SERIES II No. 5

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Archives

–––

Order

No. 1/297/2014/HA-167

In pursuance to Clause 5 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005, Shri Rajiv Kudke, Asst.

Programming Officer and Smt. Vidhya Gaude, LDC

are hereby appointed as Public Information Officer

and Assistant Public Information Officer

respectively regarding matters related to Archives

in their respective jurisdiction for the Department

of Archives to deal with the applications received

from the public under the Right to Information Act,

2005.

The Public Information Officer shall be

responsible for the preparation and publication of

the manuals from time to time as per the said Act.

The Assistant Public Information Officer shall

ensure that the application received by him/her for

information under the Right to Information Act,

2005 are submitted on top priority to the Public

Information Officer concerned so as to furnish the

information to the Applicant within the stipulated

period and within the provisions of the Act.

Dipak Bandekar, Director (Archives) &

ex officio Addl. Secretary.

Panaji, 28th April, 2023.

Panaji, 4th May, 2023 (Vaisakha 14, 1945)

141

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

Note:- There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official

Gazette, Series II No. 4 dated 27-04-2023 as

follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 27-04-2023 from pages

137 to 138 regarding Notifications from

Department of Finance.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 28-04-2023 from

pages 139 to 140 regarding Notifications from

Department of Finance.

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

–––

Order

No. 15/223/2008/ADT/RCS/Vol. IV/302

Sub.: Directives for verifying statutory

compliance by Societies under the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 before

processing their proposals at Zonal

Offices.

[Under Section 69 of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001 (Goa Act No. 36 of 2001)]

In exercise of the powers conferred upon the

undersigned Registrar of Co-operative Societies

under Section 69 of the Goa Co-operative Societies

Act, 2001 (Goa Act No. 36 of 2001) (hereafter referred

to as ‘Act’) and to ensure proper implementation of

Co-operative provisions, proper management of the

business of all the Co-operative Societies functioning

in the State of Goa, the following Directives for

verifying certain statutory compliances by Societies

under the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001

before processing any type of proposals in respect of

such Societies at Zonal Offices are hereby issued for

strict compliance by all the authorities as under.

Whereas, every registered Society is required to

comply with the provisions of Sections 72, 73, 74 &

81 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Goa

Act 36 of 2001) in a time bound manner within the

time limits laid down under the Act and Rules.

And whereas, the aforesaid compliances are

utmost necessary to ensure smooth functioning of

the Society and to ensure transparency in

management of the affairs of the Society. Hence, non-

compliance of these particular statutory provisions

is not at all tolerable and raises serious questions on

the continuation of legal existence and well being

of the Society.

In some cases it is observed that Societies have

failed to comply with the aforesaid statutory

142

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

provisions within the given time limit. In such cases

it is necessary to ensure that defaulting societies

are forced to prepare the receipt & payment

statements/Trial balance, Trading/Manufacturing

Accounts, Profit & Loss Account, Income &

Expenditure Account, and Balance Sheet and

thereafter to complete Audit of their Books of

Accounts and place the Audit report before General

Body Meeting of the Society and file the annual

return.

Now therefore, in order to compel such

defaulting Societies to comply with the statutory

provisions of Sections 72, 73, 74 and 81 of the Act,

it is hereby directed as under.

1. The Unit Incharge (Assistant Registrar or

Co-operative Officer) of every Society shall,

before processing any request for amendment

of Bye Laws, change in classification, opening

of new branches, appointment/extension of

dedicated RCS Nominee, Authorisation/

/extension of authorization of sales and

recovery officer or any other proposal relating

to any subject, shall in the first place, verify

whether the applicant society has complied

with provisions of Sections 72, 73, 74 & 81 of

the Act and the proposal shall be processed

only if the aforesaid provisions are duly

complied with by the applicant Society.

2. The Unit Incharge (Assistant Registrar or

Co-operative Officer) shall, while forwarding

every proposal of any society under his/her

jurisdiction to the Head Office, shall

compulsorily record a Certificate in the

covering letter/proposal/checklist/note stating

that “This Society has duly complied with

provisions of Sections 72, 73, 74 and 81 of the

Act for the last co-operative/financial year

closed on 31-03-20___ for which the statutory

time limit for compliance ended on 30-09-20___.”

3. The year and date in such certificate shall be

incorporated by taking into consideration the

latest statutory time limit under the Act that

has expired. Like for processing proposals till

30-09-2023, the timeline of Co-operative/

/financial year 2021-22 ending on 31-03-2022

(timeline over on 30-09-2022) would be verified

for compliance, because although subsequent

year 2022-23 has closed on 31-03-2023, the

statutory timeline for filing of Audit report

would be over on 30-09-2023. Hence any

proposals taken up for processing on or after

01-10-2023, the compliance of latest year

2022-23 (timeline will be over on 30-09-2023)

will have to be checked.

4. In cases where the Unit Incharge finds that the

applicant society has not complied with the

aforesaid statutory requirements, he/she shall

immediately follow the guidelines issued vide

Order No. 15/223/2008/ADT/RCS/Vol. IV/3245

dated 02-12-2022 read with Corrigendum

No. 15/223/2008/ADT/RCS/Vol. IV/3332 dated

12-12-2022 and shall immediately take steps to

complete Audit of concerned Society. In all

such cases, the reply to the Society shall be

sent within 7 days from the date of receipt of

proposal, bringing to their attention the non

compliance of statutory provisions and

informing that their proposals shall not be

processed till the aforesaid statutory provisions

are complied with by the Society.

5. In all cases where the defaulting Society is a

Urban Credit Society or is doing the business

of accepting deposits and granting loans, the

Unit Incharge shall immediately submit a

proposal to Head Office for imposing

restrictions u/s. 68 of the Act for prohibiting

the Society from accepting any deposits and

sanctioning any loans till they complete all

their pending Audits and statutory compliances.

The above directions shall be strictly complied

with by all Unit Incharge and any violation by

forwarding incomplete proposals without such

certificate or by allowing such defaulting Societies

to carry on the business of credit despite their

default shall be deemed as misconduct under the

C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and shall be liable for

disciplinary proceedings under the C. C. S. (C. C. A.)

Rules, 1965.

Given under the seal of this office.

Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative

Societies) & ex officio Joint Secretary (Co-operation).

Panaji, 26th April, 2023.

————

Order

No. 3/23/Urban Credit/TS-II/PZ/2021/RCS/319

Read:

Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TS II/

PZ/2017/RCS/Suppl.5306

dated

10-02-2020.

Order No. 21-1-99-TS/Shiroda/RCS/2162

dated 29-09-2020.

Order No. 3/23/Urban Credit/TS-II/PZ/

/2021/RCS/377 dated 25-05-2021.

Order No. 3/23/Urban Credit/TS-II/PZ/

/2021/RCS/716 dated 06-06-2022.

Letter No. SUCCS/ASRO/2023-24/07

dated 24-04-2023.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

143

[Under Section 91D of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001 (Goa Act No. 36 of 2001)].

Whereas, vide Notification read at No. 1 above

issued by the Government exercising the powers

under Section 126A of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001 (Goa Act No. 36 of 2001) (hereafter

referred to as ‘Act’), the provision of sub-section (1)

of Section 91D of the Act was modified and the

Registrar of Co-operative Societies was authorized

to appoint Officers of Co-operative Credit Societies,

V. K. S. S. Societies having credit counters and

Multipurpose Societies as Recovery Officer/Sale

Officer upon receipt of individual proposals subject

to the terms and conditions as may be incorporated

in the Order.

And whereas, vide Order read at Sr. No. 2 above

issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

the General Manager of The Shiroda Urban

Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., [Reg. No. ARCS/

/CZ(8)60/ADM/91], Shiroda, Goa was delegated with

the powers to recover certain sums by attachment

and sale of property vested in Registrar of

Co-operative Societies under Section 91D of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 read with Rule 124

of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003 subject

to the following conditions:-

1. The Officer appointed and delegated with the

powers of Sales-cum-Recovery Officer shall

work under the general guidance, superintendence

and control of the Asstt. Registrar of

Co-op. Societies, Arbitration/Execution, South

Zone, Ponda-Goa.

2. The Board of Directors of the Society shall be

fully responsible along with the Chairman

for any acts in contravention of the Act, Rules

and Bye-laws.

3. The Board of Directors shall review the

performance of the Chairman of every month

and ensure compliance.

And whereas, the powers delegated vide order

dated 29-09-2020 read at serial No. 2 above

remained in force till 31-03-2021 and same was

extended from time to time last being extended

vide order read at serial No. 3 above for a period of

one year w.e.f. 26-05-2022 and ending on 25-05-2023.

And whereas, vide letter read at No. 4 above, The

Shiroda Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,

Shiroda, Goa has requested to grant further

extension to the said delegation of powers to the

General Manager of their Society to act as

Sale-cum-Recovery Officer for their society.

And whereas, the Goa Co-operative Societies

(Amendment) Act, 2001 (Goa Act No. 34 of 2021) has

been brought into force w.e.f. 1st April, 2023 (except

few provisions) vide Notification No. 60/137/

/Amendment/2020/TS-I/RCS/4579 dated 28-02-2023

published in Official Gazette, Series I No. 47,

Extraordinary No. 3 dated 28-02-2023. By virtue of

amended provisions of Section 91D of the said Act,

the Registrar is competent to issue a special Order

to empower an Officer of Federal Institution or Chief

Executive as defined under Clause (9) of Section 2

of the said Act to effect recovery in accordance

with provisions of Section 91D of the Act.

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 91D of the Goa Co-operative Societies

Act, 2001, I, the undersigned Registrar of

Co-operative Societies do hereby further extend the

delegation of powers/empower the General

Manager of The Shiroda Urban Co-operative Credit

Society Ltd. [Reg. No. ARCS/CZ(8)60/ADM/91),

Shiroda, Goa vide above read Orders for a further

period of one year with effect from 26-05-2023 to

25-05-2024.

All the terms and conditions mentioned in the

Order read at Sr. No. 2 above shall continue to apply.

The undersigned reserves the right to withdraw

this Order at any stage without assigning any

reasons.

Given under the seal of this office.

Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative

Societies) & ex officio Joint Secretary (Co-operation).

Panaji, 27th April, 2023.

————

Order

No. 9-26-2023/EST/RCS/5096

Order No. 43/2/2005/TS/RCS/1246 dated

26-06-2018.

2. Order No. 43/2/2005/TS/RCS/5931 dated

11-03-2020.

In supersession of the Orders read above and all

earlier orders to that effect and in exercise of the

powers conferred under sub-sections (1) and (2) of

Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005

(Central Act 22 of 2005), I, the undersigned Registrar

of Co-operative Societies, Government of Goa do

hereby designate the following Officers as the

Public Information Officers (P.I.O.), Assistant Public

144

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

Information Officers (A.P.I.O.) and the First Appellate Authority (F.A.A.) in the respective offices for respective

subjects/wings/sections as below.

Sr.

Name & Address

Particular Wing/

Public Information

Assistant Public

First Appellate

No.

of the Office/

/Section/Branch

Officer (P.I.O.)

Information

Authority

/Public Authority

of the office

designated

Officer (A.P.I.O.)

(F.A.A.)

designated

O/o. Asst. Registrar of

1) Establishment

Assistant Registrar

Head Clerk

Deputy Registrar

Co-operative Societies,

Administration,

of Co-operative

North Zone, Government Accounts Sections

Societies who is

Societies (Admin.),

building complex,

of the Zonal Office

the Head of Office

Head Office,

Mapusa, Goa

2) All residuary

incharge of Zonal

Panaji.

matters of Zonal

Office

office not specifically

covered under other

PIOs

In respect of all

Officer who is

Officer/Official Deputy Registrar

information

Unit Incharge

who is sub-

of Co-operative

pertaining to

of concerned

-unit Incharge

Societies at Head

Co-operative

Society at Zonal

of concerned

Office who is the

Societies held at

Office

Society at

District Level

Zonal Office under

Zonal Office

Incharge (D.L.I.)

the provisions of the

of respective

Goa Co-operative

Zonal Office.

Societies Act, 2001

and Rules framed

thereunder

In respect of all

Officer who is

Officer/Official Deputy Registrar

information

Unit Incharge

who is sub-

of Co-operative

pertaining to

of concerned

-unit Incharge

Societies at Head

Co-operative

Society at Zonal

of concerned

Office who is

Societies held by

Office to whom

Society at

the District

any

the information

Zonal Office

Level Incharge

a) Registrar’s

relates

to whom the

(D.L.I.) of

Nominees

information

respective Zonal

b) Auditors on

relates

Office.

panel of

Auditors

c) Reconciliators

d) Administrators

e) Liquidators

f) Other such persons

or a committee

appointed or

constituted by the

Registrar under the

provisions of the Goa

Co-operative Societies

Act, 2001 and Rules

framed thereunder

Given under the seal of this office.

Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative Societies).

Panaji, 31st March, 2023.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

145

Office of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies

–––

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001, “The Shetye Plaza Ponda Co-operative

Housing Maintenance Society Limited, Upper Bazar,

Opp. Ponda Municipal Market, Ponda-Goa”-Goa is

registered under code symbol No. RCSPZ2023240028.

Pankaj V. Marathe, Asst. Registrar (Co-operative

Societies), Ponda Zone.

Ponda, 21st April, 2023.

Certificate of Registration

“The Shetye Plaza Ponda Co-operative Housing

Maintenance Society Limited, Upper Bazar, Opp.

Ponda Municipal Market, Ponda-Goa”-Goa has been

registered on 21-04-2023 and its bears registration

code symbol No. RCSPZ2023240028 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, 21st April, 2023.

———uuu———

Department of Fisheries

Directorate of Fisheries

–––

Order

No. 2-1-81-FSH

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Goa

Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 (Act No. 3 of

1981), the Government of Goa, having regard to the

need to conserve fish, hereby prohibits fishing by

fishing vessels fitted with mechanical means of

propulsion and by means of trawl-net and

purse-seine net, except fishing by registered

motorized canoes using gill nets only, and fitted

with outboard or inboard motors, of upto 10 HP

capacity, as a means of propulsion, along the sea

coast of the State of Goa and the territorial waters

of the State of Goa, with effect from 1st June, 2023

till 31st July, 2023 (both days inclusive).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Shamila Monteiro, Director and ex officio/Joint

Secretary (Fisheries).

Panaji, 27th April, 2023.

Department of General Administration

–––

Notification

No. 2/1/2017-GAD-III/1530

In pursuance of Section (12) read with Section

(11) of the Goa Municipalities Act, 1968 (Act No.16

of 1968) read with the Notification No. U-11030/2/73-

-UTL dated 28-06-1973 of the Government of India,

Ministry of Home Affairs, published in the Gazette

of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii),

the Government of Goa hereby declares Friday, the

05th May, 2023 (Vaisakha 15, Saka 1944) as a “paid

holiday” being the “Polling Day” for General

Election to Ponda and Sanquelim Municipal Council

for the voters of the said General Elections.

The aforesaid paid holiday shall be in addition to

the holidays indicated in the Government

Notification No. 37/3/2022-GAD-III/3661 dated

19-10-2022, published in the Official Gazette, Series

II No. 30 dated 27-10-2022, to the workers of the

following establishments, provided that they are

the voters for the aforesaid General Election.

(i)

industrial workers of the State of Goa;

(ii) daily wage workers of the Government

Departments and State Government

Industrial Departments;

(iii) commercial and industrial workers of private

establishments in the State of Goa;

(iv) workers of all private establishments;

(v) daily wage/casual workers employed in any

business, trade, industrial undertakings or

any other establishments;

(vi) workers of the institutions governed under

the explanation to Section 25 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (Act 26 of

1881).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (GA-I).

Porvorim, 26th April, 2023.

———uuu———

Department of Goa Gazetteer

–––

Order

No. 1/5/2023-24/GAZ-402

Read:

Government Order No. RD/EST/GAZ/295/

/69 dated 2nd May, 1970.

Government Order No. RD/EST/GAZ/215

dated 11th December, 1970.

146

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

Government Order No. RD/EST/GAZ/215

dated 3rd March, 1971.

Government Order No. RD/EST/GAZ/215

dated 24th June, 1971.

Government Order No. RD/EST/GAZ/215

6th March, 1972.

Government Order No. 10/2/80-82/WET

dated 19th June, 1982.

Government Order No. 10/2/80-82/EDN

dated 15th September, 1987.

Government is pleased to re-constitute Goa

Gazetteer Editorial Board under Chairmanship of

Chief Secretary, Goa consisting of following

Members:

1. Chief Secretary

—

Chairperson.

2. Secretary, Goa Gazetteer

—

Member.

3. Executive Editor, Maharashtra —

Member.

Gazetteer Department

4. Chief Editor, Karnataka

—

Member.

Gazetteer Department

5. Prof. (Dr.) Kiran Budkuley,

—

Member.

Former Professor of English

6. Prof. (Dr.) Ganesha Somayaji, —

Member.

Goa University

7. Prof. Narayan B. Dessai,

—

Member.

Educationist

8. Prof. (Dr.) Varsha V. Kamat,

—

Member.

Professor of History

9. Executive Editor,

—

Member

Goa Gazetteer Department

Secretary.

The tenure of the committee shall be three years

from the date of publication in the Official Gazette.

Shri Balaji Sudas Shenvy, Archivist (Publication)

from Department of Archives holding additional

charge of The Executive Editor, Goa Gazetteer shall

be over all in-charge of the staff and administration

and other work connected with the preparation of

Gazetteers.

The non-official members of the Editorial Board

shall be entitled to T.A. at the rate admissible to

Class I Officers for attending the matters of the

Board.

This is issued with the approval of the

Government vide U.O. No. 2529/F dated 19-03-2023.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shri Menino D’Souza, IAS, Secretary (Goa

Gazetteer).

Panaji, 21st April, 2023.

Department of Industries

–––

Order

No. 3/9/2023-IND/97

Government of Goa is pleased to appoint the

Director of Industries, Trade and Commerce, Panaji,

Goa as a “Nodal Officer” from Industries Department

to co-ordinate with Open Network for Digital

Commerce (ONDC) incorporated as non-profit

company under the Companies Act, 2013,

designated as a public digital infrastructure based

on open-source technologies and standards,

enabling wide-scale participation by digital

ecosystem players in India, in order to take forward

the remarkable digital commerce reform initiative

of the country.

Nodal Officer may reach out to Shri Shireesh

Joshi (Mobile +919971849999) and Shri Saransh

Agrawal (Mobile +918975292381) for planning the

next steps and any clarification, if required.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Industries).

Porvorim, 28th April, 2023.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

––

Notification

No. 28/02/2023-LAB/242

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 10-03-2023 in Case No.

LC-II/IT/28/12 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, 27th March, 2023.

––––

THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/IT/28/12

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

147

Shri Anand G. Gauns,

H. No. 84, Nadora, via Colvale,

Nadora, Bardez-Goa.

…… Workman/Party I

V/s

The Goa Urban Co-op.

Bank Ltd., Margao-Goa. …… Employer/Party II

Party-I/Workman represented by Shri A. V. Nigalye.

Party-II/Employer represented by Adv. Shri G. K.

Sardessai.

Panaji, dated: 10-03-2023.

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

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

Government

Goa,

Order

dated

28-05-2012, bearing No. 28/03/2012-LAB/263

referred the following dispute for adjudication to

the Industrial Tribunal of Goa. Pending the matter

for its adjudication before the Hon’ble Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panaji-Goa, the Govt.

of Goa transferred the present reference for its

adjudication to this Labour Court II, vide its order

No. 28/02/2011-Lab/86 dated 09-02-2016.

“(1) Whether the action of the Goa State

Co-operative Bank Limited, Margao-Goa, in

terminating the services of Shri Anand G.

Gauns, Clerk, by way of dismissal vide letter

of Dismissal dated 01-06-2011, is legal and

justified?

(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/28/12 and registered

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

to the said notice, the Parties put in their

appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short

‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on

01-08-2012 at Exb-6. The facts of the case in brief as

pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/

/Party II (for short, “Employer”) is an Apex

Co-operative Bank in the State of Goa. He stated

that the employees of the Employer Bank are

members of Goa State Co-operative Bank Employees’

Union, which is a registered union. He stated that

the Employer has entered into settlements with its

employees union from time to time on improving

wages and service conditions of its employees. He

stated that the Workman is employed as “Clerk”

with the Employer since 04-10-1985. He stated that

initially he worked in Head Office Branch of the

Bank and thereafter worked at Panaji and Margao

Branch of the Bank. He stated that he is the member

of the said union and also a treasurer of the said

Union since last for 4 years. He stated that the

wages and service conditions of the employees and

Officers of the bank are governed by settlements

signed between the Bank and its Union namely

Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Employees Union and

Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Officers Association

from time to time. He stated that the last wage

settlement has been signed with employees Union

has been signed on 03-10-2011 and earlier on

27-06-2001.

3. He stated that on 28-05-2011, he was instructed

by Asst. Branch Manager of Margao Branch of the

Employer Bank Shri Rebello that he should go to Axis

Bank Margao with cash to deposit in that bank. He

stated that as per the rotation of work in the branch,

it was not his duty to go to others bank with cash. He

stated that he informed the Asst. Branch Manager

that Shri Pradeep Chodnekar normally carries cash

to other bank and that this work should be allowed

to him and that he has a lot of work in his Department.

He stated that Shri Rebello informed him that Shri

Pradeep Chodnekar has gone for a meeting at the

Head Office of the bank at Panaji, and that he should

do the work of depositing the cash in Axis Bank.

4. He stated that there after a cash of Rs. 30,00,000/-

was removed from the safe in the strong room of the

bank by Shri Rebello and Cashier Mrs. Vandana Kane

and it was put in a briefcase by Sub-staff Shri Prasad

Shirodkar. He stated that the key of the briefcase

was given to him. He stated that however, the

physical possession of the briefcase was not given to

him. He stated that thereafter, he went to his

department to continue with his work. He stated

that there was heavy work in his department on that

day. He stated that the work in the department

consists of SND, Despatch, writing and withdrawing

of cheques of salaried employees, Day Book, sale of

loan application form, preparing establishment

expenses and salary vouchers/respective H.O. IBTS,

and entering liability of shares refund application

etc. He stated that SND agents were waiting for him

at that time. He stated that going to other bank with

cash or to deposit cash in other banks was not the

duty allotted to him as per the roster or rotation of

work that day. He stated that after the said briefcase

was locked, Shri Prasad Shirodkar brought it out of

the strong room. He stated that he sat in the same

row where he was sitting leaving two chairs vacant

in between and sitting on the forth chair to his left,

holding briefcase containing cash in his hand. He

stated that when the cash is to be taken to other

banks, it is taken in a taxi and the taxi is arranged by

the Branch Manager/Asst. Branch Manager. He

148

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

stated that he was therefore expecting the Asst.

Branch Manager to inform about arrival of Taxi. He

stated that he was busy doing his allotted work as

per the roster during that period. He stated that at

about 11.05 a.m., one person to whom he had never

seen before came to his department. He stated that

the said person was dark in colour, medium built, of

medium height and had a tilak on his forehead. He

stated that the said person asked him about

commission rates for purchasing demand drafts. He

stated that he informed him that his department was

not D/D department and asked him to go to D/D

department. He stated that after a few minutes, he

heard Shri Prasad Shirodkar saying as to where the

briefcase containing cash was. He stated that he

looked at him and around the place and found that

the briefcase was missing. He stated that no one

knew how it happened within a short time. He stated

that there was no commotion in the branch after the

theft.

5. He stated that though he is not involved in the

said theft, the Employer summarily dismissed him

from service by letter dt. 01-06-2011 on the false charge

of misappropriation of funds and other false charges

without even following the procedure prescribed in

the bi-partite settlement and in contravention of the

rules applicable to him. He stated that the amount

in the bank is insured with Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. He stated that in case of theft while

cash in transit from one bank to another or from the

bank premises, the insurance company has to make

good the loss. He stated that the Employer has filed

his claim before Oriental Insurance Company for an

amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- to be paid to the bank on

account of the theft. He stated that the same is being

processed by the Insurance Company. He stated that

he has sought under Right to Information Act from

the said Insurance Company regarding details of the

same and whether the said amount of theft has been

paid to the bank. He stated that he has not yet

received information. He stated that as soon as the

same is available, he shall produce the same before

this Hon’ble Tribunal.

6. He stated that on 30-05-2011 at around 4.30 p.m.

the Branch Manager asked him to give a statement

in writing about the incident. He stated that he

informed the Branch Manager that he is not

conversant with how to write such matters and that

he needed help and that he would give the statement

in writing on the next day. He stated that on the

next day i.e. on 31-05-2011 at around 10.00 a.m. he

gave the Branch Manager a written statement as

desired by him. He stated that at around 5.00 p.m. on

31-05-2011,the Branch Manager returned the written

statement to him and asked him to change the

statement as desired by him. He stated that he went

on changing the statement as dictated by the

Manager and the statement became shabby, so the

Branch Manager told him to re-write neatly and bring

the same on the next day. He stated that on

01-06-2011, he did not attend the duty as he was on

sick leave which has been sanctioned by the bank.

He stated that on 02-06-2011, he was refused the

employment by the bank. He stated that vide letter

dt. 31-05-2011, he submitted explanation as sought

by the Bank Manager regarding the incident that

had happened on 28-05-2011. He stated that the said

explanation was send by the Registered A/D to the

Branch Manager and a copy of which was send to

the Head Office, at Panaji which received on

04-06-2011.

7. He stated that on 02-06-2011, he reported for

work as usual at Margao Branch at around 9.45 a.m.

However, the Branch Manager refused him

employment stating that his services stood

terminated and that he need not report for work

hereafter. He stated that the Branch Manager did

not assign any reason for the same. He stated that

the said refusal of employment was in violation of

principles of natural justice. He stated that aggrieved

by the said decision of the Bank, he wrote a letter dt.

02-06-2011 to the Manager of the Bank at Margao,

with a copy to the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Govt. of

Goa, Margao-Goa stating the facts and the illegality

of the action of the Employer and demanding

reinstatement in service with full back wages and

continuity in services with costs. He stated that since

there was no response from the management, the Dy.

Labour Commissioner intervened in the dispute and

fixed a joint meeting with the Employer. He stated

that as there was no possibility of a settlement, the

Dy. Labour Commissioner sent a failure of conciliation

of proceedings report on dt. 01-11-2011.

8. He submitted that at the time of termination, a

notice of one month was not given nor was one

month’s pay in lieu of notice was paid. He submitted

that no charge sheet was issued before termination

alleging any acts of misconduct against him. He

submitted that no enquiry in accordance with

principles of natural justice was held before

termination of his service. He submitted that all

allegations levelled in dismissal letter dt. 01-6-2011

are false. He submitted that at the time of

termination, retrenchment compensation as required

under Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 was not paid.

He submitted that at the time of termination,

principles of last come first go as per provisions of

Section 25G of the I.D. Act was not followed. He

submitted that the termination of his services is in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

149

violation of principles of natural justice. He

submitted that since the date of termination w.e.f.

01-06-2011, he has not been paid wages and/or

subsistence allowance as per provisions of service

rules. He submitted that at the time of termination,

besides the salary for the month of May, 2011 he has

not been paid any money whatsoever such as notice

pay, retrenchment compensation, leave wages,

gratuity and subsistence allowance. He submitted

that the Bank Branch had no adequate security at

the time of incident which took place in the Bank

branch. He stated that there was no CCTV, no

emergency alarm system, no security personnel etc.

He stated that the cash was removed out of the strong

room of the Bank by Asst. Manager Mr. Alex Rebello

and kept in the Bank premises before he called for

Taxi to the branch for carrying cash to Axis Bank

instead of following security measures of first calling

the Taxi and then removing cash from the strong

room/safe deposit vault. He submitted that his

dismissal from service by the Employer w.e.f.

01-06-2011 is illegal and unjustified as it is in violation

of the principles of natural justice as well as violations

of the provisions of settlement dt. 27-06-2001 without

issue of charge sheet and without holding of enquiry.

9. He stated that since the date of his termination

he is unemployed and is supported by his family

members. He stated that he tried getting job at five

places but none of them called him for job after

coming to know that he has been dismissed by the

Employer. He stated that since the date of his

termination, he is facing severe hardships and is

finding difficult to sustain himself as well as to pursue

his case before this Hon’ble Tribunal. He stated that

he has tried to secure gainful employment, but he

has not been successful in spite of his efforts. He

stated that he is 53 years of age. The Workman

therefore prayed that he be reinstated in service with

full back wages plus interest and continuity in

service.

10. The Employer controverted the case of the

Workman by filing its written statement dt.

21-12-2012 at Exb. 7. The Employer, as and by way of

preliminary objections, stated that the present

reference filed by the Workman is bad in law and

hence not maintainable, that the present dispute of

the Workman is not an “Industrial Dispute” as

defined under the I.D. Act, 1947 and that there is

non-application of mind by the appropriate

Government while referring the present dispute.

11. The Employer stated that the Workman was

employed with them as a Clerk in Margao Branch.

The Employer stated that as a part of its routine

process is required to deposit excess cash in any of

the bank with which they have a Current Account.

The Employer stated that on 28-05-2011 Mr. Alex

Rebello, Asst. Branch Manager of Margao Branch

and the joint custodian and the main Cashier Mrs.

Vandana Kane withdrew from the said deposit vault

a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- for depositing the said

amount in the Current Account of the bank in Axis

bank, Margao Branch. The Employer stated that the

said amount was in the denomination of 500 notes of

Rs. 1,000/- each and 5000/- notes of Rs. 500 each.

The Employer stated that the said amount was

thereafter handed over by Mr. Alex Rebello and Mrs.

Vandana Kane to the Workman and Mr. Prasad

Shirodkar sub-staff. The Employer stated that the

Workman alongwith Mr. Prasad Shirodkar verified the

amount and placed the same in a gray colour

briefcase. The Employer stated that the said amount

was handed over to both of them within the enclosure

where the same deposit vault is situated. The

Employer stated that the said amount was found

missing from the custody of the Workman and Mr.

Prasad Shirodkar. The Employer stated that neither

of them could account for the said cash which was

entrusted to them. The Employer stated that the

Workman and Mr. Prasad Shirodkar also refused to

give a statement in spite of written instructions of

the Branch Manager vide his letter dated 30-05-2011

and 01-06-2011 respectively. The Employer stated

that the Workman alongwith Mr. Prasad Shirodkar

conspired to commit theft of Rs. 30,00,000/- of the

bank. The Employer stated that the theft took place

at around 11.00 a.m. on 28-05-2011. The Employer

stated that considering the gravity of misconduct

and in view of the fact that such acts of misconduct

which has placed the bank and institution which is

the custodian of public money into disrepute and

has obviously shaken the confidence of the public in

the ability of the bank to take care of their valuable

assets, they decided that it will not be in the interest

of the bank to retain the Workman in service any

longer and the interest of the bank and the public

will be best served by dismissing him with immediate

effect. The Employer stated that by letter

dt. 01-06-2011, the Workman was informed that in

view of gravity of misconduct committed by him, his

service stands terminated by way of dismissal with

immediate effect. The Employer submitted that the

commission of theft is a serious misconduct and

warrants punishment of dismissal. The Employer

therefore submitted that the termination is legal and

justified and warrants non interference with the

decision of its managements.

12. The Employer submitted that the reference of

the dispute of adjudication before this Tribunal of

the Workman was beyond the scope of powers of

appropriate Government in as much as the dispute

150

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

that was referred was not an industrial Dispute has

defined under the I.D. Act, 1947 nor was there any

application of mind by the appropriate of

Government while referring the Disputes and thus

the reference is ex-facto bad in law. The Employer

submitted that the last settlement was entered in

June, 2001 for the period effective from 01-01-1999

and was valid up to 31-12-2002. The Employer stated

that after the expiry of settlement period, the next

settlement was entered on 3-10-2011 with

retrospective effect from 01-01-2011 and for a period

of 4 years from 01-01-2011 till 31-12-2014 and is to be

continued to be remained in force thereafter until

such time as it is terminated by either party as

prescribed under the law for time being in force. The

Employer stated that as per settlement dt. 2001,

Clause XVI(5) it is stated that the termination of

services shall be in writing and shall be signed by

the manager. The Employer stated that as per the

settlement, the manager means the Officer managing

the bank. The Employer stated that Mr. Vilas M.

Narkar was earlier designated as the General

Manager/Secretary to the Board and the

nomenclature of the General Manager has been

changed to the Managing Director. The Employer

stated that the Managing Director is the Officer

managing the Bank. The Employer stated that the

letter of termination dt. 01-06-2011 was signed by

the Managing Director as per bye laws of the bank.

The Employer submitted that considering the nature

of offence, the gravity of misconduct had placed the

bank and the institution which is the custodian of

public money to disrepute and had obviously shaken

the confidence of the public in the ability of the bank

to take care of their valuable assets and that

conducting an enquiry could not be interest of the

bank and the public will be best served by dismissing

the employee immediately, it was decided to dismiss

the employee and accordingly by letter dt.

01-06-2011 the Workman was dismissed from the

service.

13. The Employer stated that as the theft by the

Workman was on 28-05-2011, though explanation was

sought from the Workman by the Branch Manager,

the Workman refused to give statement. The

Employer stated that in spite of written instructions

on 30-05-2011, the Workman declined to submit any

explanation. The Employer stated that thereafter the

Workman remained absent from duty on 01-06-2011

and on the morning of 02-06-2011 the Branch

Manager handed over the letter of dismissal dt.

01-06-2011 to the Workman in the presence of Mr. H.

D. Ghantkar from the Head Office of the Bank. The

Employer stated that the Workman read the copy of

the letter and refused to sign. The Employer stated

that the Workman was informed that on his refusal,

the letter will be displayed on notice board of the

branch and the Head Office. The Employer stated

that thereafter, the Workman left the branch and the

said copy of dismissal letter was displayed on the

notice board of Margao Branch and also on the notice

board of Head Office. The Employer submitted that

as the Workman refused to accept the dismissal letter

on 02-06-2011, the said letter was posted by Regd.

A/D to the Workman on his available address with

the bank and a copy was posted on the notice board

of Margao Branch as well as Head Office of the Bank.

The Employer stated that in response to the letter dt.

30-05-2011 of the Branch Manager that he submitted

his explanation that was received by the

management on 10-06-2011. The Employer stated

that though the letter is dt. 31-05-2011 the same is

posted on 09-06-2011.

14. The Employer submitted that the investigation

by the Insurance Surveyor are still on. The Employer

submitted that even if the claim is settled, the party

cannot deny that he committed theft of the said

amount of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The Employer submitted

that there was a theft of 5,00,000/- at the Vasco

Branch and inquiry is being conducted into the

charges against certain Workmen involved in the

incident. The Employer stated that the inquiry which

were initiated in the year, 2010 and has been

concluded finally in September, 2012 and the

Workmen involved have been dismissed from service

w.e.f. 20-11-2012. The Employer stated that after

commission of theft of Rs. 5,00,000/- the current

incident of theft of Rs. 30,00,000/- took place that left

the bank shattered and led to queries from the

shareholders on the competency and stability of the

bank itself. The Employer stated that though the bank

suffered a loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- the bank has received

a payment of Rs. 4,60,000/- from the insurance

company in full and final settlement of the claim and

has further loss no claim bonus. The Employer stated

that mere reimbursement of the loss does not absolve

the Workmen involved in the theft of Rs. 5,00,000/-

from disciplinary action. The Employer denied that

there is violation of Section 25 of the I.D. Act as the

said section is not attracted in the present case and

therefore compliances of Section 25G of the I.D. Act

does not arise. The Employer denied that the

termination was is in violation of principles of natural

justice as well as is in violation of provisions of

settlement dt. 27-06-2001. The Employer submitted

that as the provisions of Section 25F are not attracted,

the question of Section 25G as well as 25H does not

arise. The Employer denied that the termination is

ab initio void or that it is in violation of principles of

natural justice or that it is in violation of procedure

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

151

laid down in service rules. The Employer denied the

overall case as pleaded by the Workman and

submitted that the Workman is not entitled to any

relief as prayed for in his claim statement and

therefore the reference be rejected.

15. Thereafter, the Workman filed rejoinder dt.

06-02-2014 at Exb. 14. The Workman, as and by way

of his rejoinder, affirms and confirms all statements

and submissions made by him in his statement of

claim and denies all averments made by the Employer

in its written statement as well as additional written

statements which are contradictory to or inconsistent

with his case as set out in his claim statement.

16. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties

hereinabove, the Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court framed certain issues on

18-09-2014 at Exb. 17. The said issues has been

updated vide order dt. 05-10-2016.

1. Whether the Party-I proves that the termination

of his services by Party II is in violation of the

provisions of Sec.25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

2. Whether the Party-I proves that he has been

dismissed from service by Party II on the false

charges without following the procedure

prescribed in the bi-partite settlement and

in contravention of the rules applicable to him?

3.Whether the Party-I proves that he is

unemployed from the date of dismissal from

service?

4. Whether the Party II proves that the present

dispute raised by Party I is not an “Industrial

Dispute” under the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 and as such reference of such dispute

for adjudication is beyond the scope of the

powers of the Appropriate Government?

4A. Whether Party-II proves that its action in

terminating the services of the Party-I by way

of dismissal is legal and justified?

5. Whether the Party II proves that its action in

terminating services of the Party I by way of

dismissal is legal and justified?

6. What relief? What Award?

17. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a)

Issue No. 1

In the negative.

(b)

Issue No. 2

In the negative.

(c)

Issue No. 3

In the negative.

(d)

Issue No. 4

In the negative.

(e)

Issue No. 4A

In the affirmative.

(f)

Issue No. 5 and 6 :

As per final order.

I have carefully heard the submissions of Ld. Adv.

Shri A. V. Nigalye appearing for the Workman as well

as Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai representing the

Employer. Both the parties have also filed the

synopsis of written arguments. I have carefully

perused the entire records of the present case which

includes the synopsis of written arguments. I have

also carefully considered the submissions advanced

before me.

REASONS

18. Issue No. 1:

Indisputably, the Workman has not laid any

evidence nor advanced any arguments to prove that

the termination of his services by the Employer in

violation of provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of

the I. D. Act, 1947. Even otherwise the said issues are

not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

present matter. Hence, it is held that the workman

failed to prove that the termination of his services by

the Employer is in violation of the provisions of

Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act, 1947. The

Issue No. 1 is therefore answered in the Negative.

19. Issue No. 2 and 4A:

I am deciding the issue No. 2 and issue No. 4A

simultaneously as both the said issues are co-related

to each other.

Indisputably, the services of the Workman has

been summarily dismissed by conducting an enquiry

without issuing any charge sheet alleging the acts

of misconduct. The Employer is governed by its

bipartite settlement signed between the Goa Urban

Co-operative Bank Employees Union and the

management of the Employer. The said bipartite

settlement is valid from 01-01-2011 till 13-12-2014.

Clause XIII of the said bipartite settlement lays down

the procedure for disciplinary actions and procedure

thereof. Similarly, Clause XIV of the said bipartite

settlement provides for subsistence allowance

during the period of suspension. Clause XVI of the

said settlement provides for procedure for

termination of services as well as designation from

the services.

20. In the case of Workman of M/s Firestone Tyre

Ltd., and Rubbarco of India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the

Hon’ble Apex Court after relying its earlier judgment

in the case of Khardah Co. Ltd. V/s. there Workmen,

as well as Workmen of Moti Sugar Factory (P) Ltd.

V/s Moti Sugar Factory, held as under:-

152

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to

decide upon the quantum of punishment are

mainly managerial functions, but a dispute is

referred to a Tribunal, the latter has power to

see if action if the employer is justified.

(2) Before imposing the punishment, an employer

is expected to conduct a proper enquiry in

accordance with the provisions of the Standing

Orders, if applicable and principles of natural

justice. The enquiry should not be an empty

formality.

(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an

employer, and the finding of misconduct is

plausible conclusion flowing from the

evidence, adduced to the said enquiry, the

Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment

over the decision of the employer as an

appellate body. The interference with the

decision of the employer will be justified only

when the findings arrived at in the enquiry

are perverse or the management is guilty of

victimization, unfair Labour practice or mala

fide.

(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer

or if the enquiry held by him is found to be

defective, the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself

about the legality and validity of the order, had

to give an opportunity to the employer and

qemployee to adduce evidence before it. It is

open to the employer to adduce evidence for the

first time justifying his action, and it is open to

the employee to adduce evidence contra.

(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry

is that the Tribunal would not have to consider

only whether there was a prima facie case. On

the other hand, the issue about the merits of

the impugned order of dismissal or discharge

is at large before the Tribunal and the latter, on

the evidence adduced before it, has to decide

for itself whether the misconduct alleged is

proved. In such cases, the point about the

exercise of managerial functions does not arise

at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on the

same footing as no enquiry.

(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the

evidence placed before it for the first time in

justification of the action taken only, if no

enquiry has been held or after the enquiry

conducted by the Employer is found to be

defective.

(7) It has been never recognized that the Tribunal

should straightaway, without anything more,

direct reinstatement of a dismissed or a

discharged employee once it is found that no

domestic enquiry has been held or the said

enquiry is found to be defective.

(8) An Employer who wants to avail himself of the

opportunity of adducing evidence for the first

time before the Tribunal to justify his action,

should ask for it at the appropriate stage. If such

an opportunity is asked for, the Tribunal has

no power to refuse. The giving of an

opportunity to the employer to adduce evidence

for the first time before the Tribunal is in the

interest of both the management and the

employee and to enable the Tribunal itself to be

satisfied about the alleged misconduct.

(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the

inquiry conducted by an Employer or by the

evidence placed before a Tribunal for the first

time, punishment imposed cannot be interfere

with by the Tribunal except in cases were the

punishment is so harsh as to suggest

victimization.

(10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order

of dismissal, whether a Workmen should be

re-instated or paid compensation is, as held by

this Court in the Management of Panitole Tea

Estate V/s the Workmen, 1971-1 SCC 742 within

the Judicial decision of a Labour Court or

Tribunal.

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court is well established and also applicable to the

case in hand.

21. In the case in hand, the Employer did not hold

enquiry against the Workman of alleged misconduct,

but terminated the services of the Workman by way

of summarily dismissal by alleging that the Workman

alongwith one Mr. Prasad Shirodkar, sub-staff were

handed over a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to deposit the

said amount in the current account of the Bank in

Axis Bank, Margao Branch and that the said amount

was found missing from their custody and neither of

them could account for the said cash which was

entrusted to them and that they refused to give

statement in spite of written statement of the Bank

Manager vide letter dated 30-05-2011 and

01-06-2011. The Management therefore concluded

that the Workman alongwith Shri Prasad Shirodkar

conspired to commit theft of Rs. 30,00,000/- of the

Bank. The Workman was therefore charged for the

major acts of misconduct such as misappropriation

of funds, doing any act prejudicial to the interest of

the Bank or gross negligence or negligence involving

or likely to involve the Bank in serious loss and willful

insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and

reasonable order of the Management or of a superior.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

153

The Employer therefore led evidence before this

Tribunal to justify its action of dismissal of the

Workman.

22. To prove its case, the Employer has examined

two witnesses namely Mr. Nathkiran N. Dessai, its

Branch Manager and Mrs. Vandana Kane, Joint

Custodian and the main Cashier. On the contrary,

the Workman examined himself.

23. The evidence on record indicates that the

Workman was employed with the Employer bank as

a Clerk w.e.f. 4-10-1985. The evidence on records

indicates that on 28-5-2011, the Workman was

instructed by the Asst. Manager Mr. Alex Rebello,

that he has to go with cash to Axis Bank for depositing

the same. The Asst. Branch Manager of Margao

Branch Mr. Alex Rebello and the Joint Custodian and

the Main Cashier Mrs. Vandana Kane withdrew from

the safe deposit vault a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees

Thirty Lakhs only) and the same was thereafter

handed over to the Workman alongwith Mr. Prasad

Shirodkar, the sub-staff. The evidence on record

indicates that the Workman as well as the said Mr.

Prasad Shirodkar verified the cash and was put in a

grey colour briefcase by the said sub-staff Mr. Prasad

Shirodkar. The said briefcase was locked by Mr.

Prasad Shirodkar and the key of the said briefcase

was given to the Workman. They took signature of

the Workman of having received the cash on the cash

movement Register. Hence, both the Workman as well

as Mr. Prasad Shirodkar were entrusted with the said

cash and it was their duty to deposit the same in

Current Account of Axis Bank of the Employer. The

said briefcase containing cash of Rs. 30,00,000/- was

found to be missing from their custody. The evidence

on records indicates that neither the Workman nor

the said Mr. Prasad Shirodkar gave account of the

said amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- which were handed

over to them. The Employer bank therefore summarily

dismissed the Workman on account of charge of theft

and misappropriation of funds and doing act

prejudicial to the interest of the Bank as well as gross

negligence or negligence involving bank in a serious

loss. The testimony of both the management

witnesses that is Shri Nathkiran Dessai and Mrs.

Vandana Kane appears to be trustworthy.

24. Thus, the Workman has however failed to give

any justification nor has led any evidence as to why

he left the briefcase containing cash of Rs. 30,00,000/-

with Mr. Prasad Shirodkar alone and went away when

the custody of the cash was given to both of them

and it was the bounden duty of the Workman to take

precaution of the briefcase and to deposit in the Axis

Bank as was instructed. The aforesaid act/omission

on the part of the Workman clearly indicates that

doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank

or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely

to involve the Bank in serious loss to leave the

briefcase containing cash with Mr. Prasad Shirodkar.

25. The evidence on records indicates that the

Workman was directed to give statement, however

the Workman refused to do so in spite of written

instructions of the Branch Manager vide his letters

dated 30-5-2011 and 01-06-2011. The aforesaid acts

on the part of the Workmen amounts to wilful

in-subordination or disobedience of any lawful and

reasonable orders of the Management or of the

superior.

26. Though, the Employer charged the Workman

for an act of misconduct of misappropriation of funds,

they have filed an F.I.R. against unknown person and

as such the said misconduct of misappropriation of

funds has not been proved.

27. A Bank employee is required to exercise higher

standards of honesty and integrity. Every employee

of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to

protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge

his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion

and diligence and to do nothing which is

unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and

discipline are inseparable from the functioning of

every employee of the Bank. The very discipline of

an organization more particularly as bank is

dependent upon each of its employees and

employees acting and operating within their allotted

sphere.

28. The Workman contended that it was not his

duty to deposit cash in another Bank. However, it

has come on record that the Workman during the

period from 17-8-2009 to 28-5-2011 had on 26 times

deposited cash in other Banks such as Axis Bank,

Bank of Baroda, ICICI Bank where the Employer/Bank

had account and as such it cannot be said that

depositing cash in another bank was not part of his

duties.

29. Due to the said negligence, on the part of the

Workman, the Employer Bank has not only suffered

huge monetary loss but also lost the faith created by

its several customers by depositing their amount in

the custody of the Employer Bank. The misconduct

levelled against the Workman is a major misconduct

and as a result of commission of the grave

misconduct, the Employer lost confidence reposed

in the Workman. Thus, taking into consideration the

facts and circumstances of the entire case as well as

the seriousness of misconduct levelled against the

Workman, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon

him is just, fair, proper and proportionate to the

154

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

proved misconduct. The Issue No. 2 is therefore

answered in negative and Issue No. 4A is answered

in the affirmative.

30. Issue No. 3:

While deciding the issue No. 4A is hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

action of the Employer bank in terminating the

services of the Workman by way of dismissal is just,

fair, proper and proportionate. Hence, the question

is as to whether the Workman is unemployed from

the date of dismissal from service does not arrive.

The issue No. 3 is therefore answered accordingly.

Issue No. 4:

31. The Employer Bank in its preliminary

objections filed in the written statement alleged that

the present disputes raised by the Workman is not

an industrial dispute as defined under the I.D. Act,

1947 and that there is a non-application of mind by

the appropriate Government while referring the

present dispute. The burden to prove the aforesaid

facts lies on the Employer. In the case in hand, it is

not in dispute that the Party I is a “Workman” as

defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947 and the Employer

Bank is an “Employer” as defined u/s 2(j) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 and as such the present dispute raised by

the Workman pertaining to his non-employment

amounts to an “Industrial Dispute” as defined u/s

2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as such, the appropriate

Government has every right for adjudication of the

said dispute. Hence, it is held that the Employer has

failed to prove that the present dispute raised by the

Workman is not an industrial dispute under the I. D.

Act, 1947 and as such, reference of such dispute for

adjudication is beyond the scope of the powers of

the appropriate Government. The Issue No. 4 is

therefore answered in negative.

Issue No. 5:

32. While deciding the issue No. 4A hereinabove,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the action of the Employer bank in terminating the

services of the Workman by way of dismissal is just,

fair, proper and proportionate. The Workman is

therefore not entitled to any relief. The Issue No. 5 is

therefore answered in the negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action of the Goa Urban

Co-operative Bank Limited, Margao-Goa, in

terminating the service of Shri Anand G. Gauns,

Clerk by way of dismissal vide letter of dismissal

dt. 1-06-2011 is legal and justified.

2. It is held that the Workman Shri Anand G. Gauns,

Clerk is not entitled to any relief.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

————

Notification

No. 28/02/2023-LAB/Part-II/243

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 14-03-2023 in Case No.

Ref. IT/07/2015 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, 27th March, 2023.

––––

THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. IT/07/2015

Shri Arvind Pednekar,

C/o. Shri P. Gaonkar,

Goa Municipal Employees

Association, 328-01, Municipal

Quarters, St. Inez,

Panaji-Goa.

…… Workman/Party I

V/s

The Chief Officer,

Pernem Municipal Council,

Pernem-Goa. …… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri D. Naik.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri S. Sawal

Dessai.

Panaji, dated: 14-03-2023.

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

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

Government

Goa,

Order

dated

18-06-2015, bearing No. 28/18/2015-LAB/616

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

155

referred the following dispute for adjudication by

the Labour Court-II, of Goa at Panaji-Goa.

“(1) Whether the action of the Pernem Municipal

Council, Pernem-Goa, in refusing employment

of Shri Arvind R. Pednekar, Peon with effect

from 24-11-2009 is legal and justified?.

(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled for?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a Case was

registered under Ref. No. IT/07/2015 and registered

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

to the said notice, the Parties put in their appearance.

The Workman/Party-I (for short ‘Workman’) filed his

Statement of Claim on 28-09-2015 at Exb. 6. The facts

of the case, in brief as pleaded by the Workman are

that the Employer/Party-II (for short employer) vide

its office order dated 09-03-1990 initially appointed

him as a part time “Garden Worker” with immediate

effect on temporary basis. He stated that thereafter,

he was appointed by the Employer on full time basis.

He stated that by its office order dated 20-03-1992,

he was entrusted the work on full time basis for

supervision on the work assigned to him in the said

order. He stated that he was further directed to

supervise the work on Saturdays and Sundays also.

He stated that he used to sign the master roll. He

stated that vide office orders dated 16-06-1992 and

29-03-1993, the Employer rescheduled his work along

with others Group D officials. He stated that he was

posted to the library section w.e.f. 22-03-1994 until

further orders by its order dated 17-03-1994. He stated

that he was entrusted the work of supervising the

workmen on field duty apart from attending to the

office and other allied work assigned by the superiors

from time to time. He stated that he had to submit

daily working report of sweepers, vide its order dated

19-01-1994. He stated that further vide its office order

dated 02-11-1995, the Employer directed him to look

after the supervision work of the road. He stated that

he was directed to look after the supervisory work of

all the field sweepers of the Municipal council in

addition to his own office duty w.e.f. 01-03-1996. He

stated that vide its officer order dated April 1996 the

Employer entrusted the work to him of carrying out

the survey of the existing business establishment

and new establishment under the trade and

occupation licensing by laws in force. He stated that

he was further directed to commence the aforesaid

work with help of Shri Dnyaneshwar Gadekar. He

stated that by office order dated 25-02-1997, the

Employer directed him to look after the library duty

from 25-02-1997 onwards. He stated that by the said

order, he further directed to get the work done of

flagging the tricolor from Shri Namdev Pawar. He

stated that the Employer has directed the officials

including himself to carry out the re-assessment work

of the house tax ward wise with immediate effect by

its order dated 04-06-1997. He stated that by its order

dated 30-04-1998, the Employer directed him to look

after the duty of library section. He stated that by

office order dated 30-03-2000, the Employer had

posted him in the library section w.e.f. 01-04-2000 to

look after the duties of the library section until further

orders. He stated that vide its order dated 21-03-2001,

the Employer allotted works supervision,

conservancy supervision, street lighting to him. He

stated that by order dated 30-04-2001, the Employer

has granted medical allowance of Rs. 250/- per month

to him amongst others w.e.f. 01-04-2001. He stated

that by order dated 22-05-2001, the Employer has

sanctioned Rs. 2300/- towards uniform allowance to

him amongst others for the year 2001-2002. He stated

that by order dated 05-07-2001, the Employer had

directed him to supervise the duties in the municipal

market. He stated that by its order dated 05-07-2001,

the Employer has granted medical allowance to him

of Rs. 200/- per month w.e.f. 01-10-1998 to 31-03-2001

and Rs. 250/- per month from April 2001. He stated

that by order dated 11-06-2001, the Employer has

directed municipal staff which included himself to

make the seating arrangement of fish vendors/

vegetable vendors in municipal market. He stated

that the Employer, through its Chief Officer, has also

issued identity card. He stated that by its order dated

05-06-2003 the Employer has re-allocated the staff

work and he has directed to look after the duties

attached to the library section of the council. He

stated that by order dated 05-05-2006, the Employer

has entrusted additional duties of maintaining

records of hearse van on holidays and non-working

days of the Municipal Council and to furnish the

information and report to Mr. Dayanand B. Navelkar

on next working day of the Council. He stated that

the Employer, vide its letter dated 27-02-2007,

addressed to the Additional Director of Municipal

Administration proposed to regularize and to get

approval for regularization of his services who was

working with Employer for more than sixteen years

without any break. He stated that by office order

dated 27-04-2007, the Employer made changes in the

duty in addition to the duties allotted to him and

directed to keep the duplicate keys of the hearse van

and ambulance in his custody with further direction

to handover the said keys to any driver of the council

on requisition of public on non-working days of the

council i.e Saturday, Sunday and shall give report/

/requisition of such demand on every Monday to Shri

Sanjay Palyekar, Supervisor of the council for

recording purpose. He stated that by its order dated

16-05-2007, the Employer made a modification to the

earlier order dated 27-04-2007 wherein he was

156

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

directed to submit a report on every Tuesday to Shri

Sanjay Palyekar being Monday was his weekly off

day, in respect of the facility of hearse van and

ambulance on Saturday and Sunday.

3. He stated that by order dated 20-06-2008, the

Employer gave him a superficial illegal break w.e.f.

23-06-2008. He stated that he raised an industrial

dispute and conciliation proceedings were held

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner wherein

the Employer undertook to revoke illegal termination

and accordingly he was reinstated in service with

continuity in employment and also undertook to pay

the wages from November 2009 till April 2010. He

stated that by its order dated 23-11-2009, the

Employer reinstated him with the terms and

conditions which are totally contrary to law and the

Employer misguided him being illiterate person. He

stated that by its judgment dated December 2009

allotted the duties to him amongst other employees.

He stated that by office order dated 13-01-2010,

the Employer has partially modified earlier office

order vide letter dated 29-10-2009 and re-allocated

the duties to the officials of the Municipal Council

including himself. He stated that the Employer

addressed a letter dated 03-08-2010 to the Director

of Municipal Administration, Panaji-Goa along with

a detailed report of previous service rendered by him

to the Employer/Council with request to convey the

approval to continue his services till his services were

regularized. He stated that by its order dated

29-10-2010, the employer has posted him in the

municipal library with immediate effect to look after

the library duties. He stated that the Employer has

re-allocated the duties of all the peons and workers

including himself by its office order dated 23-11-2010.

He stated that he was given a superficial break of

three days i.e. from 13-01-2011 to 15-01-2011 by office

order dated 22-12-2010. He stated that on 11-01-2011,

the Employer, by its circular dated 11-01-2011

entrusted the work of assessment/BPL survey to him.

He stated that the Employer again by its office letter

dated 20-01-2011, gave him superficial break to him

from 24-01-2011 to 02-02-2011 for a period of ten days

only. He stated that the Employer has issued

purported memo dated 18-01-2011 to him to harass

him without any reason. He stated that he replied to

the said memo by his reply 19-01-2011.

4. He stated that by letter/order dated 08-02-2011,

the Employer has abruptly changed his duties who

was a peon in the office and has directed him to look

after three garden as a gardener at three different

time schedules i.e. 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m., 4.00 p.m. to

6.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 pm. and making things

difficult for him only to harass. He stated that by his

reply dated 17-02-2011, he replied to the said letter

stating that it will be difficult for him since he got

physically and mentally challenged son who is

studying in Sanjay School for which he has to look

after him as per the instruction of the doctor after his

office hours. He stated that he has been in

continuous service of the Employer ever since he has

joined the service in March 1990 and has completed

240 days of continuous service in every year until his

services were illegally and arbitrarily changed as a

gardener and terminated by the Employer. He stated

that he used to work even on Sundays and holidays

as per the instructions given to him by his superiors

from time to time which is evident from the orders

(annexed herewith). He stated that he was shocked

and shattered that the Employer, without following

the principles of natural justice and without his any

fault, abruptly and illegally changed the services and

terminated his services. He stated that he has

completed 240 days of service in a period of 12

calendar month every year ever since he has joined

the service in the year March 1990. He stated that

the illegal and arbitrary action of the Employer

amounts to unfair labour practices. He stated that

he made several request to the officials of the

Employer to take him back in service, but no heed

was paid to his request.

5. He stated that he is unemployed and has a

dependent family to support including a son who is

physically and mentally challenged and is in great

financial difficulty to meet both ends. He stated that

the arbitrary action of the Employer is totally illegal,

unjustified and contrary to law and without following

the principles of natural justice and a procedure laid

down under the law. He stated that he also made

several requests to the Chief Officer and the

Chairperson of the Employer, however to his utter

dismay, no heed was paid to the request made by

him. He stated that he therefore approached the

Assistant Labour Commissioner Panaji-Goa which

ended in failure. The Workman therefore prayed that

the action of the Employer in terminating his services

be declared as illegal, unjust and contrary to law and

he be reinstated in service with full back wages and

continuity in service. The Workman also prayed for

regularization of his services.

6. The Employer controverted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement on

14-02-2015 at Exb.8. The Employer, as and by way of

its preliminary objections, submitted that the

reference made by the appropriate government is

bad in law and not maintainable as the Workman

was appointed on daily wages, that the Employer,

vide its order dated 08-02-2011, has entrusted the

work of maintenance of three municipal gardens to

the Workman however, he refused to accept the said

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

157

order till 14-02-2011 with his verbal reason that he is

not interested to perform the said duty, that

thereafter the Workman accepted the said order on

15-02-2011 and vide his letter dated 17-02-2011

informed them that he will not perform the said duty

and remained unauthorisely absent on duty till date,

that the Workman abandoned his service from

08-02-2011 and till date he has not resumed his duty

and therefore there is no employer-employee

relationship between themselves and the Workman

from 08-02-2011 till date, that the Workman did not

raise any demand before them but directly

approached the conciliation officer by raising alleged

“Industrial Dispute” and hence the alleged dispute

is not an industrial dispute as defined under the

industrial disputes act, that there is no termination

letter issued to the Workman and therefore the

question arise of refusing employment to the

Workman by them and that the Workman is

suppressing the material facts from this Hon’ble Court

and hence he is not entitled to any relief.

7. The Employer stated that the Workman was

appointed by them on daily wages. The Employer

stated that the Workman was given a break in service

by them vide its orders dated 20-06-2008, 22-12-2012

and 20-11-2011 and therefore the Workman was not

in continuous service with the Employer. The

Employer stated that vide its order dated 08-02-2011,

they entrusted the work of maintenance of three

municipal gardens to the Workman, however he

refused to accept the said order till 14-02-2011 with

his verbal reason that he is not interested to do the

said duty. The Employer stated that the Workman

has accepted the said order on 15-02-2011 and vide

his letter dated 17-02-2011, informed them that he

will not perform the said duty and remained

unauthorized absent from duty from the date of order

dated 08-02-2011 till date. The Employer stated that

they, on humanitarian ground, vide office

memorandum dated 18-08-2011, informed the

Workman to submit his unwillingness to refuse his

duty allotted vide order dated 08-02-2011 along with

explanation for unauthorized absentism from duty

from 08-02-2011. The Employer stated that the

Workman has however has not submitted his

willingness to resume duties till date neither any

explanation has been received from the Workman.

The Employer stated that the Workman has

approached the Conciliation Officer and during the

course of discussion, they have taken an initiative to

accommodate the Workman in service, however, the

Workman was not ready nor shown any willingness

to accept the proposal. The Employer stated that

vide its order dated 15-07-2014, they have decided to

re-employ the Workman on contractual basis on an

amount of Rs. 6000/- per month till his

superannuation. The Employer stated that vide its

letter dated 26-09-2014, they also clarify that contract

agreement would be renewed every after six months

with applicable increase in payment. The Employer

stated that they have given several opportunity to

the Workman however he was not ready nor shown

his willingness to resume the duties till date. The

Employer stated that they have not illegally refused

employment to the Workman, but he himself remained

unauthorized absent from duty from 08-02-2011 till

date. The Employer submitted that they have not

issued any termination order to the Workman till date

and hence the question of illegal refusing of

employment to the Workman does not arise and

therefore the Workman is not entitled to any relief.

The Employer denied the overall case as pleaded by

the Workman and prayed that the reference made by

the Government be dismissed.

8. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on

22-02-2016 at Exb. 10. The Workman, as and by way

of his rejoinder, affirms and confirms all statements

and submissions made by him in his statement of

claim and denies all averments made by the Employer

in its written statement which are contradictory to

or inconsistent with his case as set out in his claim

statement. He stated that the Employer, by its order

dated 23-11-2009, reinstated him with the terms and

conditions which are totally contrary to law and the

Employer misguided him being an illiterate person.

He stated that the Employer used to give superficial

break which is evident from the office order dated

22-12-2010 from 13-01-2011 to 15-01-2011 only for

three days and again by office order dated 20-01-2011

for the period from 24-01-2011 to 02-02-2011 for ten

days.

9. Based on the pleading filed by the parties herein

above this Hon’ble Court framed the following issues

on 15-03-2017 at Exb. 15.

1. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that he

has been refused the employment by the

Employer w.e.f. 24-11-2009?

2. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the

action of the Employer in refusing him

employment w.e.f. 24-11-2009 is illegal and

unjustified?

3. Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that the

present order of reference is bad-in-law and not

maintainable in view of the reasons mentioned

in para 1 (a) to 1 (f) of its written statement?

4. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to any

relied?

158

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

5. What order? What award?

My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a)

Issue No. 1

In the negative.

(b)

Issue No. 2

Does not arise.

(c)

Issue No. 3

In the affirmative.

(d)

Issue No. 4 & 5 :

As per final order.

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

Naik appearing for the Workman as well as Ld. Adv.

Shri S. Sawal Dessai representing the Employer. Both

the parties also filed their synopsis of written

arguments.

10. Ld. Adv. Shri D. Naik appearing for the

Workman, during the course of his oral arguments,

submitted that initially the Workman was appointed

by the Employer on temporary basis vide its order

dated 09-03-1990. He submitted that subsequently,

vide its order dated 20-03-1992, the Employer

appointed the Workman on full time basis for

supervision on the works. He submitted that the

Workman was in continuous service of the Employer

from his initial appointment in March 1990 till he

was refused employment on 24-11-2009. He

submitted that the Workman was refused

employment by the Employer in the month of January

2011. He submitted that the refusal of employment

to the Workman is illegal, unjustified and bad in law

as it is contrary to the provisions of Section 25 F of

the I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted that the date of birth

of the Workman is 26-06-1960 and he would have

attended the superannuation on 26-06-2020. He

submitted that the action of the Employer in

terminating the services of the Workman be declared

as illegal unjust and contrary to law and the Workman

be compensated with full back wages till June 2020.

He submitted that the Workman was not allowed to

sign the muster roll. He submitted that the Workman

was not a daily wage worker.

11. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri S. Sawal Dessai

representing the Employer, during the course of his

oral arguments, submitted that the Workman was a

daily wage worker working with the Employer. He

submitted that the Workman was given break in

service from time to time. He submitted that the

Workman was entrusted the work of maintenance of

three municipal garden vide its order dated

08-02-2011. He submitted that the Workman however

refused to accept the said order. He submitted that

the Workman accepted the said order on 15-02-2011

and vide his letter dated 17-02-2011 informed the

Employer that he will not perform the said duty and

remained unauthorized absent from duty till date.

He submitted that there does not exist any employer-

employee relationship between the Employer and

the Workman since the Workman refused to perform

his duties and he being daily wage worker. He

submitted that the Workman has not made any

demand for reinstatement of his services but directly

approached the Conciliation Officer. He therefore,

submitted that the dispute raised by the Workman is

not an Industrial Dispute as defined under Section 2

(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the reference made by the

Government is incompetent. He submitted that the

Workman was not issued any termination letter

thereby terminating his services but he voluntarily

abandoned his services. He submitted that the

Workman has not shown his willingness to join the

duties. He submitted that the Workman was given

the break in service thrice and as such he is not in

continuous service. He therefore submitted that the

Workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference

be dismissed.

I have carefully perused the entire records of the

present case. I have also carefully perused the

submissions advanced before me and is of the opinion

as under:-

REASONS

12. Issue No. 1:

By office order dated 09-03-1990 (Exb. 17), the

Workman was appointed on purely temporarily basis

to the post of part time garden worker with immediate

effect. Thereafter, by office order dated 20-3-1992

(Exb. 18), the Workman, part time daily wage worker

has been entrusted the work on full time basis for

supervision on the works on the Municipal Area. The

Workman was also directed to supervise the works

on Saturdays and Sundays if needed. The Workman

was given the break in service from time to time.

Indisputably, the Workman was daily wage worker

working in the Employer Municipality. By order dated

08-02-2011 (Exb. 56), the Workman was entrusted the

duties as Peon, in the office and has directed him to

look after three Gardens of the Municipality as a

“Gardner” at three different times scheduled as 2.00

p.m. to 4.00 p.m., 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. to

9.00 p.m. The Workman replied to the aforesaid letter

of the Employer, by his letter dated 17-02-2011

(58-colly), stating that it will difficult for him since,

he got a physically and mentally challenged son who

is studying in Sanjay School, for which he has to look

after him as per instruction of the Doctor after office

hours and as such, it will be difficult for him to

perform his duties as per the time schedule and

requested for allotting him duties at office which will

help him to overcome the present situation. The

Workman refused to accept the order of the Employer

dated 08-02-2011 issued by the Employer and

remained absent from his duty. The Employer, by its

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

159

memorandum dated 18-08-2011 (Exb. 18), directed to

submit his willingness to resume duty allotted earlier

vide order dated 08-02-2011 and further directed to

submit his explanation for absence on duty w.e.f.

08-02-2011.

13. In the case of Dharmraj Vithoba Natekar V/s.

Unique Industries reportedly (1996) II LLJ 948 the

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay it has been held that

“By Now, it is well established that abandonment of

services is an inference which can be raised upon

consideration of the totality of the circumstances and

that the Court should raise that inference only if it is

satisfied that the circumstances do indicate that the

Workman was clearly not interested in continuing

with his service.”

The principal laid down by the Hon’ble High Court

of Bombay in its aforesaid case is well established

and also applicable to the case in hand.

14. In the case in hand, the Workman was

employed with the Employer as worker since the year

1990 on daily wage basis. By order dated 08-02-2011,

the Workman was entrusted with the work of

Gardener in the three municipal garden of the

Employer Municipality. The Workman refused to

accept the said order and since then the Workman

remained absent. Thereafter, the Workman accepted

the said order dated on 15-02-2011 and by letter

dated 17-02-2011 informed the Employer that it will

difficult for him to perform the duties. Therefore, the

Employer issued a Memorandum dated 18-08-2011

directing the Workman to submit his willingness to

resume his duties allotted vide office order dated

08-08-2011 and also submit his explanation for

absence from duties w.e.f. 08-02-2011. The Workman,

however did not send his willingness to the Employer

to resume his duties nor submit his explanation for

absence from duties. The Workman has however

raised a dispute before Asst. Labour Commissioner

and the Conciliation Officer, Panaji-Goa. The

aforesaid act on the part of the Workman indicates

that the Workman has abandoned his duties by

remaining absent and that he was not refused

the Employment by the Employer. Hence, it is held

that the Workman failed to prove that he was refused

the employment by the Employer. The Issue No. 1 is

therefore answered in the negative.

15. Issue No. 2:

While deciding the Issue No. 1 is hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

Workman was not refused the Employment, but the

Workman abandoned his duties and as such, the

question of the alleged action of the Employer in

refusing the Employment to the Workman w.e.f.

24-11-2009 is illegal and unjustified, does not survive.

The Issue No. 2 is therefore answered as does not

survive.

16. Issue No. 3:

The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary

objections, submitted that the reference made by the

appropriate Government is bad in law and not

maintainable as the Workman was appointed on daily

wages, that the Employer, vide its office order dated

08-02-2011, has entrusted the work of maintenance

of three municipal gardens to the Workman however,

he refused to accept the said order till 14-02-2011

with his verbal reasons that he is not interested to

do his said duties and that thereafter the Workman

accepted the said order on 15-02-2011 and vide his

letter dated 17-02-2011 informed the Employer that

he will not performed the said duties and remained

unauthorisely absent on duties till date, that the

workman has abandoned his services from

08-02-2011 and till date he has not resumed his duties

and therefore there is no Employer-Employee

relationship between themselves and the Workman

from 08-02-2011 that the Workman did not raise any

demand before the Employer but directly approached

the Conciliation Officer by raising alleged the

Industrial Dispute and hence, the dispute is not an

industrial dispute as defined under the I.D. Act, 1947

and that there is no termination letter has been

issued to the Workman and therefore there is no

question of refusing the Employment to the Workman

does not arrive.

17. Indisputably, the Workman was appointed on

daily wage basis. The Workman was entrusted the

work of maintenance of three municipal gardens vide

its order dated 08-02-2011. However, the Workman

refused to accept the said order till 14-02-2011 with

his verbal reasons that he is not interested in

performing the said duties. Thereafter, the Workman

accepted the said order on 15-02-2011 and vide his

letter dated 17-02-2011 informed the Employer his

inability to perform the said duties and remained

unauthorized absent from duties till date. The

Employer, vide its memorandum dated 18-08-2011,

directed the Workman to submit his willingness to

resume his duties allotted vide its office order dated

08-02-2011 and also give explanation for his absence

on duty w.e.f. 08-02-2011. The Workman thereafter

directly approached the Conciliation Officer by

raising a dispute without raising a demand before

the Employer.

18. In the case of, the Sindhu Resettlement V/s.

The Industrial Tribunal reportedly 1968 AIR 529,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under “It may

be that the Conciliation officer reported to the

Government that an industrial dispute did exist

160

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

relating to the reinstatement of respondent No.3 and

payment of wages to him from 21st February, 1958,

but when the dispute came up for adjudication before

the Tribunal, the evidence produced clearly showed

that no such dispute had ever been raised by either

respondent with the management of the appellant. If

no dispute at all was raised by the respondents with

the management, any request sent by them to the

Government would only be a demand by them and

not an industrial dispute between them and their

employer. An industrial dispute, as defined, must be a

dispute between employers and employers, employers

and workmen, and workmen and workmen. A mere

demand to a Government, without a dispute being

raised by the workmen with their employer cannot

become an industrial dispute. Consequently, the

material before the Tribunal clearly showed that no

such industrial dispute, as was purported to be referred

by the State Government to the tribunal had ever

existed between the appellant Corporation and the

respondents and the State Government, in making a

reference, obviously committed an error in basing its

opinion on material which was not relevant to the

formation of opinion. The Government had to come

to an opinion that an industrial dispute did exist and

that opinion could only be formed on the basis that

there was a dispute between the appellant and the

respondents relating to reinstatement. Such material

could not possibly exist when, as early as March and

July, 1958 respondents No. 3 and respondent No. 2

respectively had confined their demands to the

management to retrenchment compensation only and

did not make any demand for reinstatement. On these

facts, it is clear that the reference made by the

Government was not competent.”

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court

is well established and also applicable to the case in

hand.

19. In the case in hand, the Workman did not raise

any demand for reinstatement in service on the

Employer after alleged refusal of the Employment,

but directly approached the Conciliation Officer.

Hence, the dispute raised by the Workman is not an

“Industrial Dispute” as defined u/s 2C (k) of the I. D.

Act, 1947 and the reference made by the appropriate

Government is bad-in-law and incompetent. Hence,

it is held that the Employer proved that the present

order of reference is bad-in-law. The Issue No. 3 is

therefore answered in the affirmative.

20. Issue No. 4:

While deciding the Issue No. 3 hereinabove, I have

decided and come to the conclusion that the

reference made by the appropriate Government is

bad-in-law. The Workman is therefore not entitled to

any relief. The Issue No. 4 is therefore answered in

the negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that whether the action of the

Pernem Municipal Council, Pernem-Goa, in

refusing employment of Shri Arvind R.

Pednekar, Peon with effect from 24-11-2009 if

legal and justified, does not survive.

2. The Workman, Shri Arvind R. Pednekar is

not entitled to any relief.

3. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar),

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

–––

Order

No. 8/32/2020/LD(Estt)/700

Government approval is hereby conveyed to

delegate the powers to the Civil Registrars-cum-

-Sub Registrars to deal with such cases or cases

where the canonical marriage has taken place but

the registration has not been recorded at all in any

of the offices of the Civil Registrars-cum-Sub

Registrars, by incorporating the following:

a) the Civil Registrars-cum-Sub Registrars be

authorised to cancel the erroneous recording

of the marriage certificate and the marriage

be registered under the next entry number,

after the last entry for that corresponding

same year when the canonical marriage was

solemnised.

b) In case the canonical marriage was

solemnised in the month of December, then

the Civil Registrars-cum-Sub Registrars shall

number, after the last entry of the next year of

the canonical marriage solemnisation.

c) In cases where the canonical marriage has

been solemnised but not recorded at any of

the Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrar Offices

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

161

(CRSR), then such a marriage must be

recorded at the last entry of that year. In case

the canonical marriage has been solemnised

In the month of December, then such a

marriage must be recorded by the respective

CRSR at

the last entry of the next year.

d) A nominal fee of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two

thousand only) shall be levied on the

applicant/party for the above facilities.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 21st April, 2023.

————

Order

No. 2-3-21-LD(Estt)/733

The Government of Goa is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following Civil Registrar-cum-

-Sub Registrars, Group ‘B’, Gazetted Officers of Registration Department, with immediate effect.

Sr.

Name of the staff

Present posting

Posted as

No.

Shri Arjun Shetye

District Registrar (South)

holding additional charge

with additional charge of

of Civil Registrar-cum-Sub

Civil Registrar-cum-Sub

Registrar, Tiswadi in addition

Registrar, Pernem vice

to his duties as District

Prachi Naik, CRSR

Registrar (South)

transferred.

Smt. Prachi Naik

Civil Registrar-cum-Sub

Registrar-Headquarters,

Panaji and holding charge of

with additional charge of

Civil Registrar-cum-Sub Registrar, Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-Sub

Pernem

Registrar-I, Tiswadi, thereby

relieving Smt. Aarti

Parvatkar.

Smt. Aarti Parvatkar

Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-Sub

Civil Registrar-cum-Sub

Registrar-I, Tiswadi

Registrar, Tiswadi vice

Shri Arjun Shetye

transferred.

The above Officers shall draw pay and allowances against their respective transferred posts from the

date of taking charge. They shall complete the process of handing over/taking over of charge with effect

from 02-05-2023 b.n. and submit compliance.

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

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 27th April, 2023.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

–––

Order

No. 13/07/2023-PER/1250

The Governor of Goa is pleased to grant extension in service to Shri Anil Naik, Block Development Officer

in the Directorate of Panchayats beyond the date of his superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.

01-05-2023 or till the posts of Block Development Officers are filled on regular basis, whichever is earlier,

162

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

in public interest. This order is subject to Vigilance

Clearance from Vigilance Department, concurrence

of Finance Department and approval of Council of

Ministers.

The extension is further subject to termination

without assigning any reasons during the period of

extension.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 27th April, 2023.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

–––

Order

No. 45/3/2009-I/PHD/604

Read: Memorandum No. 45/3/2009-I/PHD/60

dated 17-01-2023.

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/I/5/24(3)/2021/442 dated 17-01-2023, Government

is pleased to appoint Dr. Siddhant Suresh Shet to

the post of Junior Gynaecologist (Group “A”

Gazetted) under Directorate of Health Services in

the Level 10 of Pay Matrix [Pay Band-3 Rs. 15600-

39100+Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- (pre-revised)].

Dr. Siddhant Suresh Shet shall be on probation

for a period of two years.

Dr. Siddhant Suresh Shet has been declared

medically fit by the Medical Board.

The appointment is made subject to the

verification of the character and antecedents. In

the event of any adverse matter being noticed by

the Government on verification of their character

and antecedents, his services shall be terminated.

Consequent to above, Dr. Siddhant Suresh Shet is

posted at South Goa District Hospital, Margao.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 24th April, 2023.

————

Notification

No. 25/1/2022-I/PHD/635

Read: Notification No. 25/1/2022-I/PHD/1179

dated 05-08-2022.

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) read with Clause (b) of sub-section (3)

of Section 12 of the Assisted Reproductive

Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Central Act No.

42 of 2021), the Government of Goa hereby appoints,

the Appropriate Assisted Reproductive Technology

and Surrogacy Authority for the District of

South Goa, consisting of the following members,

namely:-

(1) Collector, South Goa District — Chairperson

(ex officio).

(2) Medical Superintendent

— Member

(South Goa District Hospital)

(ex officio).

(3) Juliana Lohar (Aarz)

— Member.

(4) Shubhangi M. Humraskar,

— Member.

Joint Secretary, Law

(5) Senior Gynaecologist

— Member.

(South Goa District Hospital)

This Notification shall come into force from the

date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

This issues in supersession to Notification No.

25/1/2022-I/PHD/1179 dated 05-08-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 28th April, 2023.

————

Notification

No. 25/1/2022-I/PHD/636

Read: Notification No. 25/1/2022-I/PHD/1178

dated 05-08-2022.

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) read with Clause (b) of sub-section

(3) of Section 12 of the Assisted Reproductive

Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Central Act No.

42 of 2021), the Government of Goa hereby appoints,

the Appropriate Assisted Reproductive Technology

and Surrogacy Authority for the District of North

Goa, consisting of the following members, namely:-

(1) Collector, North Goa District — Chairperson

(ex officio).

(2) Medical Superintendent

— Member

(North Goa District Hospital)

(ex officio).

(3) Prachi Khandeparkar (Sangath) — Member.

(4) Medhavani M. Sawaikar,

— Member.

Joint Secretary, Law

(5) Senior Gynaecologist

— Member.

(North Goa District Hospital)

This Notification shall come into force from the

date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

163

This issues in supersession to Notification No.

25/1/2022-I/PHD/1178 dated 05-08-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 28th April, 2023.

————

Notification

No. 25/1/2022-I/PHD/637

Read: Notification No. 25/1/2022-I/PHD/1176

dated 05-08-2022.

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) read with Clause (b) of sub-section (3)

of Section 35 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021

(Central Act No. 47 of 2021), the Government of Goa

hereby appoints the Appropriate Authority for the

District of North Goa consisting of the following

members, namely:-

(1) Collector, North Goa District — Chairperson

(ex officio).

(2) Medical Superintendent

— Member

(North Goa District Hospital)

(ex officio).

(3) Prachi Khandepar (Sangath)

— Member.

(4) Pooja D. Phadte,

— Member.

Joint Secretary, Law

(5) Senior Gynaecologist

— Member.

(North Goa District Hospital)

This Notification shall come into force from the

date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

This issues in supersession to Notification No.

25/1/2022-I/PHD/1176 dated 05-08-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 28th April, 2023.

————

Notification

No. 25/1/2022-I/PHD/638

Read: Notification No. 25/1/2022-I/PHD/1177

dated 05-08-2022.

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) read with Clause (b) of sub-section (3)

of Section 35 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021

(Central Act No. 47 of 2021), the Government of Goa

hereby appoints, the Appropriate Authority for the

District of South Goa consisting of the following

members, namely:-

(1) Collector, South Goa District — Chairperson

(ex officio).

(2) Medical Superintendent

— Member

(South Goa District Hospital)

(ex officio).

(3) Juliana Lohar (Aarz)

— Member.

(4) Dnyaneshwar Raut Dessai,

— Member.

Joint Secretary, Law

(5) Senior Gynaecologist

— Member.

(South Goa District Hospital)

This Notification shall come into force from the

date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

This issues in supersession to Notification No.

25/1/2022-I/PHD/1177 dated 05-08-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 28th April, 2023.

———uuu———

Department of Public Works

Office of the Executive Engineer-Division VI

–––

Notification

No. PWD-VI/ADM/F-92/23-24/154

Whereas, the Council of Ministers, in its Vth

cabinet meeting held on 09-06-2022, vide Agenda

No. 13 resolved to approve among others shifting

part of existing internal public road leading from

Verna Industrial Estate to Verna village inside

precincts of Shree Mahalsa Narayani Devalaya,

Verna, to new location as per attached plan therein

denotifying and also surrendering old road area from

PWD to the Directorate of Archives and Archeology,

in lieu of new road to be constructed.

And whereas, the said new road as mentioned

has been constructed and commissioned for the

traffic by PWD.

Therefore in accordance with the said decision of

Council of Ministers and subsequent Government

approval, the stretch of old public road hereby stands

denotified and surrendered to Department of

Archives and Archeology.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Prasad Panandikar, Executive Engineer, Division VI

(Roads), PWD.

Margao, 26th April, 2023.

164

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

Department of Revenue

–––

Order

No. 35/2/2013-RD/562

In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b)

of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp

Act, 1899 (Act No. 2 of 1899), as in force in the State

of Goa, the Government of Goa hereby permits the

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Goa Divisional

Office, Panaji (hereinafter referred to as the “LIC

Goa”) to pay consolidated stamp duty of

Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty five lakhs only),

chargeable on sums to be insured in the insurance

policies issued by its offices in the State of Goa with

effect from 1st January, 2023 upto 31st December,

2023 in lieu of affixing stamps upon individual

insurance policies, which has been paid vide

cheque No. 000224 dated 06-02-2023, drawn on

HDFC Bank, Panaji, Goa, subject to the following

conditions, namely:-

(a) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the

insurance policies issued during the above

mentioned period falls short of the stamp duty

consolidated herein and paid to the

Government, the excess consolidated stamp

duty shall be adjusted for the next calendar

year 2024.

(b) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the

insurance policies issued during the above

period exceeds the stamp duty consolidated

herein and paid to the Government, the

balance amount due towards the stamp duty

shall be paid to the Government Treasury by

the LIC Goa latest by the first week of January,

2024.

charged on the sums insured in the insurance

policies issued by the offices of the LIC Goa

in the State of Goa during the above period

shall be submitted to the Secretary (Revenue),

Revenue Department, Government of Goa on

or before 31-12-2023.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Durga Kinlekar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim, 28th April, 2023.

Department of Sports and Youth Affairs

Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs

–––

Order

No. 66/36th NG/ADM/DSYA/2018/268

The Government of Goa is hereby pleased to

re-constitute the Organizing Committee for the 37th

National Games Goa to decide on all the policy

making matters related to the organization and

conduct of the Games. The Organising Committee

will be the apex body. The composition of the

Organizing Committee is as follows:

Sr.

Name

Designation

No.

Hon’ble Chief Minister

Chairman.

President, Goa Olympic

Vice-

Association

-Chairman.

Hon’ble Minister

Vice-

for Sports

-Chairman.

Chief Secretary

Member.

Director General of Police

Member.

Secretary (Finance)

Member.

Secretary (Sports) & Chief

Member

Executive Officer, NGOC

Secretary.

Secretary (Power)

Member.

Secretary (PWD)

Member.

10. Secretary (Health)

Member.

11. Secretary (Education)

Member.

12. Secretary (Tourism)

Member.

13. Secretary (Information

Member.

Technology)

14. Secretary (Transport)

Member.

15. Director (Tourism)

Member.

16. Principal Chief Engineer

Member.

(Public Works Department)

17. Chief Engineer (Electricity

Member.

Department)

18. SIO (National Informatics

Member.

Centre)

19. Director of Sports & Youth

Member.

Affairs

20. Executive Director (Sports

Member.

Authority of Goa) & Jt. Chief

Executive Officer, NGOC

21. Director (Transport)

Member.

22. Additional Secretary

Member.

(Personnel)

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

165

23. Additional Secretary

Member.

(Finance Expenditure)

24. Additional Secretary

Member.

(Protocol)

25. MD (Goa Tourism

Member.

Development Corporation

Ltd.)

26. Director (Health)

Member.

27. Director (Information

Member.

Technology)

28. CEO, Entertainment

Member.

Society of Goa

29. Dean (Goa Medical

Member.

College)

30. Chief Engineer (Sports

Member.

Authority of Goa

31. Secretary General (Goa

Member.

Olympic Association)

32. Representative of Indian

Member.

Olympic Association

This order supersedes all earlier orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Rohit Kadam, Director (Sports & Youth Affairs) &

Jt. Secretary (ex officio).

Panaji, 24th April, 2023.

————

Order

No. 66/36th NG/ADM/DSYA/2018/269

The Government of Goa is hereby pleased to

reconstitute the Empowered Steering Committee for

the 37th National Games to be held in Goa to review

all the administrative and financial works, as well

as grant sanction for the appointment of the

required manpower for National Games Secretariat.

The Empowered Steering Committee will work

under the guidance of the Organizing Committee.

The Committee shall have the powers to approve

and grant the expenditure/financial proposal/

/sanction, upto Rs. 3 Crores. These proposals shall

be approved subject to the concurrence of the

Finance FA and Finance Department/Hon’ble Chief

Minister. The Committee will meet on regular basis.

The composition of the Empowered Steering

Committee shall be as follows:

Sr.

Name

Committee

No.

Designation

Hon’ble Chief Minister

Chairman.

Hon’ble Sports Minister

Vice-Chairman.

Chief Secretary

Member.

Secretary (Finance)

Member.

Secretary (Sports) & Chief

Member.

Executive Officer, NGOC

Director of Sports & Youth

Member.

Affairs

Executive Director (Sports

Member

Authority of Goa) & Jt. Chief

Secretary.

Executive Officer, NGOC

Additional Secretary

Member.

(Personnel)

Additional Secretary

Member.

(Finance-Expenditure)

10. Chief Engineer (Sports

Member.

Authority of Goa)

11. Secretary General (Goa

Member.

Olympic Association)

This is issues with the concurrence of the Finance

Department vide FMS No. 1400091334 dated

09-03-2023.

This order supersedes all earlier orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Rohit Kadam, Director (Sports & Youth Affairs) &

Jt. Secretary (ex officio).

Panaji, 24th April, 2023.

————

Order

No. 66/36th NG/ADM/DSYA/2018/270

The Government of Goa is hereby pleased to

reconstitute Executive Management Committee for

the 37th National Games Goa, to monitor the overall

works of the Games Secretariat. The Executive

Management Committee will meet on regular basis

and review the progress of the projects. The

composition of the Executive Management

Committee shall be as follows:

Sr.

Name

Designation

No.

Chief Secretary

Chairman.

Secretary (Finance)

Member.

Secretary (Sports) &

Member.

Chief Executive

Officer, NGOC

166

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

Director of Sports &

Member.

Youth Affairs

Executive Director

Member

(Sports Authority of Goa)

Secretary.

& Jt. Chief Executive

Officer, NGOC

The above Committee shall come into force with

immediate effect.

This order supersedes all earlier orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Rohit Kadam, Director (Sports & Youth Affairs) &

ex officio Joint Secretary.

Panaji, 24th April, 2023.

———uuu———

Department of Tourism

–––

Order

No. 1/2(44)/2023/DT/Part-I/434

On the recommendation of the Departmental

Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa

Public Service Commission vide their letter No.

COM/II/11/48(1)/2022/26 dated 13-04-2023, Shri

Jayesh Kankonkar, Assistant Tourist Officer is hereby

promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Tourism

(Group ‘B’ Gazetted) in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-

-34800+Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- (Level-7 of the Pay

Matrix), plus usual allowances as admissible under

the Rules, on regular basis with immediate effect.

The above promotion is made against vacancy

occurred due to superannuation of Shri Gajanan

Mahale, Assistant Director of Tourism w.e.f.

1-12-2021.

Shri Jayesh Kankonkar shall be on probation for

a period of two years as per the Office Memorandum

No. 12/14/89-PER(Part) dated 12-8-2014.

His pay and allowances shall be debited to the

Budget Head under Demand No. 78 3452—Tourism,

01—Tourist Infrastructure, 001—Direction &

Administration, 01—Directorate of Tourism,

01—Salaries.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Suneel Anchipaka, IAS Director (Tourism) & ex

officio Addl. Secretary.

Panaji, 2nd May, 2023.

———uuu———

Department of Urban Development

(Municipal Administration)

–––

Order

No. 11/11/2022-2-DMA(MISC)/221

With reference to “The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act,

2013 (MS Act, 2013)”, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (MoSJE) and Ministry of Housing and

Urban Affairs (MoHUA) has jointly formulated a scheme “National Action for Mechanized Sanitation

Ecosystem” (NAMASTE) in 2022, and mandated the appointment of Responsible Sanitation Authority (RSA)

in every District and setting up of Sanitation Response Unit (SRU) in all the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs).

MoHUA has integrated Safaimitra Suraksha as an important parameter under Swachh Survekshan 2023

toolkit and mandated the requirement of establishment and operationalization of RSA in every district and

SRU in all ULBs.

As per the requirements of NAMASTE Scheme and Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban), the Additional

Collector-II, South Goa is designated as the “Responsible Sanitation Authority” for assisting South Goa

Municipal Councils i.e. Mormugao, Margao, Canacona, Cuncolim, Quepem, Cacora-Curchorem and Sanguem

in successfully implementing the aforementioned protocols.

The composition of the ERSU (Emergency Response Sanitation Unit) under Responsible Sanitation

Authority (RSA) is mentioned as under and the Officer/staff will perform the duty in addition to their

current duty with immediate effect:-

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

167

Sr.

Officer/Staff

Designation

Nature of Appointment

No.

Officer-in-charge of ERSU

Municipal Commissioner/Chief Officer

Additional Role.

Duty/Entry Supervisor

PWD Junior Engineer

Additional Role.

Administrative Supervisor/

Junior Engineer, Municipal Council

Additional Role.

/Nodal Officer

Call Centre Attendant

Helpline Operator, Municipal Council

Full Time Duty.

on 24x7 basis

Sewer Entry Professionals

Staff available with PWD and additional

Full Time/Additional Role.

(Sewer Commandos)

staff available with ULB

The following table shows role and responsibility of Emergency Sanitation Response Unit (ESRU).

1. To take care of emergency situations of blockages of sewers & septic tanks and thereby preventing

manual hazardous cleaning.

2. Establishing ‘Incidence Management System’ (IMS) for addressing the service and complaint requests

received from the citizens on the Helpline number-14420, through an online tracking system.

3. To ensure the closing of the complaints/tickets registered on the Web and Mobile Application for

‘Incidence Management System’ (IMS).

4. Monthly progress report to be updated by 5th day of the month on SBM portal by Administrative

Supervisor.

5. To co-ordinate with the Assessment Agency (Third Party) from the Ministry during evaluation process

& for submission of requisite documents.

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director (Urban Development).

Panaji, 25th April, 2023.

————

Notification

No. 11/11/2022-2-DMA(MISC)/222

Whereas, with reference to the Prohibition of

Employment as Manual Scavengers and their

Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (MS Act, 2013), Ministry of

Social Justice & Empowerment (MoSJE) and Ministry

of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) has jointly

formulated a scheme “National Action for

Mechanized Sanitation Ecosystem” (NAMASTE) in

2022.

Whereas, one of the objectives of the NAMASTE is

the appointment of Responsible Sanitation Authority

(RSA) in every District and setting up of Sanitation

Response Unit (SRU) in all the Urban Local Bodies

(ULBs).

Whereas, Swachh Survekshan and Swachh

Certification protocol launches under Swachh Bharat

Mission Urban 2.0 the mandates the requirement of

establishment and operationalization of RSA in

every district and SRU in all ULBs.

Now therefore, in light of the above, the Additional

Collector-II, South Goa is hereby designated as the

“Responsible Sanitation Authority” (RSA) for

assisting all seven Municipal Councils in South Goa

district (i.e. Mormugao, Margao, Cuncolim, Quepem,

Curchorem-Cacora, Sanguem and Canacona) in

successfully implementing the NAMASTE scheme

and Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) requirements.

The Responsible Sanitary Authority will be the

overall authority for ensuring the implementation of

NAMASTE and Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban)

Guidelines and ensure the proper functioning of the

SRUs established at ULB level in their jurisdiction.

The key responsibilities of RSA includes the

following:

Overall supervision of the Emergency

Sanitation Response Unit (ESRU) at the ULB

level.

Timely review of the progress made by the

Emergency Sanitation Response Unit (ESRU)

at the ULB level.

Oversee maintenance of safety equipment

(personal and institutional) for use by

trained personnel and Safai mitras as part of

the Emergency Sanitation Response Unit.

Arrange to provide periodic upgradation,

and necessary equipment, vehicles and other

logistics and proper functioning of ERSU.

168

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 5

4TH MAY, 2023

Arrange for adequate training to employees

involved and sewer and septic tank

maintenance.

In addition to the above, RSA shall also be

responsible for all other functions as given under

guidelines of NAMASTE and MoHUA Advisory on

Emergency Sanitation Response Unit from time to

time.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director (Urban

Development).

Panaji, 25th April, 2023.

————

Addendum

No. 11/11/2022-2-DMA(MISC)/220

In partial modification of the Notification No. 11/

/11/2022-2-DMA(MISC)Part-I/4930 dated 25-01-2021,

the Additional Collector-II, North Goa is was

designated as the “Responsible Sanitation

Authority” for assisting Corporation of City of Panaji

in successfully implementing the national

competition “Safaimitra Suraksha Challenge”.

Whereas, Swachh Survekshan, RSA shall be

notified for all the other six Municipal Councils in

the North Goa District.

Therefore, the Additional Collector-II, North Goa

is hereby designated as “Responsible Sanitation

Authority” for six Municipal Councils in North

District i.e. Pernem, Mapusa, Bicholim, Sanquelim,

Valpoi and Ponda. The RSA shall assist all the seven

Municipal Councils “including Panaji Municipal

Corporation for the successful implementation of

the NAMASTE scheme and Swachh Bharat Mission

(Urban).

The responsible Sanitary Authority will be the

overall authority for ensuring the implementation

of NAMASTE and Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban)

guidelines and ensure the proper functioning of the

SRUs established at ULB level in their jurisdiction.

The key responsibilities of RSA includes the

following.

1. Overall supervision of the Emergency

Sanitation Response Unit (ESRU) at the ULB

level.

2. Timely review of the progress made by the

Emergency Sanitation Response Unit (ESRU)

at the ULB level.

3. Oversee maintenance of safety equipment

(personal and institutional) for use by trained

personnel and Safai mitras as part of the

Emergency Sanitation Response Unit.

4. Arrange to provide periodic upgradation, and

necessary equipment, vehicles and other

logistics and proper functioning of ERSU.

5. Arrange for adequate training to employees

involved and sewer and septic tank

maintenance.

The following table shows role and responsibility

of Emergency Sanitation Response Unit (ESRU).

1. To take care of emergency situations of

blockages of sewers & septic tanks and thereby

preventing manual hazardous cleaning.

2. Establishing ‘Incidence Management System’

(IMS) for addressing the service and complaint

requests received from the citizens on the

Helpline number-14420, through an online

tracking system.

3. To ensure the closing of the complaints/tickets

registered on the Web and Mobile Application

for ‘Incidence Management System’ (IMS).

4. Monthly progress report to be updated by 5th

day of the month on SBM portal by

Administrative Supervisor.

5. To co-ordinate with the Assessment Agency

(Third Party) from the Ministry during

evaluation process & for submission of

requisite documents.

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director (Urban

Development).

Panaji, 25th 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. 28.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—38/80—05/2023.