SERIES II No. 41
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026
Panaji, 9th January, 2025 (Pausa 19, 1946)
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Animal Husbandry
Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services
––
Order
No. 2/14/93-AH(Part V)/2024-25/6262
Read: No. 2/14/93-AH(Part V)/2024-25/3927 dated
23-09-2024.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/3(1)/2023/155 dated 31-07-2024, the
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint Dr.
Shiddesh Shivanand Pednekar to the post of
“Veterinary Officer”, Group ‘B’ Gazetted under OBC
Category in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry
& Veterinary Services, Panaji, Goa on regular basis
in the pay scale of PB-2: Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade
pay of Rs. 4600/- plus 20% NPA (Level-7 of the 7th
Pay Commission) and other allowances as
applicable.
His appointment will take effect from the date
of his joining the post. His character and
antecedents have been verified by the District
Magistrate North Goa and he has been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board, Goa Medical
College, Bambolim. He shall join at Veterinary
Dispensary, Valpoi.
He shall draw his salary under Budget Head
Demand No. 65 “2403—Animal Husbandry; 00—;
Note:- There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 40 dated 02-01-2025 namely,
Extraordinary dated 02-01-2025 from pages 827
to 828 regarding Notification from Goa
Legislature Secretariat.
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
829
101—Veterinary Services & Animal Health;
06—Veterinary Dispensaries & Hospitals (Non-Plan);
01—Salaries.”
The above Officer shall be on probation for a
period of 2 years from the date of joining the post.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dr. Nitin S. Naik, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (AH).
Panaji, 23rd December, 2024.
————
Order
No. 2/14/93-AH(Part V)/2024-25/6263
Read: No. 2/14/93-AH(Part V)/2024-25/3928 dated
23-09-2024.
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/I/5/3(1)/2023/155 dated 31-07-2024, the Government
of Goa is pleased to appoint Dr. Sourabh Prashant
Naik to the post of “Veterinary Officer”, Group ‘B’
Gazetted under OBC Category in the Directorate of
Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Panaji, Goa
on regular basis in the pay scale of PB-2:
Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade pay of Rs. 4600/- plus 20%
NPA (Level-7 of the 7th Pay Commission) and other
allowances as applicable.
His appointment will take effect from the date of
his joining the post. His character and antecedents
have been verified by the District Magistrate South
Goa and he has been declared medically fit by the
Medical Board, Goa Medical College, Bambolim. He
shall join at Veterinary Dispensary, Netravali.
He shall draw his salary under Budget Head
Demand No. 65 “2403—Animal Health; 00—;
102—Cattle & Buffalo Development; 05—KVS;
01—Salaries.”
830
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
The above Officer shall be on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of joining the post.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Nitin S. Naik, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (AH).
Panaji, 23rd December, 2024.
——————
Department of Captain of Ports
––––
Notification
No. MS/F-77/CS/24-25/3320
The Government of Goa is pleased to reconstitute the “Coastal Shipping Promotion Cell” for the State
of Goa with immediate effect.
1. Secretary (Ports), Government of Goa
— Chairperson.
2. Captain of Ports, Captain of Ports Department, Government of Goa
-— Member.
3. Dy. Conservator, Mormugao Port Authority
— Member.
4. Director, Department of Tourism, Government of Goa
— Member.
5. Representative from Confederation of Indian Industry, Goa
— Member.
6. Representative from Konkan Maritime Cluster, Goa
— Member.
7. Representative from Goa Mineral Owners and Exp. Asst.
— Member.
8. Representative from Mormugao Ship Agents Association
— Member.
9. Representative from Goa Barge Owners Association
— Member
10. Representative from Goa Chamber of Commerce & Industries
— Member.
This is issued in supersession of the notification No. MS/F-77/CS/2024-25 vide Series II No. 17 dated 25th
July, 2024.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Octavio A. Rodrigues, ex officio Joint Secretary (Captain of Ports).
Panaji, 18th November, 2024.
——————
Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs
––
Order
No. DCS/EST/Asst. Director/2024-25/2624
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/1/5/7(1)/2022/192 dated 06-09-2024, the Government is pleased to appoint and post the following Officers
to the post of Assistant Director, Civil Supplies in the Department of Civil Supplies &. Consumer Affairs,
(Group “B” Gazetted on temporary basis in the Level-7 of Pay Matrix of 7th CPC [Pre-revised: Pay Band-7
Rs. 9300-34800+Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-] of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, with immediate
effect and as per the terms and conditions contained in the Memorandum.
Sr. No.
Name of the Officer
Category
Place of posting
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Vijaykumar Hanumantrai Jamadar
General
Civil Supplies Office, Salcete, Taluka,
Category
Margao, Goa thereby relieving Shri Bhanu
Naneshwar Goltekar of additional charge.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
831
1
2
3
4
2.
Shri Gaurav Gopal Naik
General
Civil Supplies Office, Ponda Taluka, Ponda,
Category
Goa with additional charge in Civil Supplies
Office, Dharbandora, Taluka, Dharbandora,
Goa, thereby relieving Shri Rajesh Ankush
Arlekar, since transfered to ADCS, Sattari.
3.
Shri Nikil Narayan Naik
General
Assistant Director (HQ-II), thereby relieving
Category
Smt. Deepa Rajaram Fulari, since transferred
to ADCS, Bardez.
4.
Shri Ketan Kashinath Phal Dessai
General
Assistant Director (HQ-V), Consumer Affairs
Category
Section, thereby relieving Shri Arun Kumar
Ravindran Pillai of additional charge.
5.
Shri Raunak Madhav Kamat
General
Assistant Director (HQ-IV), Supply Section,
Category
thereby relieving Smt. Deepa Rajaram Fulari,
since transferred to ADCS, Bardez.
6.
Shri Maheshkumar Anand Naik
OBC
Assistant Director (HQ-I), thereby relieving
Category
Smt. Shristhi Santosh Vaingankar, since
transfered to ADCS, Tiswadi.
7.
Kum. Pooja Shivanand Naik Gaonkar
PwD
Civil Supplies Office, Quepem Taluka,
Category
Quepem, Goa, thereby relieving Shri
Tulshidas Vasant Dabholkar of additional
charge.
The above Officers shall be on probation for a period of two years.
The above Officers have been declared medically fit by the Medical Board.
The character and antecedents has been verified from the Office of the District Magistrate, North Goa,
Panaji, Goa/South Goa District, Margao, Goa and there are no adverse remarks against them.
The expenditure shall be debited to Head of Accounts under Demand No. 70.
“3456—Civil Supplies;
00—;
001—Direction and Administration;
01—Civil Supplies Department;
01—Salaries”.
This issued with the approval of the Government vide U. O. 2362 dated 06-12-2024.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Jayant G. Tari, Director (Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs) & ex officio Jt. Secretary.
Panaji, 17th December, 2024.
832
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
Department of Environment & Climate Change
––
Notification
No. 5/20/87/STE/P-IV/1827
Read:1. No. 5/20/87/STE/P-IV/741 dated 15-12-2017
published in Gazette, Series II No. 38 dated
21-12-2017.
2. No. 5/20/87/STE/P-IV/229 dated 08-07-2019
published in Gazette, Series II No. 15 dated
11-07-2019.
3. No. 5/20/87/STE/P-IV/1098 dated 29-12-2020
published in Gazette, Series II No. 40 dated
31-12-2020.
4. No. 5/20/87/STE/P-IV/01 dated 01-04-2021
published in Gazette, Series II No. 2 dated
8-04-2021.
5. No. 31-9-2017/STE-DIR/Part-I/1060 dated
05-01-2022, published in Official Gazette,
GOG, Series II No. 41 dated 06th January,
2022.
In exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
(Central Act 6 of 1974) read with sub-section (1) of
Section 5 of the said Act and in order to maintain
continuity in the smooth functioning of the Goa
State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB), the term of
the Board is extended for a period of 3 months w.e.f.
06-01-2025 or upto the date of notification of the
re-constitution of the Goa State Pollution Control
Board, whichever is earlier.
This is issued vide approval of the Government
under U.O. 7510/F dated 24-12-2024.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Johnson B. Fernandes, Director (Environment & CC)
& ex officio Jt. Secretary.
Panaji, 3rd January, 2025.
—–––––—
Corrigendum
No. 7/17/92/STE/Part/1796
Read: Notification No. 7/17/92/STE/Part/1715
dated 20-12-2024 published in Official
Gazette, Series II No. 39 dated 26th December,
2024.
In the Notification read above, in the existing
table listed, the following shall be substituted as
below:–
1. The existing “Sr. No. (9)”, shall
Expert
be substitued as:
Member.
“9. Shri Nelson Figueiredo,
Aldona, Bardez-Goa
2. “Sr. No. (12) shall be substituted
Expert
as:
Member.
“(12) Dr. Manoj Borkar, Professor,
Carmel College
3. “Sr. No. (13) shall be substituted
Expert
as:
Member.
“(13) Dr. Parveen Kumar, Director,
Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (ICAR)
4. “Sr. No. (14) shall be substituted
Expert
as:
Member.
“(14) Ms. Akshata Pracy
Fernandes, Assistant Professor,
Ganpat Parsekar College of
Education
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Johnson B. Fernandes, Director (Environment & CC).
Panaji, 1st January, 2025.
——————
Department of Home
(Foreigners & Citizenship Division)
––
Order
No. 11/2/2019-HD(F&CD)/Enemy Property/Part/1439
Read: Order No. 11/2/2019-HD(F&CD)/Enemy Property/
/337 dated 22-11-2019.
The Government of Goa is pleased to designate
Secretary (Revenue) as the Nodal Officer for
co-ordination, supervision and monitoring the
implementation of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, as
amended by the Enemy Property (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 2017 (3 of 2017) for the State of Goa.
This order supersedes the order read in the
preamble above.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Tushar Halarnkar, Joint Secretary (Home).
Porvorim, 24th December, 2024.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
833
Notification
No. 6/2/2011-HD(F&CD)/Haj/02
Read: Notification No. 6/2/2011-HD(F&CD)/HAJ/91
dated 22-02-2023.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25
of the Haj Committee Act, 2002 (Central Act No. 35
of 2002), the Government of Goa hereby removes
the following members of the Goa State Haj
Committee from the said committee constituted vide
Government Notification No. 6/2/2011-HD(F&CD)/HAJ/91
dated 22-02-2023, published in the Official Gazette,
Series II No. 48 dated 02-03-2023, namely:-
Mr. Mulla Hussain Muzawar.
Mr. Maula Ali Shaikh.
This Notification shall come into force from the
date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Manthan Manoj Naik, Under Secretary (Home-II).
Porvorim, 01st January, 2025.
——————
Home—General Division
––
Order
No. 19/07/2023-HD(G)/Misc. Appln. No.393 of 2023/21
In pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Order dated 07-11-2024 in
case of Miscellaneous Application No. 393 of 2023
in Special Leave Petition(Crl) No(S) 12831 of 2022
filed by Rajendra Singh V/s. the State of Uttar
Pradesh & Others, the Government of Goa hereby
constitutes a Committee consisting of following,
namely:-
1. Chief Secretary (Home
—
Chairman.
Secretary)
2. Director General of Police
—
Member.
3. Law Secretary
—
Member.
4. Shri Gauresh V. Mapari,
—
Member.
Assistant Director,
Goa Forensic Science
Laboratory
The Committee shall submit an action plan on the
task to be undertaken as stated in the said Order
with time schedule.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Manthan Manoj Naik, Under Secretary (Home-II).
Porvorim, 1st January, 2025.
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers
–––
Order
No. VI/FAC-3/(GOA/170)Part-I/2024-IFB/3534
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
65 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 63 of
1948), as in force in the State of Goa (hereinafter called
the “said Act”) I, Shri Anant S. Pangam, the Chief
Inspector, hereby exempt all of the adult workers
working in the Production, Engineering and Supply
Chain Department of the factory, namely, M/s. Goa
Carbon Limited, Survey No. 68, Sao Jose de Areal,
Margao, Salcete, South Goa, except the person who
are holding positions of supervision or management
and or employed in a confidential position within
the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the
said Act, from the provisions of Sections 51, 54 and
56 of the said Act, for a peiod of three years with
effect from the date of publication of this order in the
Official Gazette.
Anant S. Pangam, Chief Inspector of Factories
and Boilers.
Panaji, 01st January, 2025.
——————
Department of Labour
––
Order
No. 28/55/2024-LAB/25
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine
Private Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa and it’s
workman, Mr. Prasanta Kumar Behera, in respect of
the matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14
of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II
of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section (1)
of Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of management of M/s.
Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private
Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna Industrial
834
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa, in dismissing, Mr.
Prasanta Kumar Behera, with effect from
14-08-2023, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2025.
—–––––—
Order
No. 28/49/2024-LAB/26
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine
Private Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa and it’s
workman, Mr. Riyaj Sathavilkar, in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14
of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II
of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section (1)
of Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of management of M/s.
Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private
Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna Industrial
Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa, in dismissing, Mr.
Riyaj Sathavilkar with effect from 14-08-2023,
is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 26th December, 2024.
—–––––—
Order
No. 28/47/2024-LAB/27
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine
Private Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa and it’s
workman, Shri Mahesh M. Naik, in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14
of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II
of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section (1)
of Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of management of M/s.
Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private
Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna Industrial
Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa, in dismissing, Shri
Mahesh M. Naik with effect from 14-08-2023,
is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2025.
—–––––—
Order
No. 28/46/2024-LAB/28
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine
Private Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa and it’s
workman, Shri Rohan Nagekar, in respect of the
matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14
of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II
of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section (1)
of Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of management of M/s.
Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
835
Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna Industrial
Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa, in dismissing, Shri
Rohan Nagekar, with effect from 14-08-2023,
is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2025.
—–––––—
Order
No. 28/52/2024-LAB/6
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine
Private Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa and it’s
workman, Mr. Shamshuddin Lanjekar, in respect of
the matter specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14
of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II
of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section (1)
of Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of management of M/s.
Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private
Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna Industrial
Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa, in dismissing, Mr.
Shamshuddin Lanjekar, with effect from
14-08-2023, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 2nd January, 2025.
—–––––—
Order
No. 28/56/2024-LAB/7
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine
Private Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna
Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa and it’s
workman, Mr. Sameer A. Jadhav, in respect of the
matter specified. in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14
of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II
of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section (1)
of Section 7 of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of management of M/s.
Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private
Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase 4, Verna Industrial
Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa, in dismissing, Mr.
Sameer A. Jadhav with effect from
14-08-2023, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 26th December, 2024.
————
Notification
No. 28/02/2024-LAB/663
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa, on 19-09-2024 in Case No.
LC-II/Appln/07/2018 is hereby published as
required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 24th October, 2024.
––––
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/Appln/07/2018
836
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
Shri Audumber G. Naik,
H. No. 1753, Near the Church,
Penha de Fraqnca, Virlossa,
Britona, Bardez-Goa (403 101) .... Workman/Party I.
V/s
M/s. G.V.K., EMRI Goa 108 Operations,
1st Floor, Block No. 5,
Old Library Block, Goa Medical College,
Bambolim-Goa (403402) … Employer/Party II.
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S.
Gaonkar.
Panaji, dated: 19-09-2024.
AWARD
1. By this Award, I shall dispose off the present
application dated 02-05-2018 filed by the Party I/
/Workman u/s 2A (2) of the ID Act, 1947.
2. It is the case of the Workman/Party I (for short
the ‘Applicant’), in brief as per his statement of
claim filed in the present proceedings on
02-05-2018, that he was employed as ‘the
Pharmacist’ with the Employer/Party II (for short
‘Employer’) w.e.f. 01-05-2013, at its establishment at
Goa Medical College, Hospital, Bambolim, Goa, vide
letter dated 29-04-2013. He stated that his services
were confirmed w.e.f. 01-05-2014 vide letter of
confirmation dated 13-06-2014. He stated that the
Opponent is a public private partnership
establishment with its office at Goa Medical
College, Bambolim-Goa. He stated that since the
time of his appointment as a Pharmacist he was
working at GMC, Bambolim. He stated that on
02-06-2017, he was issued a show cause notice
alleging failure to complete the work on time which
has hampered the operations. He filed reply dated
03-06-2017 to the said show cause notice dated
02-06-2017. He gave the facts and denied
allegations made by the Opponent. He stated that
thereafter, the Opponent gave a notice of enquiry
on 13-06-2017 at 10.00 a.m. and appointed Shivaji
Patnaik U. as an Enquiry Officer. He stated that
vide his letter dated 13-06-2017, he requested the
Ld. Enquiry Officer to direct the Opponent to
furnish him the documents mentioned therein
before proceedings with inquiry. He stated that the
Opponent did not furnish him the documents asked
for and also did not proceed with the inquiry on
the alleged act misconduct.
3. He stated that the Opponent thereafter
adopted an easy mode to get rid of him. He stated
that on 25-07-2017, he reported for work as usual at
9.30 hours and that at about 12.30 hours, he was
called by Mr. Hemant Naik, HR Executive of the
Opponent in his cabin where Dr. Geeta Deshmukh,
Incharge Operations and Mr. Gurupradhan Shetty
were also present. He stated that Mr. Hemant Naik
instructed him to resign from the services w.e.f.
26-07-2017. He stated that he refused to submit his
resignation and went for his work. He stated that
on the same date at about 16.30 hours Hemant Naik
again called him and informed him that if he did
not submit resignation before leaving, he will not
be allowed to report for work from 26-07-2017. He
stated that he did not submit his resignation and
after close of his working hours, he left the office for
his home. He stated that on 26-07-2017 he went to
report for work at about 9.30 hours but he was not
allowed to enter the premises by the Security on
duty. He stated that when he asked the Security on
duty the reasons for not allowing him to report work,
the said Security told him that as per the
instructions of the Executive he is not allowed to
report for work. He stated that he waited for about
half an hour and then came back to his home. He
stated that thereafter he sent a letter dated
26-07-2017 to the Opponent narrating the incident
of refusal to allow him to report for work and
informing the Opponent that their action of refusing
employment to him is illegal termination of his
service w.e.f. 26-07-2017.
4. He stated that he also informed the Opponent
that such an act on their part also amounts to
retrenchment of his services without following the
mandatory provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the
I.D. Act, 1947. He stated that he also called upon
the Opponent to allow him to report for work
immediately on receipt of the said demand. He
stated that though the Opponent received the said
letter sent by Registered A.D. post did not act on
the same and after waiting for a reasonable period,
he raised a dispute vide letter dated 14-08-2017,
before the Commissioner, Labour and Employment,
Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa for intervention. He
stated that the Asst. Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer at Panaji, took up the matter
and called the parties for discussion on 06-12-2017.
He stated that on 23-01-2018 the Opponent neither
attended the proceedings nor filed its reply and the
proceedings were adjourned to 01-02-2018. He
stated that on 01-03-2018, the parties attended the
proceedings and the representatives of the
Opponent stated that the Opponent has not
terminated his services and that and he can join the
services with immediate effect. He stated that he
agreed to report for work immediately and accordingly
reported for work w.e.f. 03-03-2018 with a letter
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
837
dated 03-03-2018 to that effect. He stated that the
matter of refusal of employment w.e.f. 26-07-2017
and the entitlement of back wages was to be
decided by the appropriate Forum. He stated that
the dispute raised by him was fixed for discussions/
/conciliation for sometimes.
5. He stated that on 01-03-2018, the Opponent
offered him to report for work and accordingly he
reported for work w.e.f. 03-03-2018. He stated that
the dispute of illegal refusal of employment and
payment of back wages for the period of forced
unemployment continued as the Opponent did not
settle the said issues before the Conciliation Officer.
He stated that u/s 12(2) of the I. D. Act, 1947, the
Conciliation Officer is duty bound to investigate
the dispute without delay. He stated that in case
where no settlement is possible the Conciliation
Officer has to close the investigation as soon as
possible and send a report to the Government
setting forth the steps taken by him under sub-
-section 6 of Section 12 within 14 days of the
commencement of proceedings or within such
shorter period. He stated that as the Opponent did
not agree to reinstate him in service with full back
wages, continuity in service and consequential
benefits w.e.f. 26-07-2017, it was mandatory on the
part of the ALC and Conciliation Officer to record
failure of discussions and report the same to the
appropriate Government within 14 days of such
failure. He stated that even though the Opponent
had reinstated him in service, the dispute of refusal
of employment w.e.f. 26-07-2017 still subsists and
has to be adjudicated by the appropriate Forum. He
stated that as the ALC and Conciliation Officer,
Panaji did not record the failure of conciliation in
the dispute of refusal of employment even after
about 8 months, great prejudice is caused to him
and as sufficient time has gone after his termination,
he approaches this Hon’ble Court directly u/s 2A(2)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication of the dispute
as to whether the action of the Opponent in refusing
employment to him w.e.f. 26-07-2017 is legal and
justified and whether he entitled for full back wages
up to the date of reinstatement i.e. 03-03-2018. He
submitted that the action of the Opponent in
refusing him employment w.e.f. 26-07-2017 is
non-est, illegal, unjust and malafide. He stated that
he is unemployed from the date of his refusal of
employment til 02-03-2018. He stated that on
03-03-2018 he was reinstated in service without back
wages and continuity in his service. The Workman
therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased
to make an Award holding that the action of the
Opponent in terminating his services is non-est,
illegal, malafide and unjust and that he continues
to be in service with full back wages, other benefits,
continuity in services and consequential benefits.
6. The Opponent resisted statement of claim of
the Workman by filing reply dated 30-07-2018. The
Opponent stated that a registered society at
Hyderabad under the Andhra Pradesh Societies
Registration Act, 2001 bearing registration No. 187/
/2005 dated 07-02-2005. The Opponent stated that
it is a ‘not-for-profit’ organization having its Head
Office at Secunderabad, Telangana. The Opponent
stated that it had initially entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated
14-06-2008 with the Government of Goa to provide
comprehensive emergency response services to the
State of Goa. The opponent stated that it has been
appointed as a State Level Nodal Agency to
operationalize the emergency response services. The
Opponent stated that subsequently supplementary
MOU’s and additional agreements have been
entered into between themselves and the
Government of Goa under which these services are
being provided. The Opponent stated that it is not
charging the State Government any fee or taking
any money for providing the service under the said
MOUs. The Opponent stated that the operational
costs of providing the service including the salaries
of employees engaged by them to provide the
services under the MOU are being paid by the State
of Goa. The Opponent stated that the State of Goa
has direct control over every aspect of the said
service provided by them. The Opponent stated that
the ambulances and all equipment used by them
are owned by the Government of Goa. The
Opponent stated that to provide these services
under the said MOU, they engages the services of
drivers, technicians etc. and that these workers are
engaged specifically to provide the services under
the said MOU and that it is not their ‘employer’
under the I.D. Act, 1947. The Opponent stated that
the services provided by them under the said MOU’s
is not an ‘industry’ under the I.D. Act, 1947. The
Opponent stated that assuming (without admitting)
that this service is an industry then it is an industry
carried on by and under the authority of the State
Government. The Opponent stated that thus for the
purposes of the I.D. Act, 1947, the State Government
is the Employer and not them. The Opponent stated
that it is not being the Employer under the I.D. Act,
1947, and therefore has no obligation under the
said Act. The Opponent stated that it is not the
Employer as envisaged u/s. 2 (g) of the I.D. Act,
1947. The Opponent stated that the present
reference as made by the State Govt. is not
maintainable on facts as well as in law. The
Opponent stated that it is engage in providing
838
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
emergency service in the nature of medical
attendants/treatment in emergent situation. The
Opponent stated that it operates about 64
ambulances throughout the State of Goa and that
these ambulances are equipped with medicines
and medical staff to provide immediate treatment
and/or medical attendance to the patients till the
time the patient is brought to the Goa Medical
College or the closest medical facility/hospital. The
opponent stated that every Workman associated
with them therefore plays a vital role in this process
of rendering emergency medical services to the
public at large in the State of Goa. The Opponent
stated that the slightest negligence’s and/or failure
on the part of a Workman could expose the patients
to the risk of their life and well-being.
7. The Opponent stated that the Workman
engaged in the designation of a pharmacists is no
exception to the said fact in as much as providing
of adequate medicines to each of the ambulance is
dependent upon efficient and prompt discharge of
his duties by a pharmacist. The Opponent admitted
that the Applicant is employed as a pharmacist
which demands ut-most care, attention and
devotion towards the duty. The Opponent stated
that the performance of the Applicant till June,
2014 was normal and that upon being confirmed in
service, he started displaying his true colours. The
Opponent stated that the Applicant would regularly
fail to perform his duty as a result of which the work
of the establishment would get hampered in as
much as the efficiency of the establishment suffered.
The Opponent stated that the Applicant was
warned orally every time when he displayed
negligence in the performance of his duty. The
Opponent stated that however he failed to show
any improvement. The Opponent stated that in the
course of routine checking, it was found that the
Applicant had failed to update the stock position.
The Opponent stated that updating the stock
position is also one of the important duty to be
performed by a pharmacist. The Opponent stated
that it is only when the stock of medicine is
updated, the Applicant can ensure that the
medicines are kept in stock and are always available
promptly and regularly so that the patients are not
exposed to risk on account of non-availability of the
medicines in stock. The Opponent stated that the
Applicant failed to perform the said function which
could expose the patients to a serious risk and
hence the failure on the part of the Applicant in
discharging the said duty was a serious misconduct,
which the Applicant could not ignore. The
Opponent stated that they therefore issued a show
cause notice dated 02-06-2017 to the Applicant
whereby his attention was invited to the acts of
misconduct on his part and was called upon to
show cause as to why an action should not be taken
against him. The Opponent stated that the
Applicant submitted his reply dated 03-06-2017. The
Opponent stated that in his reply the Applicant
defended himself by stating that the failure to
discharge the obligations in time was on account of
an accident that he had suffered which used to
cause pain in his hands and therefore he could not
do the computer feeding. The Opponent stated that
the Applicant also attributed the pendency of work
stating that he was busy in other work which was
more important. The Opponent stated that being
not satisfied with the reply that was submitted by
the Applicant they decided to hold an enquiry. The
Opponent stated that they appointed Mr. Shivaji
Patnaik as the Enquiry Officer. The Opponent stated
that all of a sudden on and from 26-07-2017 the
Applicant stopped reporting for duty without any
intimation and/or prior approval. The Opponent
stated that having done so, the Applicant
approached the office of the Labour Commissioner
with a false complaint to the effect that he has been
stopped for reporting for duty on and from
26-07-2017 along with other allegations of similar
nature against its officers.
8. The Opponent stated that the Applicant was
never instructed by any of its officer including Mr.
Hemant Naik to submit his resignation nor he was
told that he would not be permitted to report for
duty in the event he does not resign. The Opponent
stated that at no point of time the Applicant stopped
from reporting for duty at any time by any of its
officers or by their security. The Opponent stated
that the Applicant abandoned the employment on
and from 26-07-2017 willfully, deliberately and
thereafter caused to file a false complaint before
the office of the Labour Commissioner on
14-08-2017. The Opponent stated that in the course
of hearing before the authority, they informed the
authority that they have not committed any such
act so as to restrict/prohibit the Applicant from
reporting for duty, but it is the Applicant who has
abandoned the employment. The Opponent stated
that they also informed the authority that the
Applicant can report for duty immediately. The
Opponent stated that considering the fact that the
Applicant was never dismissed from service the
continuity of his employment in their records was
never effected at any point of time. The opponent
stated that subsequently the Opponent reported
for duty on 03-03-2018. The Opponent stated that
on 06-03-2018 he submitted a letter to say that he
is joining the duty w.e.f. 03-03-2018 and that the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
839
matter of payment of back wages will continue
before the appropriate forum. The Opponent stated
that after having reported for duty on 03-03-2018,
the Applicant attended the duty till 05-04-2018 for
a period of 34 days. The Opponent stated that on
06-04-2018 the Applicant did not report for duty.
The Opponent stated that on 11-04-2018 they were
in receipt of an application dated 09-04-2018
seeking “sick leave” for a period of 30 days. The
Opponent stated that they called upon the
Applicant to submit medical fitness in support of
his application. The Opponent stated that the
Applicant submitted medical certificate dated
09-04-2018 vide his letter dated 14-04-2018. The
Opponent stated that vide letter dated 19-04-2018,
they informed the Applicant that his application for
leave has been granted. The Opponent stated that
the leave applied by the Applicant vide his
application dated 09-04-2018 expired on 05-05-2018,
leave period being 06-04-2018 to 05-05-2018. The
Opponent stated that the certificate issued by the
doctor was to the effect that the Applicant is
suffering from “periarthritis (Lt. Shoulder)” and that
rest of atleast two weeks is necessary to restore his
health completely. The Opponent stated that on
23-04-2018, the Applicant submitted another
certificate date 23-04-2018 vide his application date
23-04-2018 whereby the very same doctor certified
that further rest of two weeks is essential w.e.f.
25-04-2018 to restore his health completely. The
Opponent stated that on 07-05-2018, the Applicant
requested for extension of leave by further 30 days.
The Opponent stated that on 22-05-2018 they called
upon the Applicant to submit himself for medical
check up to the doctor named by them on
28-05-2018. The Opponent stated that the applicant
reported for medical checkup, however he was not
checked on account of mis-communication with the
office of the doctor and the Applicant with regard
to the payment of clinical fees. The opponent stated
that the Applicant submitted the endorsement
made in that regard by the office of the doctor vide
his letter dated 29-05-2018. The opponent stated
that the vide letter dated 31-05-2018 they again
advised the applicant to report to their office to
facilitated medical check-up on 01-06-2018. The
Opponent stated that the Applicant though came
late refused to wait till the arrival of the doctor and
went back without submitting himself for medical
check-up. The Opponent stated that they therefore
once again vide their letter dated 02-06-2018 called
upon the Applicant to remain present for medical
check-up on 04-06-2018. The Opponent stated that
however the Applicant refused to do so and that he
was again required to attend the medical check-up
on 08-06-2018 vide a letter dated 05-06-2018. The
Opponent stated that vide letter dated 04-06-2018
addressed by the Applicant to them, the delivery of
which was received by post on 07-06-2018 the
Applicant communicated to them that he will not
attend the medical check-up citing flimsy reasons.
The Opponent stated that vide application dated
07-06-2018 addressed by the Applicant which was
delivered to them by post on 12-06-2018, the
Applicant again requested for extension of leave for
a period of thirty days. The Opponent stated that
vide letter dated 14-06-2018, they communicated to
the Applicant that his application dated 07-06-2018
stands rejected. The Opponent stated that the said
communication was dispatched on the address
registered by the Applicant with them, by
registered A.D. post under receipt No. RM547539936
dated 14-06-2018. The Opponent stated that the
same has been returned by the postal authority
with an endorsement “intimated on 15-06-2018”
“House closed, returned to sender”.
9. The Opponent stated that the Applicant
submitted another letter dated 07-07-2018
requesting for extension of leave for a period of
thirty days. The Opponent stated that the said letter
was addressed by the Applicant inspite of the fact
that his application dated 07-06-2018 for extension
of leave was rejected, consequently his absence on
duty continued to be unauthorized. The Opponent
stated that vide letter dated 11-07-2018 they
rejected the application dated 07-07-2018 of the
Applicant being without merits and the same is
communicated to the Applicant vide registered A.D.
post receipt No. RM511810365 dated 11-07-2018.
The Opponent stated that the same is dispatched
on the address registered by the Applicant with them.
The opponent stated that vide letter dated
07-07-2018 the Applicant requested for thirty days
leave once again on grounds of sickness. The
opponent stated that they decided to give one more
opportunity to the Applicant to appear for medical
examination. The Opponent stated that they
therefore vide letter dated 23-07-2018 requested
the North District Hospital, Mapusa to examine and
verify the medical condition of the Applicant. The
Opponent stated that in furtherance of their said
request the North District Hospital, Mapusa vide their
letter dated 27-07-2018 under Ref. No. AH/ADM/
/2018-19/1636, communicated to the Applicant and
them that the schedule date for the medical
examination of Applicant has been fix on
01-08-2018 at 11.00 a.m. at the North District
Hospital, Mapusa. The Opponent stated that they
also communicated the Applicant about the said
840
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
schedule vide their letter dated 30-07-2018 by
registered A.D. post. The Opponent stated that the
Applicant however failed to report to the hospital
on the given date and time as conveyed to them by
the Asilo, North District Hospital, Mapusa vide
letter dated 01-08-2018. The Opponent stated that
its representative had even registered the name of
the Applicant in the North District Hospital,
Mapusa on 01-08-2018 for clinical check-up and got
the registration document done. The Opponent
stated that on 07-08-2018 they received an
application for grant of further leave of thirty days
on ground of sickness. The Opponent stated that
on 27-08-2018 the Applicant submitted his
resignation effective from 25-09-2018. The Opponent
stated that on 08-09-2018 they accepted the
resignation and conveyed the same to the Applicant
vide their letter dated 08-09-2018 delivered to the
Applicant
by
registered
post
vide
Receipt
No. RM4B1596480IN. The Opponent stated that the
sequence of events demonstrate that the conduct
of Applicant has been mischievous and suspicious.
The Opponent stated that he first moved an
application for leave on 09-04-2018, though he
absented himself from 06-04-2018 requesting sick
leave for a period of thirty days, The Opponent
stated that the said leave application was
accompanied by a private practitioner though the
Applicant is member who is entitled for the benefits
flowing from the Employees State Insurance Act,
1948 in as much as it’s establishment is covered
under the provisions of the said Act and they are
contributing towards the medical benefits to the
Applicant. The Opponent stated that thereafter he
kept on moving application for extension of leave
vide his application date 07-05-2018 and 07-06-2018.
10. The Opponent stated that the Applicant has
conveniently stayed away from duty on false and
flimsy grounds, unauthorizedly and an illegal
manner. The Opponent stated that this conduct of
the Applicant shows that having failed on his
strategy of claiming an illegal dismissal and staying
away from employment, he has again resorted to
staying away from duty on false medical ground.
The Opponent stated that the nature of activity in
which they are engaged involves rendering
“emergency medical services” to the members of
the public. The Opponent stated that the very
nature of these activities are such that every
Workman associated with them is required to render
service with utmost care, diligence and sincerity.
The Opponent stated that negligence in performing
of duty of the slightest degree would render
Workman unbecoming of their Workman. The
Opponent stated that the conduct of the Applicant
only demonstrates that he is not interested in
employment with them. The Opponent stated that
at the first instance the Applicant himself
abandoned the employment, thereafter he files a
complaint to say that he has been prohibited from
joining duty. The Opponent state that upon being
asked to join duty, he chooses to stay away from
work on medical ground. The opponent stated that
they have been liberal in as much as though they
initiated an inquiry against the Applicant, they
chose to abandon the enquiry only to give an
opportunity to the Applicant to fall in line. The
Opponent stated that the Applicant however failed
to make the best use of the courtesy extended by
them in as much the Applicant has stayed away
from work on false medical grounds. The Opponent
stated that in view of the above facts and
circumstances, no dispute as is claimed by the
Applicant at all exists. The Opponent stated that
the alleged dispute is the creation and/or a product
manufactured by the Applicant, on the basis false
story authored by him. The Opponent therefore
submitted that the claim of the Applicant for
payment of wages during the period 26-07-2017 to
02-03-2018 deserves to be rejected. The Opponent
finally denied the overall case as pleaded by the
Applicant and prayed that the Applicant is not
entitled for any award and the dispute raised by
the Applicant deserves to be dismissed.
11. Thereafter, the Applicant filed his rejoinder
on 06-09-2018 at Exb. 8. The Applicant, as and by way
of his rejoinder, denied each and every statement,
averments and submissions made by the Opponent,
vide in written statement filed in the present
proceedings and reiterates and confirm the
statements, averments and submissions made by
him in his statement claim.
12. This Hon’ble court framed the following issues
on 27-09-2018 at Exb. 9. The said issues have been
updated on 22-01-2019.
1.
Whether the Workmen/Party I proves that
the action of the Employer in termmating
his services with effect from 26-07-2017 is
illegal and unjustified?
1A. Whether the Employer/Party I proves that
his services were terminated by the
Employer as on 26-07-2017?
2.
Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the Party I abandoned the employment on
and from 26-07-2017?
3.
Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to
any relief?
4.
What order? What award?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
841
13. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
: In the afirmative.
(b) Issue No. 1A
: In the affirmative.
(c) Issue No. 2
: In the negative.
(d) Issue No. 3 & 4
: As per final order.
REASONS
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri
P. J. Kamat, appearing for the Applicant as well as
Ld. Adv. Shri S. Gaonkar representing for the
Opponent. Both the parties also filed the synopsis
of written submissions. I have carefully perused the
entire records of the present case including the
synopsis of arguments filed by both the parties.
14. Ld. Adv. Shri S. Gaonkar who took over from
the late Adv. Shri Palekar has raised an issue of
subject jurisdiction of this Court. Though belated,
the issue of jurisdiction has been examined herein.
It is his contention that this Labour Court has no
subject jurisdiction to try and decide this matter.
His specific contention is that the Labour Court
has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of
retrenchment. The jurisdiction per the Ld. Advocate
lies with the Industrial Tribunal. He pointed out to
the Schedule-II and Schedule-III of the I.D. Act, 1947.
It is his contention that from the pleadings made by
the Applicant it appears that the termination from
service of the Applicant amounts to retrenchment.
On examining the pleadings, it is noticed that
the Applicant has however, prayed for continuity in
service with back wages, other benefit continuity
in service and consequential benefits.
The Industrial Tribunal gets jurisdiction under
the Third Schedule Item No. 10 of the Third
Schedule which is reads as retrenchment of
Workman and closure of establishment.
Similarly, Labour Court gets jurisdiction under
Second Schedule. Item No. 3 of the Second Schedule
reads as i.e. “discharge or dismissal of Workman
including reinstatement, or grant of relief to,
Workmen wrongfully dismissed”.
In the present case, it is noticed that the Applicant
has prayed for back wages as he has already been
reinstated. As such the Labour Court would get
jurisdiction to try the present dispute as per item
No. 3 of the Second Schedule under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The issue of subject jurisdiction
having been decided, I now proceed to the other
contentions raised relating to jurisdiction. Thereafter,
to the issued in this matter.
15. Ld. Adv. Shri S. Gaonkar also submitted that
the Party-II is not a industry as defined u/s 2(j) of
the I.D. Act, 1947.
It is noticed that the term “industry” has been
defined u/s 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it means:
(j)
any systematic activity carried on by
co-operation between an employer and his
workmen (whether such workmen are
employed by such employer directly or by or
through any agency, including a contractor)
for the production, supply or distribution of
goods or services with a view to satisfy
human wants or wishes (not being wants or
wishes which are merely spiritual or religious
in nature), whether or not,—
(i)
any capital has been invested for the
purpose of carrying on such activity; or
(ii)
such activity is carried on with a motive
to make any gain or profit, and includes
(a) any activity of the Dock Labour Board
established under Section 5-A of the Dock Workers
(Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948);
(b) any activity relating to the promotion of sales
or business or both carried on by an establishment,
but does not include—
(1) any agricultural operation except where
such agricultural operation is carried on in
an integrated manner with any other
activity (being any such activity as is
referred to in the foregoing provisions of
this clause) and such other activity is the
predominant one.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-
-clause, “agricultural Operation” does not
include any activity carried on in a plantation as
defined in Clause (1) of Section 2 of the
Plantations Labour Act, 1951; or
(2) hospitals or dispensaries; or
(3) educational, scientific, research or training
institutions; or
(4) institutions owned or managed by
organisation wholly or substantially
engaged in any charitable, social or
philanthropic service; or
(5) khadi or village industries; or
(6) any activity of the Government relatable to
the sovereign functions of the Government
including all the activities carried on by
the departments of the Central Government
dealing with defence research, atomic
energy and space;
842
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
(7) any domestic service; or
(8) any activity, being a profession practised
by an individual or body of individuals, if
the number of persons employed by the
individual or body of individuals in relation
to such profession is less than ten; or
(9) any activity, being an activity carried on by
a co-operative society or a club or any other
like body of individuals, if the number of
persons employed by the co-operative
society, club or other like body of
individuals in relation to such activity is
less than ten.
16. In the case in hand, the Employer had signed
MOU with the Government of Goa and had agreed
to provide emergency management and research
services and for that purpose the Employer has
engaged certain staff. Thus the Party-II Employer
undertook systematic activities with the help of the
employees engaged by the Employer/Party-II with a
view to satisfy human wants or wishes. The
agreement which is on record indicates that there
were reciprocal promises between the Party-II and
the Government of Goa. These reciprocal promises
formed the basis of consideration between the
Party-II and the Government of Goa thus, amounting
to an agreement under the Indian Contract Act,
1872.
Transporting Road Accident Victims is not the
sole preserve of the State Government. It is noticed
that there are private individuals also running
ambulance services to fulfil human wants and
wishes. The Party-II is also one of such Service
Provider. It provides the services and to do so it has
taken the format prescribed under Andhra Pradesh
Society’s Registration Act.
Per the said Act, the said society can sue and be
sued per Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies
Registration Act, the said society “may bring or
defend of other legal proceeding touching or
concerning any property or any right or claim of the
society and may sue and be sued in its name”.
The Employer is an “industry as defined u/s 2(j)
of the I.D. Act, 1947.
The witness No. 1 of the Party-II has stated that
the Party-II operates 64 numbers of ambulances in
the State of Goa. It is obvious that to operate 64
ambulances more than 10 persons (Drivers & other
Employees) would necessarily be required to keep
the 64 ambulances operational over the road
network in the State of Goa around the clock. It is
inconceivable that 64 ambulances can be operated
over the road network in the State of Goa around
the clock by employing less than 64 employees
(Driver, Cleaners, Maintenance staff, Pharmacists,
Ambulance stretcher bearers and other support
staff).
In the course of the proceedings the attendance
registers of the Party-II was sought to be produced
by the Party-I for the examination in the
proceedings. The Party-II has not produced the said
attendance registers which were in the possession
of the Party-II/Employer or the purposes of
compliance with labour legislation like the Payment
of Wages Act and other cognate labour legislation
applicable in the State of Goa and adverse inference
on this account is necessary to be drawn against
the Employer/Party-II.
In view of above, I do not find any merit
whatsoever in the submission of Ld. Adv. Shri S.
Gaonkar representing the Employer that the Party-II
is not an Industry as defined under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
17. Ld. Adv. Shri S. Gaonkar representing the
Employer submitted that the Party-II is not the
Employer of the Applicant under the I.D. Act, 1947.
The term “Employer” has been defined u/s 2(g) of
the I.D. Act, 1947 and it means—
(i) in relation to an industry carried on by or
under the authority of any department of (the
Central Government or a State Government),
the authority prescribed in this behalf, or
where no authority is prescribed, the head of
the department;
(ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on
behalf of a local authority, the Chief Executive
Officer of that authority;
18. In the case in hand, the Party-II is a Society
established under the Registration of Societies Act
and is engaged in providing emergency services in
the nature of medical attendance/treatment in
emergent situations. The MOD (Exb. 54) on record
indicates that the responsibility of the Party-II to
operate the ambulances and ensure ambulances
services are available on 24 hours per day and 365
days a year basis and to provide the emergency
health transportation services to ambulances of the
public and for that purpose recruit, position and
train required human resources including pilots
(drivers) and medically trained person (Emergency
Medical Technician).
The Second Witness of the Party-II Shri Adolf
Pacheco, in his evidence on record indicates that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
843
the Party-II is a registered society at Hyderabad
under the Andhra Pradesh Society’s Registration
Act, 2001. He deposed that Government of Goa has
direct control over every aspect of the said services
provided by the Employer/Party-II. In his cross
examination, he admitted that under Clause 1(b) it
is provided that the development, management and
functioning of all the facilities and services here
within provided shall be responsibility of the
Employer/Party-II. He admitted that under Clause III (10)
on Exb. 54 it is provided that the Employer/
/Party-II shall maintain separate financial accounts
and records of its operation in Goa. He admitted
that under Clause III(6) of Exb. 54 it is provided that
the Employer/Party-II shall recruit, position and
train required human resources, including pilots
(drivers) and medically trained person (Emergency
medical technician) who will be present in every
trip made by the ambulances while transporting an
emergency case to a hospital. He admitted that the
MOU produced on records by him nowhere provides
for recruitment of employees by the Government of
Goa for Employer/Party-II. He admitted that under
Clause XIII of Exb. 57 it is the responsibility of
Employer/Party-II to observe all the rules and
regulations regarding recruitment of staff, purchase
of store, awarding of contracts etc. and other
expenditure as per the rules framed by the Govt. He
admitted that under Clause 2(7)b in Exb. 58 it is
provided that annual increments, pay package and
pursuits to its employees are the responsibility of
Employer/Party-II. He admitted that under Clause 4(2)
of Exb. 60 it is provided that the Employer/
/Party-II shall have autonomy and operational
freedom towards selection, hiring appraisals,
transfers and termination/dismissal of staff, freedom
to avail the staff-cum-HR agencies, preparation of
training modules. He admitted that the notice of
inquires was issued to the Workman by the Employer/
/Party-II. He further admits that none of the letters
have been issued by the Government of Goa to the
Workman and that the aforesaid documents shown
to him have not been issued with the concurrence
of the Government of Goa.
He admitted that all the employees of Employer/
/Party-II were appointed by the Party-II. He also
admits that the day today attendance of the
employees has been maintained by the Employer/
/Party-II. Thus, the Employer has not signed/execute
tripartite agreement with the Government of Goa
and the Applicant.
The aforesaid evidence on record clearly
indicates that the Employer/Party-II is the
“Employer” as has been defined u/s 2(g) of the I. D.
Act, 1947 in respect of the Applicant and the
Government of Goa was not the Employer of the
Workman.
19. Issue No. 1 A and Issue No. 2: I decide the
Issue No. 1A and Issue No. 2 simultaneously as both
the said issues are co-related to each other. I decide
the Issue No. 1A and Issue No. 2 first, prior to the
issue No. 1 as the said issue No. 1A and the Issue No. 2
goes to the root of the present matter.
20. The evidence on record the Workman was
employed with the Employer as a Pharmacist w.e.f.
01-05-2013 at its establishment at Goa Medical
College, Bambolim vide letter of appointment dated
29-04-2013. The services of the Workman were
confirmed w.e.f. 01-05-2014 vide letter of
confirmation dated 13-06-2014.
The Applicant pleaded as well as in his oral
evidence on record indicates that on 25-07-2017 the
Applicant reported for work at 9.30 hours and at
about 12.30 hours he was called by Mr. Hemant
Naik, HR Executive, of the Employer in his cabin
where Dr. Geeta Deshmukh, In-charge Operations
and Gurupradhan Shetty was also present and that
Mr. Hemant Naik instructed the Applicant to resign
from the service w.e.f. 26-07-2017. The evidence on
record indicates that the Applicant refused to
submit his resignation. The evidence on record
indicates that on the same day at about 16.30 hours
Mr. Hemant Naik again called the Applicant and
informed him that if he do not submit his resignation
before leaving he would not be allowed to report for
work from 26-07-2017. The evidence on record
indicates that the Applicant did not submit his
resignation and at the close of his working hours,
he left the office for his home. The evidence on
record indicates that on 26-07-2017 the Applicant
went to report for his work on 9.30 hours, but he
was not allowed to enter the premises while the
security on duty and that when he asked the
security on duty the reasons for not allowing him to
report for work, the said security told him that as
per instructions of the HR Executive he was not
allowed for work. The evidence on record indicates
that the Applicant waited for about half an hour
and then came back to his home and thereafter he
sent a letter dated 26-07-2017 to the Employer
narrating the incident of refusal to allow him to
report for work and informing the Employer that
their action of refusing employment to him is illegal
termination of his services w.e.f. 26-07-2017. The oral
evidence on records indicates that the Applicant
was also called upon the Employer to allow him to
report for work immediately on receipt of the same
demand and that since the Employer did not act on
844
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
the same and after waiting for a reasonable period
the Applicant raised a dispute vide his letter dated
14-08-2017. The Applicant has also produced on
record a copy of his representation dated
26-07-2017 (Exb. 24-colly) and copy of which has
been addressed to the Commissioner, Labour and
Employment, Panaji-Goa. The aforesaid incident on
record clearly indicates that the Applicant was
refused employment by the Employer w.e.f.
26-07-2017. Ld. Adv. Shri S. Gaonkar representing
the Employer also relied upon certain judgments of
the Supreme Court of India. However, the facts of
the said case are different the case in hand and as
such, the said judgments are not applicable to the
case in hand. It is therefore held that the Applicant
proved that he was refused employment by the
Employer w.e.f. 26-07-2017. It is further held that the
aforesaid evidence on record indicates that the
Employer failed to prove that the Applicant had
abandoned his employment on and from 26-07-2017.
The Issue No. 1 is therefore answered in the
affirmative and issue No. 2 is answered in the
negative.
21. Issue No. 1: While deciding the issue No. 1A
as well as Issue No. 2, I have discussed and come
to the conclusion that the Applicant was refused
the employment by the Employer w.e.f. 26-07-2017.
The evidence on record indicates that the
Applicant was issued a show cause notice dated
02-06-2017 (Exb.20) stating his failure to complete
the work on time as hampered the operations and
the aforesaid act on his part attract violation of
Employer service rule, i.e. Rule 72(A) 6, Rule 72(B) 18
and he was directed to file his written explanation
within 48 hours as to why disciplinary action
should not be initiated against him for the said
misconduct. The Applicant filed his reply dated
03-06-2017 (at Exb. 21) to the aforesaid show cause
notice denying the allegations levelled against him.
The evidence on record indicates that the
Employer also gave a notice of enquiry dated
07-06-2017 (at Exb. 22) by appointing Shri Shivaji
Patnaik U. as Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the
Applicant, vide his letter dated 13-06-2017 (Exb.
25) addressed to the inquiry officer and requested
to direct the Employer to furnish certain documents
which are relevant in the enquiry.
Thereafter the Employer/Enquiry Officer could not
conduct inquiries but the Employer suddenly refused
employment to the Applicant w.e.f. 26-07-2017 without
any cause or any valid justification. The aforesaid
action on the part of the Employer amounts to illegal
retrenchment of the services of the Applicant w.e.f.
26-07-2017. Hence, it is held that Applicant proved
that the action of the Employer in refusing him
employment w.e.f. 26-07-2017 is illegal and
unjustified. The Issue No. 1 is therefore answered in
the affirmative.
22. Issue No. 3: While deciding the Issue No. 1
hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the
conclusion that the action of the Employer in
terminating the services of the Workman is illegal
and unjustified.
The evidence of record indicates that the
Workman was reinstated service on 03-03-2018 and
as such the Workman has already been granted
reinstatement in service. The Workman remained
unemployed for the period from 26-07-2017 till
02-03-2018. The evidence on record indicates that
Workman stated in his pleading that he is
unemployed. The evidence on record indicates that
the Workman is a “Pharmacist Graduate”. Workman
is entitled for wages for the period from 26-07-2017
to 03-02-2018. Since he has admittedly made no
effort to reach alternate employment it would be
proper to only grant 50% of back wages.
In view of above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
It is held that the action of the Employer in
terminating the services the Workman w.e.f.
26-07-2017 is illegal and unjustified. It is further
held that the Workman Shri Audumber Naik is
entitled to back wages @ rate of 50% of wages for
the period he was rendered out employment by the
Party-II.
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. 8-2-2023-LD(Estt.)/2473
Whereas, the Government vide Notification No.
8-7-2014-LD(Estt)(111)/1416 dated 08-07-2014 and
Certificate of Practice dated 08-07-2014, appointed
Ms. Madhumita Avadhut Nayak Salatry, Advocate
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
845
(hereinafter referred to as the “Applicant”) as a
Notary for a period of five years with effect from
08-07-2014, for the area of Bardez Taluka;
And whereas, the Government, upon the
Applicant’s request, had previously renewed her
Certificate of Practice as a Notary for a further period
of five years with effect from 08-07-2019 with
jurisdiction limited to Bardez Taluka and a
corresponding Endorsement dated 03-07-2019 was
issued to the Applicant, which has subsequently
expired on 08-07-2024;
And whereas, the State Registrar-cum-Head of
Notary Services vide letter No. 3/1/2022-
-Registration/2566 dated 04-11-2022 had forwarded
letters received from Police Inspector, SIT Land
Grabbing, Crime Branch, Ribander, Goa and
requested to take action against the Applicant, as
per the Notaries Act, 1952.
And whereas, this Department vide letter No.
8/7/2014-LD(Estt.)(111)/2024 dated 09-12-2022 had
requested State Registrar-cum-Head of Notary
Services, to conduct an inquiry in the matter, as per
Rule 13 (1) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 and to submit
a report after following due procedure of law.
And whereas, this Department was in receipt of
another complaint dated 19-11-2022 alongwith its
enclosures filed by Mrs. Matilda Leopoldina
Coutinho in Form XIII against the Applicant and
this Department vide letter No. 8/2/2023-LD(Estt.)/
/639 dated 13-04-2023 had again requested the State
Registrar-cum-Head of Notary Services, to furnish
the inquiry report in order to place it before the
Government for appropriate decision.
And whereas, the application for renewal of
Certificate of Practice as Notary submitted by the
Applicant was forwarded to this Department by the
State Registrar-cum-Head of Notary Services for
Government consideration;
And whereas, this Department, vide letter
No. 8-7-2014-LD(Estt.)(111)/1723 dated 28-08-2024
informed the State Registrar-cum-Head of Notary
Services that the Government has deferred
consideration of the Applicant’s renewal proposal
until the ongoing inquiries into the complaints are
concluded and disposed of.
And whereas, pursuant to Inquiry Reports Nos.
REG/Notary-Complaint/2024/51 and REG/Notary-
-Complaint/2024/50, both dated 03-10-2024, the
State Registrar-cum-Head of Notary Services has
determined that the Applicant’s actions constituted
negligence and collusion in notarizing forged
documents, thereby facilitating fraudulent property
transfers. The inquiry findings, as detailed in the
report of Hon’ble Justice V. K. Jadhav (Retd.),
revealed a clear breach of notarial duties, including
an affidavit from a deceased person and inconsistent
signatures on other affidavits. Moreover, the report
suggests potential involvement in broader
fraudulent activities, as evidenced by suspicious
financial transactions.
And whereas, considering all the facts on record
and the observations made in the Commission of
Inquiry Report submitted by Justice V. K. Jadhav
(Retd.), the Government hereby cancels the
certificate of practice dated 08-07-2014, perpetually
debarring the Applicant from practice as a Notary
as per Rule 13 Clause 12 (b) (i) of Notaries Rules,
1956.
Now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (d) of
Section 10 of the Notaries Act, the Government of
Goa, hereby removes the name of the Applicant
entered as a Notary, from the Register maintained
by it under Section 4 of the Notaries Act, 1952.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 31st December, 2024.
————
Notification
No. 14-17-2022-LD (Estt.)/2446
The Order No. HCB/GOA/G-P-108/2024/2153
dated 30-11-2024 which has been issued by High
Court of Bombay at Goa, Porvorim, Goa 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, 30th December, 2024.
—–––––—
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
––
Order
No. HCB/GOA/G-P-108/2024/2153
Mr. Santosh Shridhar Mhamal, Senior Private
Secretary to the Hon’ble Judge, High Court of
Bombay at Goa, shall stand retired from service on
the afternoon of 30th November, 2024 on
superannuation.
D. P. Satawalekar, Registrar (Admin.).
30th November, 2024.
846
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
Department of Personnel
––
Order
No. 13/08/2024-PER/33
Whereas, Government vide Order No. 13/08/2024-
-PER/3056 dated 27-08-2024 had granted extension
in service to Shri Nitin V. S. Neurekar, Superintending
Engineer and Chief Engineer (Ad-hoc), Public Works
Department beyond the date of his superannuation
for a period of one year w.e.f. 01-09-2024 to
31-08-2025, in public interest subject to vigilance
clearance, concurrence of Finance Department and
approval of Council of Ministers;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has
submitted vigilance clearance stating that no
disciplinary proceedings/vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against Shri Nitin
V. S. Neurekar;
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U.O. No. 1400104430 dated 08-12-2024 concurred the
proposal for grant of extension in service to Shri
Nitin V. S. Neurekar, Superintending Engineer and
Chief Engineer (Ad-hoc), Public Works Department
subject to Cabinet approval;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers, in its
LXth meeting held on 18-12-2024 resolved to grant
ex-post facto approval for extension in service to
Shri Nitin V. S. Neurekar, Superintending Engineer
and Chief Engineer (Ad-hoc), Public Works
Department beyond the date of his superannuation
for a period of one year w.e.f. 01-09-2024 to
31-08-2025, in public interest;
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the Order No. 13/08/2024-PER/3056 dated
27-08-2024 granting extension in service to Shri
Nitin V. S. Neurekar, Superintending Engineer and
Chief Engineer (Ad-hoc), Public Works Department
beyond the date of his superannuation for a period
of one year w.e.f. 01-09-2024 to 31-08-2025, in public
interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 1st January, 2025.
—–––––—
Order
No. 13/10/2024-PER/28
Whereas, Government vide Order No. 13/10/2024-
-PER/3093 dated 29-08-2024 had granted extension
in service to Shri Savio Reis Gomes, Executive
Engineer, Public Works Department beyond the
date of his superannuation for a period of one year
w.e.f. 01-09-2024 to 31-08-2025, in public interest
subject to vigilance clearance, concurrence of
Finance Department and approval of Council of
Ministers;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has
submitted vigilance clearance stating that no
disciplinary proceedings/vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against Shri Savio
Reis Gomes;
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U.O. No. 1400104232 dated 20-11-2024 concurred the
proposal for grant of extension in service to Shri
Savio Reis Gomes, Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department subject to Cabinet approval;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers, in its
LXth meeting held on 18-12-2024 resolved to grant
ex-post facto approval for extension in service to
Shri Savio Reis Gomes, Executive Engineer, Public
Works Department beyond the date of his
superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.
01-09-2024 to 31-08-2025, in public interest;
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the Order No. 13/10/2024-PER/3093 dated
29-08-2024 granting extension in service to Shri
Savio Reis Gomes, Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department beyond the date of his superannuation
for a period of one year w.e.f. 01-09-2024 to
31-08-2025, in public interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 1st January, 2025.
—–––––—
Order
No. 13/12/2024-PER/31
Whereas, Government vide Order No. 13/12/2024-
-PER/3382 dated 30-09-2024 had granted extension
in service to Shri Santosh H. Fadte, Deputy
Conservator of Forest (Planning & Statistics), Forest
Department, beyond the date of his superannuation
for a period of six months w.e.f. 01-10-2024 to
31-03-2025, in public interest subject to vigilance
clearance, concurrence of Finance Department and
approval of Council of Ministers;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has
submitted vigilance clearance stating that no
disciplinary proceedings/vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against Shri
Santosh H. Fadte;
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
847
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U.O. No. 1400102905 dated 22-10-2024 concurred the
proposal for grant of extension in service to Shri
Santosh H. Fadte, Deputy Conservator of Forest
(Planning & Statistics), Forest Department, beyond
the date of his superannuation for a period of six
months w.e.f. 01-10-2024 to 31-03-2025, subject to
Cabinet approval;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers, in its
LXth meeting held on 18-12-2024 resolved to grant
ex-post facto approval for extension in service to
Shri Santosh H. Fadte, Deputy Conservator of Forest
(Planning & Statistics), Forest Department, beyond
the date of his superannuation for a period of six
months w.e.f. 01-10-2024 to 31-03-2025, in public
interest;
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the Order No. 13/12/2024-PER/3382 dated
30-09-2024 granting extension in service to Shri
Santosh H. Fadte, Deputy Conservator of Forest
(Planning & Statistics), Forest Department, beyond
the date of his superannuation for a period of six
months w.e.f. 01-10-2024 to 31-03-2025, in public
interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 1st January, 2025.
—–––––—
Order
No. 13/07/2024-PER/5134
Whereas, Government vide Order No. 13/07/2024-
-PER/3044 dated 26-08-2024 had granted extension
in service to Shri Vallabh Samant, Executive
Engineer (Elect.), Electricity Department beyond the
date of his superannuation for a period of one year
w.e.f. 01-09-2024 to 31-08-2025, in public interest
subject to vigilance clearance, concurrence of
Finance Department and approval of Council of
Ministers;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has
submitted vigilance clearance stating that, no
disciplinary proceedings/vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against Shri Vallabh
Samant;
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U. O. No. 1400103136 dated 22-10-2024 concurred
the proposal for grant of extension in service to
Shri Vallabh Samant, Executive Engineer (Elect.),
Electricity Department subject to Cabinet approval;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers, in its
LIXth meeting held on 28-11-2024 resolved to grant
ex-post facto approval for extension in service to
Shri Vallabh Samant, Executive Engineer (Elect.),
Electricity Department beyond the date of his
superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.
01-09-2024 to 31-08-2025, in public interest;
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the Order No. 13/07/2024-PER/3044 dated
26-08-2024 granting extension in service to
Shri Vallabh Samant, Executive Engineer (Elect.),
Electricity Department beyond the date of his
superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.
01-09-2024 to 31-08-2025, in public interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 6th December, 2024.
—–––––—
Order
No. 13/11/2024-PER/29
Whereas, Government vide Order No. 13/11/2024-
-PER/3381 dated 30-09-2024 had granted extension
in service to Shri Shrikant B. Gaonkar, Executive
Engineer, Public Works Department beyond the
date of his superannuation for a period of one year
w.e.f. 01-10-2024 to 30-09-2025, in public interest,
subject to vigilance clearance, concurrence of
Finance Department and approval of Council of
Ministers;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has
submitted vigilance clearance stating that, no
disciplinary proceedings/vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against
Shri Shrikant B. Gaonkar;
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U. O. No. 1400104272 dated 20-11-2024 concurred
the proposal for grant of extension in service to
Shri Shrikant B. Gaonkar, Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department subject to Cabinet
approval;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers in its LXth
meeting held on 18-12-2024 resolved to grant
ex-post facto approval for extension in service to
Shri Shrikant B. Gaonkar, Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department beyond the date of his
superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.
01-10-2024 to 30-09-2025, in public interest;
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the Order No. 13/11/2024-PER/3381 dated
30-09-2024 granting extension in service to
848
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
Shri Shrikant B. Gaonkar, Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department beyond the date of his
superannuation for a period of one year w.e.f.
01-10-2024 to 30-09-2025, in public interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 1st January, 2025.
—–––––—
Order
No. 13/04/2024-PER/32
Whereas, Government vide Order No. 13/04/2024-
-PER/921 dated 15-03-2024 had granted extension
in service to Smt. Sadhana Shet, Superintending
Engineer, CO V, Public Works Department beyond
the date of her superannuation for a period of six
months w.e.f. 01-05-2024 to 31-10-2024, in public
interest, subject to vigilance clearance, concurrence
of Finance Department and approval of Council of
Ministers;
And whereas, the Vigilance Department has
submitted vigilance clearance stating that, no
disciplinary proceedings/vigilance cases are
pending or being contemplated against Smt.
Sadhana Shet;
And whereas, the Finance Department vide its
U. O. No. 1400103632 dated 30-10-2024 concurred
the proposal for grant of extension in service to
Smt. Sadhana Shet, Superintending Engineer, CO V,
Public Works Department beyond the date of her
superannuation for a period of six months w.e.f.
01-05-2024 to 31-10-2024 subject to Cabinet
approval;
And whereas, the Council of Ministers, in its
LXth meeting held on 18-12-2024 resolved to grant
ex-post facto approval for extension in service to
Smt. Sadhana Shet, Superintending Engineer, CO V,
Public Works Department beyond the date of her
superannuation for a period of six months w.e.f.
01-05-2024 to 31-10-2024, in public interest;
Now, therefore, the Government is pleased to
confirm the Order No. 13/04/2024-PER/921 dated
15-03-2024 granting extension in service to
Smt. Sadhana Shet, Superintending Engineer, CO V,
Public Works Department beyond the date of her
superannuation for a period of six months w.e.f.
01-05-2024 to 31-10-2024, in public interest.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 1st January, 2025.
——————
Department of Public Grievances
–––
Notification
No. 41/1/2022/PG(Notification)/858
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 and Clause (b) of Section 2
of the Goa (Right of Citizen to Time-Bound Delivery of Public Services) Act, 2013 (Goa Act 19 of 2013), read
with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act 10 of 1897), the Government of Goa hereby
amends the Government Notification No. 41/1/2022/PG(Notification)/235 dated 31-10-2022, published in
the Official Gazette, Series II No. 31 dated 03-11-2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Principal Notification”),
as follows, namely:—
In the schedule to the principal Notification, under the heading “Department of Labour Commissioner,
Labour and Employment, Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers”, for the existing entries at Serial Nos.
160 to 168J, the following entries shall be substituted, namely:—
1
2
3
4
5
“160.
Approval of Factory Plans
Chief Inspector of Factories
90 days
Secretary (Factories
& Boilers
& Boilers).
161.
Registration & Grant of
Chief Inspector of Factories
21 days
Secretary (Factories
Factory License
& Boilers
& Boilers).
162.
Renewal of Factory License
Chief Inspector of Factories
21 days
Secretary (Factories
& Boilers
& Boilers).
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
849
1
2
3
4
5
163.
Amendment of Factory
Chief Inspector of Factories
21 days
Secretary (Factories
License
& Boilers
& Boilers).
164.
Transfer of Factory License
Chief Inspector of Factories
21 days
Secretary (Factories
& Boilers.
& Boilers).
165.
Approval of Notice of Period
Inspector of Factories
21 days
Chief Inspector of
of Work for Adult Workers
Factories & Boilers.
166.
Issue of Certificate of Fitness
Medical Inspector of
21 days
Chief Inspector of
to Young Person
Factories/Certifying Surgeon
Factories & Boilers.
167.
Confirmation of appointment
Medical Inspector of
05 days
Chief Inspector of
for conducting Medical
Factories/Certifying Surgeon
Factories & Boilers.
Examination of Workers
168.
Confirmation of appointment
Chemist
05 days
Chief Inspector of
for conducting Industrial
Factories & Boilers.
Hygiene Survey
169.
Confirmation of dates of
Training Assistant
05 days
Chief Inspector of
training programme to be
Factories & Boilers.
organised
170.
Recognition as Competent
Chief Inspector of Factories
60 days
Secretary (Factories
Person/Safety Officer/
& Boilers
& Boilers).
/Factory Medical Officer/
/Welfare Officer/Occupational
Health Laboratory/
/Occupational Safety
& Health Auditor
171.
Registration of boiler having
Inspector of Boilers
30 days
Chief Inspector of
heating surface area of less
Factories & Boilers.
than 1000 sq. meter
172.
Registration of boiler having
Chief Inspector of
30 days
Secretary (Factories &
heating surface area of more
Factories & Boilers
Boilers).
than 1000 sq. meter
173.
Renewal of Certificate for
Inspector of Boilers
21 days
Chief Inspector of
use of boiler
Factories & Boilers.
174.
Permission to carry out repairs/
Chief Inspector of
21 days
Secretary (Factories &
/alterations to boilers
Factories & Boilers
Boilers).
175.
Inspection of material as per
Inspector of Boilers
21 days
Chief Inspector of
Indian Boiler Regulations, 1950
Factories & Boilers.
176.
Approval of drawings related
Inspector of Boilers
21 days
Chief Inspector of
to steam pipeline connected
Factories & Boilers.
to boilers having heating surface
area of less than 1000 sq. meter
177.
Approval of drawings related
Chief Inspector of Factories
21 days
Secretary (Factories &
to steam pipeline connected to
& Boilers
Boilers).
Boilers having heating surface
area of more than 1000 sq. meter
178.
Approval of firm as repairer/
Chief Inspector of
21 days
Secretary (Factories &
/erector/pipe fabrication/
Factories & Boilers
Boilers).
/manufacturer/testing laboratory
related to boiler, its components
and fittings.
850
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
1
2
3
4
5
179.
Renewal of firm as repairer/
Chief Inspector of Factories
21 days
Secretary (Factories &
erector/pipe fabrication/
& Boilers
Boilers).”
/manufacturer/testing
laboratory related to boiler,
its components and fittings.
This Notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Prasad Volvoikar, Director (Public Grievances) & ex officio Joint Secretary.
Porvorim, 6th November, 2024.
——————
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
–––
Order
No. 5/2/93-Tpt/P.F./2024/Part File/3104
The following Assistant Directors of Transport (Group ‘B’ Gazetted) are transferred with effect on
administrative grounds and in public interest as detailed hereunder:-
Sr. No.
Name of the Assistant Director of Transport
Present posting
Posting on transfer
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Rajesh G. Naik
O/o. A.D.T., Pernem
O/o. A.D.T., Ponda.
2.
Shri Santosh Gawde
O/o. A.D.T., Ponda
O/o. A.D.T., Vasco.
3.
Shri Ladu Gaonkar
Newly promoted
O/o. A.D.T., Pernem.
The above Assistant Directors of Transport are directed to join the new place of posting immediately and
complete handing over/taking over formalities accordingly.
Further, the said Officers are directed not to avail joining period or any type of leave till they assume
charge at the new place of posting.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
P. Pravimal Abhishek, IAS, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Transport).
Panaji, 31st December, 2024.
—–––––—
Order
No. D. Tpt./EST/244/Addl. D.T./Part File-I/2024/3102
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission, Panaji conveyed vide their letter No.
COM/II/11/49(1)/2006/336 dated 16-12-2024, the Government is pleased to promote Shri Ramkrishna @
Rajesh B. Naik, Assistant Director of Transport to the post of Additional Director of Transport (Group ‘A’
Gazetted) in the Pay Matrix Level 10 of the 7th Pay Commission on regular basis with immediate effect
and post him as Additional Director of Transport, South, Margao-Goa.
The said Officer shall be on probation for a period of two years.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
P. Pravimal Abhishek, IAS, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Transport).
Panaji, 31st December, 2024.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
851
Order
No. D. Tpt./EST/285-V/2024/3103
On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service
Commission, Panaji conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/49(1)/2022/335 dated 16-12-2024, the
Government is pleased to promote Shri Ladu H.
Gaonkar, Motor Vehicles Inspector to the post of
Assistant Director of Transport (Group ‘B’ Gazetted)
in Pay Matrix Level 7 of the 7th Pay Commission on
regular basis with immediate effect and post him as
Assistant Director of Transport, Pernem-Goa.
The said Officer shall be on probation for a period
of two years.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
P. Pravimal Abhishek, IAS, Director & ex officio
Addl. Secretary (Transport).
Panaji, 31st December, 2024.
——————
The Dhargal Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
Dhargal, Pernem-Goa
Registration No. Res.-(a)-37/NZ/GOA.
[email protected]
––
FORM-24
(See Rule 111A)
Form for declaration of result
In pursuance of powers conferred by sub-section 6 of Section 66 of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001,
I declare the result of office bearers as follows:
Election of Office Bearer of: “The Dhargal Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Dhargal, Pernem-Goa”
Sr.
Name of the candidate
Designation
Address, contact number & email
No.
ID of the candidate
1
2
3
4
1.
Benkar Audumbar Vishnu
Chairman
Bhendali Ozarim, Pernem, North Goa
9145064255
2.
Kamat Nandkishor Shivram
Vice-Chairman
H. No. 192, Govwada, Dhargal, Pernem,
North Goa.
9423314121
Tanshu R. Mayekar, Authorised person & Jr. Auditor/Inspector, O/o. Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
North Zone.
Mapusa, 1st January, 2025.
V. No. AP-1212/2025.
——————
Guirim Sangolda M. P. Co-op. Service Society Ltd.
“Suryakiran”, Gonsalves Mansion, First floor, Flat No. AF-4, St. Anthony Waddo, Guirim,
Bardez-Goa 403507
Reg. No. RES-(C)-127/GOA
––
FORM-24
(See Rule 111A)
Form for declaration of result
In pursuance of powers conferred by sub-section 6 of Section 66 of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001, I,
declare the result of office bearers as follows.
852
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 41
9TH JANUARY, 2025
Election of Office Bearer of the “Guirim-Sangolda M.P. Co-op. Service Society Ltd., Suryakiran, Gonsalves
Mansion, First floor, Flat No. AF-4, St. Anthonywaddo, Guirim, Bardez-Goa.”
Sr.
Name of the candidate
For the post of
Address, contact number & e-mail
No.
ID of the candidate
1. Mr. Peter Vincent Afonso
Chairman
H. No. 418/1, Sangolda, Morod, Bardez-Goa.
Ph. 9890176446
2. Mrs. Gauri Dattarao Dessai
Vice-Chairman
H. No. 506, Agni wado, Guirim, Bardez-Goa.
Ph. 9923036356
Rameshwar R. Dabholkar, Authorised person.
Mapusa, 18th December, 2024.
V. No. AP-1217/2025.
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 24.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—321/80—01/2025.