SERIES II No. 42

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026

Panaji, 16th January, 2025 (Pausa 26, 1946)

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Animal Husbandry

Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services

––

Notification

No. 4-1(10)/TaskForce/2024-25/6108

In pursuance of the directions of the

Government of India, Mnistry of Fisheries, Animal

Husbandry & Dairying vide D.O. letter No. R-24018/

/26/2023-DIRANLM (E25776) advising all the State

to constitute the Task Force on fodder

development, the Government is pleased to

constitute a Task Force on Fodder Development in

the State with its objective to see that more area

is covered under fodder development. The Task

Force on Fodder Development in the State of Goa

is constituted with the following member:

1. Director of Animal Husbandry

— Chairman.

& Veterinary Services

2. Director, ICAR-CCARI, Ela,

-— Member.

Old Goa, Goa

3. Director of Agriculture,

— Member.

Caranzalem, Goa

4. Director of Rural

— Member.

Development Agency

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

873

Note:- There are four Extraordinary issues to the Official

Gazette, Series II No. 41 dated 09-01-2025 as

follows:

(1) Extraordinary dated 09-01-2025 from pages

853 to 854 regarding Circular from Department

of Finance.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 13-01-2025 from

pages 855 to 866 regarding Circulars from

Department of Finance.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 14-01-2025 from

pages 867 to 868 regarding Orders and

Notification from Goa State Election

Commission.

(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 15-01-2025 from

pages 869 to 872 regarding Notifications from

Goa State Election Commission.

5. Deputy Director (Gyn),

— Member.

Animal Husbandry &

Veterinary Services

6. Deputy Director (CSS),

— Nodal

Animal Husbandry &

Officer.

Veterinary Services

7. Deputy Conservator of

— Member.

Forest Department (Research)

8. Programme Co-ordinator

— Member.

of KVK, North Goa

9. Programme Co-ordinator

— Member.

of KVK, South Goa

10. Project Director, ATMA,

— Member.

North Goa

11. Project Director, ATMA,

— Member.

South Goa

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Nitin Naik, Director (AH & VS) & ex officio

Joint Secretary.

Panaji, 18th December, 2024.

——————

Department of Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs

––

Order

No. DCS/EST/Appt.PIO/TALUKA/2024-25/2816

Read: 1. Order No. DCS/EST/1-90/R.Inf.Act/2005/198

dated 08-12-2005.

2. Order No. DCS/EST/Appt.PIO/TALUKA/

2018-19/442 dated 31-01-2019.

In exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 of

Right to Information Act, 2005 and in supersession

874

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

of all the earlier Orders on the subject, the Government of Goa is pleased to designate following Officials

as Public Information Officer/Assistant Public Information Officer & First Appellate Authority at Head

Office and Taluka Civil Supplies Offices, Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, with immediate

effect.

Sr.

Name of

Name of Public

Name of Assistant

First

No.

Office

Information Officer

Public Information

Appellate

Officer

Authority

Department of Civil Supplies

Deputy Director of

Assistant Director (HQ-II),

Director,

& Consumer Affairs

Civil Supplies &

Department of Civil

Department of

(Head Office)

Consumer Affairs

Supplies & Consumer

Civil Supplies

Affairs

& Consumer

Affairs.

All Taluka Offices

Inspector in-charge

Senior most Sub-

Assistant Director

of Department of Civil

(CS)

-Inspector

of Civil Supplies

Supplies & Consumer Affairs

at Taluka Offices.

This issues with the approval of the Government.

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

Jayant G. Tari, Director (Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs) & ex officio Jt. Secretary.

Panaji, 6th January, 2025.

——————

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

–––

Notification

No. 08/02/2024-25/Wing-I/HQ/RCS/3360

In exercise of the powers vested in me under

Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001, “The Hirkani MCLF Co-operative

Multipurpose Society Ltd.”, C/o Resh Rajas

Sanguelekar, H. No. 82/1, Rai Wado, Marna Siolim-

-Goa is registered under code symbol No.

RCSZ2024250004.

Arvind Bugde, Registrar (Co-operative Societies).

Panaji, 24th December, 2024.

Certificate of Registration

“The Hirkani MCLF Co-operative Multipurpose

Society Ltd.”, C/o Resh Rajas Sanguelekar, H. No.

82/1, Rai Wado, Marna Siolim-Goa has been

registered on 23-12-2024 and its bears registration

code symbol No. RCSZ2024250004 and its classified

as General Society under sub-classification

No. 12-(e)-Self Help Group in terms of Rule 8 of the

Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Arvind Bugde, Registrar (Co-operative Societies).

Panaji, 24th December, 2024.

Department of Education

Directorate of Higher Education

–––

Order

No. DHE/ADMN/168/WA-NMV-Inter-Co-Ord./

/2024/7583

Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded

for availing the services on working arrangement

basis of Mr. Nikhil M. Varerkar, Associate Professor at

Dempo College of Commerce and Economics, Cujira,

Bambolim, Goa as Internship Co-ordinator in

Directorate of Higher Education as a stopgap

arrangement.

Mr. Nikhil M. Varerkar shall draw his salary as

Associate Professor at Dempo College of Commerce

and Economics, Cujira, Bambolim, Goa and his

working arrangement shall be a temporary measure

until the post is filled on regular basis.

The Principal of Dempo College of Commerce and

Economics, Cujira, Bambolim, Goa shall relieve Mr.

Nikhil M. Varerkar, Associate Professor with

immediate effect.

This issues with the approval of the Government.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sanjana D. Bandekar, Under Secretary (Higher

Education).

Porvorim, 30th December, 2024.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

875

Department of Environment & Climate Change

––

Order

No. 76/4/2010/ENVT & CC/DIR/Part/1829

Sub.: State Oil Spill Crisis Management Group (SOS-CMG).

Ref.:1) National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan (NOSDCP-2015).

2) Goa State Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan (Goa SOS-DCP).

The State of Goa, through the Department of Environment & Climate Change, in exercise of the powers

conferred under Section 3 (3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, hereby constitutes the State Oil Spill

Crisis Management Group (SOS-CMG) under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Government of Goa.

State Oil Spill Crisis Management Group (SOS-CMG)

Sr.

Members

Designation

No.

Chief Secretary

Chairperson.

Secretary (Finance)

Member.

Secretary (Labour and Employment)

Member.

Secretary (Environment)

Member.

Secretary (Health)

Member.

Secretary (Industries, Trade and Commerce)

Member.

Secretary (Public Works Department)

Member.

Secretary (Tourism)

Member.

Secretary (Water Resources)

Member.

10.

Secretary (Fisheries)

Member.

11.

Secretary (Transport)

Member.

12.

Secretary (Panchayats)

Member.

13.

Secretary (Urban Development)

Member.

14.

Indian Coast Guard-(W) DIG or above

Member.

15.

Secretary (Revenue)

Member.

16.

Secretary (Home)

Member.

17.

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Member.

18.

Director General of Police

Member.

19.

Director, Civil Defence

Member.

20.

Director, Directorate of Transport

Member.

21.

Director, Directorate of Health Services

Member.

22.

Director, Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services

Member.

23.

Director, Department of Environment & Climate Change

Member.

24.

Director, Department of Science, Technology & Waste Management

Member.

25.

Director, National Institute of Oceanography

Member.

26.

Vice Chancellor, Goa University

Member.

876

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

27.

Director, National Disaster Management Authority

Member.

28.

Chairperson, Mormugao Port Authority

Member.

29.

Captain of Ports, Department of Ports

Member.

30.

Director, River Navigation Department

Member.

31.

Chief Inspector, Inspectorate of Factories & Boilers

Member.

32.

Director, Directorate of Fire & Emergency Services

Member.

33.

Chairman, Goa State Pollution Control Board

Member.

34.

The Principal, Maritime School, c/o Captain of Ports

Member.

35.

Director General, Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Expert Member.

36.

Factory Manager, M/s. Omni Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Expert Member.

37.

Associate Director (HSE), M/s. Deccan Fine Chemicals (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Expert Member.

38.

Chief Manufacturing Officer & Unit Head, M/s Paradeep

Expert Member.

Phosphates Pvt. Ltd.

39.

Chief Executive Officer, M/s Zuari IAV Pvt. Ltd., Oil Terminal

Expert Member.

40.

Member Secretary, Goa State Pollution Control Board

Member Secretary.

The Terms of Reference for the State Oil Spill Crisis Management Group (SOS-CMG) are as follows:

1. Facilitate State’s preparedness and response to oil spill incidents and further effectively implement

and execute the mandate of the Goa-SOS-DCP.

2. Address issues related to oil spill management during, prior to and post oil spills.

3. Provide guidance, assistance or advice useful in performing any of the stakeholder functions.

4. Assist the State Government in managing oil pollution incident at a site in the State.

5. Meet atleast once in six months, record minutes with issues discussed, action plan for the same,

responsibility and target dates for implementation and last status update and forward a copy of the

same to the Central Co-ordinating Authority, DIG (Environment), Indian Coast Guard.

6. Can co-opt any person whose assistance or advice is considered useful in performing any of its

functions, to participate in the deliberations of any of its meetings.

7. Review the planning standards of GOA SOS-DCP at five-year intervals to ensure:

The maintenance of best achievable practices to respond to a worst-case spill provide for.

ii.

Continuous operation of oil spill response activities to the maximum extent practicable and

without jeopardizing safety and environment.

iii.

Practices are updated to include proven new response technologies and response processes in

interaction with concerned interested parties prevention credits to support an alternative worst

case discharge volume for the contingency plan.

8. Review the progress report submitted by the District Crisis Management Groups.

9. Respond to queries addressed to it by the District Crisis Management Groups.

10.

Publish a list of experts and officials in the State who are concerned with the management of oil

pollution incidents.

All the non-official members of the Committee shall be entitled for Honorarium of Rs. 3500/- per member

per sitting which will be borne by the Department of Environment & Climate Change, Government of Goa.

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

Johnson B. Fernandes, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Environment & Climate Change).

Panaji, 3rd January, 2025.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

877

Department of Housing

Goa Housing Board

––––

Order

No. GHB/ADM/1018/2024

In exercise of the powers conferred by regulation

3 of the Goa Housing Board (Appointment and

functions of Technical Committee) Regulations,

2012, the Goa Housing Board, with the prior

approval of the Government conveyed vide letter

No. 2/3/2015/HSG/17 dated 23-09-2024, hereby

re-constitutes the Technical Committee consisting

of the following members, namely:-

Chairman of the Goa Housing —

Chairman.

Board

Secretary-cum-Managing

—

Member.

Director of Goa Housing

Board

Superintendent Engineer,

—

Member.

Circle Officer-II, Public

Works Department,

North Goa District

Shri Devendra Digambar

—

Member.

Prabhu, Architect

Shri Shivraj Nauso Arolkar,

—

Member.

Structural Consultant

Housing Engineer, Goa

—

Member

Housing Board

Secretary.

This order shall be deemed to have come into

effect from the date of Government approval i.e.

w.e.f. 23-09-2024.

Sd/-, Managing Director.

Porvorim, 30th September, 2024.

——————

Department of Labour

––

Order

No. 28/54/2024-LAB/8

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. Santosh Sadekar, 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. Santosh Sadekar, 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. 28/53/2024-LAB/9

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. Sunraj Talaulikar, 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. Sunraj Talaulikar, 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.

878

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

Order

No. 28/48/2024-LAB/10

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 Mahadev Patil, 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

Mahadev Patil, 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. 28/57/2024-LAB/11

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. Venkat M. Kankatte, 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.

Venkat M. Kankatte, 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. 28/51/2024-LAB/12

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. Akshay Pednekar, 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.

Akshay Pednekar, 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.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

879

Order

No. 28/73/2024-LAB/15

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Chowgule Industries Private

Limited, Campal, Panaji-Goa and it’s workman,

Shri Shantaram A. Raul, Store Executive/Store Clerk,

represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, 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.

Chowgule Industries Private Limited,

Campal, Panaji-Goa, in dismissing, Shri

Shantaram A. Raul, Store Executive/Store

Clerk,

vide

their

Order

dated

02-05-2023, 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. 28/74/2024-LAB/23

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Netzech Technologies India

Private Limited, L-10, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,

Goa and it’s workman, Shri Dakshak Waingankar, 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.

Netzech Technologies India Private Limited,

L-10, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa in

dismissing, Shri Dakshak Waingankar,

Technician, with effect from 21-02-2024, 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, 3rd January, 2025.

—––––

Order

No. 28/75/2024-LAB/24

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Netzech Technologies India

Private Limited, L-10, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,

Goa and it’s workman, Shri Sadashiv Dalvi, 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.

Netzech Technologies India Private Limited,

L-10, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa, in

dismissing, Shri Sadashiv Dalvi, Technician,

with effect from 21-04-2024, 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, 3rd January, 2025.

880

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

Notification

No. 28/02/2024-LAB/Part-II/759

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

25-11-2024 in Case No. IT/03/2001 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, 18th December, 2024.

––––

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. IT/03/2001

Shri Rohidas Naik,

Rep. by Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha,

Saidham, Dhavalimol, Kavlem,

Ponda-Goa ..... Workman/Party-I.

V/s

M/s M. R. F. Limited,

Tisk, Usgao,

Ponda-Goa .… Employer/Party II.

Workman/Party I represented by Learned Adv. Ms. S.

Narvekar.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri S. B. Karpe.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 25th day of the month of

November of the year 2024)

By Order dated 3rd January, 2001 bearing No. IRM/

/CON/PONDA/(287)/2000/78, the Government of Goa

in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘The Act’),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

SCHEDULE

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s MRF Limited, Usgao, Ponda, Goa, in

awarding punishment to Shri Rohidas Naik

of six days suspension from work on 2-9-99,

from 26-11-1999 to 27-11-1999 and from

30-12-1999 to 1-1-2000 without wages, is

legal and justified?

(2)

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/03/2001 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notice, Party I

filed his Claim Statement at Exhibit 3.

3. In brief, the case of the Workman/Party I is that

the Workman/Party I is employed in the

establishment of the Employer/Party II, M/s MRF Ltd.,

a Company incorporated under Company Act, 1956

having their factory at Usgao, Ponda-Goa. The

Company is engaged in the manufacturing of tyres.

Workman/Party I is the member of the Union formed

by the Employees of the Employer/Party II. That since

the formation of the said Union, there has been

harassment and victimization to the office bearers of

the Union as well as the members on account of their

legitimate trade union activities.

4. It is further alleged that the present illegal

punitive warnings and suspension of the Union’s

active member Mr. Rohidas Naik by letter dated

23-06-1999, 25-08-1999, 19-11-1999 and 27-12-1999 on

which dates he was the President of the Goa MRF

Employees’ Union amounts to harassment and unfair

labour practice. It is further stated that by an illegal

show-cause notice dated 04-05-1999, the Company

alleged that the Party I had remained unauthorisedly

absent during certain days in the months of

November, 1998 to March, 1999 for which only 48

hours were given to the Party I to reply to the same

which was prejudicial to him. It is stated that Party I

sought time to submit his reply but before any reply

could be submitted, by a letter dated 23-06-1999, the

Party II illegally imposed a punishment by way of

warning on the Party I and neither any documents

sought by the Party I to prepare his reply were

furnished to him nor was he given an opportunity to

file his reply.

5. Party I further stated that the Party II issued

another illegal show-cause notice dated 09-08-1999

alleging unauthorized absence for certain days

during April, 1999 to June, 1999 and once again only

48 hours were given to file the reply. Party I was forced

to seek time of 10 days to file his reply, which was in

fact filed on 24-08-1999. In the detailed reply, the Party I

sought copies of his Leave Card, which was in

possession of the Management which request was

refused by the Party II thereby prejudicing the

Workman’s defence. The Party I stated that he had

explained his absence on the ground that he had

applied for leave without pay for most of the days

due to Union work and had also requested the Party

II to assign him work in Shift I and II only as was

being done for office bearers of the other Union which

request was also refused by Party II.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

881

6. It is further alleged that the Party II illegally

imposed one day suspension by way of punishment

on the Party I who lost his wages for that day as also

all the benefits that would accrue to him and no

enquiry was held nor were any documents requested

by him were furnished to him. By letter dated

06-09-1999, the Party I had informed the Party II that

he had to remain present at the High Court for

hearing of a Writ Petition filed by the Union against

the Party II to enforce a paid holiday which request

was refused by the Party II.

7. By another illegal show-cause notice dated

03-11-1999, the Party II alleged unauthorized absence

of the Workman during July to October, 1999. The

Party I sought time of 8 days on 05-11-1999 as only 48

hours were given to him to file the reply and further

8 days’ time was sought on 15-11-1999 which was

refused by the Party II and an illegal order of 2 days’

suspension as punishment was imposed on the

Party I/Workman. The Party I was not given

opportunity to reply to the Show-Cause Notice nor

was given any documents requested by him and no

enquiry was held into the alleged misconduct before

imposing the punishment. A detailed reply dated

04-12-1999 was filed by the Party I/Workman despite

which the Party II did not withdraw the illegal order

of suspension.

8. The Party I states that by a letter dated

11-12-1999, the Party II issued a Show-Cause Notice

which the Party I received on 13-12-1999 alleging

the absence of Party I in the months of November

and December, 1999 on the dates mentioned therein

constituting gross-misconduct under Item No. XXV

& VII of Clause-4 of the Certified Standing Orders.

Thereafter, by letter dated 27-12-1999, the Party I was

served with the Order of Suspension by way of

punishment interactive on the ground that the

request for 15 days’ time to reply to the show-cause

notice was not justified. It is submitted that the said

punitive suspensions imposed on the Party I are

illegal and the show-cause notice issued against the

Party I was ex-facie illegal and untenable at law as

the Party I was not allowed even a reasonable

opportunity of showing cause to the show-cause

notices dated 04-05-1999, 09-08-1999, 03-11-1999 and

11-12-1999. The Party I states that there was indeed

no enquiry before the imposition of the punitive

suspension as the warning and the punitive

suspensions have been imposed by the Party II only

to victimize the Party I for his legitimate trade union

activities.

9. The Party I stated that since the suspension was

clearly illegal, the Union, Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha, a

Trade Union of which the Party I is a member,

forwarded a letter dated 14-01-2000 to the Party II

with the following demand:

“We demand that the show cause notices dated

04-05-1999, 09-08-1999, 03-11-1999, 11-12-1999 and

letters imposing punishment by way of warning and

suspension dated 23-06-1999, 25-08-1999, 19-11-1999

and 27-12-1999 be withdrawn/cancelled/revoked with

full wages for the period of suspension and continuity

of service. We further demand that Mr. Rohidas Naik

(T. No. 752) be given compensation amounting to two

days’ wages for every one day of enforced

unemployment in view of the mental torture caused to

Mr. Rohidas Naik and his family”.

10. The Party I stated that since the demand letter

was not replied by the Party II, by letter dated

24-02-2000, the said Union was constrained on behalf

of the Party I/Workman to approach the Office of the

Labour Commissioner to take the matter for

conciliation. The said Union also submitted a

Justification Statement along with the letter dated

24-02-2000. The conciliation proceedings ended in

failure as not only did the Party II by its Justification

Statement dated 04-08-2000 denied that the Party I

was entitled to any relief but also called upon the

Conciliation Officer to treat the matter as closed.

11. It is the case as pleaded by the Party II in the

Written Statement at Exh. 4 that the Party I/Workman

was employed with the Party II Company. It is

submitted that the Party I was absenting from work

unauthorisedly and without leave or any intimation

which constituted serious acts of misconduct under

the Certified Standing Orders. The Party II submitted

that Party I was issued warning letter dated

09-07-1997 wherein he was advised to improve his

attendance in future as far as his unauthorised

absenteeism was concerned in the months of April,

May and June for the year, 1997.

12. The Party II states that the Party I was found

remaining unauthorisedly absent without leave or

intimation during the months of Nov’98 (6 days),

December’98 (8 days), Jan’99 (9 days), Feb’99 (7 days)

and March’99 (7 days) and was served with a show-

cause notice dated 04-05-1999 and instead of replying

to the said show-cause notice, the Party I sought

further time to reply to the said show-cause notice

by his letter dated 17-05-1999. The Party II submitted

that the Party I was avoiding showing cause in a

matter of his unauthorised absence from work in an

attempt to delay the proceedings. The Party II

submitted that after considering the nature of the

misconduct and the request for further time, awarded

a lighter punishment of a warning by way of

punishment vide their letter dated 23-06-1999 and

the Party I was once again advised to be regular at

work in future.

882

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

13. The Party II submitted that despite being

advised to be regular at work, the Party I/Workman

continued to remain unauthorisedly absent from

work without leave or intimation during the months

of April, 1999 (6 days), May’99 (11 days) and June’99

(7 days) and was served with a show-cause notice

dated 09-08-1999. The Party I/Workman replied to

the show cause notice vide his reply dated

24-09-1999 which reply was not satisfactory in nature.

However, once again the Party II on considering the

reply, treated the matter in a lenient manner and

imposed a lighter punishment on the workman by

awarding a single days’ suspension by way of

punishment vide their Order dated 25-08-1999.

14. The Party II submitted that despite the earlier

warning letter, show-cause notices and subsequent

order of punishment, the Party I/Workman continued

to commit similar acts of misconduct and remained

unauthorisedly absent from work during the months

of July, 1999 (10 days), Aug’99 (3 days), Sept’99

(2 days), and Oct’99 (3 days) for which the Party II

was constrained to issue another show-cause dated

03-11-1999 and the Party I was asked to show-cause

as regards to the abovementioned absenteeism. It is

submitted that once again the Party I failed to show-

cause within the stipulated time and instead insisted

on further 8 days’ time to file the reply. The Party II

after having considered the request and the

seriousness of the acts of misconduct committed by

the Party I/Workman and the failure to reply to the

show-cause, imposed a two days’ suspension to the

Party I vide their Order dated 19-11-1999, once again

advising the Party I/Workman to be regular at work.

15. The Party II submitted that the Party I/Workman

did not heed to the advice of the Party II and

continued to remain unauthorisedly absent from

work without leave or intimation during the months

of Nov’99 (7 days) and Dec’99 (6 days) and was once

again issued another show-cause notice dated

11-12-1999 wherein he was asked to reply to the said

show-cause notice. The Party I/Workman however

once again failed to show-cause as required and

instead sought further 15 days’ time to reply to the

show-cause notice. The Party II once again after

considering the request of the Party I/Workman came

to the conclusion that the extension of time sought

by the Party I was unjustified and uncalled for and

submitted that the Party I/Workman was a habitual

absentee from work which is evident from his

attendance record whereby once again the Party I/

Workman was shown leniency by the Party II was

and let off with a 3 days’ suspension from work

without wages.

16. The Party II stated that the Party I/Workman

was remaining unauthorisedly absent from work and

continued to do so despite repeated advice by the

Party II from time to time whereby he was advised to

improve his attendance in his own interest. The Party

II submitted that the Party I/Workman was given

several opportunities to improve his attendance

which continued to deteriorate over a period of time

causing disruption of normal work which amounted

to serious acts of misconduct under Item XXV & LII

of Clause-21 of the Certified Standing Order of the

Company which in fact warranted strict disciplinary

action against the Party I. It is submitted that having

concluded each time that the acts so committed by

the Party I/Workman were serious in nature, modified

the quantum of punishment imposed on the Party I/

Workman and the same was in accordance with the

provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of the

Company and as per law.

17. The Party II in their Written Statement specifically

denied the explanation and the justification given

by Party I/Workman with reference to his alleged

illegal absenteeism and submitted that the Party I is

not entitled for any relief as claimed in the Claim

Statement.

18. In the Rejoinder filed by Party I all the

averments in the Written Statement of Party II have

been specifically denied. Party I maintained and

reiterated all the facts stated by him in his Statement

of Claim and denied the case of the Party II and all

the objections raised in respect of Statement of Claim

in the Written Statement filed by Party II.

19. On completion of the pleadings, the following

Issues were framed at Exhibit 6 by this Tribunal

which reads as under:

ISSUES

1. Whether the Party I/Union proves that the

action of the Party II/Employer in awarding

punishment to Shri Rohidas Naik of six days

suspension from work on 2-9-99, from

26-11-99 to 27-11-99 and from 30-12-99 to

1-1-2000 is illegal and unjustified and is an

act of unfair labour practice?

2. Whether the Party II/Employer proves that

the reference is not maintainable?

3. Whether Shri Rohidas Naik is entitled to any

relief?

4. What Award?

20. I have gone through the records i.e. the

pleadings, the oral as well as documentary evidence

adduced by both the Parties, the written synopsis

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

883

filed as well as the oral arguments advanced by

both the Parties and after considering the same my

findings on the issues with reasons are as follows:

Issue No. 1 & 3 :

In the negative.

Issue No. 2

In the negative.

Issue No. 5

As per final order.

REASONS

21. Issue No. 1 and 3: It is the case of Party I/Union

that the Party II issued illegal punitive warnings and

suspension orders vide letter dated 23-06-1999,

25-08-1999, 19-11-1999 and 27-12-1999 to the Party I/

/Workman, he being the active member of the Union.

According to Party I the alleged show-cause notices

caused prejudice to him as the Party II illegally

imposed a punishment by way of warning on the

Party I/Workman and had not allowed the Party I to

file its reply along with documents.

22. That the illegal show-cause notice dated

09-08-1999 alleging unauthorized absence for certain

days during April, 1999 to June, 1999 again caused

grave prejudice to Party I/Workman as according to

Party I, he had explained his absence on the ground

that he had applied for leave without pay for most of

the days due to Union work and had also requested

the Party II to assign him work in Shift I and II only as

it was being done for office bearers of the other Union

which request was also refused by Party II.

23. It is further the case of the Party I that the Party

II illegally imposed one day suspension by way of

punishment on him due to which he lost his wages

for that day and that while doing so, the Party II did

not hold any enquiry nor was he allowed to produce

any documents as requested,which act of the Party

II has caused prejudice to him. That by another illegal

show-cause notice dated 03-11-1999, the Party II

alleged unauthorized absence of the Workman

during July to October, 1999 and ordered 2 days’

illegal suspension by way of punishment which order

of suspension and punishment has caused great

prejudice to the Party I/Workman.

24. The Party I stated that by letter dated 11-12-1999,

the Party II issued a Show-Cause Notice which the

Party I received on 13-12-1999 alleging the absence

of Party I/Workman in the months of November and

December, 1999 on the dates mentioned therein

constituting gross-misconduct under Item No. XXV

& VII of Clause-4 of the Certified Standing Orders.

Thereafter, by letter dated 27-12-1999 the Party/

Workman was served with the Order of Suspension

by way of punishment interactive on the ground that

the request for 15 days’ time to reply to the show-

cause notice was not justified. It is submitted that

the said punitive suspensions imposed on the Party

II are illegal and the show-cause notice issued

against the Party I was ex-facie illegal and untenable

at law as the Party I was not allowed even a

reasonable opportunity of showing cause to the

show-cause notices dated 04-05-1999, 09-08-1999,

03-11-1999 and 11-12-1999. The Party I states that

there was indeed no enquiry before the imposition

of the punitive suspension as the warning and the

punitive suspensions have been imposed by the Party

II only to victimize the Party I for his legitimate trade

union activities.

25. The Party I stated that since the suspension

was clearly illegal, the Union, Mumbai Mazdoor

Sabha, a Trade Union of which the Party I is a member,

forwarded a letter dated 14-01-2000 to the Party II

with the following demand:

“We demand that the show cause notices dated

04-05-1999, 09-08-1999, 03-11-1999, 11-12-1999 and

letters imposing punishment by way of warning and

suspension dated 23-06-1999, 25-08-1999, 19-11-1999

and 27-12-1999 be withdrawn/cancelled/revoked with

full wages for the period of suspension and continuity

of service. We further demand that Mr. Rohidas Naik

(T. No. 752) be given compensation amounting to two

days’ wages for every one day of enforced

unemployment in view of the mental torture caused to

Mr. Rohidas Naik and his family”.

26. The Party I stated that since the demand letter

was not replied by the Party II, therefore, by letter

dated 24-02-2000, the said Union was constrained on

behalf of the Party I/Workman to approach the Office

of the Labour Commissioner to take the matter for

conciliation. The said Union also submitted a

Justification Statement dated 04-08-2000 along with

the letter dated 24-02-2000. The conciliation

proceedings ended in failure as not only did the Party II

by its Justification Statement dated 04-08-2000

denied that the Party I was entitled to any relief but

also called upon the Conciliation Officer to treat the

matter as closed.

27. On the other hand, it is the contention of the

Party II that the Workman was absenting

unauthorisedly from work without leave or intimation

during the above specified period for which even

the Warning Letters were issued to him and he was

advised not to repeat the same in future. The

Workman however, continued remaining absent

unauthorisedly without leave or intimation for the

following period i.e. 6 days absenteeism for the

month of November, 1998, 8 days absenteeism for the

month of December, 1998, 9 days absenteeism for the

month of January, 1999, 7 days absenteeism for the

month of February, 1999, 7 days absenteeism for the

month of March, 1999, for which he was again served

884

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

with the show-cause notice dated 04-09-1999. The

records reveal that the Workman instead of filing

reply to the said notice sought time to file his reply.

Therefore, considering the conduct of the Workman

and also considering his nature of avoiding to give

justification for his absenteeism, the Party II awarded

punishment by way of warning vide letter dated

23-06-1999 and he was advised to be regular in future.

28. The Party II has brought sufficient evidence on

record to show that despite previous punishment of

warnings and advises to be regular on his work, the

Workman again remained absent unauthorisedly

without leave or intimation for 6 days in April, 1999,

11 days in May, 1999 and 7 days in June, 1999

pursuance to which, considering the reply filed by

the Workman to the show-cause notice for the above

absenteeism as unsatisfactory, the Party II again took

a lenient view and awarded single day suspension

vide Punishment Order dated 25-08-1999.

29. The act of unauthorised absenteeism was

again repeated by Party I Workman by remaining

unauthorisedly absent from work for the period, 10

days of July, 1999, 3 days of August, 1999, 2 days of

September, 1999 and 2 days of October, 1999. The

show-cause notice issued to him dated 03-11-1999

was not replied within stipulated time and instead

the Workman asked for 8 days’ time to reply to the

show-cause notice. This time the Management

imposed 2 days’ suspension vide their Order dated

19-11-1999 for the above misconduct and was also

advised to be regular at work.

30. Despite repeated show-cause notices for his

alleged absenteeism periodically and the

subsequent punishment of suspension of 1 day and

2 days, the Workman yet again remained absent

unauthorisedly at work without leave or intimation

in the month of November, 1999 for 7 days and in the

month of December, 1999 for 6 days for which again

the show-cause notice dated 11-12-1999 was issued

to the Workman. The Workman instead of filing reply

again sought 15 days’ time to file his reply. The Party

II however felt that the extension sought by the

Workman was unjustified and uncalled for and

proceeded to impose punishment of 3 days

suspension from work without wages. Therefore, the

contention of Party II that the above acts of the

Workman caused disruption of normal work besides

the facts that the Workman did not pay any heed to

the timely warnings given by the Party II nor could

respond positively to the show-cause notices within

a stipulated time despite given opportunities to do

so which act of the Workman was considered to be

an act of serious misconduct under Item No. XXV

and LII of Clause 21 of the Certified Standing Orders

which warrants strict disciplinary action.

31. It is further submitted that the Workman was

a habitual absentee and had not improved his

conduct despite being given reasonable

opportunities. The Workman in the reference

accepted that he was absent during the days as

indicated in the show-cause notice dated

09-08-1999. The Party II, therefore, has reasonably

and by way of legally acceptable evidence has proved

that the punishment imposed on the Workman was

based on the acts of unauthorised absenteeism

amounting to serious misconduct on behalf of the

Workman which has resulted into passing orders of

suspension as discussed hereinabove. It is also

brought on record that the Workman was in

possession of his Leave Application Card and

therefore was aware about his status of leave and

other details pertaining to his Leave Application

Card, however, has not taken any steps to discard

the case put forth by the Party II as regards his

unauthorised absenteeism.

32. The Party II for every alleged act of absenteeism

has issued show-cause notice to the Workman by

giving him opportunity to justify his absenteeism,

however, the Workman either failed to file his reply

within the given stipulated time nor could give

acceptable justification for his alleged absenteeism.

Therefore, it is the contention of the Party II that the

punishment of suspension was proportionate to the

proved acts of misconduct committed by Party I/

Workman. It is further their contention that the action

taken by the Party II/Company is fair and justified in

the given facts and circumstances and considering

the evidence on record. The Party II/Company has

also shown that the suspension imposed on Party I/

Workman was in accordance with the Certified

Standing Orders of the Company and that the same

has been passed after giving a reasonable

opportunity to improve his attendance.

33. As regards the defence taken by the Party I/

Workman that no detailed inquiry was held prior to

passing of the Suspension Order, it is submitted that

under Clause 22(a) (iii) (i.e. suspension without pay

not exceeding 4 days), the detailed enquiry is not

mandatory. In other words, the Certified Standing

Orders do not warrant an enquiry to be conducted in

cases of punishment under Clause 22(a) (iii) before

awarding punishment provided reasonable

opportunity in writing is given to the Workman to

explain the charges. Hence, the Party II contented

that the punishment proportionate to the act of

misconduct committed by the Workman/Party I has

been imposed upon him as the same is necessary as

a measure of discipline which is the paramount

importance in functioning and running of the affairs

of the Party II/Company. The Workman at every step

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

885

has alleged that he has been the victim of unfair

labour practice however, could not bring anything

on record to substantiate the above fact, on the

contrary the Party II by way of oral as well as

documentary evidence could prove the charges

levelled against the Workman and was also able to

prove that the punishment imposed was not

disproportionate to those charges of misconduct.

Hence, the issue No. 1 and 3 are answered in the

negative.

34. Issue No. 2: For the reasons discussed in the

Issue No. 1 and 3, this Tribunal is of the opinion that

the present reference is maintainable and therefore,

this Issue stands answered in the negative.

Hence, the Order:

ORDER

The Workman is not entitled for any relief.

ii.

No order as to cost.

iii.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

-Labour Court.

————

Notification

No. 28/02/2024-LAB/736

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

14-11-2024 in Case Ref. No. Appln. 02/2014 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, 05th December, 2024.

––––

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Appln. 02/2014

Mr. Rayu M. Phadte and 6 others,

Rep. by Gen. Secretary,

The Marmagao Waterfront Worker’s

Union, Mukund Building, 2nd Floor,

P. O. Box No. 90,

Vasco Da Gama-Goa ..... Applicants/Party-I.

V/s

M/s Navdurga Shipping Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Managing Director,

Madkaikar Apartment,

Ella, Old Goa,

Tiswadi, Goa .… Opponent/Party II.

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Learned Adv. Shri

K. Monteiro.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 14th day of the month of

November of the year 2024)

The Applicants/Party I have filed this Application

under Section 2A(2) seeking for adjudication of the

existing dispute between the Management of M/s

Navdurga Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and the Applicants/

/Party I in the matter of retrenchment of the services

of the 7 workmen named hereinbelow.

2. In brief, it is the case of the Applicants/Party I

that they were working with the Opponent/Party II,

M/s. Navdurga Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd. All the 7

crew members were employed with the Opponent/

/Party II as per the following details:-

1. Mr. Rayu Maddu Phadte,

Designation Sukhani,

Date of joining 21-01-2006

2. Mr. Baburao Ramkrishna Naik,

Designation Engine Driver,

Date of joining 16-11-2006

3. Mr. Vijay Gangaram Naik,

Designation Master,

Date of joining 01-06-2010

4. Mr. Premanand Datta Fadte,

Designation Sukhani,

Date of joining 26-10-2005

5. Mr. Prashant Govind Korgaonkar,

Designation Oilman,

Date of joining 01-04-2006

6. Mr. Salahuddin Shafiq Khan,

Designation Master,

Date of joining 16-10-2008

7. Mr. Umesh Chandrakant Kundaikar,

Designation Sukhani,

Date of joining 01-07-2008.

886

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

3. The Applicants/Party I stated that the

Opponent/Party II had employed a total of more than

50 Workmen/Barge Crew for the purpose of operating

the 3 Barges in different designations such as

Masters, Drivers, Sukani, Oilman and Sailors. All the

crew members of the said 3 barges of the Opponent/

/Party II were entitled to wages as per the Settlement

dated 09-02-2007 and that they were also entitled for

other benefits such as Bonus, other Beneficial

Allowances, ESIC benefits and Allowances, T.A, D.A,

leave, Gratuity, Provident Fund, etc. All the crew

members employed on 3 Barges of the Opponent/

/Party II were transferable from one Barge to another

as per the exigencies of duty as determined by the

Opponent/Party II from time to time. Accordingly,

there was common seniority list designation wise of

all the Barge crew members of the Opponent/Party II.

4. The Applicants/Party I stated that the

Opponent/Party II had been paying the wages of the

crew members initially in cash in their office at Old

Goa, and later on by directly depositing the same in

their respective salary accounts opened by the

Opponent/Party. The barge workers working in Goa

are covered by the settlements signed between the

United Bargemen’s Association and Association of

the Barge Employer. As per the said settlement, the

crews are required to work in two shifts in a month of

15 days on fifteen days off with 9 Barge Crew in each

shift. As per the settlement dated 11-01-1985 at

Exb. 29 if the Employer continued the barge crew to

work for full month then such Barge crew is required

to be paid over time @ 2.5 times of their normal wages.

5. The Applicants/Party I stated that the said 7

workers had raised a dispute about their illegal

refusal of employment by writing to the Opponent/

/Party II on 08-10-2012, followed by their letter to the

earlier Union (United Bargemen’s Association) dated

20-11-2012. The said Union (United Bargemen’s

Association) raised industrial dispute with the

Opponent/Party II by its letter dated 20-11-2012 the

copy of which was also forwarded to the Assistant

Labour Commissioner, Panaji. As there was no sign

of settlement of the industrial dispute even after the

failure of the conciliation, the 7 crew members wrote

a joint letter dated 11-11-2013 addressed to the

Opponent/Party II, with a copy to the Commissioner

of Labour. The Office of the Commissioner of Labour

closed the file since the industrial dispute under

No. IRM/COM(56)2012, had been recorded failure on

19-08-2013. Meanwhile, on 14-08-2014, seven workers

had resigned from the United Bargemen’s

Association and had joined Marmagoa Waterfront

Workers Union.

6. The Applicants/Party I therefore prays that the

application be allowed and all the seven workers

be reinstated in their respective service with the

Opponent/Party II with full back wages and other

benefits.

7. The Opponent/Party II in the written statement

filed at Exhibit 6 opposed the Application stating

that the claim of the Applicants/Party I is

unsustainable in law, baseless, flagrant abuse of

process of law filed only to harass and blackmail

the Opponent/Party II. On merits, it is stated that in

the month of December, 2011, the mining business

in the State crumbled on account of the restrictions

imposed by the State Government and the

objections raised by the activists, NGO’s and the

members of the public protesting the mining

activity in the State of Goa. On account of the ban

imposed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on

transportation of Iron Ore resulted in closing of the

business of the Opponent/Party II permanently.

Operations of the barge “Annapurna” were closed

from 28-01-2012 and the Barge “Purva” came to be

closed from 20-07-2012 for the reasons stated above

which were beyond the control of the Opponent/

Party II.

8. The Opponent/Party II stated that the

Applicants/Party I used to render their services to

the Opponent/Party II occasionally as casual workers

only in certain exigencies. They were hired by the

Opponent/Party II temporarily, for purely casual

nature of work, as and when the need arose. The

Applicants/Party I were self-employed labourers,

who used to work casually as and when the work

was available for them. They worked not only with

the Opponent/Party II but also with others who would

be desirous of hiring their services. That, on having

realized that the business of the Opponent/Party II

had been closed permanently on account of the ban

imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they realized

that there was no option than to discharge all their

29 employees by paying their legal dues and closing

the business permanently. It is further stated that

the dispute raised by the Applicants/Party I which

was taken up for conciliation by the authority under

the Industrial Disputes Act ended in failure which

was followed by an order of reference dated

01-01-2014. The said reference came to be registered

by this Tribunal as Ref. No. IT/02/2014. The Opponent/

/Party II states that by an Award dated 11-06-2014;

this Tribunal was pleased to dispose off the reference

on account of failure on the part of the Applicants/

/Party I to prosecute the reference.

9. It is submitted that the claim raised by the

Applicants/Party I is totally fictitious, tainted with

malice only to extract money from the Opponent/

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

887

/Party II and hence prayed that the application of

the Applicants/Party I be dismissed.

10. Considering the Claim Statement of the

Applicants/Party I, the Written Statement filed by

the Opponent/Party II and the Rejoinder on behalf of

the Applicants/Party I following issues were framed

on 02-08-2016.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Applicant/Party I prove that they

are the workmen of the Opponent/Party II as

envisaged under the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act?

2. Whether the Applicant/Party I proves that the

Opponent illegally refused the employment/

wrongfully terminated their services?

3. Whether the Applicant/Party I proves that

they are unemployed from the date of

termination till date, except two workers?

4. Whether the Opponent/Party II proves that the

business of transportation of iron ore was

closed on account of ban imposed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court?

5. Whether the Opponent/Party II proves that the

claim of the Applicant/Party I is barred by the

principles of res-judicata?

6. Whether the Opponent/Party II proves that the

application under Section 2-A (2) is not

maintainable?

7. What Relief? What Award?

11. I have gone through the records i.e. the

pleadings, the oral as well as documentary evidence

adduced by both the Parties, the written synopsis

filed as well as the oral arguments advanced by both

the Parties and after considering the same my

findings on the issues with reasons are as follows:

Issue No. 1 : In the affirmative.

Issue No. 2 : In the affirmative.

Issue No. 3 : In the negative.

Issue No. 4 : In the affirmative.

Issue No. 5 : In the negative.

Issue No. 6 : In the negative.

Issue No. 7 : As per final order.

REASONS

12. Issue No. 1: The Opponent/Party II in the

Written Statement stated that the dispute raised by

the Applicants/Party I was taken up for conciliation

before the authorities under the Industrial Disputes

Act. Pursuance to the conciliation which ended in

failure, reference dated 01-01-2014 was forwarded to

the Tribunal which came to be registered as

reference No. IT/02/2014. According to the

Opponent/Party II, the Tribunal was pleased to pass

the Award dated 11-06-2014 whereby the said

reference was disposed off on account of the failure

of the Applicants/Party I to prosecute the reference.

It is not the case of the Opponent/Party II that the

said reference was dismissed on merits as the

Applicants/Party I failed to prove that they are not

the workmen of the Opponent/Party II as defined

under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also not the

case of the Opponent/Party II that in the earlier

references also they had raised the objection as

regards the Applicants/Party I are not the ‘workmen’

within the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act. On

the contrary, the Opponent/Party II has placed

reliance on the said award passed by the Hon’ble

Tribunal in reference No. IT/02/2014 and has raised

a specific defense. An issue to that effect has been

framed on the ground that the claim of the

Applicants/Party I is barred by the principle of res-

judicata.

13. The Applicants/Party I on the other hand in

their Claim Statement specifically pleaded the

material ingredients to show that they have

continuously worked for the Opponent/Party II as

barge crew members in terms of the settlement

dated 11-01-1985 at Exhibit 29. The Applicants/

/Party I has relied upon Exhibit 25 the service record

of all the seven employees under the reference

wherein the details regarding the name of the

vessel they were working on, their date of

commencement in services, the date of termination

in service, net service, Y.M.D. and nature of duties

in barge has been mentioned. Exhibit 26 in the

bonafide certificate issued to one of the employees

Umesh Chandrakant Kundaikar and Exhibit 27 is

the service record of the employee Vijay Gangaram

Naik.

14. The Opponent/Party II has not produced any

document contrary to the document produced by the

Applicants/Party I to prove that the Applicants/Party I

are not the ‘workmen’. The Opponent/Party II has

contradicted in their own stand by pleading that the

Applicants/Party I are not the workmen and on the

other hand has relied upon the order passed by the

Tribunal on reference which stated that there is the

dispute between the Applicants/Party I as an

employee and the Opponent/Party II as an Employer.

Having proved this employer-employee relationship

by the Party I, this Tribunal has no hesitation to

answer this issue in favor of the Applicants/Party I in

the affirmative.

888

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

15. Issue No. 2: The seven workmen who were

employed with the Opponent/Party II are as follows:

1. Mr. Rayu Maddu Phadte,

Designation Sukhani,

Date of joining 11-01-2006

2. Mr. Baburao Ramkrishna Naik

Designation Engine Driver,

Date of joining 16-11-2006

3. Mr. Vijay Gangaram Naik,

Designation Master,

Date of joining 01-06-2010

4. Mr. Premanand Datta Fadte,

Designation Sukhani,

Date of joining 26-10-200

5. Mr. Prashant Govind Korgaonkar,

Designation Oilman,

Date of joining 01-04-2006

6. Mr. Salahuddin Shafiq Khan,

Designation Master,

Date of joining 16-10-2008

7. Mr. Umesh Chandrakant Kundaikar,

Designation Sukhani,

Date of joining 01-07-2008.

16. The services of these workmen were

terminated/there was the refusal of employment to

all this seven employees employed with the

Opponent/Party II. Pursuance to that, the earlier

Union to which these employees were associated

raised dispute, the reference was forwarded to the

Tribunal after the conciliation failure report, however,

for non-appearance of the Applicants/Party I, the said

reference was disposed off by Award dated

11-06-2014. In the meanwhile, all these seven

employees resigned from the earlier Union and joined

the new Union i.e. the Party I Union and persuaded

their dispute by filing this present application under

Section 2A (2) read with Section 36 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. It is the case of the Applicants/

/Party I that they have been illegally terminated from

services without any valid reason. That they have

not been issued any memo or show-cause notice or a

charge-sheet nor there is any inquiry conducted prior

to termination of their service.

17. The Opponent/Party II has taken a stand that

on account of total ban of transportation of iron ore

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they had to close

down their business permanently and accordingly

the operations of the Barge “Annapurna” was closed

down on 28-01-2012 and that of Barge “Purva” was

closed down from 20-07-2012. Prior to that, they had

to close down the Operation of Barge “Durga” from

16-06-2011 on account of decline in the business and

economically nonviable situations.

18. It is also not the case of the Applicants/Party I

that the Opponent/Party II is still operating the said

3 barges, therefore, the inference has to be withdrawn

that the business activity of the Opponent/Party II

has been closed down on account of the mining ban

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Assuming

that the services of all the seven workmen had to be

terminated owing to the reasons stated hereinabove

than the least that was required to be done by the

Opponent/Party II was to comply with the provisions

of Section 2F the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

Section 2F:- No workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than

one year under an employer shall be retrenched by

that employer until:-

(a) the workman has been given one month’s

notice in writing indicating the reasons for

retrenchment and the period of notice has expired,

or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice,

wages for the period of the notice;

(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay for every

completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months; and

the appropriate Government or such authority as may

be specified by the appropriate Government by

notification in the Official Gazette.

19. It is therefore the contention of Shri P. Gaonkar

for the Party I Union that M/s. Navdurga Shipping

Company Pvt. Ltd., has not followed the mandate of

Section 25F and therefore the termination from

17-12-2016 is illegal and void. In support of this

contention, he has placed reliance in the case of

Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior

Adhyapak (2013) 10 SCC 324.

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

State Bank of Indian v/s Shri N. Sundara Money

held that Section 25F (b) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, provides that no workman employed in

any industry who has been in continuous service

for not less than one year under an employer shall

be retrenched by that employer until he has been

paid at the time of the retrenchment compensation

which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay

for every completed year of service or any part

thereof in excess of six months. Section 2(oo) of the

Act defines ‘retrenchment’ as meaning the

termination by the employer of the service of a

workman for any reasons whatsoever, otherwise

than as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. In the “Hospital Mazdoor

Sabha’s the Supreme Court held that the statutory

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

889

requirement of the payment of compensation under

Section 25F (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

is a condition precedent for the retrenchment of a

workman and any retrenchment without payment

at the time of the retrenchment makes the

retrenchment order invalid and inoperative.

21. It is the contention of the Opponent/Party II

that on account of the ban imposed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, they closed down the operation of

all the 3 barges and discharged all 29 employees by

paying them legal dues in terms of the mutual

settlement arrived between the employees and

accordingly paid dues and discharged them from

the services.

22. Dismissing the above contention, Shri P.

Gaonkar submitted that though the Opponent/Party II

claimed that they have paid all the legal dues to the

workmen, however, not a single piece of evidence

has been produced on record to substantiate their

above statement. Further, the management’s own

witness Shri Vishnu Trivekar admitted that the

Respondent was operating 3 barges and had

employed 29 persons, however, did not know what

work they were doing as he was not allocating them

the duties. There is no documentary evidence

produced on record that the Opponent/Party II have

complied with all the ingredients of Section 25F

prior to retrenching the services of all seven

employees employed with the Opponent/Party II.

Having failed to comply with the pre-requirements

in terms of Section 25F of the Act by the Opponent/

/Party II, the termination of all the seven employees’

amounts to illegal and wrongful termination of their

services, hence Issue No. 2 stands answered in the

affirmative.

23. Issue No. 3: Workman, Shri Umesh Chandrakant

Kundaikar in his Affidavit-in-Evidence has stated

that all the seven workmen are unemployed. The issue

No. 3 reads

“whether the Applicant/Party I prove that they

are unemployed from the date of termination till date,

except two workers?

24. Admittedly, this witness on oath has made a

statement contrary to his own pleading. The issue

since pertains to the unemployment of each employee

therefore it assumes importance that each workman

should have stepped in the witness box to prove their

stand of unemployment which the Applicant/Party I

workmen has failed, therefore for want of sufficient

evidence on record this issue stands answered in

negative.

25. Issue No. 4: The Opponent/Party II in their

Written Statement has taken defence that on account

of total ban of transportation of Iron Ore by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court they had to close down their

business permanently and accordingly the operation

of the Barge Annapurna was closed down on

28-01-2012 and that of Barge Purva was closed down

from 20-07-2012. Prior to that, they had to close down

the Operation of Barge Durga from 16-06-2011 on

account of decline in the business and economically

nonviable situations. The Applicants/Party I have not

brought anything to the contrary to the stand taken

by the Opponent/Party II to show that the barges are

still in operation or that the Opponent/Party II

continued with the operation of the barges post the

same being banned by the order of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, as such there is no reason not to

believe the Opponent/Party II of the closing down

the business of transportation of Iron Ore on account

of ban imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. For

the reasons above, this issue stand answered in the

affirmative.

26. Issue No. 5: The present dispute is in respect of

the alleged illegal retrenchment of seven workmen.

Since there was the refusal of employment to all this

seven employees by the Opponent/Party II the earlier

union (United bargemen’s association raised the

industrial dispute by its letter dated 20-11-2012

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.

Accordingly, the conciliation proceedings was

initiated before the ALC and after considering the

reply filed by the Management and considering the

dispute raised by the Union, and as both the parties

did not arrive at any settlement, the Conciliation

Officer sent Failure Report. It is the contention of the

Applicants that they did not receive any order of

reference from the Government of Goa as such they

approached the Tribunal with this application under

Section 2A (2) read with Section 36 of the Industrial

Disputes Act. The Opponent/Party II in the Written

Statement as well as in the written submission filed

by them has taken a stand that the Government of

Goa had forwarded the reference No. 02/2014 to this

Tribunal upon the failure report submitted by the

Conciliation Officer however, for non-appearance of

the Applicants/Party I, the said reference was

disposed off by Award dated 11-06-2014. As against

this, it is the contention of the Applicants/Party I

that the Opponent/Party II had intentionally not

given the address of the seven workmen for issuance

of notices to them individually when the notice sent

in the office of earlier union return unserved as the

office of the union was found closed. The non-

-appearance of all seven workmen was because of

the non-service of the notice on them. Again

dismissing the contention of the Opponent/Party II

about the present claim of the Applicants/Party I

being barred by the principle of res-judicata on

account of the Award passed in the earlier reference.

890

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

It is submitted that the said reference was not

decided on merits as such the claim of the Applicants

cannot be said to be barred by the principle of res-

-judicata. In support of its contention the Applicants/

/Party I relied upon in the case of Dalmia Dadri

Cement v/s Avtar Naraian Gujral and ors. that “on

the very principle of it, this decision can have

application only where there is an adjudication by

the Tribunal on the merits”. And therefore the res-

judicata is not applicable in this case as the matter

was not decided on merits.

27. The Opponent/Party II did not dislodge the

above contention of the Applicants/Party I.

Moreover, the Award on record speaks for itself that

it is an ex-partie Award and not the one decided on

the merits of the case. Therefore, this Tribunal can

safely conclude that the Opponent/Party II has not

proved this issue, the burden of which was on to

them. Hence, the same is answered in the negative.

28. Issue No. 6: Section 2A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act reads as under: Notwithstanding

anything contained in Section 10, any such workman

as is specified in sub-section (1) may, make an

application direct to the Labour Court or Tribunal

for adjudication of the dispute referred to therein

after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he

has made the application to the Conciliation Officer

of the appropriate Government for conciliation of the

dispute, and in receipt of such application the

Labour Court or Tribunal shall have powers and

jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute, as if it

were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate

Government in accordance with the provisions of this

Act and all the provisions of this Act shall apply in

relation to such adjudication as they apply in relation

to an industrial dispute referred to it by the

appropriate Government.

29. Thus Section 2A-(2) inserted in the statue by

Act 24 of 2010 enables the workman to make an

application directly to the Labour Court or Tribunal

for adjudication of Industrial dispute after expiry of

45 days from the date of this Application to the

Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government

for the conciliation of dispute within 3 years from

the date of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment,

otherwise termination of his services. The Opponent/

/Party II has not brought on record anything to

suggest that the Applicants/Party I has not complied

with the requirement with the Section 2A(2) so as to

dismiss the same as not maintainable under Section 2A(2)

of the Act. Hence, this issue too is answered against

the Opponent/Party II in the negative.

30. The Applicants/Party I has submitted that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered closing of the mines

operation in the year, 2012. However, it was a

temporary suspension of the mines and that none of

the mine owners or barge owners had retrenched

their workers and that the mining operations

restarted in the year, 2016. However, there is no clear

evidence brought on record by the Applicants/Party I

to show that all the barges were operational in the

year, 2016 and therefore, there is no question of relief

of reinstatement that can be granted to all the seven

workmen. The Applicants/Party I, however, has

proved that the action of the Opponent/Party II to

terminate their services was not in compliance with

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and

that the Opponent/Party II also did not pay to all these

seven workers their legal dues in terms of settlement

dated 09-02-2007 at Exhibit 30 in view of that I pass

the following Order.

Hence the following Award:

ORDER

The Management/Employer is directed to

pay to all these seven workmen their legal

dues i.e.

(i)

The back wages, other benefits and

consequential benefit/pay for the overtime.

(ii)

To pay the overtime arrears for the period

when the salaries were not paid in accordance

with the terms of settlement dated 09-02-2007

at Exhibit 30.

(iii)

To pay 10% interest on the overtime wages

and other arrears.

(iv)

To pay the cost of the Award.

(2)

Inform the Government accordingly

Sd/-

(Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

-Labour Court.

——————

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

——

Order

No. 14/23/2022-LD(Estt.)/79

Read: Order 14/06/2018-LD(Estt.) dated 15-01-2019.

Whereas, the Government has sanctioned the

interim implementation of revised pay scales, as per

the Order dated 21-12-2018 in Misc. Application No.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

891

645/2018 in Stamp Number (Appln.) No. 3582 of 2016

and in accordance with the Annexure appended to

the said Order. These interim arrangements were to

remain in effect until the relevant rules are finalized,

with pay scales fixed in accordance with the CCS

(Revised) Pay Rules, 2016.

And whereas, the Registrar (Administration), High

Court of Bombay at Goa, had requested for

maintenance of pay scale parity across all benches

of the Bombay High Court. The High Court of

Bombay at Goa’s employees had also filed Writ

Petition No. 186 of 2023, seeking for directions to

upgrade their pay scales on par with the pay scales

of Maharashtra.

And whereas, pursuant to the directions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 646/

/2023 dated 15-05-2023, the State of Goa notified

the High Court of Bombay at Goa Officers and

Members of the Staff on the Establishment

(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2023,

on 03-06-2023.

The State Government on 22-06-2023 again

notified the Amendment Rules, 2023, in order to

remove discrepancies in the Rules notified on

03-06-2023.

Some retired employees of the High Court of

Bombay at Goa filed I.A No. 234830 of 2023 before

Hon’ble High Court and also sought directions to

the State of Goa to provide pay parity with that of

the employees of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

and its Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad.

And whereas, now the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay at Goa made a judgment on 30-07-2024,

allowing Writ Petition No. 186 of 2023 and Writ

Petition No. 409 of 2023, thereby directing the State

Government to grant pay scales to the employees of

the High Court of Bombay at Goa on par with those

of the employees of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

and its Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad.

The Government of Goa have accepted the Order

dated 14-11-2024 in Writ Petition No. 464/2023 and

pleased to implement the revised pay scales from

the date indicated in the attached Annexure

against the relevant posts.

This issues with the concurrence of Finance

(R&C) Department vide U. O. No. 1400102806 dated

12-10-2024.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 8th January, 2025.

———

ANNEXURE

Sr.

Designation

Existing Pay

Revised Pay

Date from

No.

Scale

which to be

made applicable

Secretarial Cadre Post

Senior Private

PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+GP 7600

Rs. 43690-1080-49090-

w.e.f.

Secretaries to

(Level-12 Rs. 78800-209200)

-1230-56470 (scale of

01-10-2007

Hon’ble Judges

Senior Civil Judge,

ACP-I)

Private Secretaries

PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+GP 6600

Rs. 15600-39100+Grade

w.e.f.

to the Hon’ble

(Level-11 Rs. 67700-208700)

Pay Rs. 7900 (Pay Band-3)

01-10-2007

Judges

(S-26) Rs. 82200-211500)

Personal Assistants

PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 5400

Rs. 15600-39100+GP Rs. 6600

w.e.f.

to the Hon’ble

(Level-10 Rs. 56100-177500)

(PB-3 Level-11 Rs. 67700-

01-10-2007

Judges

-208700)

892

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

Sr.

Designation

Existing Pay

Revised Pay

Date from

No.

Scale

which to be

made applicable

Group “A” & “B” Posts

Assistant Registrar

PB-3 Rs.15600-39100+GP 6600

PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+

w.e.f.

(Level-11 Rs. 67700-208700)

Grade Pay Rs. 7900 (S-26)

01-04-2011

Rs. 82200-211500)

Protocol Officer-

PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+GP 6600

PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+

w.e.f.

-cum-Court Keeper

(Level-11 Rs. 67700-208700)

Grade Pay Rs. 7900 (S-26)

01-04-2011

Rs. 82200-211500)

Librarian

PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+GP 5400

PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+

w.e.f.

(Level-10 Rs. 56100-177500)

GP 6600 (Level-11

01-04-2011

Rs. 67700-208700)

Section Officer

PB-2 Rs. 9300-34800+GP 4600

PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+

w.e.f.

(Level-7 Rs. 44900-142400)

GP 5400 (Level-10)

01-04-2011

after 04 years of regular

service Rs. 15600-39100+

GP 6600 (Level-11)

——————

Department of Planning

Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation

––

Addendum

No. DPSE/III/GIFT/120/2022-23/3265

Read:

No. DPSE/III/GIFT/120/2022-23/2614 dated

18-01-2024.

In the above referred Notification after Sr. No. 9,

the following line shall be inserted.

“10. Shri Charudutta Panigrahi

— Member”

Adviser to Government

And Sr. No. 10 in above referred Notification may

be read as Sr. No. 11.

The rest of the content of the above read

Notification shall remain unchanged.

This issues with the approval of Competent

Authority.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vijay B. Saxena, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary.

Porvorim, 27th March, 2024.

Department of Public Health

–––

Notification

No. 13/11/2018-I/PHD/23

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

-section (1) of Section 33-F of the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Central Act No. 23 of 1940),

the Government of Goa hereby appoints Smt.

Sushmita D’souza, Junior Scientific Officer (Drugs),

Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration,

Government of Goa, as the Government Analyst in

respect of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs for

the whole of the State of Goa.

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.

Dr. Pooja Madkaikar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 2nd January, 2025.

——————

Department of Tribal Welfare

Directorate of Tribal Welfare

––

Order

No. 1-232-2024-25/ADMN/DTW/4611

Sub.:

Constitution of the Committee for preparation

of Draft Rules of the Goa Commission for

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

893

Government is pleased to constitute a committee under the Chairmanship of Chairperson of Goa

Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes comprising of the following in order for preparation

of Draft Rules of the Goa Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are as under:-

Sr. No.

Name of the Official/Members

Designation

Shri Deepak Karmalkar, Chairperson of Goa Commission for Scheduled Castes

Chairman.

and Scheduled Tribes

Adv. Upaso Gaunkar, R/o H. No. 191, Dessai Waddo, Quepem, Paroda-Goa

Member.

Adv. Suresh Palkar, R/o Gurudaat Building, 2nd Floor, Near Jama Masjid, Ponda-Goa

Member.

Shri Sudhir Volvoikar (Jt. Secretary), Law Department, Secretariat

Member.

Shri Dasharath M. Redkar, Director of Tribal Welfare/Secretary/CEO of GCSCST

Member

Secretary.

The Committee shall finalize the Draft Rules within a period of three months from the date of issuance

of notification.

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

Dasharath M. Redkar, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Tribal Welfare).

Panaji, 9th January, 2025.

—––––

Notification

No. DTW/AD(N)/2024-25/DAJGUA/CSS-291/4548

The Government of Goa is pleased to constitute

the State Level Apex Committee (SLAC) under the

Centrally Sponsored Scheme of the Ministry of

Tribal Affairs, New Delhi namely “Dharti Aaba

Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan” (DA-JUGA) for

the State of Goa consisting of the following

members:

1. Chief Secretary, Goa

— Chairman.

2. Secretary (Tribal Welfare)

-— Convener.

3. Secretary (Education)

— Member.

4. Secretary (Social Welfare)

— Member.

5. Secretary (Water Resources)

— Member.

6. Secretary (Public Works

— Member.

Department)

7. Secretary (Health)

— Member.

8. Secretary (Women & Child

— Member.

Development)

9. Secretary (Tourism)

— Member

10. Secretary (Animal Husbandry — Member.

and Veterinary Services)

11. Secretary (Fisheries)

— Member.

12. Secretary (Panchayat)

— Member.

13. Secretary (Agriculture)

— Member.

14. Secretary (Information

— Member.

Technology)

15. Secretary (Skill Development — Member.

& Entrepreneurship)

16. Secretary (New and

— Member.

Renewable Energy)

17. Secretary (Electricity)

— Member.

18. Secretary (Rural Development)

— Member.

19. Director, Tribal Welfare

— Member

Secretary.

The functions of the State Level Apex Committee

are as follows:

1) The committee will assess the performance of

line departments and District with regards

to implementation of the scheme.

To review the proposals submitted by line

departments and recognize the best

performing department.

The committee shall meet once in the three

months to assess the proposal prepared by

the line departments to submit to their

respective Central Ministries under Dharti

Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan.

The 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.

Dasharath M. Redkar, Director/ex officio Joint

Secretary (TW).

Panaji, 7th January, 2025.

894

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 42

16TH JANUARY, 2025

Pedne Taluka Sarkari Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit Pedne-Goa

ADEI Office Building, Surban Wada, Pernem-Goa-403512

––

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 Pedne Taluka Sarkari Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Path Saustha Maryadit

Pedne-Goa.

Sr.

Name of the candidate

Address, contact number &

For the post of

No.

e-mail ID of the candidate

Shri Shamba Rama Mayekar

H. No. 517-B1, Chichola, Dhargal,

Chairman.

Pernem-Goa

8806561095

[email protected]

Shri Gurudas Shantaram

H. No. 35/2, Devulwada, Harmal,

Vice-Chairman.

Shetkar

Pernem-Goa

9823647570

shetkar [email protected]

Shri Narayan Vithal Sawant

Junaswada, Mandre, Pedne-Goa

Secretary.

9422394876

[email protected]

Shri Pramod Vaman Parab

Madhalawada,Varkhand, Pernem-Goa

Treasurer.

8999749484

[email protected]

Jeetendra K. Naik Gaonkar, Authorised person.

Mapusa, 1st January, 2025.

V. No. AP-1251/2025.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 22.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—327/80—01/2025.