SERIES II No. 4
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-2023
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Co-operation
Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
–––
Order
No. 19-17-94/TS/RCS(Part V)/243
Read: Order No. 19-17-94/TS/RCS(Part V)/225 dated 21-04-2023 issued by RCS.
[Under Section 67A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Goa Act No. 36 of 2001)]
Whereas, The Goa State Co-operative Milk Producer’s Union Ltd. [registered under code symbol No.
PRD(c)-99/Goa], Curti, Ponda, Goa (hereinafter referred to as “the said society” or as “Goa Dairy”) is a
registered Co-operative Society which was registered under the erstwhile the Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 made applicable to the State of Goa and is now deemed to be a Society
registered under the Goa State Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Goa Act No. 36 of 2001) (hereafter referred
to as “Act”) from the date of coming into force of the Act.
And whereas, as per the bye laws of Goa Dairy, the Supreme authority of the Society is vested in the
General Body Meeting, subject to the Act, the Rules and the Bye-laws. The Board of Directors (BoD) of the
Goa Dairy consists of 15 Directors out of which 12 are directly elected, one is nominated by RCS, one
nominated by NDDB and the Managing Director of the Society is ex-officio Director and the Member
Secretary.
And whereas, the last election was held to constitute Board of Directors of Goa Dairy for tenure
2022-2027 and the result of election was declared in Form ELECTION 17 dated 20-06-2022 whereby the
following 12 Directors were elected.
Sr.
Name of the Director
Primary Dairy Society
Residential Address
No.
represented
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Sinari Ulhas Pandurang
Janata Utkarsh Sahakari Dudh
H. No. 209, Meshwada,
Vyavasayik Society Ltd., Amona,
Amona, Bicholim, Goa.
Marcela, Goa
2.
Shri Faldessai Rajesh Krishna
Somnath Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak
H. No. 275, Deulwada,
Vyavsayik Saunstha Maryadit,
Balli, Quepem, Goa.
Adnem, Quepem, Goa
3.
Shri Dessai Vithoba Datta
Shantadurga Sahakari Dudh
H. No. 10, Bhiunsa,
Vyavasaik Saunstha Ltd.,
Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa.
Cuncolim Bazar, Cuncolim,
Salcete, Goa
4.
Shri Gaonkar Vijaykant Vithoba
Shree Mahamaya Dudh Utapadak
H. No. 136, Jakem,
Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit,
Netravalim, Sanguem, Goa.
Jackem, Netravalim, Sanguem, Goa
Panaji, 27th April, 2023 (Vaisakha 7, 1945)
111
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
112
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
1
2
3
4
5.
Shri Parab Gurudas Keshav
Menkurem Dudh Utapadak
H. No. 140, Varcha Wada,
Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit,
Menkurem, Bicholim, Goa.
Menkurem, Bicholim, Goa
6.
Shri Sahakari Madhav Atmaram
Kapila Sahakari Dudh Utpadak
H. No. 47/1, Mesta Wada,
Vyavasayik Saunstha Maryadit,
Curti, Ponda, Goa.
Curti, Ponda, Goa
7.
Shri Dessai Baburao Shrikant
Kakoda Sahakari Dudh Utpadak
H. No. 50, Bansai, Kakoda,
Fatto
Vyavasayik Saunstha Maryadit,
Curchorem, Goa.
Bansai, Kakoda, Goa
8.
Shri Prabhu Uday Anand
Somnath Mahalaxmi Sahakari
H. No. 105, Gudamol-Kodar,
Dudh Utpadak Saunstha
Near Government Agriculture
Maryadit, Kodar, Ponda, Goa
Farm, Khandepar, Ponda,
Goa-403406.
9.
Shri Prabhugaonkar Nitin
Tribhuvan Sahakari Dudh
H. No. 183, Gaonkarwada,
Vishwanath
Vyavasayik Saunstha Maryadit,
Velinga, Priol, Ponda,
Mardol, Goa
Goa-403404.
10. Shri Falo Babu Deu
Shree Paravdeshwar Dudh Utpadak
Ghoteli No.-02, Querim,
Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit, Keri,
Sattari, Goa-403505.
Sattari, Goa
11. Shri Desai Anup Kalidas
Priol Gosavardhan Sahakari Dudh
Apewal, Priol, Ponda, Goa
Vyavasayik Saunstha Maryadit,
403404.
Priol, Goa
12. Shri Naik Shrikant Pandurang
Pragati Sahakari Dudh Utpadak
Galshirem Kavalem, Ponda,
Saunstha Maryadit, Kapileshwari,
Goa-403401.
Kavale, Ponda, Goa
The elections to the Office bearers of the Goa Dairy were held on 18-07-2022 and Shri Faldessai Rajesh
Krishna was elected as Chairman.
Subsequently, the Managing Director of Goa Dairy vide copies of letters dated 20-02-2023 marked to
Registrar has informed that 2 Directors namely Shri Madhav Atmaram Sahakari and Shri Anup K. Desai had
submitted their resignations from the post of Directors on 03-02-2023 which were accepted on 15-02-2023.
Thus, the 2 posts of Directors have fallen vacant with effect from 15-02-2023 reducing the number of
Directors to 10.
And whereas, vide Order dated 21-04-2023 referred above, the following persons who were holding the
post of Director of Goa Dairy have been disqualified u/s. 59(11) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001.
1) Shri Sinari Ulhas Pandurang.
2) Shri Faldessai Rajesh Krishna.
3) Shri Dessai Vithoba Datta.
4) Shri Gaonkar Vijaykant Vithoba.
5) Shri Parab Gurudas Keshav.
6) Shri Dessai Baburao Shrikant Fatto.
And whereas, Shri Sahakari Madhav Atmaram who was holding the post of Director but have vacated
the same by resignation has also been disqualified vide said Order along with several other ex-Directors
of Goa Dairy.
In consequence of above developments of two resignations and six disqualifications, presently out of 12
elected Directors on Board of Directors of Goa Dairy, only 4 Directors namely Shri Prabhu Uday Anand,
Shri Prabhugaonkar Nitin Vishwanath, Shri Falo Babu Deu and Shri Naik Shrikant Pandurang are left as
Directors on the Board of Directors.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
113
And whereas, as per bye-law No. 19.12 of Goa Dairy, presence of more than 50% of the Board members
forms the quorum for the Board meetings. Therefore, at all times a minimum of 7 elected Directors are
required for functioning of the Board in accordance with bye-laws of Goa Dairy.
All the powers, functions and responsibilities are vested in the Board as per bye-law No. 21 of Goa Dairy.
Therefore due to above facts, the Goa Dairy is rendered without any effective Board of Directors because
the BoD can take decisions only through its meetings by adopting resolutions passed by majority of
Directors present and voting. But, for holding any meeting of BoD, 7 or more Directors are required to be
present to form the quorum. Due to this situation and since Shri Rajesh K. Faldessai, Chairman is also
disqualified from the post of Director, the Goa Dairy is left without any Chairman and without any BoD
capable of functioning in accordance with its Bye-laws.
In view of above situation where majority of posts of Directors on BoD are vacant due to resignations
and disqualifications, it is felt necessary to provide an alternative for management of affairs of Goa Dairy
by invoking provisions of Section 67A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001.
The Goa Dairy is running a milk dairy plant located at Curti, Ponda, Goa and another plant at Usgao
where cattle feed is manufactured which is supplied to its members/dairy farmers through affiliated
primary dairy co-operative societies. Thus for running both these plants, the decision making has to happen
by the authorities of Chairman as well as the Board of Directors. The business carried on by Goa Dairy is
most important since it is for ensuring regular supply of milk packets in the market for consumption of
population as well as supplying cattle feed for survival of animals owned by the dairy farmers. It is essential
in the interest of Goa Dairy as well as its member dairy farmers and in public interest to ensure smooth
supply of daily milk to population of the State, it is essential to invoke powers u/s. 67A of the Act to
supersede the existing defunct Board of Directors and appoint a Committee of Administrators (CoA) to
manage the affairs of the Society till the fresh elections are held and new Board of Directors enters upon
office.
Taking into consideration the stalemate that is existing and the vacuum created in the management/
/administration of Society, I am satisfied that immediate action is required to be taken and that it is not
reasonably practicable to publish notice in accordance with proviso to Section 67A of the Act inviting
objections and suggestions to the proposed order and to pass the Order after considering all objections
and suggestions that may be received. If such notice is published and even minimum 7 days are provided,
it may lead to serious adverse effect on smooth functioning of both Dairy and cattle feed plants.
Now, therefore, in view of above facts and the above recorded reasons and in exercise of the powers
vested in me under Section 67A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, I, the undersigned Registrar
of Co-operative Societies, Goa do hereby supersede the existing minority/defunct Board of Directors of the
Goa State Co-operative Milk Producer’s Union Ltd., Curti, Ponda, Goa and hereby appoint the following
Committee of Administrators (CoA) to manage the affairs of the Society till the fresh elections are held and
new Board of Directors enters upon office.
1) Shri Parag M. Nagarcenkar, Officer of Goa Civil Service, Government of Goa presently posted as SLAO,
GIDC-Chairman.
2) Dr. Rama G. Parab, Veterinary Officer, Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services,
Government of Goa-Member.
3) Shri Sandeep Ramnath Parab/Parsekar, Accountant, Directorate of Accounts, Government of Goa-
-Member.
The term of the above Committee of Administrator shall be for initial period of six months from the date
of issue of this Order. The aforesaid committee shall immediately take over the complete charge of the
assets, books and records of the said Society by preparing an inventory/charge transfer Certificate. The
Committee of administrators shall take immediate steps to hold fresh elections in accordance with provisions
of Act, Rules and Bye-laws.
Given under the seal of this office.
Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative Societies) & ex officio Joint Secretary (Co-operation).
Panaji, 21st April, 2023.
114
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
Order
No. 3/25/Urban credit/TSII/NZ/2020/RCS/268
Read:
1. Order No. 48-8-2001-TS-RCS/III/311 dated
21-04-2017.
2. Circular No. 6-13-81/EST/RCS/Part V/
/5833 dated 06-03-2020.
3. Letter No. ARCS/NZ/PLN/Registrars
Nominee/24 dated 04-04-2023.
Whereas, vide Order read at Sr. No. 1 above, Adv.
Shivaji B. Sinai Bhangui, having office at above Bank
of Maharashtra, 2nd floor, SF-8, Goa Housing Board
Commercial & Residential Complex, Journalist
Colony, Alto Betim, Porvorim, Goa was appointed as
Registrar’s Nominee under Section 86(1) of the Goa
Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Goa Act No. 36 of
2001) read with Rule 116(1) of the Goa Co-operative
Societies Rules, 2003 and his name is reflecting at
Sr. No. 24 of the said Order.
And whereas, The Emmanual Urban Co-operative
Credit Society Ltd., office No. 4, Ravindra Tower,
Behind Maruti Temple, Ansabhat, Mapusa, Bardez,
Goa [Reg. No. RES(a)-49/NZ/GOA/04] vide their letter
read at Sr. No. 3 above have requested to designate
Adv. Shivaji B. Sinai Bhangui as their dedicated
nominee to directly receive and adjudicate disputes
referred by The Emmanual Urban Co-operative Credit
Society Ltd. without routing through this office.
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
under Section 123(B) of the Goa Co-operative
Societies Act, 2001 read with Rule 116 of the Goa
Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003, I, the undersigned
Registrar of Co-operative Societies do hereby
authorize Adv. Shivaji B. Sinai Bhangui, having office
at above Bank of Maharashtra, 2nd floor, SF-8, Goa
Housing Board Commercial & Residential Complex,
Journalist Colony, Alto Betim, Porvorim, Goa as a
dedicated RCS Nominee for The Emmanual Urban
Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., office No. 4, Ravindra
Tower, Behind Maruti Temple, Ansabhat, Mapusa,
Bardez, Goa [Reg. No. RES(a)-49/NZ/GOA/04] for a
period of one year with effect from 01-05-2023 to
30-04-2024.
When a purported dispute is referred by said
Society, the above named dedicated Nominee is
authorized to first decide under sub-section (1) of
Section 86 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001
whether the matter referred by Society involves a
dispute and pass appropriate Orders under
sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act.
Only upon the Nominee satisfying that there exists
a dispute, he shall proceed to adjudicate the same
and give Award accordingly. The nominee shall abide
by the terms and conditions on which he was
originally appointed as Registrar’s nominee vide
Order read at Sr. No. 1 above.
This authorization shall be valid for one year with
effect from 01-05-2023 to 30-04-2024 unless renewed
and is subject to withdrawal/being revoked at any
stage at the discretion of undersigned without
assigning any reasons.
Given under the seal of this office.
Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative
Societies) & ex officio Joint Secretary (Co-operation).
Panaji, 24th April, 2023.
———u———
Office of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative
Societies
–––
No. 5/350/ARPZ/18-19/HSG/Reg/194
Read:
1. Certificate of Registration dated
30-11-2018 of Raj Aguiar Enclave
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Near
Old Military Camp, Dhavli, Ponda-Goa.
Consequent upon the change in name vide
amendment to bye-laws No. 1 to 138, the
Certificate of Registration of “Raj Aguiar Enclave
Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Near Old
Military Camp, Dhavli, Ponda-Goa is amended as
under:-
Amended Certificate of Registration
In exercise of the powers vested in me in terms
of Section 11 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,
2001, read with Rule 10 of Goa Co-operative
Societies Rules, 2003, the Certificate of Registration
dated 30-11-2018 bearing code symbol No. ARCS/
/PZ/HSG/54/7(b)/Goa/798 stands amended with
immediate effect and shall read for all purposes as
follows:-
The name of the society appearing in the
Registration Certificate referred to at Sr. No. 1 above
be read as “Raj Aguiar Enclave Co-operative Housing
Maintenance Society Ltd.”, Dhavli, Ponda-Goa.
Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar (Co-op.
Societies), Ponda Zone.
Ponda, 17th April, 2023.
————
Notification
–––
In exercise of the powers vested in me under
Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,
2001, “Royal Classic Co-operative Housing
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
115
Maintenance Society Ltd., Near Vithoba Temple,
Upper Bazar, Ponda”-Goa is registered under code
symbol No. RCSPZ2023240026.
Pankaj V. Marathe, Asst. Registrar (Co-operative
Societies), Ponda Zone.
Ponda, 6th April, 2023.
Certificate of Registration
“Royal
Classic
Co-operative
Housing
Maintenance Society Ltd., Near Vithoba Temple,
Upper Bazar, Ponda”-Goa has been registered on
06-04-2023 and its bears registration Code symbol
No. RCSPZ2023240026 and its classified as
“Co-operative
Housing
Society”
under
sub-classification “No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing
Maintenance Society” in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa
Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.
Pankaj V. Marathe, Asst. Registrar (Co-operative
Societies), Ponda Zone.
Ponda, 6th April, 2023.
Notification
In exercise of the powers vested in me under
Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,
“Bella Casa Co-op. Hsg. Maintenance Scty. Ltd.,
C-201, C/o Aarshi Singh, Siolim”-Goa is registered
under code symbol No. RCSNZ2022-230032.
Harish S. Naik, Asstt. Registrar (Co-operative
Societies), North Zone.
Mapusa, 8th March, 2023.
Certificate of Registration
“Bella Casa Co-op. Hsg. Maintenance Scty. Ltd.,
C-201, C/o Aarshi Singh, Siolim”-Goa has been
registered on 08-03-2023 and it bears registration
code symbol No. RCSNZ2022-230032 and its classified
as “Co-operative Housing Society” under sub-
-classification “No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing
Maintenance Society” in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa
Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.
Harish S. Naik, Asstt. Registrar (Co-operative
Societies), North Zone.
Mapusa, 8th March, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of General Administration
–––
Notification
No. 25/4/95-GA&C/656
Shri Parkash Singh Badal, Former Chief Minister of Punjab has passed away on 25th April, 2023.
As a mark of respect to the departed dignitary and as decided by the Government of India, there will
be two (02) days State Mourning from 26-04-2023 to 27-04-2023 throughout the State.
On the days of Mourning, the National Flag will be flown at half mast throughout the State on all
buildings where the National Flag is flown regularly and there will be no official entertainment during the
above mentioned days.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Shreyas Dsilva, Under Secretary (GA-II).
Porvorim, 26th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Home
Home—General Division
Office of the Director General of Police
–––
Order
No. CA-II/134/LOP&C/GPSC/3405/2023
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide letter No. COM/II/12/
/37(1)/2022/465 dated 27-01-2023 and approved by Government of Goa conveyed vide letter No. 1/2/2022-
-HD(G)/FSL/642 dated 24-02-2023 by the Department of Home (General), Government of Goa, Secretariat,
Porvorim-Goa, the Competent Authority found the below mentioned Officers fit for lifting of probation
period and confirmation in the post of ‘Scientific Assistant’ in Goa Police Department with effect from the
date of completion of their probation period as under:-
116
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
Sr.
Name of the Scientific
Posting
Date of completion of
No.
Assistant
probation period
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Arjun B. Korgaunkar @
FSL Verna
02-07-2019.
Korgaonkar
2.
Shri Kulbhooshan Arun Kumar
FSL Verna
24-10-2019.
Gupta
3.
Smt. Shraddha P. Malvankar
FSL Verna
02-10-2018.
4.
Shri Atish D. Fatarpekar
FSL Verna
12-09-2019.
5.
Shri Jagdhish @ Jagdish M. Naik
FSL Verna
14-03-2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Bossuet Silva, Superintendent of Police (HQ).
Panaji, 29th March, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
–––
Order
No. 28/09/2023-LAB/264
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Netzsch Technologies India
Private Limited, L-10, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,
Goa and it’s workmen represented by the Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena, 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. Netzsch Technologies India Private
Limited, L-10, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,
Goa in awarding punishment to S/Shri Sachin
Tapse, Technician, Babu Bodekar, Technician
and Shivaji Gawde, Technician for
suspending from work for one day without
wages i.e. on 29-03-2022, 08-04-2022 &
07-04-2022 respectively for not attending
safety day programme which was scheduled
on 16-03-2022, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
————
Order
No. 28/08/2023-LAB/265
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Dalgado Konkani Akademi, Old
Education Dept. Bldg., 2nd Floor, 18th June Road,
Panaji, Goa and it’s workman, Shri Augustine
Coelho, Lower Division Clerk, 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 (c) 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 Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Dalgado Konkani Akademi, Old
Education Dept. Bldg., 2nd Floor, 18th June
Road, Panaji, Goa, in terminating the services
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
117
of Shri Augustine Coelho, Lower Division
Clerk, with effect from 01-05-2020, is legal
and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
————
Notification
No. 28/02/2023-LAB/169
The following Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
14-02-2023 in Ref. No. IT/49/1999 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, 3rd March, 2023.
———
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Anil Scaria, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/49/1999
Shri Suresh Naik (since deceased),
Rep. by the Legal Heirs
1. Smt. Mira Suresh Naik,
2. Shri Sujay Suresh Naik,
3. Miss Sneha Suresh Naik,
All r/o. Saidham,
Dhavlimol, Ponda-Goa
.... Workman/Party-I.
V/s
M/s. MRF Ltd.,
Usgao,
Ponda-Goa
.... Employer/Party-II.
Workmen/Party I represented by Learned Adv. Ms.
S. Narvekar.
Employer/Party II represented by Learned Advocate
Shri A. Sawant holding for Adv. S. B. Karpe.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 14th day of the month of
February of the year 2023)
By Order dated 30-04-1999, bearing No. IRM/CON/
/P/(236)/1998/2334, the Government of Goa in
exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘The Act’),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication:-
“(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s
MRF Ltd., Usgao-Goa in terminating the
services of Shri Suresh Naik with effect from
19-03-1997 is legal and justified?
(2)
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”
2. The Party I/Workman has filed his Statement of
Claim. Thereafter, the Party I/Workman amended the
Statement of Claim.
3. The case of the Party I is that Suresh Naik
(Workman) was an active member of Goa MRF
Employees Union. That in order to victimize and
harass the Workman, Party II (Employer) issued a
charge-sheet to him by a letter dated 27-12-1997.
That, the Charge-sheet was not signed by an
authorized person. That, thereafter, Party II (Employer)
conducted a quick inquiry. That in the enquiry the
workman was not allowed to be represented by a
person of his choice. That the Workman was not given
an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. That the
copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not
supplied to the workman. That, he was not given an
opportunity to show-cause against the action
proposed to be taken against him. That by letter
dated 19-03-1997 the services of the workmen were
terminated. That the past conduct of the workman
was not taken into consideration before terminating
the services of the workman. That, the termination of
the workman is unfair labour practice.
4. That conciliation proceedings were going on
with respect to Charter of Demands by the workmen.
That Party II has not applied for approval of
termination of service under Section 33 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, it is prayed
that this Tribunal be pleased to hold that the
termination of the workman is illegal, improper, bad
in law, malafide and unjustified. That it be held that
the termination of the workman is victimization and
unfair labour practice. That the Employer be directed
to reinstate the workman with full back wages and
continuity of service. That the workman be given two
days wages for every one day of enforced
unemployment in view of the mental torture caused
to the workman and his family.
5. The Party II/Employer has filed its Written
Statement and additional Written Statement. The
Party II/Employer states that the workman was
charge-sheeted by Charge-sheet dated 27-02-1997
wherein it was alleged as under:-
118
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
“Despite several warnings, Charge-sheet and
consequent suspensions by way of punishment for
unauthorized absence, it is observed from your
attendance record that you are still in the habit of
remaining absent from duty without leave or
intimation as detailed below:-
September ‘96— 5, 7, 13, 18, 20, 21 (6 days)
October ’96—7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20 (9 days)
November ’96—1, 2, 7, 13 to 16, 28, 29, 30 (10 days)
December ’96—2, 3, 9 to 23, 31 (20 days)
Your absence, therefore, as above is unauthorized
and amounts to gross misconduct under Items XXV
and LII of Clause 21 of the Certified Standing Orders
of the Company which read as under:
CI: 21 Item XXV: Habitual absence without leave, or
absence without leave of more than 8 consecutive days
or overstaying the sanctioned leave without
satisfactory explanation.
CL. 21 Item LII: Any act subversive of discipline
and with which you are charged.”
6. That the Workman had requested the Enquiry
Officer to be defended by Mr. Dhauji Netraval. That
Mr. Dhauji Netravel was not a co-worker of Party I
(Workman). That there were specific provisions in
the Certified Standing Orders which provided for
only the assistance of a co-worker in a domestic
enquiry. That, the Enquiry Officer therefore declined
the request of the workman. That, thereafter the
workman requested to be represented by his
co-worker, namely Mr. Rohidas Naik. That the request
was granted. That both Parties adduced evidence.
That by findings dated 15-03-1997, the Enquiry
Officer held the workman guilty of the charges
leveled against him. That the enquiry was fair and
proper and was conducted in accordance with the
principles of natural justice. That Party II (Employer)
concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Party II (Employer) considered the past record of the
workman. That considering the magnitude of the
misconduct, the workman (Party I) was dismissed
from service.
7. It is denied that the non-issuance of a Show
Cause Notice before dismissal has prejudiced the
workman. It is denied that the dismissal of the
workman amounts to victimization and unfair labour
practice. That Party II has not violated the provisions
of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
That Goa MRF Employees Union is represented by a
Committee headed by its President Mr. Savio
Furtado. That Rohidas Naik is not the President of
the Goa MRF Employees Union and that he cannot
represent the workman or sign the pleadings.
Therefore, it is prayed that the claim of the Party I be
disallowed.
8. Party I (Workman) has filed his Rejoinder to the
Written Statement and another Rejoinder to the
additional Written Statement. The workman (Party I)
states that he allowed Rohidas Naik to represent him
not out of choice but out of compulsion. That Party II
(Employer) had illegally disallowed Dhauji Netraval
from representing him although he was an office
bearer of the Union. That Mr. Rohidas Naik was the
President of the Goa MRF Employees Union at the
time when all the pleadings were signed. That Shri
Rohidas Naik was and is authorized to verify all the
pleadings on behalf of the Goa MRF Employees
Union. That he has the locus standi to represent the
Goa MRF Employees Union. It is denied that the Goa
MRF Employees Union is represented by a different
Committee headed by its President Mr. Savio
Furtado.
8. The following issues and additional issues were
framed by this Tribunal:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Party I proves that the domestic
enquiry held against him is not fair and proper?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Party I are proved to the satisfaction
of the Tribunal by acceptable evidence?
3. Whether the Party I proves that termination of
his services by the Party II is by way of
victimization and unfair labour practice?
4. Whether the Party I proves that the action of
the Party II in terminating his services from
19-03-1997 is illegal and unjustified?
5. Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?
6. What Award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
5A. Whether the Party II has followed the
mandatory provisions of Sec. 33(2)(a)(b) of
the Industrial Disputes Act before
dismissing the workman from the service?
9. That on 05-06-2009, the workman (Shri Suresh
Naik) expired leaving behind his wife Smt. Mira
Suresh Naik and his two children namely Sujay Suresh
Naik and Miss Sneha Suresh Naik as his universal
heirs. The cause title has been amended and the heirs
have been brought on record.
10. During the course of proceedings, the Parties
filed Consent terms (Exh. 71 Colly).
11. The consent terms are as follows:-
“I. The present dispute was referred by the
Government of Goa for adjudication to the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
119
Industrial Tribunal in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
as the Applicant Shri Suresh Naik had
challenged his order of dismissal dated
19-03-1997 by the Opponent.
II. During the pendency of the said proceedings,
said Shri Suresh Naik expired on 05-06-2009 and
upon his demise, his wife Smt. Mira Suresh Naik
and his two children Mr. Sujay Suresh Naik and
Miss Sneha Suresh Naik who are Applicant’s
sole and universal heirs came to have been
added as Parties to the present proceedings.
III. Considering the fact, that the original Applicant
Shri Suresh Naik is no more living, the widow of
the Applicant i.e. said Smt. Mira Suresh Naik and
her above children approached the Opponent
and have sorted out the matter amicably and in
settlement of the claims and disputes between
the Parties, the Applicants have agreed that
subject to payment of lump sum amount of
Rs. 3,71,828/- (Rupees Three lakhs seventy one
thousand eight hundred twenty eight only)
which includes legal dues Rs. 3,913/- (Rupees
Three thousand nine hundred thirteen only),
settlement arrears/Dues (October 1995–
September, 2002) Rs. 17,915/- (Rupees Seventeen
thousand nine hundred fifteen only) and the
Company Settlement offer of Rs. 3,50,000/-
(Rupees Three lakhs fifty thousand only) to be
paid by the Opponent to the Applicants. The
Applicants agree and declare that they shall
have no claim of whatsoever nature,
notwithstanding any other issues pending
between the Applicants Company/Management
and various Trade Unions.
IV. The Opponent after having resolved to settle
the disputes with the Applicant agreed to pay
an amount of Rs. 3,71,828/- (Rupees Three lakhs
seventy one thousand eight hundred twenty
eight only) as full and final settlement of all the
claims of the Applicant in terms of settlement
arrived between the Parties. The Opponent has
hereby issued a cheque bearing No. 039094
dated 30-01-2023 drawn on HDFC Bank, Ponda
branch in favour of Smt. Mira Suresh Naikfor
sum of Rs. 3,71,828/- (Rupees Three lakhs
seventy one thousand eight hundred twenty
eight only) as full and final settlement of all the
claims and disputes of the Opponent in the
present matter.
V. The Applicants hereby acknowledge having
received the said sum of Rs. 3,71,828/- (Rupees
Three lakhs seventy one thousand eight
hundred twenty eight only) from the Party II and
declare that the Party I has no claim of whatsoever
nature against the Party II as all their legal dues
including Gratuity have already been settled
and further declare and acknowledge that the
termination effected of the late Mr. Suresh Naik
by the Party II vide Order of Dismissal dated
19-03-1997 is perfectly legal and valid.
VI. The Applicants state that they have no further
interest or claim of whatsoever nature against
the Party II in Reference No. IT/33/97, WP/592/
/2017, WP/805/2018, CP/2/2016, LCC/29/96, LCC/
/40/98, IT/17/2004, WP/2307/2021, IT/06/2007,
IT/61/2002, IT/09/2010, IT/22/2012, WP/172/
/2017 and other similar matters pending before
various Courts in Goa as well as in any other
States in India filed by the Union against the
Party II Company of which Union the late
Shri Suresh Naik claims to be the member and
in any other matter filed by any other Union
against the Opponent Company.
VII. The Applicant further states that they are the
sole surviving legal heirs of late Shri Suresh
Naik and undertakes to indemnify the
Opponent in case any claim/dispute is raised
by any other person against the Opponent
claiming to be the legal Heir of late Shri Suresh
Naik in view of matter of settlement arrived at
between the Applicant and the Opponent as
per the present terms of settlement agreed and
signed.
VIII. Either of the Parties declare that they have no
claim of whatsoever nature against each other.”
12. The Consent Terms have been signed by
Smt. Mira Suresh Naik, Shri Sujay Suresh Naik and
Miss Sneha Suresh Naik. They are the moiety holder
and heirs of the deceased workman. The Consent
Terms have also been signed by Mr. Krishna Warrier
(Chief of Human Resources of the Opponent) and
Shri Abhishek P. Sawant (Advocate for the Opponent).
13. I have gone through the records of the case
and the Memorandum of Consent Terms. I am
convinced that the Consent Terms filed by the Parties
are just and fair and are in the interest of the heirs of
the Workman/Party I and the Employer/Party II.
Therefore the same are accepted.
Hence, I pass the following Order:-
ORDER
(i) The reference in IT/49/1999 stands awarded
as per Consent Terms filed by both the Parties at
Exhibit 71 Colly.
The Consent Terms are as hereunder:-
“I. The present dispute was referred by the
Government of Goa for adjudication to the
120
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
Industrial Tribunal in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
as the Applicant Shri Suresh Naik had
challenged his order of dismissal dated
19-03-1997 by the Opponent.
II. During the pendency of the said proceedings,
said Shri Suresh Naik expired on 05-06-2009
and upon his demise, his wife Smt. Mira Suresh
Naik and his two children Mr. Sujay Suresh
Naik and Miss Sneha Suresh Naik who are
Applicant’s sole and universal heirs came to
have been added as Parties to the present
proceedings.
III. Considering the fact, that the original
Applicant Shri Suresh Naik is no more living,
the widow of the Applicant i.e. said Smt. Mira
Suresh Naik and her above children
approached the Party II and have sorted out
the matter amicably and in settlement of the
claims and disputes between the Parties, the
Party I have agreed that subject to payment of
lump sum amount of Rs. 3,71,828/- (Rupees
Three lakhs seventy one thousand eight
hundred twenty eight only) which includes
legal dues Rs. 3,913/- (Rupees Three thousand
nine hundred thirteen only), settlement
arrears/Dues (October 1995 – September, 2002)
Rs. 17,915/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand nine
hundred fifteen only) and the Company
Settlement offer of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three
lakhs fifty thousand only) to be paid by the Party II
to the Party I. The Party I agree and declare
that they shall have no claim of whatsoever
nature, notwithstanding any other issues
pending between the Company/Management
and various Trade Unions.
IV. The Opponent after having resolved settle the
disputes with the Applicant agreed to pay an
amount of Rs. 3,71,828/- (Rupees Three lakhs
seventy one thousand eight hundred twenty
eight only) as full and final settlement of all
the claims of the Party I in terms of settlement
arrived between the Parties. The Party II has
hereby issued a cheque bearing No. 039094
dated 30-01-2023 drawn on HDFC Bank, Ponda
branch in favour of Smt. Mira Suresh Naik for
sum of Rs. 3,71,828/- (Rupees Three lakhs
seventy one thousand eight hundred twenty
eight only) as full and final settlement of all
the claims and disputes of the Party II in the
present matter.
V. The Applicants hereby acknowledge having
received the said sum of Rs. 3,71,828/- (Rupees
Three lakhs seventy one thousand eight
hundred twenty eight only) from the Party II
and declare that the Applicants have no claim
of whatsoever nature against the Party II as all
their legal dues including Gratuity have
already been settled and further declare and
acknowledge that the termination effected of
the late Mr. Suresh Naik by the Opponent vide
Order of Dismissal dated 19-03-1997 is perfectly
legal and valid.
VI. The Applicants state that they have no further
interest or claim of whatsoever nature against
the Opponent in Reference No. IT/33/97,
WP/592/2017, WP/805/2018, CP/2/2016, LCC/
/29/96, LCC/40/98, IT/17/2004, WP/2307/2021,
IT/06/2007, IT/61/2002, IT/09/2010, IT/22/2012,
WP/172/2017 and other similar matters
pending before various Courts in Goa as well
as in any other States in India filed by the Union
against the Party II Company of which Union
the late Shri Suresh Naik claims to be the
member and in any other matter filed by any
other Union against the Opponent Company.
VII. The Applicant further states that they are the
sole surviving legal heirs of late Shri Suresh
Naik and undertakes to indemnify the
Opponent in case any claim/dispute is raised
by any other person against the Party II
claiming to be the legal heir of late Shri Suresh
Naik in view of matter of settlement arrived at
between the Applicant and the Opponent as
per the present terms of settlement agreed and
signed.
VIII. Both of the Parties declare that they have no
claim of whatsoever nature against each
other.”
(i)
No order as to Cost.
(ii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Anil Scaria)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court-I.
————
Notification
No. 28/02/2023-LAB/Part-II/193
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 20-02-2023 in Case No. Ref.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
121
IT/21/2021 is hereby published as required under
Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 8rd March, 2023.
———
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. No. IT/21/2021
Shri Praveen Bandekar,
Rep. by its Gen. Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
Ponda-Goa
.... Workman/Party-I.
V/s
The Proprietor,
M/s. Palmarinha Resorts
& Suites,
Porbawaddo, Calangute-Goa
.... Employer/Party-II.
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri Puti
Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri K.T.
Sawant.
Panaji, dated: 20-02-2023.
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 22-09-2021,
bearing No. 28/36/2021-LAB/468 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court-II of Goa.
“(1) Whether
Shri
Praveen
Bandekar,
Horticulturist, could be construed as
“workman” as defined under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947?
(2)
If answer to Issue No. (1) above is in
affirmative then whether the action of
management of M/s. Palmarinha Resorts and
Suites, Porbawaddo, Calangute, Goa, in
refusing the employment to Shri Praveen
Bandekar, Horticulturist, with effect from
24-03-2020, is legal and justified?
(3)
If answer to issue No. (2) above is in negative
then, what relief, the Workman is entitled to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a Case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/21/2021 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Party put in their appearance.
The Workman/Party I (for short, Workman) filed his
statement of claim on 21-10-2012 at Exb. 3. The facts
of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workman are
that he was employed by the Employer/Party-II (for
short, “Employer”) as Horticulturist since 01-06-2017
and since then he was continuously working for the
Employer. He stated that though he was appointed
as Horticulturist at their Hotel at Calangute, he was
posted as Horticulturist at their farm at Naneli-Sattari,
Goa. He stated that at the said farm, he was physically
doing the work of plantation and Dairy as also the
work of sowing, pruning, driving the tractor, Tata
vehicle, cashew collection, milking the cows by hand
and also with the machine, maintenance of farm
machineries, clerical work of maintaining the records
such as production records, attendance of records of
labourers etc. He stated that the work of supervisory
and managerial was being done by Mr. Kamalakant
Phadte-Manager. He stated that he was performing
work as per the instructions given to him by the
Manager. He stated that neither he was having any
supervisory or managerial powers, nor having the
power of sanctioning leave of any workmen. He
stated that as he was a workman under the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947, he was entitled for overtime
wages, leave and other benefits as mentioned in his
appointment letter dated 01-06-2017. He stated that
he has not voluntarily abandoned his service and is
ready to resume the duty any time at his place of
work. He stated that on 24-03-2020, he was verbally
informed via telecom by the concerned Manager Shri
Kamalakant Phadte that the Employer told him that
not to joined duties on account of Outbreak of Covid-19
Pendamic till 31-03-2020. He stated that on 31-03-2020,
he had enquired telephonically to Mr. Kamalakant
Phadte about the date of joining duty and he was
told to join on 15-04-2020. He stated that on
14-04-2020, he again contacted Mr. Kamalakant
Phadte as well as the Employer and asked them as to
when he should join the duty. He stated that however,
he was instructed not to join duty till 30-04-2020. He
stated that on 24-04-2020, he has sent a message to
the Employer on WhatsApp inquiring about the date
of joining and his pending salary from March, 2020.
He stated that however, the Employer replied that
he will look into the matter and will revert back. He
stated that unfortunately, the Employer did not reply.
He stated that on 05-05-2020, he had sent another
reminder message to the Employer on WhatsApp to
get updates with respect to his pending salary and
date of joining. He stated that on 06-05-2020 he
122
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
received message from the Employer stating that he
should contact the Accounts Department who is the
concerned person (Mr. Laxman). He stated that
accordingly, he contacted Mr. Laxman and the said
Laxman has asked him to contact the Employer
regarding his earned wages since March, 2020 and
his date of joining duty. He stated that on
07-05-2020 he was called by Employer for discussion
at his Mapusa Office for detailed discussion
regarding joining the duty and his pending salary.
He stated that on 31-05-2020, when he called the
Employer and asked him about his joining the duty
to which he was informed that his service was
discontinued from March, 2020.
3. He contended that before his refusal of
employment of service, no charge-sheet was issued
to him nor conducted inquiry and as such the
principles of natural justice has not been followed.
He submitted that as the Employer has not followed
the provisions of law before his refusal of employment
and hence action of the Employer in refusing him
employment is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. He
submitted that after refusal of employment of his
services, he is unemployed and hence entitled for
full back wages. The Workman, therefore, prayed to
declare that he is the workman under Section 2 (s) of
the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and that his refusal
of employment is illegal, improper, unjustified and
bad-in-law. The Workman further prayed that the
Employer be directed to reinstate him with full back
wages and continuity in service with consequential
benefits thereof.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
16-11-2021 at Exb. 4. The Employer stated that the
claim of the Workman is illegal and not maintainable
and does not fall within the ambit of Labour/
/Industrial Dispute. The Employer stated that the
Party-I is not a ‘workman’ within the preview of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The Employer stated that
the Party-I had applied for the post of Farm Supervisor
and was employed as supervisor being Horticulturist
i.e. expert in garden cultivation and management in
a supervisory capacity and was drawing wages of
Rs. 15,208/- i.e. exceeding 1,600/- per month as the
functions were mainly of a managerial nature. The
Employer stated that the Party-I was a supervisor
and used to discharge duties of supervisory and
administrative nature. The Employer stated that the
Party-I had power to direct and oversee the work of
the subordinates which were under him who were
the workmen doing physical work and the workmen
were paid on daily wage basis and supervisor were
paid on monthly Salary. The Employer stated that it
has three divisions under the farm i.e. Dairy,
Horticulture and Vegetables. The Employer stated
that Mr. Kamalakant Phadte was the Manager of the
said three divisions. The Employer stated that the
said Mr. Kamalakant Phadte retired on 31-05-2020.
The Employer stated that the two supervisors i.e. the
Party-I and Mr. Dattaprasad Nadkarni. The Employer
stated that each supervisor were supervising the
work allotted to them and their duty was to get the
work done from the subordinate. The Employer stated
that the Party-I had the power to recommend the
leave of subordinate and as a supervisor, he had to
examine the quality of work whether such work is
performed in satisfactory manner or not. The
Employer stated that Party-I was also assigned duties
and distribute the work to the subordinates of the
division he was supervising at the relevant time and
submit the report to the Manager. The Employer
submitted that as Party-I was a supervisor, present
dispute does not fall under the Industrial Dispute
Act and he is not liable for any relief from this Court.
The Employer submitted that the nation was ordered
to lock down w.e.f. 23-03-2020 and the party I
voluntarily abounded the work from the said date.
The Employer stated that they have never refused
the employment to the Party-I and was never
retrenched from work in fact the Party-I voluntarily
did not report to work as such, no wages were paid
to him. The Employer submitted that the Party-I has
filed a false case against them and prayed that the
reference be answered in negative and the petition
be dismissed.
5. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder on
17-01-2022 at Exb. 5. 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.
6. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this Court framed the following issues on
22-06-2022 at Exb. 6.
1. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that he is
a ‘workman’ as defined u/s/2(s) of the I. D. Act,
1947?
2. Whether the Workman proves that the action
of the Employer in refusing him employment
w.e.f. 24-03-2020 is illegal and unjustified?
3. Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that the
present reference is not maintainable in view
of the reasons stated in para 1, 2 and 3 of the
written Statement?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
123
4. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to any relief?
5. What order? What award?
7. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence
respectively and the matter was fixed for final
arguments. On 13-02-2023, Ld. Rep. Shri P. Gaonkar
appearing for the Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Shri K.
Sawant representing the Employer appeared before
me and the matter discussed for settlement.
Accordingly, on 20-02-2023 Ld. Rep. Shri P. Gaonkar
alongwith the Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Shri K.
Sawant representing the Employer and filed the
application for consent award in terms of
memorandum of settlement dated 20-02-2023 at Exb.
21-colly and submitted that the matter may be
disposed of in terms of the settlement. The terms of
settlement are reproduce hereunder:
1. The managements paid an amount of
Rs. 150000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand
only) vide cheque bearing No. 128216 drawn
on Bank of India dated 16-02-2023.
2. In view of above settlement which is full and
final settlement of all the claims, the Workman
shall not raise any demands against the
company of whatsoever nature including the
re-employment.
I have gone through the terms of settlement
signed by the parties hereinabove and is 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 relation
between the parties. 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) Whether
Shri
Praveen
Bandekar,
Horticulturist, could be construed as
“workman” as defined under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, does not survive.
(2)
If answer to Issue No. (1) above is in
affirmative then whether the action of
management of M/s. Palmarinha Resorts and
Suites, Porbawaddo, Calangute, Goa, in
refusing the employment to Shri Praveen
Bandekar, Horticulturist, with effect from
24-03-2020, is legal and justified, does not
survive.
(3)
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
Notification
No. 28/02/2023-LAB/Part-I/213
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 03-03-2023 in Case No.
Ref. LC-II/IT/05/06 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/05/06
Shri Mahesh C. Naik,
H. No. MHN 272, Belabain,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa
.... Workman/Party-I.
V/s
M/s. Goa Shipyard Pvt. Ltd.,
Vaddem,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa
.... Employer/Party-II.
Workmen/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/130 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court-II of Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of M/s. Goa Shipyard Pvt.
Ltd., Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in dismissing its
Workman namely Shri Mahesh C. Naik, 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/05/06 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
124
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
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 on
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
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
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
125
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
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
126
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
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
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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
127
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 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
128
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
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
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
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
129
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
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.
130
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
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:
“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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
131
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,
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 Mahesh
C. Naik, Mazdoor, with effect from 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 Mahesh C. Naik, a sum 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 of 9% p.a.
3. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
–––
Order
No. 2-1-97/LD-Estt-Part-I/660
On the recommendation of the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay at Mumbai, vide their Confidential
letter No. A.5504/G/2022/06 dated 09-03-2023 and
as per Rule 4 of Chapter-III of the Goa Judicial
Service Rules, 2013, the Governor of Goa is pleased
to appoint the following 07 Judicial Officers to the
post of District Judge by regular promotion in the
State of Goa with immediate effect:-
Sr. No.
Name of the Judicial Officers
1.
Shri Cholu Moga Gauns.
2.
Ms. Sharmila Anant Patil.
3.
Ms. Pooja Chandrakant Kavlekar.
4.
Shri Bosco Gaudentius F. Roberts.
5.
Ms. Vijayalaxmi Rajesh Shivolkar.
6.
Shri Ram Subrai Prabhudessai.
7.
Shri Sudhir Suresh Shirgaonkar.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 21st April, 2023.
————
Order
No. 2-1-97/LD-Estt-Part-I/661
On the recommendation of the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay at Mumbai, vide their Confidential
letter No. A.5504/G/2022/07 dated 09-03-2023 and
as per Rule 4 of Chapter-III of the Goa Judicial
Service Rules, 2013, the Governor of Goa is pleased
to appoint the following 02 Judicial Officers to the
post of Ad-hoc District Judge under Fast Track
Courts’ Scheme in the State of Goa with immediate
effect:-
132
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
Sr. No.
Name of the Judicial Officers
1.
Ms. Apurva Ramnath Nagvenkar.
2.
Ms. Saee Anil Prabhudessai.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 21st April, 2023.
———uuu———
Office of the Collector & Returning Officer
North Goa District
–––
Notification
No. 6-19-2023/Veterinary Council/ELN/199
In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10 of
the Goa State Veterinary Council Rules, 1990, I, Shri
Ishwar Madkaikar, Returning Officer to the election
of the Goa State Veterinary Council, hereby publish
the programme of election of above said council as
under:-
Programme of Election
1. Date, time and place for
11-05-2023 from
filing of nominations
10.00 a. m. to 4.00 p. m.
in the Office of the
Collectorate, North
Goa District,
Panaji-Goa..
2. Date, time and place of
15-05-2023 from
scrutiny of nomination
10.00 a. m. to 4.00 p. m.
in the Office of the
Collectorate, North
Goa District,
Panaji-Goa.
3. Date, time and place for
17-05-2023 from
withdrawal of nomination
11.00 a. m. to 4.00 p. m.
in the Office of the
Collectorate, North
Goa District,
Panaji-Goa.
4. Date, time and place of
26-06-2023 from
poll if necessary
11.00 a. m. to 4.00 p. m.
in the Office of the
Collectorate, North
Goa District,
Panaji-Goa.
5. Date, time and place of
28-06-2023 from
counting of votes and
11.00 a. m. to 4.00 p. m.
declaration of result
in the Office of the
Collectorate, North
Goa District,
Panaji-Goa.
The nomination papers and other relevant details
shall be obtained from the office of the Returning
Officer for Goa State Veterinary Council,
Collectorate Building, North Goa District, Panaji-
-Goa.
Ishwar M. Madkaikar, Returning Officer for the
Goa State Veterinary Council.
Panaji, 26th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
–––
Order
No. 7/27/2022-PER/1097
The Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint Shri
Prasad Lolayekar, IAS (AGMUT:2014) as Secretary to
Government, with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
–––––—
Order
No. 7/17/2022-PER/1101
Shri Prasad Lolayekar, IAS (AGMUT:2014),
Secretary (Education) shall hold additional charge
of Director (Higher Education), with immediate
effect.
Shri Polumatla P. Abhishek, IAS (AGMUT:2017) is
appointed as OSD (Tourism), in addition to this own
duties, with immediate effect till 31-05-2023.
Smt. Sneha Gitte, IAS (AGMUT:2019), Director
(Environment) shall hold the additional charge of
Director (Vigilance), in addition to her own duties,
with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
–––––—
Order
No. 6/8/2022-PER/1102
On the recommendation of the Goa Services
Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to transfer
and post Shri Amarsen W. Rane, Director of Vigilance
as Director of Civil Aviation, in public interest, with
immediate effect.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
133
Shri Harish N. Adconkar, Managing Director,
GSIDC shall hold the charge of Director (PPP), in
addition to his own duties.
The officers shall complete handing over and
taking over process with immediate effect and
submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
————
Order
No. 13/02/2023-PER/1104
Whereas, Government vide Order No. 13/02/
/2023-PER/269 dated 31-01-2023 had granted
extension in service to Shri Uttam Parsekar, Principal
Chief Engineer, Public Works Department beyond
the date of his superannuation for a period of one
year w.e.f. 01-02-2023 to 31-01-2024, in public
interest, subject to Vigilance clearance, concurrence
of Finance Department and approval of Council of
Ministers;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has
submitted Vigilance Clearance stating that, no
Disciplinary proceedings/Vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against Shri Uttam
Parsekar;
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U.O. No. 1400091736 dated 25-03-2023 concurred the
proposal for grant of extension in service to Shri
Uttam Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer, Public
Works Department subject to Cabinet approval and
adherence of all Rules in force;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers in its
XXIInd meeting held on 06-04-2023 resolved to grant
ex-post facto approval for extension in service to
Shri Uttam Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer, Public
Works Department beyond the date of his
superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.
01-02-2023 to 31-01-2024 in public interest;
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the Order No. 13/02/2023-PER/269 dated
31-01-2023 granting extension in service to
Shri Uttam Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer, Public
Works Department beyond the date of his
superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.
01-02-2023 to 31-01-2024 in public interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Nathine S. Araujo, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
Order
No. 4/5/2012-PER/1118
Government is pleased to post Shri Praveen R.
Volvotkar, Joint Director, Department of Information
Technology, Electronics and Communication as
Managing Director of Info Tech Corporation of Goa
Ltd. with immediate effect.
Shri Praveen R. Volvotkar shall be governed by
standard terms of deputation as amended from time
to time.
Shri Praveen R. Volvotkar shall continue to hold
the charge of Joint Director (IT) in addition to above.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nathine S. Araujo, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 19th April, 2023.
————
Order
7/1/2023-PER/1173
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No.
COM/I/5/79(1)/2022/475 dated 31-01-2023, the
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint Shri Vasu
Madhu Usapkar, as Director of Museum (Group “A”
Gazetted) (Goa General Service) in the Directorate
of Museum, Panaji on temporary basis in the Level-11
of C.C.S. (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 with effect from
date of joining.
Shri Vasu Madhu Usapkar shall be on probation
for a period of two years.
Shri Vasu Madhu Usapkar has been medically
examined by the Medical Board and his character
and antecedents have been verified at the time of
appointment as Archivist (Management), Group “B”
Gazetted in the Directorate of Archives and
Archaeology.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nathine S. Araujo, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 21st April, 2023.
————
Notification
No. 7/17/2022-PER/1100
Read:
1.
Notification No. 7/17/2022-PER/4036
dated 05-12-2022.
2.
Notification No. 7/27/2022-PER/781
dated 21-03-2023.
134
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
3.
Order No. 7/27/2022-PER/1097 dated
18-04-2023.
In partial modification to the Notifications read
in the preamble, the Governor of Goa is pleased to
order allocation of work/Departments amongst the
following Secretaries to the Government, with
immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name &
Departments/Additional
No.
Designation
Charges
1
2
3
1. Dr. Puneet Kumar
1.Vigilance/Chief
Goel, IAS (1991)
Vigilance Officer.
Chief Secretary
2. Home.
3. Personnel & ARD.
4. PWD.
5. Civil Aviation.
6. Pr. Secretary, Mines and
Geology.
7. Forest.
8. Town & Country
Planning.
2. Shri Subhash
1. Water Resources.
Chandra, IAS
2. Social Welfare.
(2009)
3. Provedoria.
Secretary
4. Information & Publicity.
(Water Resources)
5. Transport.
6. Legal Metrology.
1
2
3
3. Shri Sarpreet Singh
1. Tribal Welfare.
Gill, IAS (2009)
2. Animal Husbandry &
Secretary
Veterinary Services.
(Tribal Welfare)
3. Fisheries.
4. Public Grievances.
5. Official Language.
6. Commissioner, State
Taxes.
4. Shri Arun Kumar
1. Environment.
Mishra, IAS (2012)
2. Health.
Secretary
3. Women & Child
(Environment)
Development.
4. Agriculture.
5. Shri Ajit Roy, IAS
1. Secretary to Chief
(2013)
Minister.
Secretary to
2. Power.
Chief Minister
3. New & Renewable
Energy.
4. Mines & Geology.
6. Shri Prasad Lolayekar, 1. Education.
IAS (2014)
2. Skill Development &
Secretary (Education)
Entrepreneurship.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Planning
Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation
–––
Order
No. DPSE/I/ADMN/Trans-CSC-Gazetted/2022-23/126
Government is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following Officers of the Common
Statistical Cadre with immediate effect.
Sr.
Name of the Officer &
Present place of posting
Department/Office to which
No.
Designation
transferred
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Francis V. D’Souza,
Directorate of Civil Supplies &
Directorate of Women & Child
Research Assistant
Consumer Affairs, Panaji-Goa
Development, Panaji-Goa,
against the vacant post of
Smt. Sunita B. Bhagat, Research
Assistant, transferred.
2.
Smt. Sunita B. Bhagat,
Directorate of Women & Child
Directorate of Civil Supplies
Research Assistant
Development, Panaji-Goa
& Consumer Affairs, Panaji-
-Goa, against the vacant post
of Shri Francis V. D’Souza
Research Assistant, transferred.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
135
A copy of joining report be submitted in this
Directorate for records.
This issues with the approval of the Government
vide U. O. No. 530 dated 18-04-2023.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vijay B. Saxena, Director and ex officio Jt.
Secretary (Planning).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
–––
Order
No. 6/1/2006-III/PHD/(Part-I)/552
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/35(1)/2022/523 dated 20-03-2023, the
Government is pleased to declare Shri Sudesh
Nanda Gaude, Assistant Professor in Psychiatric
Social Work in the Institute of Psychiatry and Human
Behaviour, Bambolim as having satisfactorily
completed his probation period of two years w.e.f.
19-08-2019 to 18-08-2021 and to confirm him in the
post of Assistant Professor in Psychiatric Social
Work in the Institute of Psychiatry and Human
Behaviour, Bambolim, with effect from the date of
completion of his probation period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
Order
No. 47/60/2011-I/PHD/Part-I/558
Read: Memorandum No. 47/60/2011-I/PHD/1450
dated 18-11-2022.
Corrigendum No. 47/60/2011-I/PHD/1546
dated 08-12-2022.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide letter No. COM/I/5/
/24(9)/2021/300 dated 19-10-2022, Government is
pleased to appoint Ms. Luana Agnes Mascarenhas
to the post of Dietician (Group ‘B’ Non Gazetted)
under the Directorate of Health Services in the
Level-6 Pay Matrix [PB: Rs. 9300+34800/- +Grade Pay
4200/- (pre-revised)].
Ms. Luana Agnes Mascarenhas shall be on
probation for a period of two years.
Ms. Luana Agnes Mascarenhas has been
declared medically fit by the Medical Board, and
character and antecendents has been verified by
the Additional Collector and ADM, North Goa and
there is nothing adverse reported against Ms.
Mascarenhas.
Ms. Luana Agnes Mascarenhas is posted at
Community Health Centre, Pernem-Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-II)
(Link).
Porvorim, 19th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Revenue
–––
Order
No. 26/11/2015-RD/490
The Government of Goa is pleased to transfer the following Officers, in the public interest with
immediate effect.
Sr.
Name of the Officer
Present posting
New place of posting
No.
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Patrick Gonsalves, ISLR
Inspector of Survey &
Inspector of Survey & Land
Land Records, Salcete
Records, Mapusa.
2.
Shri Rajesh Kuchelkar, ISLR
Inspector of Survey &
Inspector of Survey & Land
Land Records, Mapusa
Records, Ponda.
3.
Shri Anand Vaigankar, ISLR
Inspector of Survey &
Inspector of Survey & Land
Land Records, Ponda
Records, Vasco.
136
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 4
27TH APRIL, 2023
1
2
3
4
4.
Shri Savio Silveira, ISLR
Inspector of Survey &
Inspector of Survey & Land
Land Records, Vasco
Records, Dharbandora.
Shri Chetan Jadhav, ISLR, Margao (City Survey) shall hold additional charge of ISLR, Salcete, in addition
to his own duties.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Durga Kinlekar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim, 18th April, 2023.
———uuu———
Department of Sports and Youth Affairs
Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs
–––
Order
No. 10/promotion/Officiating/AD/DSYA/ADM//2023/205
Sanction of the Government is hereby conveyed for officiating promotion/charge of Asstt. Director
(Sports) to the senior most APEO of this Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs.
Shri John Fernandes, Asstt. Physical Education Officer shall hold the officiating promotion/charge of
Asstt. Director (Sports) with immediate effect until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Rohit Kadam, Director (Sports & Youth Affairs) & Joint Secretary (ex officio).
Panaji, 20th 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. 26.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—27/80—04/2023.