer on the basis of the evidence on record
submitted reasoned findings holding the Workman
guilty of the charges levelled against him. The
Employer submitted that the management
considered the findings of the Enquiry Officer,
concurred with the same and considering the gravity
of misconduct decided to dismiss him from the
service and hence the present application for
permission for dismissal of the Workman. The
Employer denies the case of the Workman as pleaded
by him and prayed for rejection of the present
reference.
18. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
on 12-05-2017 at Exb. 6. The Workman, by way of his
Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all his
submissions, averments and statements made in his
Claim Statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements, averments and submissions made
by the Employer in its Written Statement, which are
contrary to his statement and averments made in his
Claim Statement.
19.
Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this Court framed the following issues on
28-6-2017 at Exb. 7.
1. Whether a free, fair and proper enquiry was
conducted against the Workman/Party I in
respect of charge-sheet dated 07-05-2015 in
accordance with the principles of natural
justice?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct levelled
against the Workman vide charge-sheet
dated 07-05-2015 have been proved to the
satisfaction of this court by acceptable
evidence?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proved that
the action of the Employer in dismissing from
service w.e.f. 23-12-2015 is in violation of
Section 33 of the I.D. Act, 1947?
4. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that
the action of the Employer/Party II in
dismissing him from service w.e.f. 16-06-2015,
is illegal and unjustified?
5. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the reference is not maintainable and bad-
in-law and in view of the reasons stated in
para (I) to (IV) of its written statement?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
61
6. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to
any relief?
7. What order? What award?
20. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence
on the preliminary issues No. 1 and 2. Subsequently,
the Employer filed an application for amendment of
its written statement which was allowed by order
dated 17-3-2020 after hearing both parties. The
Workman also filed its synopsis in his written
arguments on preliminary issues. On 12-3-2022, Ld.
Rep. Shri Subhash Naik appearing for the Workman
as well as Ld. Adv. Ms. N. Gaonkar representing the
Employer submitted that the matter is likely to be
settled amicably between the parties. Accordingly,
on 20-01-2023, Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik alongwith
the Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Mrs. M. Rao h/f Adv.
G. K. Sardessai representing the Employer alongwith
its Director remained present and filed an
application for Award in terms of settlement
alongwith Memorandum of settlement u/s 2(P) r/w
Sec-18(1) of the I. D. Act, 1947 between the Employer
and the Workman which is on record at Exb. 50-colly
and submitted that the matter be disposed off in
terms of the settlement arrived at between the
parties hereinabove. The terms of settlement as
agreed between the parties hereinabove are
reproduced hereunder:
a. The Management agrees to pay the Workman
Mr. Susen B. Jalmi a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty one lakhs only), vide cheque
bearing No. 500008 dated 12-01-2023 drawn
on JP Morgan Chase Bank, N. A., Mumbai
400098 Branch, in full and final settlement of
all his claims.
b. It is agreed between the parties that the
Management shall not deduct TDS from the
Settlement amount and Mr. Susen B. Jalmi
undertakes to pay the Tax on the said amount.
c. Accordingly, Mr. Susen B. Jalmi agrees not to
pursue the references No. LC-II/IT/16/2016
before the Labour Court II or any dispute
raised individually or through any union
before any Tribunal, Court, Authority or Forum
and treat the same as settled.
d. It is agreed between the parties that this
settlement shall be filed before the Labour
Court II under reference No. LC-II/IT/16/
/2016 for an Award in terms of the present
settlement.
I have gone through the terms of settlement
signed by the parties hereinabove and am of the
opinion that the said terms of settlement are
beneficial to both the parties. The said terms of
settlement are also useful for the harmonious
relations between the parties. It furthers industrial
harmony at the workplace. Hence, I approved the
same.
In view of above and with regards to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, I proceed to pass
the following order.
ORDER
1. It is hereby held that the reference as to
whether the action of the management of M/s.
Pfizer Ltd., Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,
Salcette, Goa, in dismissing Shri Susen Jalmi,
Operator, w.e.f. 23-12-2015 is legal and justified,
does not survive.
2. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
————
Order
No. 28/07/2023-LAB/184
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Varun Beverages Limited, Plot
No. 4/A, Sanguem Industrial Estate, Dhabamol,
Xelpem, Sanguem, Goa and it’s workmen represented
by the Varun Beverages Employees Union, in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it
expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947),
the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute
for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at
Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7A of the said
Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Varun Beverages Limited, Plot No. 4/A,
Sanguem Industrial Estate, Dhabamol,
Xelpem, Sanguem, Goa in not conceding the
following demands raised by the Varun
Beverages Employees Union vide their letter
dated 29-03-2019, is legal and justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
Demand No. 1: REVISION OF THE WAGE
STRUCTURE:-
The existing pay scales shall be revised.
62
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
Demand No. 2: FLAT-RISE IN BASIC-SALARY &
PAY-SCALES:-
(a) That with effect from 01-04-2019 each worker
be paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as a Flat-Rise over
and above the existing basic salary as on
31-03-2019. The total basic salary as on
31-03-2019 plus a Flat-Rise of Rs. 15,000/- per
month be placed in the pay-scales.
(b) All the workmen should be designated
according to the nature of work duties
presently being carried out by them and their
other existing basic wages should be
increased. All the workmen should be given
Rs. 1,000/- as an annual increment.
Demand No. 3: VARIABLE DEARNESS
ALLOWANCE (VDA):-
All the workmen should be given V.D.A. as per all
India Base Consumer Price Index Series 1949=100 at
the rate of Rupee 5.00 per point subject to appropriate
deduction in neutralization points. The same may be
given in order to compete with the sky rocketed
inflation in the market and day to day rising standard
of living of the people in the State of Goa which is at
par with Delhi the capital city of the sub continent
country like India. It is therefore demanded that
handsome V.D.A. be paid to the company workmen
so that they can sustain against the rising rate of
inflation in the State.
Demand No. 4: FIXED DEARNESS ALLOWANCE
(FDA):-
That with effect from 01-04-2019 all the work
person be paid Fixed Dearness Allowance (FDA)
@ Rs. 2500/- per month.
Demand No. 5: HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE
(HRA):-
That with effect from 01-04-2019 all the work
persons be paid a House Rent Allowance (HRA) @
Rs. 5,000/- per month.
Demand No. 6: LEAVE FACILITIES:-
The workers demand leave facilities as follows:-
(a) PRIVILEGE LEAVE:- Each worker be made
eligible to Privilege Leave at the rate of 30 days
per annum with a facility to accumulate upto
100 days.
(b) CASUAL LEAVE:- All the workmen should be
given 15 days Casual Leave per annum with a
facility to encash the balance unavailed leave.
(c) SICK LEAVE:- It is demanded that sick leave
be given up to 20 days per annum with a facility
to accumulate up to 15 days.
(d) PATERNITY LEAVE:- Every eligible
workmen be given 10 days paternity
leave with a full pay.
(e) BEVERMENT LEAVE:- In case of death of any
family member of the workmen, the concern
worker be granted 12 days leave with full
pay.
(f)
PHYSICAL ATTENDANCE:- Limits of physical
attendance of the workmen should be 210
days per annum.
(g) BANDH DAY:- If company is running on
Bandh day/general strike day in Goa,
company should take all responsibility and
provide free transportation facility with
security to the workmen from home to
company and back to home. And if it is not
possible company must make full pay on such
day.
(d) R.H. HOLIDAYS:- R. H. Holidays should be
considered as regular holidays.
Demand No. 7: TRANSPORT FACILITY:-
(a) Transport Facility:- Existing facility of
transport should continue and additional
transport facility must be provided on Shiroda
to Ponda route.
(b) Those workmen who are not afforded transport
facility by the company should be paid at the
rate of Rs. 10/- per km. with a shortest distance
from house to the place of employment.
(c) Regular Inspection:- That further regular
inspection of transport vehicles to ensure
safety and security of the workmen be done
with a regular interval of every three months.
(d) Similarly it is demanded that the transport
contractor be changed after every five years.
Demand No. 8: ALLOWANCES:-
(a) CHILDREN EDUCATIONAL ALLOWANCE:-
Union demand that all the eligible workmen
should be given Children Education
Allowance (CEA) @ Rs. 2,400/- per month.
(b) WASHING ALLOWANCES:- That with effect
from 01-04-2019 each workmen be paid
washing allowance @ INR 2,000/- per month
per person.
(c) LEAVE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE:-
That each
worker should be eligible to Leave Travel
Allowance (LTA) at the rate of one month gross
salary per annum.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
63
(d) SHIFT ALLOWANCE:- Union demanded that
each workmen be paid Shift Allowance as
below:-
1st Shift Allowance Rs. 100/- per day.
2nd Shift Allowance Rs. 150/- per day.
3rd Shift Allowance Rs. 200/- per day.
Whereas continuous work duties during the third
shift be intervene with one hour of rest with a
provision of free supply of breakfast or light
refreshment.
(e) INCONVENIENCE ALLOWANCE:- Similarly
Inconvenience Allowance @ Rs. 100/- per day
be paid to all the workmen on 3rd Shift.
(f)
SERVICE ALLOWANCE:- All the workmen
should be given service allowance of Rs. 100/-
on every complete years of service.
(g) ATTENDENCE ALLOWANCE:- In order to
encourage
and
motivate
maximum
attendance allowance as shown below be
paid:-
26th days attendance Rs. 600/- per month.
24th days attendance Rs. 400/- per month.
22nd days attendance Rs. 200/- per month.
(h) MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE:- Machine
Maintenance Allowance of Rs. 500/- per month
be paid to the workmen who repairs the
machine or work towards dismantling/
assembling of machine.
(i)
MEDICAL ALLOWANCE:- The Union demand
that all the workmen who are not under E.S.I.
Scheme be paid the medical allowance @
INR 3500/- per month per person. All their
medical expenses including the expenses
towards domiciliary facilities and treatment
to the workmen and his family including
dependent parents be reimbursed by the
company. The same is required in view of the
fact of high cost of medicines, doctors and
hospitalization fees etc.
Demand No. 9: MEDICAL FACILITIES:-
(a) Insurance Cover:- All the workmen should be
covered under medical policy up to
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only)
extending the insurance coverage to their
spouse, children and dependent parents.
(b) Death Insurance:- All the workmen should
be covered under Death Insurance Scheme
of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only)
for any kind of death that may be caused
during their tenure of service in the company.
(c) Accident Insurance:- All the workmen
should be covered under accident insurance
related scheme for a benefit of Rs. 10,00,000/-.
(d) If any worker undergoes medical treatment
or any sickness or disease and has to remain
absent on duty due to sickness for a longer
period, he should be given full pay special
leave till he joins his duty.
(e) Company should tie up with standard
hospital for the purpose of extending the
facility of immediate treatment to the
workmen in case of an emergency.
(f)
Standby 24 hours ambulance facilities should
be made available.
(g) Company should grant a sum of Rs. 25,000/-
as an emergency medical assistance in case
of required hospitalization or death of family
members of the workmen.
Demand No. 10: LOAN FACILITY:-
(a) PERSONAL LOAN:- Union demand that
interest free personal loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three lakhs only) should be given to
the workmen to be repaid with an easy
monthly installment within a period of 7 years.
(b) HOUSE LOAN:- Interest free loan of
Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) be paid
to workmen towards the construction or
upgradation of a house.
Demand No. 11: OTHER FACILITIES:-
(a) The facilities which have not been expressly
modified/changed/altered shall continue to
be applicable and enjoyed by the workmen
and they shall not be adversely affected as a
result of present demand.
(b) DEATH RELIEF FUND:- In case of a death of
any workmen caused during the service in or
outside the factory premises, all the workmen
shall contribute towards the death relief fund
to the extent of one day’s wages and employer
should contribute a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees two lakh only) and such amount to
be paid and handed over to the legal heirs of
the deceased as a death relief fund.
(c) FESTIVAL ADVANCE:- All the workmen should
be given Rs. 20,000/- as a Festival Advance
once in a year along with two crates of pat
bottles of fruit juices.
(d) MARRIAGE GIFT:- On workmen’s marriage one
month’s gross salary should be given as a gift
to him.
(e) SERVICE REWARD:- All the workmen should
be given service reward as shown below:-
(1) Completion of 5 years service
— Rs. 10,000/-
64
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
(2) Completion of 10 years service — Rs. 15,000/-
(3) Completion of 15 years service — Rs. 20,000/-
(4) Completion of 20 years service — Rs. 25,000/-
(5) And the service above 20 years — Rs. 30,000/-
Demand No. 12: OTHER DEMANDS:-
(A) In future new line comes and old workers is
forced to operate new line, he should be given
flat rise of Rs. 5,000/- in basic salary.
(B) If plant is running in 3 shifts, then company
should provide 3:3 Relief System and also give
back up reliever.
(C) 6 bottles of 1.25 ltr. should be provided to every
worker every month.
(D) BIRTHDAY COUPON:- Company should give
Rs. 1,000/- as Birthday Gift to every workmen
(which includes 1 Kg. cake, chocolates and a
case of fruit juice and a gift voucher).
(E) SAFETY SHOES ETC.:- Raincoats, Umbrellas
& Safety Shoes of standard quality to ensure
industrial safety should be provided to the
workmen every year.
(F) UNIFORM:- Three sets of an uniforms of a
standard quality fabric be provided to the
workmen every year.
(G) Canteen facility should be improved and
superior quality of food should be provided to
all the workmen and to ensure the same,
contract of canteen should be changed every
year. 100% subsidized food be provided to all
workmen.
(H) PICNIC:- Company should arrange 2 days
overnight picnic outside the State of Goa in
the monsoon season somewhere in the month
of July with a proper arrangement of a
transport, food & accommodation for all the
workmen and if the same is not feasible then
in such case the workmen be paid Rs. 3,000/-
towards picnic. If any workmen required to
attend his duty on such date he should be
given extra benefit as mentioned above.
(I)
BONUS EX-GRATIA:- That each worker be paid
Bonus-cum-Ex-Gratia @20% per annum
without any ceiling.
(J) SCHOLARSHIP:- Children of workmen should
be awarded every year by giving scholarship
as below for achieving 80% and above.
Std. I - V
—
Rs. 2,000/-
Std. VI - IX
—
Rs. 5,000/-
Std. X
—
Rs. 10,000/-
Std. XII
—
Rs. 15,000/-
Graduate
—
Rs. 20,000/-
(K) Company should give 50% discount to its
workmen towards the purchase of its own
products for workers family functions and
celebrations.
(L) Company should provide fully furnished office
premises with computer facility and other
equipments for the union office.
(M) Company should provide a rest room with
necessary facilities.
(N) Promotion facility should be considered.
(O) PAYMENT OF ARREARS:- In case of delay
caused in timely arriving at the amicable
settlement over a workers COD, all the
workmen shall be paid along with the interest
rate @12% payable to them since the
commencement of the new period of
settlement till actual signing of the settlement.
(P) Similarly arrears on LTA, overtime and bonus
also be paid to workmen as incase of arrears
on the settlement.
(Q) Rectification/fitment of V.D.A of some workers
should be made.
(R) Company should relieve unit committee to do
union work/attending meeting/training
programme etc. and grant them special leave.
Demand No. 13: SHIFT TIMINGS:-
The timing of the shift should be changed as under:-
1st Shift 7.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.
2nd Shift 3.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.
3rd Shift 11.00 p.m. to 7.00 a.m.
That accordingly transportation/bus shall leave
one hour before from Ponda and Arlem.
Demand No. 14: FORMATION OF SOCIETY:-
In case if the union resolves to form employees
credit co-operative society among the workmen
company should support the union in all terms by
providing premises along with infrastructure such
as furniture, laptop and safe, etc. with a facility of
deduction of installments from the monthly wages
of the debtor.
Demand No. 15: SPECIAL DEMAND:-
(1) Gratuity should be given at 45 days total
wages of every completed year of service.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
65
(2) VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) to be
implemented and all the benefits to be given which
are there.
(3) After A.I.B. audit every workmen should be
given a gift.
(4) Multi-skilling: All the workmen should get
multi skill pay out which is there in STD-Multiskill
Act.
Demand No. 16: RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT:- All
the above demands and benefits should be given
with effect from 1st April, 2019.
Demand No. 17: PERIOD OF SETTLEMENT:- The
period of settlement shall be of 3 years.
(2) If answer to issue No. (1) above is in negative
then what relief the workmen are entitled to?
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 8th March, 2023.
————
Notification
No. 28/02/2023-LAB/Part-I/214
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 03-03-2023 in Case No.
Ref. LC-II/IT/06/06 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 March, 2023.
––––
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
. Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/06/06
Shri Menino Estibeiro,
H. No. 447, Near Lake
Goddar, Macasana,
Salcete-Goa.
…… Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Goa Shipyard Pvt. Ltd.,
Vaddem, Vasco-da-Gama-Goa. …… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party-I represented by Ld. Rep. Shri
Subhash Naik George.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar.
Panaji, dated: 03-03-2023.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government
of
Goa,
by
Order
dated
24-02-2006, bearing No. 28/37/2003-LAB/129
referred the following dispute for adjudication to
the Labour Court-II, of Goa.
“(1) Whether th action of M/s. Goa Shipyard
Private Limited, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in
dismissing it’s Workman, namely, Shri Menino
Estibeiro, Mazdoor, with effect from 22-01-2005,
is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/06/06 and registered A/D
notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to the
said notice, the Parties put in their appearance. The
Workman/Party-I (for short ‘Workman’) filed his
Statement of Claim on 02-05-2006 at Exb. 4. The facts
of the case, in brief as pleaded by the Workman are
that there exist a union by name Shipyard Employees
Union (for short, ‘the said union’) in the Employer
establishment. He stated that the said union is the
sole bargaining agent having strength of over 1,800
as its members out of 1850 Workmen. He stated that
on 23-3-1996, the election of the said union was held.
He stated that Shri Vincent P. Dias was elected as the
President, Shri Kishore Shet, Shri Pramod Bandekar,
Shri Sebastian Rebello as Vice Presidents, Shri D.
Ramalingam as General Secretary, Shri Ashok Shinde,
Shri Namdeo Naik as Secretaries and Shri Agnelo S.
D’Souza as Treasurer of the said Union. He stated that
05-05-1997, Shri P.V. Dias called for a Managing
Committee meeting within the Employer’s premises
to be held on 08-05-1997. He stated that on
07-05-1997, Shri Ashok Shinde as Secretary, issued a
letter to the Employer to the effect that the meeting
called on 08-05-1997 was cancelled. He stated that
on 09-05-1997, the entry of Shri P. Vincent Dias was
barred under instructions of the management by the
C.I.S.F. He stated that on 02-06-1997, 21 members of
the Managing Committee requested the President
in writing to convene a Managing Committee
Meeting on 06-06-1997 at 16.30 hours at Kamat
Canteen, A.C. Hall, Kadamba Bus Stand. He stated
that on 06-06-1997, the Managing Committee met and
decided to hold a General Body Meeting on
66
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
20-06-1997. He stated that on 09-06-1997 pursuant
to the Managing Committee decision on 06-06-1997,
show-cause notices were issued to five Managing
Committee Members stating as to why they should
not be dismissed from the membership of the union.
He stated that on 14-06-1997, the Employer issued
notice, permitting to hold the meeting on 20-6-1997
at 9.30 a.m. at Scooter Parking Shed of the Employer.
He stated that the said meeting was called by Shri
D. Ramalingam on whom the show-cause notice was
served. He stated that on 19-06-1997 at 18.30 hours’ a
notice was delivered to Shri P. Vincent Dias to show-
cause why his membership of the union should not
be terminated. He stated that on 20-06-1997, the
General Body Meeting called in the scooter parking
shed could not be held due to law and order problem.
He stated that on 20-06-1997, police led by Shri
Thorat, the then PSI threatened to lathi charge in
the event the members of the union assembled at
the venue of the meeting. He stated that on
21-6-1997, 1207 members of the said union issued a
notice stating that if the President failed to call the
meeting, they themselves would hold a meeting on
the said date and place and Shri Paul Fernandes
would Chair the meeting. He stated that on
19-7-1997 elections were held. He stated that on
19-7-1997, 1220 members voted and ratified the
elections. He stated that 1319 members wrote a letter
to the Registrar of Trade Union furnishing their names
of the newly elected members. He stated that on
21-7-1997 Shri Damodar R. Dessai and 3 others filed a
regular Civil Suit bearing No. 37/1997 in the Civil
Court at Vasco-da-Gama, alleging false statement
against the office bearer of the Managing Committee
of the said union, who were elected on 19-7-1997 and
prayed for a declaration that the special General Body
Meeting held on 10-07-1997 under the Chairmanship
of Shri Paul Fernandes be declared as null and void
and consequently, the election held on 19-07-1997
be set aside. He stated that the said Damodar Dessai
and 3 others in the said Civil Suit further prayed for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendants, or
any person acting on their behalf to take over the
management, control and function of the said union
or obstructing physically or interfering or otherwise
preventing the management, governing the affairs
of the said union or interfering in the said union till
the office bearer and the Managing Committee is
finally elected and recognized by the competent
authorities. He stated that the said Damodar Dessai
and others also filed a Civil Misc. Application,
bearing No. 99/1997, along with the said Civil Suit
No. 37/1997. He stated that on 24-7-1997, the
Managing Committee of the said union filed a regular
Civil Suit No. 54/97/B and also filed a Civil Misc.
Application No.100/97 for a declaration that the
meeting held under the Chairmanship of Shri Paul
Fernandes and the resolutions taken therein on
10-07-1997 be held as legal, valid and subsisting. He
stated that in the said Civil Suit No. 54/1997/B, they
had prayed for a declaration that there was no special
General Body Meeting held on 20-06-1997 and that a
permanent injunction restraining the defendants,
their members, servants etc. from holding a special
general body meeting on 25-07-1997 at Vasco-da-
-Gama, Goa and also for a temporary injunction. He
stated that the Civil Judge ordered that the
defendants in the Regular Civil Suit No. 37/1997 are
restrained from interfering with or disrupting the
elections scheduled to be held on 25-07-1997,
however the Plaintiff and other elected members of
the factions supported by the Plaintiff shall not take
charge of their respective post till the disposal of the
suit or till the elections held on 19-07-1997 are
declared to be illegal and void.
3. He stated that on 06-01-2001, 13 Workmen were
issued letter of suspension alleging that consequent
upon receipt of reports of their unlawful activities
leading to rioting and violence at the court premises
of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mangor Hill,
Vasco-da-Gama on 3rd January, 1998, they are
suspended from work with immediate effect, till
further orders. He stated that the Employer thereafter
conducted a domestic enquiry by issuing them a
charge-sheet dated 12-05-1998, alleging that on
03-01-1998 he was required to be on duty, but instead
of reporting for duty in concert and in combination
thereof, along with other Workmen, abstained from
duty, assembled at the main gate of Goa Shipyard
Limited and stopped some of the Workmen from
attending duty.
4. He submitted that there were no justifiable, valid
and genuine reasons for the Disciplinary Authority
to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer as
the reasoning of the Enquiry Officer does not suffer
from any infirmity. He submitted that the enquiry
conducted against him is illegal, null and void and
in violation of the principles of natural justice as well
as against the Certified Standing Orders. He
submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has no
authority to rewrite the findings under the Certified
Standing Orders. He submitted that the Disciplinary
Authority being also an Appellate Authority, has
deprived him rights vested in them and therefore
the entire exercise of the Disciplinary Authority is
illegal and unjustified. He submitted that the
Disciplinary Authority re-wrote the findings without
giving him any opportunity to show-cause as to
whether such re-writing was permissible in law
under the Certified Standing Orders. He submitted
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
67
that the Disciplinary Authority has acted maliciously
and perversely. He submitted that the re-writing of
the findings by the Disciplinary Authority is
colourable exercise of jurisdiction, an abuse of power
and a fraud on the statue. The Workmen therefore
prayed for setting aside the findings of the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the Enquiry
Authority.
5. The Employer resisted the Claim of the Workman
by filing its Written Statement on 27-08-2007 at Exb.8.
The Employer, by way of preliminary objection
submitted that the entire reference is bad-in-law and
not maintainable as it is not a private limited
company, but it is a public limited company and
public sector undertaking. The Employer submitted
that the State Government is not the appropriate
Government. The Employer submitted that it is a
Central Government’s Public Sector undertaking.
The Employer submitted that it is in the business of
Ship building and Ship repairs for Indian Navy and
Coast Guards. The Employer submitted that its
business is carried out and controlled under the
authority of Central Government. The Employer
submitted that it is under the administrative control
of Ministry of Defense, Department of Defense
Production. The Employer therefore submitted that
the Appropriate Government in its case is Central
Government and not Government of Goa. The
Employer further submitted that the Government of
Goa has no authority and/or jurisdiction to entertain
and refer the present dispute.
6. The Employer stated that on 03-01-1998, the
Workmen along with his co-workmen remained
unauthorizedly absent from duty, without sanction
of leave and/or without information and permission
from the superiors. The Employer stated that the
Workman along with some other workmen
unauthorizedly assembled outside its main gate and
illegally and unjustifiably obstructed and prohibited
its workers from entering in the premises for
performing their duties. The Employer stated that
the Workman along with some other workmen
created tense and terror in the minds of other workers,
who came on 3-1-1998 at the gate to report for their
duties. The Employer stated that because of fear and
terror created in the minds of its workers by the
Workman and some other Workmen, majority of
workers including some lady workers, unwillingly,
but arising out of fear and pressure by the Workman
along with some other workmen went at Mangor Hill,
by paralyzing the work and its functioning.
7. The Employer stated that thereafter, the
Workman along with some other workmen
unauthorizedly assembled outside the Court
premises at Mangor Hill, Vasco-da-Gama and started
shouting slogans by using filthy languages. The
Employer stated that they also abused other workers,
who claimed to be defendants in the said Civil Suit.
The Employer stated that because of the said act of
the Workman, there was disturbance for the
advocates and litigants who wanted to attend the
court in their respective cases. The Employer stated
that some of the workers including the workers
claiming to be the Plaintiffs and Defendants in the
said Civil Suit were inside the court premises. The
Employer stated that since the Presiding Officer was
on leave, the matter was adjourned to some other
date.
8. The Employer stated that having knowledge of
the adjournment of the matter, the concerned
Workman and some other workers became violent to
such an extent that they physically assaulted,
manhandled Adv. Shri Shirodkar, who was going out
of the court premises. The Employer stated that the
Workman along with some other workmen snatched
the brief case of the said advocate and also caught
hold of his coat. The Employer stated that arising
out of physical attack, Adv. Shirodkar got scared and
rushed in the court premises to protect himself and
filed a complaint before one of the Judicial
Magistrate, who was present in the Court.
9. The Employer stated that the Workman along
with some other workmen and their supporters
started pelting stones not only on the other workers,
who claimed to be defendants in the said Civil Suit,
but also on the Court building. The Employer stated
that though there were some police personnel, who
witnessed that the Workman and some other
workmen are becoming violent, to avoid any law and
order situation, called for additional police force. The
Employer stated that thereafter police inspector Mr.
Thorat and Executive Magistrate of Vasco-da-Gama
came at the Court premises.
10. The Employer stated that the Police personnel
and the Executive Magistrate asked the workers
including the Workman to vacate the court premises.
The Employer stated that meanwhile, the Workman
along with some other workmen instigated the mob
and encouraged to become violent. The Employer
stated that because of the instigation by the
Workman and some other workmen, there was an
unpleasant incident of pelting stones on the temple
of law. The Employer stated that the Workman was
directly involved in it and such an act was not
acceptable from any person, much less by the
workmen of any public sector undertaking. The
Employer stated that because of terror and havoc
68
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
created by the Workman along with some other
workmen, the workmen who were in the court
premises, out of fear were not ready to come down
from the court premises. The Employer stated that
the Executive Magistrate and Police Inspector asked
those workmen to vacate the premises. The Employer
stated that having regards to violent mood of the
Workman and some of the workmen, the Police
Inspector assured the workmen who were in the
court premises that the police will escort them and
they will be dropped by the police van. The Employer
stated that however, the workers were not willing to
come down from the court premises because of threat
and terror atmosphere created by the Workman and
others. The Employer stated that the Executive
Magistrate and Police Inspector were compelled to
give protection and forced the workmen, who were
in the court premises, to vacate the court premises,
and then only the workmen came down from the court
premises with support and help of police. The
Employer stated that however, the violent activities
of the Workman along with some other workmen
continued. The Employer stated that they even pelted
stones on those workmen, who were escorted by the
police personnel, including police personnel, which
resulted in injuries to three workmen. The Employer
stated that the Workman along with some other
workmen were not in a mood even to listen the Police
Inspector and Executive Magistrate and continued
their illegal activities. The Employer stated that the
police were compelled to make a lathi charge on the
workmen. The Employer stated that the Workman
along with some of the workmen were even arrested
by the police and charge-sheets were filed against
them for their illegal and unjustified act including
an act at the court premises.
11. The Employer stated that entire act of the
Workman along with some other workmen that also
from the public sector undertaking, were grave and
serious acts of misconducts including subversive of
discipline and good behavior outside the premises
and such act was detrimental for smooth functioning
of the establishment. The Employer stated that they
therefore suspended the Workman including some
other workmen, who were indulged in the illegal
activities, pending enquiry and result thereof.
12. The Employer further submitted that they
served the charge-sheet individually on those
workmen including the Workman. The Employer
stated that the Workman submitted his written
explanation, however the said written explanation
was not satisfactory, therefore they decided to
conduct the enquiry.
13. The Employer further submitted that, initially
it started individual and separate enquires of all the
workmen including the Workman, who were issued
the charge sheets. The Employer stated that since
all the charge-sheets were arising out of the same
incident and misconducts were more or less similar,
it was decided to conduct a common enquiry of all
fourteen workmen. The Employer stated that
therefore the enquiry of the Workman was clubbed
with enquiries of other workmen. The Employer
submitted that some of the workmen accepted their
guilt at the beginning of the enquiry itself, whereas
the enquiry of the Workman continued. The Employer
further stated that the Workman fully participated
in the enquiry and he was represented by Adv. Mario
Almeida. The Employer stated that during the
enquiry, they examined three witnesses in support
of the charges and they were thoroughly and in
length cross-examined by the Advocate of the
Workman. The Employer submitted that the evidence
against the three witnesses was consistent,
corroborative, and arising out of the factual events.
14. The Employer stated that the Workman
examined himself besides other workmen, including
independent witnesses. The Employer stated that
however, they did not bring cogent evidence in their
defense to justify their action and/or contrary to the
evidence of the management. The Employer stated
that the Enquiry Officer, while appreciating the
evidence, came to the conclusion that there is
sufficient evidence to prove that charges levelled
against the Workman. The Employer stated that
however, to the utter surprise, the Enquiry Officer
held the Workman guilty of only single charge i.e.
going on illegal strike or abetting, instigating or
acting in furtherance the normal conduct or work of
the company”, and submitted his findings to the
Employer. The Employer stated that the Enquiry
Officer while appreciating the evidence observed
and analyzed the contradiction in the defense
evidence.
15. The Employer submitted that the Disciplinary
Authority perused the enquiry proceedings, its
connected papers and findings of the Enquiry
Officer. The Employer stated that the Disciplinary
Authority however, did not concur with the findings
of the Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated that the
Disciplinary Authority, after appreciating the
enquiry proceedings and findings of the Enquiry
Officer, came to a firm and definite conclusion that
all the charges levelled against the Workman have
been proved. The Employer stated that the
Disciplinary Authority, therefore while issuing a
show-cause notice dated 17-02-2004 to the Workman,
also issued/enclosed his separate reasoning as to why
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
69
and how the Disciplinary Authority differ with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer on the remaining
charges, which according to the Enquiry Officer are
not proved and how the said charges are also proved
against the Workman. The Employer stated that the
Disciplinary Authority, while issuing the said show-
cause notice, enclosed the findings of Enquiry Officer
and his own findings. The Employer stated that they
had given 7 days’ time to the Workman to file his
reply to the said show-cause notice. The Employer
stated that the Workman, by his letter dated
24-02-2004 requested for extension of two months’
time to file the reply to the said show-cause notice.
The Employer stated that they, by its letter dated
10-03-2004 granted two months’ time to file his reply.
The Employer stated that the Workman filed his reply
dated 08-05-2004 to the aforesaid show-cause notice
of the Employer dated 17-02-2004. The Employer
stated that the Workman, vide his reply dated
08-05-2004 denied the charges levelled against him
and further submitted that the Disciplinary
Authority has no power to differ from the findings of
the Enquiry Officer.
16. The Employer stated that some of other
workers concerned in the same enquiry and who had
been also issued similar show-cause notices, filed
writ petitions bearings No. 143 of 2004 to 150 of 2004
before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Panaji
Bench, challenging the validity of show-cause notice
issued by the Employer. The Hon’ble Court observed
that before the Disciplinary Authority differs with
the view of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to come
to a different conclusion, a reasonable opportunity
of hearing should be granted to the workmen to show-
cause against the reversal of the findings, which
have been recorded in his favour by the Enquiry
Officer. The Hon’ble Court further observed that the
Respondent (the Employer) will be at liberty to issue
a show-cause notice to the Petitioners for showing
cause against the proposal of the Disciplinary
Authority, taking a different view from the view taken
by the Enquiry Officer.
17. The Employer stated that in view of the
observations made by the Hon’ble High Court, they,
by their letter dated 01-07-2004 withdrew its earlier
show-cause notice and issued a fresh show-cause
notice enclosing the reasoning of the Disciplinary
Authority, as to why he is differing from the findings
of the Enquiry Officer and asked to show-cause to
indicate the reasons as to why the Disciplinary
Authority should not differ from the findings of the
Enquiry Officer to the extent of holding him guilty of
the charges from Sr. No. 2 to 6 mentioned in the
impugned charge-sheet. The Employer stated that
the Workman, vide his letter dated 01-09-2004,
submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated
01-07-2004. The Employer stated that since the
explanation submitted by the Workman, vide his
letter dated 01-09-2004 was not satisfactory, he was
issued a show-cause notice dated 10-12-2004 asking
his explanation within 7 days from the receipt of the
said show-cause notice. The Employer stated that
the Workman, by his letter dated 20-12-2004,
requested for 3 months’ time to file reply to the said
show-cause notice. The Employer stated that they,
by its letter dated 27-12-2004, granted 15 days’ time
to the Workman to file his reply to the said show-
cause notice. The Employer further submitted that
the Workman, by his letter dated 10-01-2005
submitted his explanation to the said show-cause
notice. The Employer stated that after carefully going
through the said explanation of the Workman, they
found that it was far from satisfactory and further
observed that the points and objections raised by
the Workman were not at all relevant and contrary to
the facts of the case, circumstances and situation
arising out of the misconducts committed by the
Workman. The Employer stated that having regards
to the gravity of the charges found proved against
the Workman, they by its order dated 22-1-2005,
dismissed the Workman as per the provisions of the
Certified Standing Orders applicable to the
establishment.
18. The Employer submitted that while dismissing
the Workman from the services, they did follow the
procedure of law and full and fair opportunity was
given to the Workman to defend his case while
conducting the enquiry. The Employer submitted
that the enquiry was conducted by following the
principles of natural justice. The Employer submitted
that the entire action on the part of the Employer is
arising out of the principles of natural justice and
observations made by the Hon’ble High Court. The
company further submits that entire action of the
Employer is within the parameter and provisions of
the law and this Hon’ble Tribunal should not interfere
with the bonafide decision of the Employer.
19. Without prejudice the Employer further
submits that assuming without admitting if this
Hon’ble Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the
enquiry has not been conducted by following
principles of natural justice or that the findings of
the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority is/are
perverse and/or bias (there is no scope/warrant to
come to such conclusion), the company crave leave
to lead additional evidence to justify its action of
dismissal of the Workman.
20. Thereafter the Workman filed his Re-joinder on
07-07-2008 at Exb. 15. The Workman by way of his
70
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
Re-joinder denied each and every statement,
averments and submissions made by the Employer
vide their Written Statement filed in the present
proceedings and reiterates and confirms the
statements, averments and submissions made by him
in his statement of claim.
21. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties this Hon’ble Court framed the following issues
on 17-11-2009 at Exb. 26.
1. Whether a fair & proper enquiry was conducted
against the Workman/Party I pertaining to the
alleged misconduct?
2. Whether the Workman/Party I prove that the
findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer are
valid and legal?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I prove that the
action of the Disciplinary Authority to differ
from the findings given by the Enquiry Officer
is illegal null and void?
4. Whether the charges of alleged misconduct
leveled against the Workman/Party-I are proved
to the satisfaction of this court by acceptable
evidence?
5.Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the
action of the Party-II/Employer in terminating
his services w.e.f. 22-01-2005 is illegal and
unjustified?
6. Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that the
present Order of Reference is bad in law view of
the reasons stated in Para 2 (a) & (b) of its Written
Statement?
7. Whether the Party-I proves that he is entitled
to any relief?
8. What Award? What Order?
22. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
a) Issue No. 1
: In the affirmative.
b) Issue No. 2
: Partly in the affirmative and
partly in the negative.
c) Issue No. 3
: In the negative.
d) Issue No. 4
: Partly in the affirmative and
partly in the negative.
e) Issue No. 5
: In the affirmative.
f) Issue No. 6
: In the negative.
g) Issue No. 7 & 8 : As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of the Ld. Rep.
Shri Subhash Naik appearing for the Workman as well
as Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar representing the
Employer. Both the parties also filed their synopsis
of written arguments respectively. I have carefully
perused the entire records of the present case. I have
also carefully considered the submissions advanced
before me.
REASONS:
Issue No. 1:
23. Vide order dated 09-06-2015 passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 to 4, it has
been held that a fair and proper enquiry was
conducted against the Workman in consonance with
the principles of natural justice as well as with the
provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the
Employer in respect of charge-sheet dated 12-05-1998
issued to him. The issue No.1 is therefore answered
in the affirmative.
Issue No. 2:
24. Vide order dated 09-06-2015 passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 to 4, it has
been held that the Employer partly proved the
charges of misconduct to the satisfaction of this court
by acceptable evidence against the Workman, in
respect of charge-sheet dated 12-05-1998 to the
extent of proving the charges of misconduct at clause
No. 29 (II), 29 (XI) and 29 (XII) only and the remaining
charges of misconduct i.e. at clause No. 29 (XXXII),
29 (XXXVII) and 29 (XLI) of its Certified Standing
Orders, have not been proved. The Issue No. 2 is
therefore answered partly in the affirmative and
partly in the negative.
Issue No. 3:
25. Vide order dated 09-06-2015 passed in my
findings on the preliminary Issue No. 1 to 4, it has
been held that the Workman failed to prove that the
action of the disciplinary authority to differ from the
findings given by the Enquiry Officer is illegal, null
and void. The Issue No. 3 is therefore answered in
the Negative.
Issue No. 4:
26. Vide order dated 09-06-2015 passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 to 4, it has
been held that the Employer partly proved the
charges of misconduct to the satisfaction of this court
by acceptable evidence against the Workman, in
respect of charge-sheet dated 12-05-1998 to the
extent of proving the charges of misconduct at clause
No. 29 (II), 29 (XI) and 29 (XII) only and the remaining
charges of misconduct i.e. at Clause No. 29 (XXXII),
29 (XXXVII) and 29 (XLI) of its Certified Standing
Orders, have not been proved. The Issue No. 2 is
therefore answered partly in the affirmative and
partly in the negative.
Issue No. 5 & 7:
27. Vide order dated 09-06-2015 passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 to 4, it has
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
71
been held that the Employer partly proved the
charges of misconduct to the satisfaction of this court
by acceptable evidence against the Workman, in
respect of charge-sheet dated 12-05-1998 to the
extent of proving the charges of misconduct at
Clause No. 29 (II), 29 (XI) and 29 (XII) only and the
remaining charges of misconduct i.e. at clause No.
29 (XXXII), 29 (XXXVII) and 29 (XLI) of its Certified
Standing Orders, have not been proved.
28. The Employer therefore decided to lead fresh
evidence before this Hon’ble Court in respect of the
charges of misconduct i.e. at Clause No. 29 (XXXII),
29 (XXXVII) and 29 (XLI) of its Certified Standing
Orders which has not been proved before the
domestic inquiry. In order to prove the aforesaid
misconduct, the Employer has examined the
witnesses namely, Shri Damodar Desai, and Mr.
Kishor Manohar Samant, the Addl. General Manager
(Legal). In rebuttal, the Workman examined himself
before this Hon’ble Court. All the witnesses
examined by either parties, were thoroughly cross
examined.
29. Though, it was necessary to prove the unproved
charges by fresh and independent evidence, the
Employer failed to adduce any fresh and independent
evidence. The Employer however, once again
examined Shri Damodar Dessai, who had examined
before the Ld. Enquiry Officer and produced on record
the same documents i.e. of proceedings of the
enquiry complaint, dated 03-01-1998 against
inhuman behaviour of supporters of Shri P. V. Dias by
him and others, complaint of assault dated
03-01-1998, letter dated 06-01-1998 from the Police
Inspector, Vasco Police Station, Vasco-Goa, F. I. R.
dated 03-01-1998, report regarding Rioting Incident
dated 07-01-1998 from Supdt. of Police to the
Managing Director, G. S. L., letter dated 08-01-1998
from the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Panaji to the
Managing Director, G. S. L. etc. The deposition of the
said Shri Damodar Dessai is more or less the same.
The said witness also could not produce the
documentary evidence to establish the case in
respect of unproved charges.
30. I have carefully gone through in detail, the
evidence led by the Employer of Shri Damodar Desai
as well as Shri Kishor Samant and on going through
the same, there is no substantial evidence to prove
the allegations that the workmen were restrained,
detained or gheraoed by the workmen either inside
or outside premises of the Employer Company.
Similarly, there is no substantial acceptable evidence
to prove the allegations and to prove the charge that
any abusive or insulting language or any sort of
threat or assault, intimidation or coercion was done
by the workmen within the premises of the Employer
Company, which is directly effecting the discipline
or work or business of the Company. Hence, it is held
that the Employer failed to prove that the charges of
misconduct at Clause No. 29 (XXXII), 29 (XXXVII) and
29 (XLI) of its Certified Standing Orders.
Thus, it is held that the Employer could prove the
charges of misconduct at Clause No. 29(II), 29(XI) and
29(XII) of its Certified Standing Orders.
31. The Clause 29(II) of the Model Stranding
Orders states that going on illegal strike or awaiting,
inciting, instigating or acting in furtherance thereon
or resorting to obstruction aimed at or resulting in
paralyzing the normal conduct or work of the
company. Clause 29 (XI) states that drunkenness,
riotous, disorderly, indecent or improper behaviour
on the premises of the establishment or outside the
premises of the establishment if it adversely affects
or is likely to affect the working or discipline of the
establishment. Clause 29 (XII) states that commission
of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour
on the premises or precincts of the establishment.
Thus, the charges of misconduct proved against the
Workman are not serious enough to warrant the
termination of services. Taking into consideration
the proved charges of misconduct as well as
unblemished past service record of the Workman, the
punishment of dismissal imposed on him is too harsh
and shockingly disproportionate especially since
there is not even an allegation that the misconduct
is/are habitual. Hence, it is held that the action of
the Employer in terminating the services of the
Workman w.e.f. 22-01-2005 is illegal and unjustified.
The Issue No. 5 is therefore answered in the
affirmative.
32. Now the question is with regards to the proved
charges against the concerned Workman whether
any relief could be granted to the concerned
workmen or not.
33. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar representing
the Employer submitted that the Employer
terminated the services of the Workman on account
of loss of confidence in him and as such the Workman
is not entitled for reinstatement in service. In support
of his oral contention, Ld. Adv. M.S. Bandodkar relied
upon a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
the case of North Delhi, Municipal Corporation V/s.
Jaswant Singh, reported in 2019 III CLR 137. In the
said case, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, after
relying upon the judgment State Bank of Travancore
v/s. Prem Singh, reported in 2019 SCC.8258 and other
cases, summarized the Principles and held as under:
72
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
31. When an employee acts in a manner by
which the management loses confidence in
him, his reinstatement cannot be ordered
because it would neither be desirable nor
expedient to continue the employee in
service. It may also be detrimental to the
discipline or security of the establishment.
In case of loss of confidence, only
compensation can be awarded.
32. The plea of “loss of confidence” by the
employer has to be bonafide. Loss of
confidence cannot be subjective. It has to
rest on some objective facts, which would
induce a reasonable apprehension in the
mind of the management regarding the
trustworthiness of the employee and the
power has to be exercised by the employer
objectively in good faith, which means
honestly with due care and prudence.
Otherwise, a valuable right of reinstatement
to which an employee is ordinarily entitled
to, on a finding that he is not guilty of any
misconduct, will be irretrievably lost to the
employee.
33.
The bonafide opinion formed by the
employer about the suitability of his
employee for the job assigned to him, even
though erroneous, is final and not subject to
review by the industrial adjudication.
34.
In case of misconduct resulting in loss of
confidence, the employer is not bound to hold
any inquiry to visit the employee with penal
action even if such reason happens to be
misconduct of the employee. The employer,
in its discretion, may invoke the power to
discharge simpliciter for loss of confidence
while dispensing with inquiry into the
conduct of the workman. The departmental
inquiry in such a case is not necessary.
35.
The reinstatement of an employee
terminated for loss of confidence cannot be
ordered even if the inquiry held by the
employer has been held to be bad.
36.
The reinstatement of an employee
terminated for loss of confidence for
involvement in a criminal case cannot be
directed even if the employee is able to secure
a acquittal or discharge in the criminal case.
37.
The reinstatement has not been considered
desirable in cases where there have been
strained relationship between employer and
employee. The reinstatement is also denied
when an employee has been found to be
guilty of subversive or prejudicial activities.
The Courts have also denied reinstatement
in cases where long time has lapsed or where
the industry itself has become sick”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in its aforesaid case is applicable to the case
in hand.
34. Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 empowers
the Labour Court to interfere with the punishment
given by the Employer. In my considered opinion,
although there is a case to interfere with punishment
by the Employer Company, they have lost its
confidence in the Workman as the said Employer
Company being a Government Company in the
defense sector. In my opinion, it is not a fit case to
grant reinstatement and/or back wages.
35. Having regards to the proved charges and
loss of confidence on the part of the Employer
Company, the ends of justice would be met through
grant of some lump sum amount to the concerned
Workman. Accordingly, the Employer company shall
pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to
the Workman. The said amount shall be paid by the
Employer Company within a month from the
publication of the Award, failing which it shall bears
a simple interest of 9% p.a.
Issue No. 6:
36. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objection, submitted that it is a public limited
company and public sector undertaking and that the
State Government is not the appropriate
Government, that it is a Central Government’s Public
Sector Undertaking and it is in the business of ship
building and ship repairs for Indian Navy and Coast
Guard, that its business is carried out and control
under the authority of Central Government, that it is
under the Administrative control of Ministry of
Defence, Department of Defence Production. The
Employer therefore submitted that the appropriate
Government in its case is Central Government and
not Government of Goa and that the Government of
Goa has no authority and/or jurisdiction to entertain
and refer the present dispute. The burden was cast
upon the Employer.
37. By notification dated 03-07-1998, the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
informed that in exercise of the powers conferred by
Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the
Central Government hereby directs that all the
powers exercised by it under the Act and the rules
made thereunder shall, in relation to all the Central
Public Sector undertakings and their subsidiaries,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
73
corporation and autonomous bodies specified in
schedule annexed to its notification be also exercised
by the State Governments subject to the condition
that the Central Government shall exercise all the
powers under the said Act and Rules made
thereunder as and when it considers necessary to do
so. Thus, the appropriate Government under Section
39 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 have been
delegated to all the State Governments.
Hence, it is held that the Employer has failed to
prove that the present order of reference is bad-in-
law in view of the reasons stated in para 2(a) and 2(b)
of its Written Statement. The Issue No. 6 is therefore
answered in the negative.
In view of above, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of M/s. Goa Shipyard
Private Limited, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa in
dismissing its Workman namely, Shri Menino
Estibeiro, Mazdoor, w.e.f. 22-01-2005 is illegal
and unjustified.
2. It is held that the Employer M/s. Goa
Shipyard Private Limited, Vasco-da-Gama,
Goa shall pay to the Workman Shri Menino
Estibeiro a of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
lakhs only) within a period of one month from
the date of publication of the present Award,
failing which it shall carry an interest
9% p.a.
3. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———uuu———
Department of Official Language
Directorate of Official Language
–––
Order
No. 4/71/2022/DOL/Admn./Upgradation Post/04
The Government of Goa is pleased to upgrade
the post of Assistant Director (Konkani) presently
held by incumbent in Level-7 to Level-10 as Deputy
Director (Official Language), Group ‘A’, Gazetted
w.e.f. 01-03-2023 till the incumbent vacates the post
on attaining superannuation, thereafter, the post of
Assistant Director (Konkani) shall be filled as per
the prevailing Recruitment Rules.
Consequent upon the same, Shri Anil H. Sawant,
Assistant Director (Konkani), the present incumbent
is hereby designated as Deputy Director (Official
Language) from Pay Level-7 to Pay Level-10 in
Directorate of Official Language.
This issues with approval and concurrence of
Finance (Rev. & Cont.) Department vide their U.O.
No. 88759 dated 19-01-2023 and the Council of
Ministers in its XVIIth meeting held on 21-02-2023.
The expenditure for the above post shall be
debited to the Budget Head 2070–Other
Administrative Services, 119–Official Language,
01–Department of Official Language (Non-Plan),
01–Salaries.
This supersedes Order No. 4/71/2022/DOL/
/Admn./Upgradation Post/939 dated 28-02-2023.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raju V. Gawas, Director (Official Language) &
ex officio Joint Secretary.
Panaji, 3rd April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
–––
Order
No. 15/11/2022-PER/1020
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide its letter No. COM/II/
/12/42(2)/2013/528 dated 20-03-2023, the Governor
of Goa is pleased to declare Shri Laximikant R.
Dessai, Officer in the cadre of Mamlatdar/Joint
Mamlatdar/Vigilance Officer to have satisfactorily
completed his probation period in the cadre/grade
with effect from 16-11-2022.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 6th April, 2023.
74
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
Notification
No. 15/7/2003-PER (Part-I)/985
In accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the cadre of Mamlatdar read with the Goa Departmental
Examination for the Officers in the Cadre of Mamlatdars/Joint Mamlatdars/Assistant Director of Civil
Supplies Rules, notified under Notification No. 15/50/87-PER-Part I dated 12-12-1997 and published in the
Official Gazette, Series I No. 44 dated 29-1-1998, the schedule for the Departmental Examination shall be
as under:-
Date of Examination
Morning Session
Evening Session
Venue
10 a.m. to 1.00 p.m
2.15 p.m. to 5.15 p.m.
27-04-2023
Paper (I)
Paper (II)
Goa Public Service
28-04-2023
Paper (III)
Paper (IV)
Commission,
Panaji-Goa.
05-05-2023
Paper (V)
Paper (VI)
GIPARD, Ella Farm,
(2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.)
Old Goa.
The syllabus for the said examination shall be as per the Goa Departmental Examination for the Officers
in the Cadre of Mamlatdar/Joint Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies (Second Amendment)
Rules, 2019 notified under Notification No. 15/18/2003-PER (Part-I)/3855 dated 17-12-2019 and published in
the Official Gazette, Series I No. 40 dated 02-01-2020 and the Goa Departmental Examination for the Officers
in the Cadre of Mamlatdar/Joint Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies (Third Amendment), Rules,
2020 published in the Official Gazette, Series I No. 46 dated 20-02-2020.
The following Officers in the above Cadre shall appear for the examination in paper mentioned against
his name on the above mentioned date, time and venue:
Sr. No.
Name of Officers
Papers
1.
Shri Nathan Leonard Afonso
Paper- I, II, III, IV, V & VI.
2.
Shri Rajesh G. Sakhalkar
Paper- V.
3.
Smt. Apurva D. Karpe
Paper- V.
4.
Shri Rosario Carvalho (ST)
Paper- V & VI.
5.
Smt. Jennifer Fernandes e Arez
Paper- II & III.
6.
Smt. Seema S. S. Gudekar
Paper- I, II, V & VI.
7.
Shri Saiesh S. Naik
Paper- V & VI.
8.
Shri Krishna S. Gauns
Paper- I, V & VI.
9.
Shri Ranjeet R. Salgaonkar
Paper- I & V.
10.
Smt. Janavi Jeetendra Kalekar (ST)
Paper- V.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 5th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Planning
Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation
–––
Order
No. DPSE/I/ADMN/Filling-Prom.RA/2022-23/22
On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission, as communicated vide their letter No. COM/
/II/11/38(1)/2020/527 dated 20-03-2023, Government is pleased to promote the following Statistical Assistants
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
75
of the Common Statistical Cadre to the post of Research Assistant in Group ‘B’ in the pay scale of Level 6
(35400-112400) as per VIIth Pay Commission with immediate effect.
Sr.
Name of the officials
Present place of posting
Place of posting against the vacant
No.
post/holding additional charge
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Shivanand S. Alornecar
DPSE, Planning Division,
DPSE, Porvorim-Goa, against the
Porvorim-Goa
vacant post of Shri Chandresh M.
Gaonkar, Research Assistant,
promoted.
2.
Smt. Supriya Henriques
Directorate of Women &
DPSE, Porvorim-Goa, against the
Child Development,
vacant post of Shri Sajjan A.
Panaji-Goa
Fatarpekar, Research Assistant,
promoted.
3.
Smt. Ruth Rodrigues
Office of the Collector,
Office of the Commissioner,
Collectorate South,
Labour and Employment, Panaji-
Margao-Goa
-Goa against the vacant post of
Smt. Deepashri Naik, Research
Assistant, retired and shall hold
additional charge of Research
Assistant at the Office of the
Collector, Collectorate, North Goa
until further orders.
4.
Smt. Sheetal P. Naik
Directorate of Health
Directorate of Fisheries, Panaji-
Services, HIB Section,
-Goa against the vacant post of
Campal, Panaji-Goa
Shri Sudesh Volvoikar, Research
Assistant, retired and shall hold
additional charge of Research
Assistant at Directorate of
Panchayat, Panaji-Goa until
further orders.
1. The Officials at Sr. No. 1, 2 & 3 promoted on regular basis will be on probation for a period of 02 years
from the date of their joining.
2. The Official at Sr. No. 4 will be on officiating basis against the ST vacancy till eligible ST Official is
found by the Department and will not be on probation period.
3. The Officials shall exercise their option to fix pay in terms of F. R. 22(I)(a)(1) within one month from
the date of promotion, if desire/applicable.
4. The Officials above at Sr. No. 3 & 4 shall attend their duties at the office of the Collector, North Goa
and Directorate of Panchayat, Panaji respectively on every Tuesday and Thursday.
5. This issues with the Government approval vide U.O. 358 dated 04-04-2023.
6. The Officials are required to submit a copy of the joining report to this Department for Office record.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Vijay B. Saxena, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Planning).
Porvorim, 5th April, 2023.
———uuu———
———uuu———
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
–––
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part/4070
On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa Public
Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/16(1)/2023/534 dated 27-03-2023, the Government is pleased
to promote the Assistant Engineer (Elect.) at Sr. No. 1 to the post of Executive Engineer (Elect.), Group ‘A’
76
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
Gazetted in the Pay Matrix Level 11 on regular basis
with immediate effect, whereas the officer at Sr. No.
2 is promoted to the post of Executive Engineer
(Elect.), Group ‘A’ Gazetted in the Pay Matrix Level
11 on regular basis w.e.f. 01-04-2023.
The officers are posted at the places shown
below against their names, until further orders.
Sr. Name of the
Place of posting on
No. Officer
promotion
1
2
3
1.
Shri Charles P.
Executive Engineer
Fernandes
(Elect.), Division XVI,
Margao.
1
2
3
2.
Shri Sudan D. S.
Executive Engineer
Kunkolkar
(EHV), O/o the Chief
Electrical Engineer,
Electricity Department,
Panaji.
2. The promotee Officers shall be on probation for
a period of two years. They should exercise an option
for fixation of pay under F.R.-22(1) (a) (i) within one
month from the date of promotion.
3. This issues with the approval of the
Government vide Inward No. 1316 dated 30-03-2023.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Stephen Fernandes, Chief Electrical Engineer &
ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 31st March, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Revenue
–––
Order
No. 30/01/2005-RD-I/4757
The Government of Goa is pleased to designate the following additional officers of the Collectorate of
South Goa District as Public Information Officers/Assistant Public Information Officers and the Appellant
Authority as required under Section 5 of Right to Information Act, 2005, with immediate effect.
Sr.
Name of the Department
Public Information
Assistant Public
First Appellate
No.
Offices/Section
Officer & designation
Information Officer
Authority &
& designation
designation
1
2
3
4
5
1.
Confidential & Vigilance
Superintendent of
UDC (C.A.)
Dy. Collector (DRO).
Section
Establishment Section
2.
Office of Additional
Superintendent of
Jr. Steno of AC-I
Dy. Collector (DRO).
Collector-I, Section
Establishment Section
Section
3.
Office of Additional
Superintendent of
Jr. Steno of AC-II
Dy. Collector South-I.
Collector-II, Section
Establishment Section
Section
4.
Office of Additional
Awal Karkun of Land
Jr. Steno of Land
Dy. Collector South-I
Collector-III, Section
Acquisition Section
Acquisition Section
5.
Establishment Section
Superintendent of
Head Clerk of EST
Dy. Collector (DRO).
(EST)
Establishment Section
Section
6.
Disaster Mangement
Awal Karkun of DMC
UDC of DMC Section
Dy. Collector South-I.
Section (DMC)
Section
7.
Election Section
Awal Karkun of ELN
UDC of ELN Section
Dy. Collector South-I.
(ELN)
Section
8.
MPLAD Section
Accountant
UDC of MPLAD
Assistant Account
Section
Officer.
9.
Magisterial Section
Head Clerk of MAG
UDC of MAG Section
Dy. Collector (DRO).
(MAG)
Section
10.
Land Acquisition (LA)
Awal Karkun of Land
Jr. Steno of Land
Dy. Collector (LA).
Acquisition Section
Acquisition Section
11.
Civil Administration
Head Clerk of CAB
UDC of CAB Section
Dy. Collector (LA).
Section (CAB)
Section
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
77
1
2
3
4
5
12.
Revenue Section
Superintendent of
Head Clerk of
Dy. Collector (REV).
including CRZ matter
Revenue Section
Revenue Section
(REV)
13.
Accounts Section
Accountant
UDC of Accounts
Assistant Accounts
Section
Officer.
14.
DRO Section
Head Clerk of DRO
DEO/Jr. Steno of
Dy. Collector (DRO).
Section
DRO Section
15.
Judicial Section
Mamlatdar in
Jr. Steno of Judicial
Dy. Collector (REV).
Collectorate-II
Section
16.
Conversion Cell
Superintendent of
UDC of C-Cell
Dy. Collector (REV).
Revenue Section
17.
Flying Squard
Field Surveyor of
LDC of Dy. Collector
Dy. Collector South-I.
Dy. Collector South-I
South-I
18.
Office of Additional
Awal Karkun of
Jr. Steno of Additional Additional Collector-III,
Collector-III, Ponda
Additional Collector-III
Collector-III, Section
Ponda.
Section
19.
Office of Dy. Collector &
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of O/o
Dy. Collector & SDM/
SDO-I, Salcete
SDM-I, Salcete
/SDO-I, Salcete.
20.
Office of Dy. Collector &
Awal Karkun
Upper Division Clerk
Dy. Collector & SDM/
SDO-II, Salcete
of O/o SDM-II, Salcete /SDO-II, Salcete.
21.
Office of Dy. Collector &
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of O/o
Dy. Collector & SDM/
& Mormugao
SDM, Mormugao
/SDO, Mormugao.
22.
Office of Dy. Collector
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of O/o
Dy. Collector & SDM/
& Canacona
SDM, Canacona
/SDO, Canacona.
23.
Office of Dy. Collector
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of O/o
Dy. Collector & SDM/
& Quepem
SDM, Quepem
/SDO, Quepem.
24.
Office of Dy. Collector
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of O/o
Dy. Collector & SDM/
& Sanguem
SDM, Sanguem
/SDO, Sanguem.
25.
Office of Dy. Collector
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of O/o
Dy. Collector & SDM/
& Dharbandora
SDM, Dharbandora
/SDO, Dharbandora.
26.
Office of Dy. Collector
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of O/o
Dy. Collector & SDM/
& Ponda
SDM, Ponda
/SDO, Ponda.
27.
Office of Mamlatdar of
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of
Mamlatdar of Salcete.
Salcete
Mamlatdar, Salcete
28.
Office of Mamlatdar of
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of
Mamlatdar of
Mormugao
Mamlatdar, Mormugao Mormugao.
29.
Office of Mamlatdar of
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of
Mamlatdar of
Canacona
Mamlatdar, Canacona
Canacona.
30.
Office of Mamlatdar of
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of
Mamlatdar of
Quepem
Mamlatdar, Quepem
Quepem.
31.
Office of Mamlatdar of
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of
Mamlatdar of
Sanguem
Mamlatdar, Sanguem
Sanguem.
32.
Office of Mamlatdar of
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of
Mamlatdar of
Dharbandora
Mamlatdar, Dharbandora Dharbandora.
78
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 2
13TH APRIL, 2023
1
2
3
4
5
33.
Office of Mamlatdar of
Awal Karkun
Head Clerk of
Mamlatdar of Ponda.
Ponda
Mamlatdar, Ponda
34.
Office of Administrator
Secretary
Clerk
Administrator of
of Communidade, South
Communidade.
Zone, Margao
The above order supersedes the earlier orders.
Sapna S. N. Bandodkar, Under Secretary (Rev.-II).
Porvorim, 27th March, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Water Resources
Office of the Chief Engineer
–––
Order
No. 22-1-81/CE-WR/Adm.II/05
Government is pleased to engage the services of Shri Richard D’Souza, Ex-Principal Chief Conservator
of Forest as an Advisor to the Water Resources Department on the subject matter of Forest, Wildlife and
related forest matters for Mhadei River Water Dispute. For the said service rendered, he shall be paid
honorarium of Rs. 10,000/- per sitting for conference with Advocate General and other experts and Rs. 5000/-
as consultancy fees for advice. He shall also be eligible for T.A./D.A. and halting allowances as eligible for
HOD of the Department for outstation engagement.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
P. B. Badami, Chief Engineer (W. R.) & ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Porvorim, 4th April, 2023.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 40.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—11/100—04/2023.