SERIES II No. 12
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026
Panaji, 20th June, 2024 (Jyaistha 30, 1946)
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Industries
––
Order
No. 3/22/2023-IND/160
Government is pleased to nominate the Director
of Industries, Trade and Commerce, Panaji-Goa, as
the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) of State Level
Programme Management Unit (SL-PMU) for
co-ordination related to engagement of Programme
Management Unit (PMUs) and subsequent
correspondence with respect to progress
monitoring of PM Vishwakarma Scheme.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Asha Harmalkar, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 10th June, 2024.
Note:- There is one Supplement and three Extraordinary
issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 11
dated 13-06-2024 as follows:
(1) Supplement dated 13-06-2024 from pages 265
to 266 regarding Order from Department of
Public Health.
(2) Extraordinary dated 14-06-2024 from pages
267 to 268 regarding Order from Department
of Finance.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 15-06-2024 from
pages 269 to 270 regarding Notification from
Goa Legislature Secretariat.
(4) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 18-06-2024 from
pages 271 to 272 regarding Notifications from
Goa State Election Commission.
Department of Labour
––
Order
No. 24/2/2002-Lab-ESI/360
Read: Memorandum No. 24/2/2002-Lab-ESI/135
dated 21-02-2024.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/I/5/28(2)/2023/485 dated 26-12-2023, Government is
pleased to appoint Dr. Suyash Shirish Mandurkar to
the post of Senior Gynaecologist and Obstetrician
(Group “A” Gazetted) in E.S.I. Hospital, under E.S.I.
Scheme in Labour Department on temporary basis in
the pay scale of 7th Pay Commission in the Pay
Matrix under Level-11 (Rs. 67,700-Rs. 1,55,300) with
immediate effect and as per the terms and
conditions contained in the Memorandum cited
above.
Dr. Suyash Shirish Mandurkar shall be on
probation for a period of two years.
Dr. Suyash Shirish Mandurkar has been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board.
The character and antecedents of Dr. Suyash
Shirish Mandurkar has been verified by the Deputy
Collector and DRO, South Goa.
The expenditure shall be debited to the Budget
Head: 2210—Medical and Public Health;
01—Urban Health Services-Allopathy; 102—
Em ployees
State
Insurance
Scheme;
01—Implementation of Employees State
Insurance Scheme; 01—Salaries.
The appointment is made against the vacancy
created due to voluntary retirement of Dr. Deepa
Kerkar on 30-04-2023.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Asha Harmalkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 12th June, 2024.
273
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
274
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
Notification
No. 28/02/2024-LAB/Part-I/333
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 13-05-2023 in Case No.
LC-II/IT/24/06 is hereby published as required under
Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Asha Harmalkar, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 30th May, 2024.
––––
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/24/06
Shri Deepak Tirodkar,
Flat No. 5, Damodar Appartments,
Bhute Bhat,
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa ........... Workman/Party-I.
V/s
M/s. Goa Shipyard Pvt. Ltd.,
Vaddem
Vasco-da-Gama, Goa ………. Employer/Party- II.
Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri A.V. Nigalye.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. M. S. Bandodkar.
Panaji, dated: 13-05-2024
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 12-06-2006,
bearing No. 28/37/2003-LAB/349 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court-II of Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the Management of
M/s. Goa Shipyard Pvt. Ltd.,Vaddem, Vasco-da-
-Gama, Goa in terminating the services of Shri
Deepak Tirodkar, Structural Fitter with effect
from 24-01-2005 is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a Case was
registered under No. IT/24/06 and registered A/D
notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to
the said notice, the Parties put in their appearance.
The Workman/Party-I (for short, ‘Workman’) filed his
Statement of Claim on 31-05-2007 at Exb. 5. The
facts of the case, in brief as pleaded by the
Workman are that the Employer/Workman (for short,
‘the Employer’) is a company incorporated under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having
its registered office and industrial establishment at
Vaddem, Vasco-da-Gama. He stated that the
Employer is a Government of Goa undertaking
under the Ministry of Defense and it is engaged in
manufacture, maintenance and repairs of Ships and
Vessels for the Ministry of Defense, Coast Guard etc.
He stated that he is a permanent employee of the
Employer and governed by the Certified Standing
Orders of the said establishment.
3. He stated that by letter dated 10-10-1997,
certain false and baseless charges of misconduct
were alleged against him and he was placed under
suspension. He stated that the said letter was issued
by the General Manager (Planning) of the Employer
who is not his Disciplinary Authority. He stated
that thereafter, a semblance of enquiry was held
against him into the said charges by appointing an
Enquiry Officer by the said General Manager. He
stated that Ld. Enquiry Officer submitted his
findings to the Management on 22-05-2003. He
stated that however, no opportunity of hearing on
the said findings was given to him.
4. He stated that thereafter, another charge-sheet
dated 12-05-1998 was issued to him alleging certain
acts of misconduct. He stated that it was alleged
that on 03-01-1998, he assembled at the main gate
of the Employer and stopped some of the workmen
from attending duties. He stated that it was further
alleged that thereafter, he along with other workers
went to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class
at Vasco-da-Gama, where regular Civil Suit No. 46/
/97 was fixed for hearing. He stated that he
alongwith other workers assembled opposite the
court premises and started making gestures and
used abusive language against the defendant
employees in the said suit. He stated that he was
involved in snatching briefcase of Adv. Shirodkar.
He stated that he participated in the meeting
addressed by Shri P. Vincent Dias. He stated that
thereafter, he along with others became violent and
started pelting stones on the court building and damaged
the vehicles belonging to the employees of the other
group. He stated that he pelted stones on the other
employees. He stated that it was alleged in the
aforesaid charge-sheet that he committed the
following acts of misconduct:-
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
275
II) Going on illegal strike or abetting, inciting,
instigating or acting in furtherance thereof or
resorting to obstruction aimed at or resulting in
paralyzing the normal conduct or work of the
Company.
XI) Drunkenness, riotous, disorderly, indecent or
improper, behavior on the premises of the
Establishment or outside the premises of
Establishment or outside the premises of
Establishment if it adversely affects on is likely to
affect the working or discipline of Establishment.
XII) Commission of any act subversive or
discipline or good behavior on the premises or
precincts of the Establishment.
XXXII) Restraining or detaining or gheraoing any
representative/employee or employees of the
Company either inside or outside the premises of
the Company.
XXXIII) Use of impolite or abusive language,
assault or threat of assault, intimidation or coercion
within the premises of the company against any
employee of the company or any other person
authorized to work in the company, and any such
act outside the premises of the Company if it
directly affects or is likely to affect the discipline or
work or business of the Company.
XL) Pursuance of any conduct against the
interest of the Company.
5. He stated that similar charge-sheets were
issued to 13 other employees of the Employer. He
stated that he filed his reply to the charge-sheet
denying the charges alleged against him being
false. He stated that thereafter a joint enquiry was
held against all 14 employees including him by the
Enquiry Officer appointed by the Employer. He
stated that during the course of enquiry
proceedings, the enquiry was dropped in respect of
three employees. He stated that the charge-sheet
issued to him was identical and in fact a verbatim
reproduction of the charge-sheets issued to the
aforesaid employees, however no action was taken
against them. He stated that one of the employees,
namely Shri Vaman Mhapankar was even promoted
to a higher post of Sr. Clerk (Comp.) with effect from
03-07-2001. He stated that the enquiry was
concluded on 30-03-2002 and the Ld. Enquiry Officer
submitted his findings on 12-01-2004 i.e. after period
of one year and nine months from the date of
conclusion of enquiry.
6. He stated that by his findings, the Ld. Enquiry
Officer held that only the first charge relating to
illegal strike on 03-01-1998 is proved and further
held that the remaining five charges are not proved.
He stated that in respect of the said Charge No. 1,
the Management had already imposed the penalty
of deduction of wages. He submitted that the said
charge, therefore did not survive. Hence, in terms of
the said findings, the Workman further stated that
he was under suspension with effect from
10-10-1997 i.e. much before 03-01-1998 and as such,
the question of his absenting from duties or going
on strike on 03-01-1998 did not arise.
7. He stated that thereafter, the General Manager
(Planning) of the Employer issued show-cause notice
dated 23-02-2004 to him stating that he disagrees
with the findings of Ld. Enquiry Officer in respect
of the remaining five charges and that he holds that
all charges alleged against him are proved. He
stated that by the said notice, he was directed to
show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed
from service without notice and payment in lieu of
notice. He stated that he filed a petition in the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Panaji-Goa, being
Writ Petition No. 169/2004 challenging the said
show-cause notice. He stated that by oral judgment
dated 27-04-2004, the Hon’ble High Court was
pleased to allow his petition and quashed the said
notice. The Hon’ble High Court further observed
that the Respondents therein will be at liberty to
issue show-cause notice to the Petitioners for
showing cause against the proposal of Disciplinary
Authority, taking a different view from the view
taken by the Ld. Enquiry Officer.
8. He stated that thereafter, the said General
Manager issued him a fresh show-cause notice
dated 01-07-2004 holding that he is guilty of the
charges alleged in the charges-sheet dated
10-10- 1997 and proposing to differ from the findings
of the Ld. Enquiry Officer in respect of the charge-
-sheet dated 12-05-1998 and purporting to arrive at
a tentative conclusion that the charges of
misconduct alleged against him are proved. He
stated that he filed his reply to the show-cause
notice stating that the said authority in its early
show-cause notice had arrived at a final conclusion
regarding proof of misconduct alleged against him
and hence the same authority cannot now come to
a tentative conclusion.
9. He stated that thereafter, the said General
Manager (Planning) of the Employer issued him a
final show-cause notice dated 01-12-2004, reiterating
that all charges against him are proved. He stated
that by the said notice, he was directed to show-
cause as to why he should not be dismissed from
service. He stated that he raised an industrial
dispute in respect of his dismissal from service
which ended in failure.
276
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
10. He challenged the said action of his dismissal
from service w.e.f. 24-01-2005 and all action
preceding thereto from the stage of issuance of
charge-sheets are arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal
and unjustified. He submitted that his service has
been terminated without any reasonable cause and
for no misconduct committed by him. He submitted
that the show-cause notices, charge-sheet dated
10-10-1997 and charge-sheet dated 12-05-1998 and
order of dismissal were issued to him by the General
Manager (Planning) of the Employer. He submitted
that the charge-sheets, show-cause notices and the
dismissal order having been issued by an
incompetent person, are without authority and
jurisdiction. He submitted that the entire
disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by the denial
of natural justice to him. He submitted that in
respect of the first charge-sheet dated 10-10-1997,
the findings recorded by the Ld. Enquiry Officer are
illegal and perverse. He submitted that the entire
disciplinary proceedings are contrary to and in
breach of the Certified Standing Orders of the
Employer. He submitted that in respect of the
second charge-sheet, the Ld. Enquiry Officer arrived
at a reasonable conclusion that all charges alleged
against him, except charge No. 1 relating to illegal
strike on 03-01-1998 are not proved. He submitted
that however, the General Manager (Planning) who
issued the show-cause notices and the order of
dismissal sought to differ with the findings of the
Ld. Enquiry Officer and purportedly arrived at a
subjective conclusion that all charges are proved.
He submitted that there is no provision in the
Certified Standing Orders of the establishment of
Employer to differ with the findings of the Ld.
Enquiry Officer. He submitted that the said Certified
Standing Orders do not authorize the Disciplinary
Authority to differ from the independent findings of
the Ld. Enquiry Officer. He therefore submitted that
the act of the said General Manager of differing and
disagreeing with the findings of the Ld. Enquiry
Officer is, therefore, without authority and contrary
to the Certified Standing Orders of the
establishment. He submitted that the said charge-
sheets were issued by their respective departmental
heads i.e. the respective General Managers. He
submitted that the show-cause notices in respect of
the said charge-sheets were issued to him by the
General Manager (Planning). He submitted that
similar show-cause notices were also issued to 13
other employees by their respective General
Managers. He submitted that however, the contents
of all show-cause notices i.e. the show-cause notices
issued to him and to the said 13 employees are
identical and verbatim reproduction, though they
were issued by different Officers. He, therefore,
submitted that the show-cause notices were not
prepared by the concerned Officers and they were
drafted by someone else and the General Manager
(Planning) signed those on the dictation of others.
This proves the non-application of mind by the
General Managers (Planning) of the Employer. He
submitted that the said General Manager was
disqualified to act as their Disciplinary Authority
after arriving at the said final conclusion regarding
the guilty of him as stated in the first show-cause
notice dated 17-02-2004 and after the said notice
was quashed and set aside by the Hon’ble High
Court. He submitted that the aforesaid facts and
circumstances show the bias of the said Officer
against him. He submitted that a biased person is
disqualified from acting as the Disciplinary
Authority and participate in the disciplinary
proceedings. He submitted that he was under
suspension from 10-10-1997 i. e. even before the
said charge-sheet was issued to him. Hence, not a
single charge alleged against him in the charge-
-sheet dated 12-05-1998 is proved. He submitted
that the said action of the Employer is contrary to
principles of natural justice and it is pre-meditated
and vindictive. He submitted that the General
Manager (Planning) of the Employer ought not have
acted as his Disciplinary Authority, since he is the
Appellate Authority in terms of the Certified
Standing Orders of the Employer. He submitted that
he has lost his valuable right of appeal due to the
acts of the said Officer of issuing the show-cause
notices and functioning as the Disciplinary
Authority. Similarly, three more employees were
suspended and charge-sheeted along with him. The
charges against the said employees were dropped
and they were reinstated in service. He submitted
that the aforesaid facts prove the discrimination
and bias of the Officers of the Employer. He
submitted that the action of the Employer is
malafide. He submitted that the Ld. Enquiry Officer
submitted his Findings after over two and half years
from the date of conclusion of the proceedings. He
submitted that a period of over six years has passed
from the date of service of the charge-sheets to the
date of submission of findings by the Ld. Enquiry Officer.
The Order of dismissal was issued on 24-01-2005 i.e. almost
eight years after the first charge-sheet. He
submitted that it is unreasonable to punish him
with the extreme penalty of dismissal from service
at this stage. He submitted that without prejudice
to the submissions made hereinabove and assuming
without admitting that he is guilty of the
misconduct alleged against him, he submitted that
the punishment of dismissal awarded to him is too
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
277
harsh and severe. He submitted that the Order of
dismissal passed by the General Manager (Planning)
of the Employer is illegal and it is liable to be set
aside. The Workman, therefore prayed for passing
an Award, quashing and setting aside the said
Order of dismissal and the Employer be directed to
reinstate him in service with full back wages and
other consequential benefits.
11. The Employer resisted the Claim of the
Workman by filing its Written Statement on
04-10-2007 at Exb. 8. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objection, submitted that the
entire reference is bad-in-law and not maintainable
as it is not a private limited company. The Employer
submitted that it is a Central Government’s public
sector undertaking. The Employer submitted that it
is in the business of ship building and ship repairs
for Indian Navy and Coast Guards. The Employer
submitted that its business is carried out and
controlled under the authority of Central
Government. The Employer submitted that it is
under the administrative control of Ministry of
Defense, Department of Defense Production. The
Employer therefore submitted that the appropriate
Government in the present case is Central
Government and not Government of Goa. The
Employer further submitted that the Government of
Goa has no authority and/or jurisdiction to entertain
and refer the present dispute.
12. The Employer stated that the Workman was
employed with them as Structural Fitter w.e.f.
07-01-1981. The Employer stated that it was alleged
against the Workman that he exhibited the posters
inside the premises in his own handwriting, at its
Pipe Shop, at P.F. Commissioner’s Office and Labour
Commissioner’s Office at Panaji, at the Margao Bus
stand and near the Cortalim bridge, containing
false, vicious and/or malicious and vulgar
statements against its Chairman and Managing
Director, General Manager (P & A) and 5 other
employees, who were office bearers of the union.
The Employer stated that while exhibiting the said
posters, the Workman had not taken any permission
from the competent authorities. The Employer
stated that after enquiry, verifications and
comparison of handwriting, they suspected that the
said posters are creation of the Workman. The
Employer stated that for confirmation of the
handwriting, they had sent the said documents
alongwith other handwritten documents of the
Workman to the office of the Government Examiner
of Questioned Documents, Bureau of Police Research
& Development, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India at Hyderabad by its letter
dated 03-09-1997. The Employer stated that since
the Workman committed grave and severe
misconducts, he was placed under suspension with
immediate effect pending enquiry, vide their letter
dated 10-10-1997. The Employer stated that the
Workman was also requested to submit his written
explanation within three days from the receipt of
the said letter as to why disciplinary action should
not be initiated against him. The Employer stated
that the Workman submitted his written
explanation dated 27-10-1997 to the said suspension
order dated 10-10-1997. The Employer stated that
the Workman submitted his explanation on
irrelevant issues without referring to the specific
charges/allegations leveled against him in letter
dated 10-10-1997, but denied the charges leveled
against him.
13. The Employer stated that since the said
explanation was not found to be satisfactory, they
decided to conduct an enquiry against the
Workman by appointing Shri K.V. Nadkarny as the
Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated that the
Workman was allowed to be defended by Adv.
Mario Almeida as requested by him vide his
application dated 20-12-1997. The Employer stated
that the enquiry started on 20-12-1997 and
concluded on 28-06-2002. The Employer stated that
the Workman fully participated in the enquiry. The
Employer stated that after conclusion of the enquiry,
the Ld. Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated
22-05-2003 and came to the conclusion that the
Workman is guilty of the charges levelled against
him at Sr. No. XII, XXIII, XXXIX and XLI of its
Certified Standing Orders. The Employer stated that
the Ld. Enquiry Officer has however, exonerated
the Workman from the charge at Clause No. XI of its
Certified Standing Orders. The Employer stated that
it has conducted a fair and proper enquiry by
following the principles of natural justice. The
Employer stated that full opportunity has been
given to the Workman to defend his case. The
Employer submitted that the findings submitted by
the Ld. Enquiry Officer is based on evidence on
record and after appreciating the entire evidence
on record, he came to the conclusion that the
charges have been found proved against the
Workman. The Employer submitted that in the event,
if this Hon’ble Tribunal come to the conclusion that
the enquiry is not conducted in a fair and proper
manner or in violation of principles of natural justice
or that the findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer is
perverse, they crave leave to additional evidence to
justify its case.
278
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
14. The Employer stated that on 03-01-1998, the
Workman along with some other co-worker
unauthorizedly assembled outside its main gate.
The Employer stated that they illegally and
unjustifiably obstructed and prohibited its other
workers from entering in its premises for performing
their duties. The Employer stated that the Workman
alongwith some other workmen created tense and
terror in the minds of other workers who came to
report for their duties on 3-1-1998 at its gate. The
Employer stated that because of fear and terror
created in the minds of its workers by the Workman
and some other workmen, majority of workers
including some lady workers, unwillingly but
arising out of fear and pressure by the Workman
along with some other workmen, went at Mangoor
Hill by paralyzing the work and its functioning. The
Employer stated that thereafter the Workman
alongwith some other workmen unauthorizedly
assembled outside the Court premises at Mangoor
Hill, Vasco-da-Gama, and started shouting slogans
by using filthy languages. The Employer stated that
they also abused other workers who claimed to be
defendants in the said Civil Suit. The Employer
stated that because of the said act of the Workman,
there was disturbance for the advocates and
litigants who wanted to attend the Court in their
respective cases. The Employer stated that some of
the workers including the workers claiming to be
the Plaintiffs and Defendants in the said Civil Suit
were inside the Court premises. The Employer
stated that since the Presiding Officer was on leave,
the matter was adjourned to some other date. The
Employer stated that having knowledge of the
adjournment of the matter, the concerned Workman
and some other workers became violent to such an
extent that they physically assaulted, manhandled
Adv. Mr. Shirodkar who was going out of the Court
premises. The Employer stated that the Workman
alongwith some other workmen snatched the brief
case of the said advocate and also caught hold of
his coat. The Employer stated that arising out of
physical attack, Adv. Shirodkar got scared and
rushed in the court premises to protect himself and
filed a complaint before one of the Judicial
Magistrate who was present in the Court. The
Employer stated that the Workman alongwith some
other workmen and their supporters started pelting
stones not only on the other workers who claimed
to be defendants in the said Civil Suit, but also on
the Court building. The Employer stated that though
there were some police personnel who witnessed
that the Workman and some other workmen are
becoming violent, to avoid any law and order
situation, called for additional police force. The
Employer stated that thereafter police inspector Mr.
Thorat and Executive Magistrate of Vasco-da-Gama
came at the Court premises. The Employer stated
that the Police personnel and the Executive
Magistrate asked the workers including the
Workman to vacate the Court premises. The
Employer stated that meanwhile the Workman
alongwith some other workmen instigated the mob
and encouraged to become violent. The Employer
stated that because of the instigation by the
Workman and some other workmen, there was an
unpleasant incident of pelting stones on the temple
of law and the Workman was directly involved in it
and such an act was not acceptable from any person
much less by the Workman of any public sector
undertaking. The Employer stated that because of
terror and havoc created by the Workman alongwith
some other workmen, the workmen who were in the
court premises, out of fear were not ready to come
down from the court premises. The Executive
Magistrate and Police Inspector asked those
workmen to vacate the premises. The Employer
stated that having regards to violent mood of the
Workman and some of the workmen, the Police
Inspector assured the workmen who were in the
court premises that the police will escort them and
they will be dropped by the police van. The
Employer stated that however, the workers were
not willing to come down from the court premises
because of threat and terror atmosphere created by
the Workman and others. The Employer stated that
therefore, the Executive Magistrate and Police
Inspector were compelled to give protection and
forced the workmen who were in the court premises
to vacate the court premises, and then only the
workmen came down from the court premises with
support and help of police. The Employer stated
that however, the violent activities of the Workman
alongwith some other workmen were continued and
they even pelted stones on those workmen who
were escorted by the police personnel, including
police personnel, which resulted in injuries to three
workmen. The Employer stated that the Workman
alongwith some other workmen were not in a mood
even to listen the police Inspector and Executive
Magistrate and continued their illegal activities.
Therefore, the police were compelled to make a lathi
charge. The Employer stated that it is pertinent to
note that the Workman with some of the workmen
were even arrested by the police and charge-sheets
were filed against the Workman and others for their
illegal and unjustified act including an act at the
court premises.
15. The Employer submitted that the entire acts
of the Workman alongwith some other workmen that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
279
also from the public sector undertaking, were grave
and serious acts of misconducts including
subversive of discipline and good behavior outside
the premises. The Employer submitted that such
act was detrimental for smooth functioning of the
establishment. Therefore, they suspended the
Workman including some other workmen who were
indulged in the illegal activities, pending enquiry
and result thereof. The Employer further stated that
they served a charge-sheet individually on those
workmen including the Workman. The Employer
stated that the Workman submitted his written
explanation. The Employer stated that since the
said written explanation was not satisfactory, they
decided to conduct the enquiry against the
Workman. The Employer stated that initially, they
started individual and separate enquiries of all the
workmen including the Workman, who were issued
the charge-sheets. The Employer stated that since
all the charges-sheets were arising out of the same
incident and misconducts were more or less similar,
it was decided to conduct a common enquiry of all
fourteen workmen. The Employer stated that
therefore the enquiry of the Workman was clubbed
with enquiries of other workmen. The Employer
stated that some of the workmen accepted their
guilt at the beginning of the enquiry itself, whereas
the enquiry of the Workman continued. The
Employer stated that the Workman fully
participated in the enquiry and he was represented
by Adv. Mario Almeida. The Employer stated that
the Ld. Enquiry Officer while appreciating the
evidence, came to the conclusion that there is
sufficient evidence to prove the charges levelled
against the Workman. The Employer stated that
however, to the utter surprise, the Ld. Enquiry
Officer held the Workman guilty of only single
charge i.e. going on illegal strike or abetting,
instigating or acting in furtherance the normal
conduct or work of the company”, and submitted
his findings to them. The Employer stated that the
observations made by the Ld. Enquiry Officer in his
findings clearly shows that the Workman, along
with other workmen were directly involved in the
illegal and unjustified activities and therefore the
police started the lathi charge.”
16. The Employer stated that before issuing the
show-cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority
perused the enquiry proceedings, its connected
papers and findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer and
the Disciplinary Authority did not concur with the
findings, after going through the findings of the Ld.
Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated that the
Disciplinary Authority after appreciating the
enquiry proceedings and findings of the Ld. Enquiry
Officer, come to a firm and definite conclusion that
all the charges leveled against the Workman have
been proved. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore
while issuing a show-cause notice dated 17-02-2004
to the Workman, also issued/enclosed his separate
reasoning as to why and how the Disciplinary
Authority differ with the findings of the Ld. Enquiry
Officer on the remaining charges which according
to the Ld. Enquiry Officer are not proved and how
the said charges are also proved against the
Workman. The Employer stated that the Disciplinary
Authority while issuing the said show-cause notice
enclosed the findings of Ld. Enquiry Officer and his
own findings, had given 7 days time to the Workman
to file his reply to the said show-cause notice. The
Employer stated that the Workman filed his reply
dated 08-05-2004 to the show-cause notice dated
17-02-2004 issued to him. The Employer stated that
the Workman in his reply dated 08-05-2004
submitted to them merely denied the charges
levelled against him saying amongst others things
that, the Disciplinary Authority has no power to
differ the findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer.
17. The Employer stated that meanwhile, the
Workman along with some other workmen
concerned in the same enquiry and who had been
also issued similar show-cause notices, filed writ
petitions bearings No. 143 of 2004 to 150 of 2004
before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Panaji
Bench, challenging the validity of show-cause
notice issued to them. The Hon’ble Court observed
that before the Disciplinary Authority differs with
the view of the Ld. Enquiry Officer and proposed to
come to a different conclusion, a reasonable
opportunity of hearing should be granted to the
workmen to show-cause against the reversal of the
findings, which have been recorded in his favour by
the Ld. Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated that
the Hon’ble court further observed that the
Respondent will be at liberty to issue a show-cause
notice to the Petitioners for showing cause against
the proposal of the Disciplinary Authority taking a
different view from the view taken by the Ld.
Enquiry Officer.
18. The Employer stated that thereafter, in view
of the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court,
they, by its letter dated 01-07-2004 withdrew the
earlier show-cause notice and issued a fresh show-
280
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
-cause notice enclosing the reasoning of the
Disciplinary Authority, why he is differing from the
findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer and asked to
show-cause to indicate the reasons as to why the
Disciplinary Authority should not differ from the
findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer to the extent of
holding him guilty of the charges from Sr. No. 2 to
6 mentioned in the impugned charge-sheet. The
Employer stated that a common show-cause notice
dated 01-12-2004 in respect of both the charge-
-sheets and its findings were issued to the Workman
asking him to submit his explanation within 7 days
from the receipt of show-cause notice. The
Employer stated that the Workman, by his letter
dated 10-01-2005 submitted his explanation to the
said show-cause notice. The Employer stated that
they, thereafter carefully gone through the said
explanation of Workman and found it far from
satisfactory and further observed that the points
and objection raised by the Workman were not at
all relevant and contrary to the facts of the case,
circumstances and situation arising out of the
misconducts committed by the Workman and was
far from satisfactory. Therefore, having regards to
the gravity of the charges found proved against the
Workman, they, by its order dated 22-1-2005
dismissed the Workman as per the provisions of the
Certified Standing Orders applicable to the
establishment.
19. The Employer submitted that while
dismissing the Workman from the services, they did
follow the procedure of law and full and fair
opportunity was given to him to defend his case
while conducting the enquiry. The Employer
submitted that the enquiry was conducted by
following the principles of natural justice. The
Employer further submitted that having regards to
the findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer and findings
of the Disciplinary Authority, they gave full
opportunity to the Workman by issuing show-cause
notices while giving reasoning for differing from
the findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer, so that the
Workman can give satisfactory explanation to the
said show-cause notice having regard to the
findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer as well as
Disciplinary Authority as also before imposing the
punishment. The Employer submitted that the entire
action is arising out of the principles of natural
justice and observations made by the Hon’ble High
Court. The Employer submitted that its entire action
is within the parameter and provisions of the law
and this Hon’ble Tribunal should not interfere with
their bonafide decision.
20. Without prejudice, the Employer submitted
that assuming without admitting if this Hon’ble
Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the enquiry
has not been conducted by following the principles
of natural justice or that the findings of the Ld.
Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority is/are
perverse and/or bias (there is no scope/warrant to
come to such conclusion), they crave leave to lead
additional evidence to justify its action of dismissal
of the Workman.
21. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
on 06-12-2007 at Exb. 8-A. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, denied each and every statements,
averments and submissions made by the Employer
vide their Written Statement filed in the present
proceedings and reiterates and confirms the
statements, averments and submissions made by
him in his statement of claim. The Workman
submitted that the reference issued by the
Government of Goa is perfectly valid and within its
powers. He stated that in Section 39 of the I.D. Act
authorizes the Central Government to issue
notifications directing that any power exercisable
by it under the said Act or Rules made thereunder
shall be also exercisable by such Officer or
Authority subordinate to the Central Government
or by the State Government or by such Officer or
Authority subordinate to the State Government as
may be specified in the Notification. He submitted
that in terms of powers conferred by Section 39, the
Central Government has issued a Notification dated
03-07-1998 directing that all powers exercisable by
it under the said Act shall be exercisable also by
the State Government in respect of the Central
Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations and
Autonomous Bodies listed in the said Notification.
He stated that the Employer is at Sr. No. 36 therein.
He submitted that in view of the said Notification,
the State Government has full powers, authority
and jurisdiction to refer the dispute to this Hon’ble
Tribunal.
22. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed certain issues
on 12-03-2008 at Exb. 9. The said issues framed at
Exb. 9 have been re-casted as under vide order
dated 6-3-2014 disposing off the joint application of
both parties.
1. Whether the Central Government is the
appropriate Government in so far as Party-II is
concerned?
2. Whether this Hon’ble Labour Court has
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present
reference?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
281
3. Whether fair and proper enquires were
conducted against workmen/Party-I in respect
of the charge sheet dated 10-10-97 and charge
sheet dated 12-05-98 issued to him?
4. Whether the workmen/Party-I proves that the
action of the disciplinary authority to differ from
the findings dated 12-01-2004 given by enquiry
officer is illegal, null and void?
5. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against Party-I vide charge sheet dated
10-10-97 and charge sheet dated 12-05-98 are
proved to the satisfaction of this court by
acceptable evidence?
6. Whether the Party-I proves that the action of
the employer in terminating his services w.e.f.
24-1-2005 is illegal and unjustified?
7. Whether the Party-I proves that he is entitled to
any relief?
8. What Order? What Award?
23. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
a) Issue No. 1
:
In the negative.
b) Issue No. 2
:
In the affirmative.
c) Issue No. 3
:
In the affirmative.
d) Issue No. 4
:
In the negative.
e) Issue No. 5
:
Partly in the affirmative
and partly in the negative.
f) Issue No. 6
:
In the negative.
g) Issue No. 7 & 8 :
As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of the Ld. Rep.
Shri Subhash Naik appearing for the Workman as
well as Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar representing
the Employer. I have carefully perused the entire
records of the present case. I have also carefully
considered the submissions advanced before me.
REASONS
24. Issue No. 1 & 2: The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objection, submitted that it is a
public limited company and public sector
undertaking and that the State Government is not
the appropriate Government, that it is a Central
Government’s Public Sector Undertaking and it is
in the business of ship building and ship repairs for
Indian Navy and Coast Guard, that its business is
carried out and control under the authority of
Central Government, that it is under the
Administrative control of Ministry of Defense,
Department of Defense Production. The Employer
therefore submitted that, the appropriate
Government in its case is Central Government and
not Government of Goa and that the Government of
Goa has no authority and/or jurisdiction to entertain
and refer the present dispute. The burden was cast
upon the Employer.
25. By notification dated 03-07-1998, the
Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi
informed that in exercise of the powers conferred
by Section 39 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,
the Central Government hereby directs that all the
powers exercised by it under the Act and the rules
made thereunder shall, in relation to all the Central
Public Sector undertakings and their subsidiaries,
corporation and autonomous bodies specified in
schedule annexed to its notification be also
exercised by the State Governments subject to the
condition that the Central Government shall
exercise all the powers under the said Act and
Rules made thereunder as and when it considers
necessary to do so. Thus, the appropriate
Government under Section 39 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 have been delegated to all the
State Governments. Hence, it is held that the
Employer has failed to prove that the present order
of reference is bad-in-law in view of the reasons
stated in para 2(a) and 2(b) of its Written Statement.
It is held that the Workman proved that this Hon’ble
Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the
present reference. The Issue No. 1 is therefore
answered in the negative and the Issue No. 2 is
answered in the affirmative.
26. Issue No. 3: Vide order dated 09-06-2015
passed in my findings on the preliminary issue No.
3 to 5, it has been held that a fair and proper enquiry
was conducted against the Workman in consonance
with the principles of natural justice as well as with
the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of
the Employer in respect of charge-sheet dated
10-10-1997 and charge sheet dated 12-05-1998
issued to him. The issue No. 3 is therefore answered
in the affirmative.
27. Issue No. 4: Vide order dated 09-06-2015
passed in my findings on the preliminary Issue No.
3 to 5, it has been held that the Workman failed to
prove that the action of the disciplinary authority to
differ from the findings given by the Ld. Enquiry
Officer is illegal, null and void. The Issue No. 4 is
therefore answered in the negative.
28. Issue No. 5: Vide order dated 09-06-2015
passed in my findings on the preliminary Issue No.
3 to 5, it is held that all the charges of misconduct
levelled against the Workman, vide charge-sheet
282
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
dated 10-10-1997 have been proved to the
satisfaction of the court by acceptable evidence,
except the charge at Clause No. 29 (XI). It is further
held that the Employer proved the charges of
misconduct to the satisfaction of this court by
acceptable evidence against the Workman, in
respect of charge-sheet dated 12-05-1998 partly to
the extent of proving of charges at Clause No. 29
(II), 29 (XI) and 29 (XII) only and the remaining
charges of misconduct i.e. at Clause No. 29 (XXXII),
29 (XXXVII) and 29 (XLI) of its Certified Standing
Order, have not been proved. The Issue No. 5 is
therefore answered partly in the affirmative and
partly in the negative.
29. Issue No. 6: Vide order dated 09-06-2015
passed in my findings on the preliminary Issue No.
3 to 5, it is held that all the charges of misconduct
levelled against the Workman, vide charge-sheet
dated 10-10-1997 have been proved to the
satisfaction of the court by acceptable evidence,
except the charge at Clause No. 29 (XI). It is further
held that the Employer proved the charges of
misconduct to the satisfaction of this court by
acceptable evidence against the Workman, in
respect of charge-sheet dated 12-05-1998 partly to
the extent of proving of charges at Clause No. 29
(II), 29 (XI) and 29 (XII) only and the remaining
charges of misconduct i.e. at Clause No. 29 (XXXII),
29 (XXXVII) and 29 (XLI) of its Certified Standing
Orders, have not been proved.
30. The Employer therefore decided to lead fresh
evidence before this Hon’ble Court in respect of the
charges of misconduct i.e. at Clause No. 29 (XXXII),
29 (XXXVII) and 29 (XLI) of its Certified Standing
Orders which have not been proved before the
domestic inquiry. In order to prove the aforesaid
misconduct, the Employer has examined the
witnesses namely, Shri Damodar Desai, and Mr.
Kishor Manohar Samant, the Addl. General Manager
(Legal). In rebuttal, the Workman examined himself
before this Hon’ble Court. All the witnesses
examined by either parties, were thoroughly cross
examined. Ld. Adv. Shri A.V. Nigalye appearing for
the Workman submitted that the Employer failed to
prove the charges of misconduct by leading fresh
evidence and relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Neeta Kapilesh vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court & anr reported in 1999 LAB. I.C. 445.
32. In the case of Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding
Officer, Labour Court & anr, the Hon’ble Apex
Court in para 26 of its judgment held as under:
“26. The record pertaining to the domestic enquiry
would not constitute “fresh evidence” as those
proceedings have already been found by the
Labour Court to be defective. Such record would
also not constitute “material on record”, as
contended by the counsel for the respondent,
within the meaning of Section 11-A at the enquiry
proceedings, on being found to be bad, have to be
ignored altogether. The proceedings of the
domestic enquiry could be, and, were, in fact, relied
upon by the Management for the limited purpose
of showing at the preliminary stage that the action
taken against the appellant was just and proper
and that full opportunity of hearing was given to
her in consonance with the principles of natural
justice. This contention has not been accepted by
the Labour Court and the enquiry has been held
to be bad. In view of the nature of objections
raised by the appellant, the record of enquiry held
by the Management ceased to be “material; on
record” within the meaning of Section 11-A of the
Act and the only course open to the Management
was to justify its action by leading fresh evidence
as required by the Labour Court. If such evidence
has not been led, the Management has to suffer
the consequences.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid judgment is well established
and also applicable to the case in hand.
33. Though, it was necessary to prove the
unproved charges by fresh and independent
evidence, the Employer failed to adduce any fresh
and independent evidence. The Employer however,
once again examined Shri Damodar Dessai, who had
examined before the Ld. Enquiry Officer and
produced on record the same documents i.e. of
proceedings of the enquiry complaint, dated
03-01-1998 against inhuman behaviour of supporters
of Shri P. V. Dias by him and others, complaint of
assault dated 03-01-1998, letter dated 06-01-1998
from the Police Inspector, Vasco Police Station,
Vasco-Goa, F.I.R. dated 03-01-1998, report regarding
Rioting Incident dated 07-01-1998 from Supdt. of
Police to the Managing Director, G.S.L., letter dated
08-01-1998 from the Dy. Inspector General of Police,
Panaji to the Managing Director, G.S.L. etc. The
deposition of the said Shri Damodar Dessai is more
or less the same. The said witness also could not
produce the documentary evidence to establish the
case in respect of unproved charges.
34. I have carefully gone through in detail, the
evidence led by the Employer of Shri Damodar Desai
as well as Shri Kishor Samant and on going through
the same, there is no substantial evidence to prove
the allegations that the workmen were restrained,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
283
detained or gheraoed by the workmen either inside
or outside premises of the Employer Company.
Similarly, there is no substantial acceptable
evidence to prove the allegations and to prove the
charge that any abusive or insulting language or
any sort of threat or assault, intimidation or coercion
was done by the workmen within the premises of
the Employer Company, which is directly affecting
the discipline or work or business of the Company.
Hence, it is held that the Employer failed to prove
that the charges of misconduct at Clause No. 29
(XXXII), 29 (XXXVII) and 29 (XLI) of its Certified
Standing Orders.
Thus, it is held that the Employer could prove
the charges of misconduct as stated in the charge-
-sheet dated 12-05-1998 at Clause No. 29(II), 29(XI)
and 29(XII) of its Certified Standing Orders. Similarly,
the Workman was also issued one more charge-
-sheet dated 10-10-1997 and the charges of
misconduct levelled against the Workman have
been proved to the satisfaction of this Court by
acceptable evidence are 29(II), 29(XII), 29 (XXXII),
29(XXXVI) and 29(XLI).
35. Ld. Adv. Shri A.V. Nigalye representing the
Workman submitted that the Clause 29 (XI) of the
CSO has not been proved as there is no evidence to
prove the said charges and that there is no direct
evidence of distribution and exhibition of the said
Poster. Since this Hon’ble Court has already come to
the conclusion vide its findings date 09-06-2015 and
held that all the charges of misconduct levelled
against the Workman vide charge-sheet date
10-10-1997 have been proved to the satisfaction of
this Court by acceptable evidence except the
charge at Clause No. 29 (XI) and as such, I do not
find any merits in the submissions of Ld. Adv. A.V.
Nigalye appearing for the Workman. Ld. Adv. Shri
A.V. Nigalye representing the Workman submitted
that similar charge-sheets were issued to 13 other
employees of the Employer and a joint enquiry was
held against all 14 employees including the
Workman by appointing an Enquiry Officer. He
submitted that during the course of the enquiry
proceedings the enquiry was dropped in respect of
3 employees. He submitted that similar charge-
-sheets were issued to the 15 employees of the
Employer. The charge-sheet issued to the Workman
were identical and in fact, a verbatim reproduction
of the charge-sheet issued to other employees.
However, no action was taken against them and
one of them namely, Shri Vaman Mhapalkar was
even promoted to a higher post of Senior Clerk
(COMP) w.e.f. 03-07-2001. In support of his oral
arguments, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Municipal Commissioner
and Anr Vs. Aparna Anil Kesarkar, reported in
2024 CLR 738. The facts of the said case are totally
different than the case in hand. Hence, the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is
not applicable to the case in hand. Per contra, Ld.
Adv. Shri M.S. Bandodkar representing the Employer
during the course of his oral arguments submitted
that there is no discrimination in punishment issued
to the Parties and relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the Case of M/s. Obettee
Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Mohd. Shafiq Khan reported in AIR
2005, SC 3510.
37. In the case of M/s. Obettee Pvt. Ltd. (Supra)
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 8 of its
judgment held as under:
“On consideration of the rival stand one thing
becomes clear that Chunnu and Vakil stood at
different footing so far as the respondent-
-workman is concerned. He has, unlike the other
two, continued to justify his action. That was
clearly distinctive feature which the High Court
unfortunately failed to properly appreciate. The
employer accepted to choose the unqualified
apology given and regrets expressed by Chunnu
and Vakil. It cannot be said that the employer had
discriminated so far as the respondent- workman
is concerned because as noted above he had tried
to justify his action for which departmental
proceedings were initiated. It is not that Chunnu
and Vakil were totally exonerated. On the contrary,
letter of warning dated 11-4-1984 was issued to
them.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is well established and also applicable to the
case in hand.
38. In the case in hand, it appears that similar
charge-sheets were issued to 13 other employees
including the Workman. During the course of
enquiry proceedings, the enquiries against the 3
employees were dropped as they have accepted the
charges unconditionally at the initial stage and
further assurance given by them that they will not
commit any such or similar misconduct and
requested for a lenient view. Apart from the said
charge-sheet, the Workman was also issued one
more charge-sheet date 10-10-1997 and as such the
punishment of termination from service cannot be
said to be discriminatory.
39. Ld. Adv. Shri M.S. Bandodkar representing
the Employer submitted that it is the domain of the
disciplinary authority to impose the punishment
284
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
and the Court cannot assume the function of
disciplinary/departmental authority and to decide
the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty
to be awarded and that limited judicial review is
available to interfere with the punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority only in cases where
such penalty is found to be shocking to the
conscience of the Court and relied upon a judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. (Supra) Vs. Rajendra D.
Harmalkar reported in 2022 III CLR 567.
40. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its case of Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. (Supra) in para 19 held as
under:
“19. The principles discussed above can be
summed up and summarized as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in
an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be
imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain
of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of
disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide
the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to
be awardee, as this function is exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to
interfere with the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority, only in cases where such
penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of
the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is
set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature
of charges framed against the delinquent employee,
the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter
back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority with direction to pass appropriate order of
penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to
what should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated
in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where
the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment
by the disciplinary authority even when the charges
of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent
was foisted with more serious charges. This would
be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that
the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are
equally placed. However, there has to be a complete
parity between the two, not only in respect of
nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well
after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases.
If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating
remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment
to him would be justifiable.’’
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is well established and also applicable to the
case in hand.
In the case of K. Gunasekaran (Supra) Vs.
Management of the Nilgiris District Plantation
Workers Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. & Anr reported
in 2014 LLR 139, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras
in para 13 of its judgment held as under:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision
reported in 2006) 6 SCC 749 (Union of India v. K.G.
Soni) in paragraphs 14 and 15 held thus,
“14............ the court should not interfere with the
administrators decision unless it was illogical or
suffers from procedural impropriety or was
shocking to the conscience of the court, in the
sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral
standards. In view of what has been stated in
Wednesbury case the court would not go into the
correctness of the choice made by the
administrator open to him and the should not
substitute its decision to that of the administrator.
The scope of judicial review is limited to the
deficiency in the decision-making process and not
the decision”.
“15. To put it differently, unless the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the
court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference.
Further, to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional
and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment
by recording cogent reasons in support thereof in
the normal course if the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate, it would be
appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or
the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty
imposed.”
The principles laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras is well established and also
applicable to the case in hand.
In the case of Dinkar Murlidhar Anap Vs.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
reported in 2016 LLR 226, The Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay in para 8 and 18 held as under:
“8. This Court, in the matter of Bajaj Auto Limited
v. Kalidas Devram Patil reported in 2000 (2) Bom
CR630: 2000 (84) FLR 157, has concluded that a
short and clean past service record would not
operate as a mitigating factor since a clean
record for a long duration will alone indicate the
attitude, discipline and conduct of an employee.
A short clean past service record is not an
indicator of the attitude and conduct of an
employee.”
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
285
18. With having settled the issue as above, I am
required to look into whether, the punishment
awarded to the Petitioner could be said to be
shockingly disproportionate. It is trite law that
merely because the punishment may appear to be
disproportionate would not call for any
interference by the Courts. The punishment has to
appear to be shockingly disproportionate so as to
shock the judicial conscience of the court. Such
punishment should appear to be an outrageous
defiance of moral standard and logic”.
The principles laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay is well established and also
applicable to the case in hand.
43. In the case in hand, the Workman claimed
that his past service is clear and unblemished. The
Workman admitted that he was issued two charge-
-sheets i.e. one date 10-10-1997 for the misconduct
committed on 22-08-1997 and another charge-sheet
date 12-05-1998 for the misconduct committed on
03-01-1998. Both the misconducts are committed
separately. The Employer could prove the charges
of misconduct as stated in charge-sheet date
12-05-1998 at Clause No. 29(II), 29 (XI) and 29 (XII)
of its Certified Standing Orders. Similarly, the
Workman was also issued one more charge-sheet
dated 10-10-1997 and the charges of misconduct
levelled against the Workman have been proved to
the satisfaction of this Court by acceptable
evidence are 29(II), 29(XII), 29 (XXXII), 29 (XXXVI)
and 29(XLI). Thus, the charges proved against the
Workman are grave and serious. The Workman is
employed in defense undertaking related to the
National Defense of the Republic of India. Though
the Workman claimed to be clean and unblemished
past service record, however that will not change
the punishment of dismissal issued to him. The
punishment of dismissal issued by the Employer
does not appear to be shockingly disproportionate
so as to shock the judicial conscience of the Court
and as such this Hon’ble Court cannot interfere
with the punishment of dismissal imposed on the
Workman. It appears that the punishment of
dismissal imposed on the Workman by the Employer
is just, fair, and proper. Hence it is held that the
Workman failed to prove that the action of the
Employer in terminating his services is illegal and
unjustified. The Issue No. 6 is therefore answered in
the negative.
44. Issue No. 7: While deciding the Issue No. 6
hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the
conclusion that the Workman failed to prove that
the action of the Employer in terminating his
services is illegal and unjustified. The workman is
therefore not entitled to any relief. The Issue No. 7
is therefore answered in the negative.
In view of above, I proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the Management
of M/s. Goa Shipyard Pvt. Ltd., Vaddem, Vasco-
-da-Gama, Goa in terminating the services of
Shri Deepak Tirodkar, Structural Fitter w.e.f.
24-01-2005 is legal and justified.
2. The Workman, Shri Deepak Tirodkar is not
entitled to any relief.
No order as to cost.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
——————
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
––
Order
No. 1/7/2014-LD(Estt.)/1158
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint the
following Advocates as Additional Government
Advocates to appear and defend the interest of the
State Government in the matters before the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Goa, Panaji with immediate
effect and until further orders.
Sr.
Name of
Designation
No.
Advocate
1. Adv. Amogh Rajendra
Additional
Arlekar
Government Advocate.
2. Adv. Ajay D. Borkar
Additional
Government Advocate.
The above Advocates shall be atttached to the
Office of the Ld. Advocate General, High Court
Complex, Porvorim-Goa.
They shall be paid fees as per the existing terms
and conditions laid down by the Government vide
Order No. 1/19/2015/LD(Estt.)/1515 dated 05-09-2023, as
applicable to Government Advocates/Additional
Government Advocates and as amended from time
to time, on submission of bills (in duplicate)
alongwith the attendance certificate, issued by the
286
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
Registrar of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji-Goa. They shall comply with the instructions contained in
the Government Circular No. 4-43-99/LD dated 04-05-2000 and No. 2-2-2013/LD(Estt.)/1115 dated 31-05-2024.
They will appear in those matters, which would be allotted to them by the Ld. Advocate General.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 11th June, 2024.
————
Order
No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt)/1188
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 in public
interest:
Sr. No.
Name of the staff
Present posting
Posted as
1.
Shri Risheek Rajesh Naik
Jt. Civil Registrar-cum-Sub
Civil Registrar-cum-Sub Registrar,
Registrar, Bardez-I
Bardez.
2.
Smt. Malini Sawant
Civil Registrar-cum-Sub
Civil Registrar-cum-Sub Registrar-I,
Registrar, Bardez
Bardez.
The aforesaid Officers shall draw pay and allowances against their respective present posts until
19-06-2024 and thereafter from 20-06-2024 against their respective transferred posts.
The officers shall complete the process of handing over/taking over of charge with immediate effect,
without fail and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 18th June, 2024.
————
Notification
No. 14/12/2022-LD (Estt.)
The Notification No. Rule/P.1616/Notn.-04/2024 dated 09-05-2024 which has been issued by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, is hereby published for general information of the public.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 10th June, 2024.
—
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Appellate Side
—
Notification
No. Rule/P.1616/Notn.-04/2024
In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 4(1) of the Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of
Women at the High Court of Bombay (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2014 and in
partial modification of the earlier High Court Notification No. Rule/P.1616/Notn.01/2024 dated
06th January, 2024 regarding constitution of “The Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee”
to deal with the complaints if any, of sexual harassment of any woman at work place, the Hon’ble the Chief
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 12
20TH JUNE, 2024
287
Justice is pleased to re-constitute “The Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee” for the
High Court of Bombay at Goa as under:-
Name of the workplace
The Gender Sensitization and
Internal Complaints Committee
1
2
High Court of Bombay at Goa
1. Hon’ble Smt. Justice U. S. Joshi-Phalke, Chairperson.
2. Hon’ble Shri Justice Bharat P. Deshpande, Member.
3. Smt. Anarkali Agni, Senior Advocate, Member.
4. Ms. Vijaya V. Ambre, Member Secretary, GSLSA,
‘Member Secretary’.
5. Ms. Niti Haldankar, Private Secretary to the Hon’ble
Judge, Member.
6. Ms. Susan Linhares, Advocate, Member.
7. Mrs. Norma Alvares, Advocate, Member.
8. Mrs. Geeta P. Naik, Assistant, High Court of Bombay at
Goa, Member.
High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
R. N. Joshi,
Dated: 9th May, 2024.
Registrar General.
——————
Raj Bhavan
––
Order
No. GS/ADC-IN/PER/189/2024/1121
Read:
Communication No. NA/0384/146 dated
03-04-2024 from Commander, Cdr (Pers)
X-NS, Naval Headquarters, Ministry of
Defence, New Delhi.
The Hon’ble Governor of Goa is pleased to
appoint Lt. Abhishek Dhiman (09828K), Indian Navy,
to the post of ADC to Governor at Raj Bhavan with
effect from 20-04-2024 (b.n.) on deputation for a
period of two years.
2. The appointment of Lt. Abhishek Dhiman is
subject to the terms and conditions applicable to
such appointment as per the guidelines furnished
by Ministry of Defence, Naval Headquarters, New
Delhi.
3. The pay and allowances of Lt. Abhishek
Dhiman will be fixed separately.
M. R. M Rao, IAS, Secretary to the Governor.
Dona Paula, 28th May, 2024.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 15.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—96/80—6/2024.