SERIES II No. 45

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

Panaji, 6th February, 2025 (Magha 17, 1946)

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

––

Order

No. DCS/EST/1-25/2024-25/3075

In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section (4) of the Sexual Harassment of

Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Central Act No. 14 of 2013, the

undersigned is pleased to re-constitute Internal Complaint Committee for all the Taluka Civil Supplies

Offices of the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. The composition of the Internal Complaints

Committee shall be as under:–

Name of post

Pernem Sub-office

Bardez Sub-office

Tiswadi Sub-office

& Godown

Presiding Officer

Deepa Fulari, ADCS

Shrishti Vaigankar, ADCS

Member-1

Varsha Rane, S.I.

Riya Sawant, S.I.

Nidhi Madkaikar, S.I.

Member-2

Bhanu Goltekar, ADCS

Purva Prabhu, Insp.

NGO Member

Amita Salatry

Name of post

Bicholim Sub-office

Sattari Sub-office

Salcete Sub-office

& Godown

Presiding Officer

Sejal Satardekar, Insp.

Sarita Morajkar, Insp.

Member-1

Nakshita Mapari, LDC

Sneha Sawaikar, UDC

Sweta Chari, LDC

Member-2

Purva Prabhu, Insp.

Bhanu Goltekar, ADCS

Gorakh Rajadhayx, Insp.

NGO Member

Amita Salatry

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

947

Note:- There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 44 dated 30-01-2025 as follows:

(1) Extraordinary dated 30-01-2025 from pages 943 to 944 regarding Notice of Election and Public Notice from

Department of Panchayati Raj and Community Development.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 31-01-2025 from pages 945 to 946 regarding Notification from Department

of Finance.

948

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

Name of post

Mormugao Sub-office

Quepem Sub-office

Canacona Sub-office

& Godown

Presiding Officer

Sarita Morajkar, Insp.

Pooja S. Naik Gaonkar, ADCS

Member-1

Sweta Chari, LDC

Akshaya Faldessai, S. I.

Akshaya Faldessai, S.I.

Member-2

Gorakh Rajadayx, Insp.

Pranali Sawardekar, LDC

Vaishnavi Sawant, LDC

NGO Member

Amita Salatry

Name of post

Sanguem Sub-office

Ponda Sub-office

Dharbandora Sub-office

& Godown

Presiding Officer

Akshaya Faldessai, S.I.

Priya Gaonkar, Insp.

Member-1

Pallavi Gaonkar, S.I.

Vaishnavi Sawant, LDC

Seema Gaude

Member-2

Gorakh Rajadhayx, Insp.

Purva Prabhu, Insp.

NGO Member

Amita Salatry

The Internal Complaints Committee shall work as per the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women

at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

This Internal Complaint Committee will be in force for a period of three years, w.e.f. the date of this Order.

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

Panaji, 28th January, 2025.

——————

Department of Environment & Climate

Change

––––

Notification

No. 3-1-2024/GSBB/NBA/795/2004

Government hereby appoints Secretary

(Environment & Climate Change) as a Adjudicating

Officer under Section 55A (1) of Biological Diversity

Act, 2002 amended in the year 2023 for the purpose

of determining penalties under Section 55 to hold

inquiry in the precribed manner and to impose the

penalty so determined.

Kindly ignore earlier Notification No. 3-1-2024/

/GSBB/NBA/795/1974 dated 23-01-2025.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sachin S. Desai, Director/ex officio Jt. Secy.

(Environment & Climate Change).

Panaji, 30th January, 2025.

Department of Finance

(Revenue & Control) Division

–––

Order

No. CCT/1-4/2024-25/Conf./27504

On the recommendation of the Departmental

Promotional Committee as conveyed by the Goa

Public Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/43(1)/2019/393 dated 30-01-2025, Smt. Sandhya R.

Kamat, Assistant State Tax Officer in the Office of the

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is hereby

promoted to the post of State Tax Officer (Group ‘B’

Gazetted) in the pay matrix Level-7 of the 7th Pay

Commission on regular basis with immediate effect.

The above Officer shall be on probation for a period

of two years from the date of joining. She shall report

to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Panaji for

her posting.

She shall exercise option for fixation of pay in the

promotional post within a period of one month from

the date of issue of the Order.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Pranab G. Bhat, Under Secretary, Finance (R&C).

Porvorim, 3rd February, 2025.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

949

Order

No. CCT/1-4/2024-25/Conf./27490

On the recommendation of the Departmental

Promotional Committee as conveyed by the

Goa Public Service Commission vide their letter

No. COM/II/11/43(1)/2019/393 dated 30-01-2025, the

following Assistant State Tax Officers in the Office

of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes are

promoted to the post of State Tax Officer (Group ‘B’

Gazetted) in the pay matrix Level-7 of the 7th Pay

Commission on regular basis with immediate effect:-

Sr. No.

Name of the Officer

1. Smt. Sunita A. Naik.

2. Smt. Sukanti Pilgaonkar alias Vinita V.

Madkaikar (ST).

3. Smt. Vinita V. Kamat.

4. Smt. Laxmi Lawande alias Anchal A. Valvaikar.

5. Shri Subhash Gurav.

6. Shri Atish Mandrekar.

7. Smt. Vandana S. Ghaisas.

8. Shri Amey P. Naik.

The above Officers shall be on probation for a

period of two years from the date of their joining.

They shall report to the Commissioner of Commercial

Taxes, Panaji for their posting.

They shall exercise option for fixation of pay in

the promotional post within a period of one month

from the date of issue of the Order.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Pranab G. Bhat, Under Secretary, Finance (R&C).

Porvorim, 30th January, 2025.

——————

Goa Human Rights Commission

Before the Goa Human Rights Commission

Panaji-Goa

Proceeding No. 117/2024

Peter Fernandes,

H. No. 333/R, Uzro,

Camorlim, P.O. Raia,

Salcete-Goa 403720 …… Complainant.

V/s

The Principal Chief Engineer,

Public Works Department,

Altinho, Panaji-Goa …… Respondent.

INQUIRY REPORT

(27th August, 2024)

The complaint dated 05-06-2024, was received in

the Commission in respect of the recovery from his

gratuity on his retirement.

2. On perusing the complaint, the Commission by

Order dated 25-06-2024, issued notice to the

Respondent for filing their reply.

3. Reply dated 17-07-2024, was filed by the

Respondent.

4. Arguments of the Complainant were heard in

person and of Shri Sandip Phadte, U.D.C. on behalf

of the Respondent.

5. The Commission has gone through the

complaint, the documents attached thereto, the

reply of the Respondent and has considered the

submissions of the respected Parties and the law on

the subject.

6. The Complainant was appointed as a

Draughtsman by the Public Works Department,

Government of Goa and joined his duties on

16-10-1987 and retired on 31-03-2024. On his pension

papers being sent to the Directorate of Accounts on

05-07-2023, the same were returned back with the

observation mentioning that he was given an extra

increment in the year 2006 and they had asked to

recover the amount of Rs. 3,20,061/- (Rupees three

lakhs twenty thousand and sixty one only) from his

retirement gratuity benefits. As such, he

approached this Commission for refund of the

amount deducted for no fault of his.

7. The Respondent in their reply has stated that

after the pension case was submitted to the

Directorate of Accounts, they had pointed out that

the pay of the Complainant fixed on 01-01-2006 was

incorrect.

8. Accordingly, the Respondent re-fixed his pay

as on 01-01-2006. They stated that the Complainant

retired with effect from 31-03-2024 and recovery

amount of Rs. 3,20,061/- was effected from his

retirement gratuity and Rs. 3608/- was paid vide

challan dated 03-01-2024.

9. There is the Judgment of the High Court of

Bombay at Goa in the case of Jotiba Ishwar Mali vs

the State of Goa and others, Writ Petition No. 285

of 2024, decided by the Oral Judgment dated

03-04-2024.

10. The above case of Jotiba Ishwar Mali (supra)

was a case where an excess payment of Rs. 4,18,633/-

was recovered from the Petitioner after his

retirement on the ground that this amount was

950

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

wrongly paid to him. The High Court held that the

excess

payment

was

not

due

any

misrepresentation by the Petitioner and it was

because of an error on the Respondents’ part and

further held as under:-

“6. Before such recovery, the principles of natural

justice and fair play were not complied with. Besides,

such recovery was contrary to the principles the

Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the cases of the

State of Punjab vs Rafiq Masih, A.I.R. 2015 SC 696

and Thomas Daniel vs State of Kerala and others,

2022 SCC Online SC 536.

7. Both the above referred decisions hold that

where monetary benefits were given to the employees

in excess of their entitlement due to unintentional

mistakes committed by the concerned competent

authorities in determining the emoluments payable

to them and the employees were not guilty of

furnishing any incorrect information/misrepresentation/

/fraud, which had led the concerned competent

authorities to commit the mistake of making the

higher payment to the employees, no recoveries must

be ordered or enforced after the retirement of such

employees. In fact, the direction was not to recover from

the retired employees or the employees who were due

to retire within one year of the order of recovery.

8. Mr. Naik pointed out that the Central

Government has issued an Office Memorandum dated

02-03-2016 following the law laid down in Rafiq

Masih (supra). By the Office Memorandum dated

07-03-2017, the Government of Goa has also adopted

the Central Government’s OM dated 02-03-2016.”

11. Guided by the above Judgments, the

Commission finds that the Respondent could not

have recovered the excess payment from his

retirement gratuity, as the excess payment was not

due to any mistake of the Complainant.

12. In the present case, the Complainant had

retired on 31-03-2024 and just two months prior to

his retirement i.e. on 03-01-2024, the amount of

Rs. 3,20,061/- was recovered from his retirement

gratuity.

13. Guided by the Judgment of the High Court of

Bombay at Goa (supra), in the facts of the present

case, the Commission finds that the Respondent

could not have recovered the said overpayment of

Rs. 3,20,061/- from the gratuity amount of the

Complainant about two months before his retirement

and without notice to him and it is not the case of

the Respondent that the excess payment was due

to any misrepresentation by the Complainant.

14. Accordingly, the Commission recommends

that the Respondent shall refund the recovered

amount of Rs. 3,20,061/- (Rupees three lakhs twenty

thousand and sixty one only) to the Complainant as

expeditiously as possible and, in any case, not later

than 60 days from today. If this amount is not paid

to the Complainant within 60 days from today, it

will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum

beginning from the date of this order until the date

of payment.

15. Under Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human

Rights Act, 1993, the Commission shall send a copy

of the Inquiry Report together with its

recommendations to the concerned Government or

authority and they shall, within a period of one

month or such further time as the Commission may

allow, forward its comments on the report, including

the action taken or proposed to be taken, to the

Commission.

16. Copy of the Inquiry Report be sent to the

Respondent, calling for their comments, including

the action taken or proposed to be taken within a

period of 60 days or on or before 28-10-2024, in terms

of Section 18(e) of the Protection of Human Rights

Act, 1993.

Sd/-

(Desmond D’Costa)

(Pramod V. Kamat)

Acting Chairperson/Member,

Member,

Goa Human Rights Commission.

Goa Human Rights

Commission.

Panaji, 27th August, 2024.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

951

——————

Goa Legislature Secretariat

–––

Order

No. LA/Admn./2025/2736

In pursuance of Rule 4(2) of the Goa Legislature

Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1988, the Governor in consultation with the

“BOARD” is pleased to promote Shri Eknath U.

Sawant, Public Relation Officer of the Goa

Legislature Secretariat, Porvorim to the post of

Committee Officer, Group ‘A’ (Gazetted) in the Pay

Matrix Level-10, on regular basis with immediate

effect.

2. The said promotion is made against the post of

Committee Officer caused due to retirement of Shri

Uday D. Bicholkar, Committee Officer on superannuation.

3. Shri Eknath U. Sawant, will be on probation for

a period of two years from the date of his appointment.

4. The pay of Shri Eknath U. Sawant, shall be

fixed as per the rules.

5. The expenditure on account of this be debited

to the Budget Head “2011—Parliament/State/

/U.T. Legislature; 02—State/U.T. Legislature;

103—Legislative Secretariat; 01—Legislature

Secretariat of State; 01—Salaries.”

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Mohan J. Gaonkar, Under Secretary, Legislature.

Porvorim, 24th January, 2025.

Department of Information & Publicity

––

Order

No. DI/INF/ADMN/2 (27)/80/2015/2020/P.F.-II/4/

/24-25/2925

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/26 (1)/2024/162

dated 02-08-2024, the Government is pleased to

promote Shri Kiran B. Munankar, Assistant

Information Officer to the post of Information Officer

(Group ‘B’ Gazetted) in the pay level 7 on regular

basis w.e.f. 05-08-2024 i.e. date of joining for the post

of Information Officer.

The above officer is promoted against the vacancy

caused upon superannuation of Shri Prakash Naik,

Information Officer.

He may exercise an option if so desire within one

month from the date of issue of the order for fixing

the pay.

The expenditure on his pay and allowance should

be debited to Budget Head: Demand No. 56

2220—Information & Publicity; 01—Films;

001—Direction & Administration; 01—Department

of Information & Publicity (NP); 01—Salaries.

This supersedes earlier Order No. DI/INF/ADMN/

/2 (27)/80/2015/2020/PF-II/4/24-25 dated 05-08-2024.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dipak M. Bandekar, Director (Information &

Publicity) & ex officio Addl. Secretary.

Panaji, 9th October, 2024.

——————

Department of Labour

––

Order

No. 28/79/2024-LAB/68

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Himgiri Casting Private

Limited, Plot No. 291, Kundaim Industrial Estate,

Kundaim, Goa and it’s Workmen, 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.

952

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act

14 of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers

the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under

Section 7 A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Himgiri Casting Private Limited, Plot

No. 291, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim,

Goa, in not allowing the workers to work on

30-03-2024 i.e. on working day and forcing the

workers to work on 28-04-2024 i.e. on weekly

off day and without paying overtime wages, is

legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the Workmen are entitled

for?

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 27th January, 2025.

—–––––—

Order

No. 28/77/2024-LAB/73

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. VPK Krishi Sahakari Kharedi

Vikri Prakriya Saunstha Maryadit, Mardola, Goa and

it’s Workmen, represented by the Goa Trade and

Commercial Workers Union, in respect of the matter

specified in the Schedule hereto;

And whereas, the Government of Goa considers

it expedient to refer the said dispute for

adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14

of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the

said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under

Section 7A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

(1)

Whether the action of the management of

M/s. VPK Krishi Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Prakriya

Saunstha Maryadit, Mardola, Goa, in refusing

employment to Mrs. Neeta Jalmi, Packer-cum-

-Helper, Mrs. Kamlavati Naik, Packer-cum-

-Helper, Mrs. Hashvita Naik, Packer-cum-

-Helper and Shri Madhu Gaude, Peon, with

effect from 01-10-2024, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, to what relief the Workmen are entitled?

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 28th January, 2025.

—–––––—

Order

No. 28/45/2024-LAB/76

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 Somnath Acharekar, 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 of 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

Somnath Acharekar, with effect from

27-09-2023, 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, 28th January, 2025.

—–––––—

Order

No. 28/50/2024-LAB/77

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. Azaruddin Lanjekar, in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule hereto;

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

953

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. Azaruddin Lanjekar, with effect from

27-09-2023, 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, 28th January, 2025.

—–––––—

Notification

No. 28/02/2024-LAB/4

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

17-12-2024 in Case No. Appln.06/2021 is hereby

published as required under Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 2nd January, 2025.

––––

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Case No. Appln.06/2021

Mr. Ajit Shirodkar,

House No. 306/3,

Danda, Near Jagreshwar Temple,

Siolim, Bardez-Goa .... Applicant/Party-I.

V/s

M/s. Whispering Palms Beach Resort,

Sinquerim Beach,

Waddy, Candolim,

Bardez-Goa. .… Opponent/Party II.

Workmen/Party I represented by Learned Advocate

Shri A. Kundaikar.

Employer/Party II represented by Learned Adv. Shri

Akshay Shirodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 17th day of the month of

December 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.

Whispering Palms Beach Resort and the Applicant/

/Party I in the matter of termination of the Applicant

Shri Ajit Shirodkar.

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

that he was employed with Opponent/Party II vide

Appointment Letter dated 24-12-1993 as a ‘Time

Keeper’. His salary was revised from time to time

and the designation was also changed from time to

time, however, the service rendered by him was the

same. During his service of 25 years with the

Opponent, he was not issued any memorandum or

a charge-sheet and had an honest and unblemished

service record. His last drawn salary was Rs. 33,530/-.

3. On 28-09-2021 the Applicant was issued with

the Termination Letter by the Opponent/Party II

terminating his services w.e.f. 23-09-2021 in

accordance with Contract of Service when infact no

Service Contract was applicable to him. The

Applicant was governed under Shops and

Establishment Act. No departmental inquiry was

held before terminating his services. No charge-

-sheet was issued. No any departmental inquiry was

conducted before terminating him from the services.

The termination of service therefore, was in violation

of principles of natural justice, claimed the

Applicant.

4. It is further his case that he was not

discharging any supervisory duties and was

discharging the duties as per the instruction of the

higher authority and had to report to HR-Manager.

The Applicant did not sanction any leave to any of

the Staff and his leave was sanctioned by the HR-

-Manager. The Applicant mostly conducted duties

such as renewal of vehicle, passing of vehicles

before RTO Office, payment of taxes, renewal of

licence of vehicles, Food and Drugs weights and

measures and most of the duties were outside the

954

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

hotel premises. It is further submitted that this

application u/s 2A(2) has been filed after 45 days of

filing of the application before the Conciliation

Officer for adjudication of the dispute referred

therein. The Applicant is unemployed since the

illegal termination of his services by the Opponent/

/Party II and is ready and willing to join his duty

with the Opponent/Party II.

5. In the Written Statement, the Opponent/Party II

raised preliminary objections stating that the

Applicant is not a ‘workman’ or ‘employee’ covered

under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, he being a Sr. HR-Executive in the Human

Resource Department of the Opponent/Party II. That

the nature of services conducted by him were purely

of managerial in nature. The second preliminary

objection is that the application by the Applicant

u/s 2A(2) is not maintainable, same being pre-

mature and without following the mandatory

requirements before filing the same.

6. On merits, it is stated that the Applicant was

appointed in the services of the Opponent/Party II

in the lowest Managerial Cadre Grade-VI and given

periodic increments in the salary w.e.f. from

01-04-1995 till 21-11-2005. From 01-10-2006, the

Applicant was promoted in the Management Cadre

as a Junior HR-Executive and was paid gross salary

of Rs. 6,880/-. He was given the letter of appointment

under promotion by which he accepted the terms

of his employment. That by letter dated 10-07-2007,

the Applicant accepted the terms and conditions

stated therein and accordingly was promoted to

the post of Sr. HR-Executive and was paid total

salary of Rs. 8,108/- in addition to other allowances.

7. As a Sr. Human Resource Executive, the

Applicant was assigned responsibilities in terms of

summary which was from time to time updated for

various managerial positions in the establishment.

The position summary for the post of Sr. Human

Resource Executive was last updated and the duties

and responsibilities assigned to the Applicant set

out therein as a job description which was

communicated to the Applicant in writing on

19-08-2021. The Opponent states that according to

the Position Summary, the Applicant was

responsible for supporting the operations of the HR

Team on day-to-day basis by executing the

establishment’s Talent Development Strategy and

by implementing the hotel training programmes

and was also assigned duties more specifically

worded in the said written communication dated

19-08-2021.

8. It is further stated that the list of duties as

referred in the said Written Communication are not

exhaustive but the Applicant was required to

perform the duties as the one as that of managerial

cadre and not as a ‘workman’. The Certified or

Model Standing Order therefore did not apply to

the Applicant as he was not a ‘workman’. The

Opponent/Party II issued to the Applicant at his

request a Salary Certificate dated 19-08-2019

specifically stating that he is working as a

Sr. Executive in the Human Resource Department

and drawing a gross salary of Rs. 33,530/-. The said

Salary Certificate was signed by the Asst. Manager.

9. It is further the case of the Opponent/Party II

that the Applicant was issued a Performance

Appraisal dated 19-08-2021. In the reply filed to the

same, the Applicant denied of him having

committed any act of misconduct or denied being

indulged in the acts of indiscipline or being

impolite. The Opponent/Party II further states as

per the Leave Record of the Applicant, he was on

paid leave for the period from 15th April to 10th

July, 2021 and was on unpaid leave from 11th July

to 16th August, 2021. When called to join duty on

17-08-2021, the Applicant did not report back for

work or gave any explanation for his unauthorized

absence from duty nor did he regularize his leave or

his absence from duty. The Applicant also did not

give any explanation for remaining away from work

without prior approval when he was issued

Performance Appraisal dated 19-08-2021.

10. It is further stated that continuous and

unauthorized absence of the Applicant disrupted

the smooth functioning of the Human Resource

Department and was considered as an act

subversive of discipline. As such, the Management

decided to terminate the services of the Applicant

and accordingly his services were terminated by

notice dated 28-09-2021. It is further stated that on

termination of services, the Applicant was tendered

his full and final settlement dues and other terminal

benefits by the Opponent/Party II totaling to

Rs. 4,94,773/-. It is submitted that the Opponent

realized that there was an error in calculating the

dues and the amount due to the Applicant was

Rs. 5,78,293/- which the Opponent/Party II was ready

to pay by depositing the same before this Tribunal

or is willing to hand over the cheques to the

Applicant without prejudice to their contentions

that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the

present matter.

11. The Opponent/Party II accepted the Applicant

having raised the dispute before the Commissioner,

Labour and Employment regarding the termination

of his services. It is also admitted by the Opponent

that they received communication dated 27-10-2021

from ALC, Mapusa seeking to file their comments

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

955

and to attend discussion on the claim raised by the

Applicant. The Opponent/Party II in their reply

dated 10-11-2021 filed before the ALC, Mapusa

raised preliminary objections stating that the

Applicant is not a ‘workman’, as such, not covered

under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 to which the Applicant filed his Rejoinder

taking a stand that he is the ‘workman’. The rest of

the contents of the Application are denied by the

Opponent/Party II.

12. In the Rejoinder filed, the Applicant reiterated

and maintained his stand that he is a ‘workman’ as

defined under the Act and has approached this

Tribunal for redressal of the dispute raised by him

before the Conciliation Officer and that this Tribunal

has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the same.

13. Considering the Claim Statement of the

Applicant/Party I, the Written Statement filed by

the Opponent/Party II and the Rejoinder on behalf

of the Applicants/Party I, following issues at Exhibit

8 were framed on 03-10-2022. That for the sake of

convenience the issues framed are re-arranged as

under:

ISSUES

1. (Reframed Issue No. 4): Does the Applicant/

/Party I prove that he is a ‘workman’?

2. Does the Applicant/Party I prove that the

complaint is maintainable under Section 2-A(2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

3. Does the Opponent/Party II prove that the

Applicant/Party I was terminated as per terms

of contract?

4. Does the Opponent/Party II prove that the

termination of the services of the Applicant/

/Party I with effect from 23-09-2021 by Order

dated 28-09-2021 is legal and justified?

14. Both the Parties led evidence to prove the

issues as above framed by this Tribunal. Heard

arguments advanced by Ld. Adv. A. Kundaikar for

the Applicant and Learned Adv. Shri A. Shirodkar

for the Opponent/Party II.

15. This Tribunal has taken note of the fact that

the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa has

allowed the Writ Petition No. 1030 of 2023 filed by

the Applicant/Petitioner against the Opponent/

/Respondent challenging the order dated

23-03-2023 passed by the Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and has set

aside the Order of the Tribunal with a direction to

this Tribunal to decide the application for interim

relief preferred by the Petitioner on merits within

a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this

Order.

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

pleadings, the oral as well as documentary evidence

adduced by both the Parties 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 negative.

REASONS

17. Issue No. 1: It is in the evidence of the

Applicant/Shri Ajit Shirodkar that he was employed

with the Opponent/Party II vide Appointment Letter

dated 24-12-1993 as a ‘Time Keeper’. His salary was

revised from time to time and the designation was

also changed from time to time, however, the

services rendered by him were the same. During

his service of 25 years with the Opponent, he was

not issued any memorandum or a charge-sheet and

had an honest and unblemished service record. His

last drawn salary was Rs. 33,530/-.

18. To substantiate the above fact, the Applicant

relied upon the Letter of Appointment at Exh. 29.

As per the said Letter of Appointment, the

Applicant was appointed as a ‘Trainee Time Keeper’.

Therefore, the contention of the Opponent/Party II

that the Applicant was appointed in the services of

the Opponent/Party II as lowest managerial cadre

Grade-VI is devoid of any substance nor the same

has been supported by any documentary evidence.

Further, it is the case of the Opponent/Party II that

the Applicant was promoted in the Management

Cadre as a Junior HR-Executive and was paid gross

salary of Rs. 6,880/-. He was given the letter of

appointment under promotion by which he

accepted the terms of his employment. That by

letter dated 10-07-2007, the Applicant accepted the

terms and conditions stated therein and

accordingly was promoted to the post of Sr. HR-

Executive and was paid total salary of Rs. 8,108/- in

addition to other allowances. The above contention

of the Opponent/Party II has been sought to be

dislodged by the Applicant on the basis of the

letters of salary revision issued to him by the

Opponent/Party II produced on record at Exh. 23

Colly. By these letters, though the salary component

of the Applicant has been revised periodically,

however, all the other terms and conditions of the

employment are said to have remained unchanged.

The last such letter issued to the Applicant in

respect of revision of his salary by way of annual

increment w.e.f. 1st April, 2018 and the letter is

956

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

dated 1st September, 2018 at Exh. 23 Colly. At the

bottom of this letter, it is specifically mentioned

that all other mutually agreed appointment terms

and conditions of the Applicant shall remain

unchanged.

19. The Applicant in his cross-examination

maintained and reiterated his statement that in

the absence of Deepali Parab who was the Asst.

HR-Manager, he would not sign or sanction any

leave application and leave application was sent to

the General Manager. Thus, the Applicant

throughout has taken a stand that since the date

of his appointment he was not discharging any

supervisory duty and was discharging the duties

as per the instruction of his higher authority and

had to report to the HR-Manager and that he did

not sanction any leave to any of the Staff and his

leave was sanctioned by the HR-Manager.

20. The Opponent/Party II on the other hand in

support of their stand that the Applicant was

performing the managerial duties and that he was

not the ‘workman’ as defined under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 has placed reliance on Exh. 22

i.e. the Position Summary whereby the Applicant has

been titled as Sr. Human Resource Executive and

according to the Opponent/Party II, this Position

Summary describes the HR-Executive duties and

responsibilities which Position Summary has been

received by the Applicant. As such, it is the

contention of the Opponent/Party II that the

Applicant was assigned responsibilities in terms of

summary which was from time to time updated for

various managerial positions in the establishment.

The Position Summary for the post of Sr. Human

Resource Executive was last updated and the duties

and responsibilities assigned to the Applicant set

out therein as a job description which was

communicated to the Applicant in writing on

19-08-2021. The Opponent states that according to

the Position Summary, the Applicant was responsible

for supporting the operations of HR Team on day-to-

-day basis by executing the establishment’s Talent

Development Strategy and by implementing the hotel

training programmes and was also assigned duties

more specifically awarded in the said written

communication dated 19-08-2021.

21. Be that as it may, the witness of the Opponent/

/Party II, Ms. Harsha Arlekar in her cross-

-examination categorically admitted that as per

their own document, Applicant left services on

21-08-2021 and that his services were terminated

on 23-09-2021. She has further admitted the

Employer having not produced any document to

show that the Applicant was working as Executive

after he has been served with the Summary Position

on 19-08-2021. She further admits that as per the

Report Card the Applicant was absent on

19-08-2021 and that he was present only on

17-08-2021 and 18-08-2021. If the Applicant was

absent on 19-08-2021, then how is that he has

received the Position Summary on 19-08-2021 is the

question that remains unanswered. Further,

presuming without admitting that the Position

Summary was served on the Applicant on

19-08-2021, then the next question arises as to

whether the Applicant actually discharged the

services more particularly described in the said

Position Summary as that of HR-Executive when

the witness of the Opponent categorically admitted

that he left the services on 21-08-2021. There is

absolutely no evidence on record that the Applicant

discharged his managerial duty on 20-08-2021

onwards when it is their own case that he left

services on 21-08-2021. The Opponent/Party II has

thus demolished their own case and has failed to

show that the Applicant has actually performed

any managerial duties pursuance to the Position

Summary served on him 19-08-2021. That apart,

whether the Position Summary was actually served

to the Applicant, this aspect also has created doubt

as the Opponent/Party II at one hand says that the

Applicant was absent on 19-08-2021 and with the

same breath says that he was served with the

Summary Position on the same day i. e., on

19-08-2021.

22. The witness of the Opponent/Party II in her

cross-examination has categorically admitted they

having not produced any document from the date

of the promotion of the Applicant to 19-08-2021 to

show that the Applicant was performing his duty

as stated in Exh. 22. On the other hand the

Applicant/Party I substantially and by way of

sufficient documentary evidence could prove that

he was employed with the Opponent/Party II and

the nature of the services rendered by him were

those which comes within the category of the

services being rendered by a ‘workman’ although

he was paid a salary of more than Rs. 10,000/- a

month and that there was periodic revision in his

salary and the last gross salary drawn by him was

Rs. 33,530/-. Therefore, the issue No. 1 stands

answered in the affirmative.

23. Issue No. 2: The Opponent/Party II in the

Written Statement filed by them have stated that

on account of continuous and unauthorized absence

of the Applicant disrupted the smooth functioning

of the Human Resource Department and was

considered as an act subversive of discipline. As

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

957

such, the Management decided to terminate the

services of the Applicant and accordingly his

services were terminated by notice dated

28-09-2021. The Opponent/Party II however

accepted the Applicant having raised the dispute

before the Commissioner, Labour and Employment

regarding the termination of his services. It is also

admitted by the Opponent that they received

communication dated 27-10-2021 from ALC, Mapusa

seeking to file their comments and to attend

discussion on the claim raised by the Applicant.

24. Ld. Adv. Shri Shirodkar submitted that the

Applicant did not raise the dispute with the

Management pursuance to the termination of his

services by the Opponent/Party II. Being so, there

was no industrial dispute between the Applicant/

/Party I and the Opponent/Party II and as such the

application filed by the Applicant is not maintainable

and thus this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to try this

present matter. 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.

25. The amended Section 2A(2) thus provides a

platform to an individual workman to raise his

independent dispute by making an application

directly to the Labour Court or Tribunal for

adjudication of the dispute referred therein after the

expiry of 45 days from the date he makes an

application to the Conciliation Officer of the

appropriate Government for conciliation of the

dispute. This Section nowhere emphasis a need to

raise a dispute with the Management first. The fact

that the Opponent/Party II accepted they having

received the notice from the Conciliation Officer for

the purpose of conciliation of the dispute raised by

the Applicant in his application is sufficient for the

Applicant to approach this Tribunal upon the expiry

of 45 days as stipulated in Section 2A(2) of the Act.

There is no dispute over the fact that the present

application has been filed after the expiry of 45 days

from the date of the application filed before the

Conciliation Officer. In view of this, the observation

made in the case of Sindhu Resettlement (Supra)

“….thus, both the respondents in their claims put

forward before the management of the Appellant,

requested for payment of retrenchment compensation

and did not raise any dispute for reinstatement. Since

no such dispute about reinstatement was raised by

either of the respondents before the management of

the Appellant, it is clear that the State Government

was not competent to refer a question of reinstatement

as an industrial dispute for adjudication by the

Tribunal. The dispute that the State Government could

have referred competently was the dispute relating to

payment of retrenchment compensation by the

Appellant to Respondent No. 3 which had been

refused. No doubt, the order of the State Government

making the reference mentions that the Government

had considered the report submitted by the

Conciliation Officer under sub-section (4) of Section 12

of the Industrial Disputes Act, in respect of the dispute

between the appellant and workmen employed under

it over the demand mentioned in the Schedule

appended to that order; and, in the Schedule, the

Government mentioned that the dispute was that of

reinstatement of Respondent No. 3 in the service of

the appellant and payment of his wages from 21st

February, 1958. It was urged, by Mr. Gopalakrishnan

on behalf of the respondents that this Court cannot

examine whether the Government, in forming its

opinion that an industrial dispute exists, came to its

view correctly or incorrectly on the material before it”

would be of no help to the Opponent/Party II to make

the preliminary objection raised by him sustainable.

The Applicant/Party I therefore has proved that the

complaint is maintainable under Section 2-A(2) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such this issue

stands answered in the affirmative.

26. Issue No. 3: According to Opponent/Party II

the services of the Applicant were terminated on the

basis of the Service Contract as the Applicant was

not a ‘workman’ as defined under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. When asked in the cross-

examination whether they have produced the said

Service Contract by virtue of which the Opponent/

/Party II claimed that the services of the Applicant

were terminated, the witness clearly stated that she

does not have such copy of a Contract. Thus, it is a

matter of record that the Opponent/Party II though

have taken a ground of they terminating the services

of the Applicant on the basis of Service Contract,

however, no document to that effect to substantiate

their above stand has been produced on record. As

such for want of sufficient evidence, this Issue stands

answered in the negative.

958

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

27. Issue No. 4: It is the Applicant’s case that on

28-09-2021 the Applicant was issued with the

Termination Letter terminating his services w.e.f.

23-09-2021. The Applicant was governed under

Shops and Establishment Act and was a ‘workman’

however, no departmental inquiry was held before

terminating his services neither a charge-sheet was

issued to him and there was no any departmental

inquiry conducted before terminating him from the

services. The termination of service therefore, was

in violation of principles of natural justice, claimed

the Applicant.

28. In the Written Statement, the Opponent/Party II

has stated that the continuous and unauthorized

absenteeism of the Applicant disrupted the smooth

functioning of the Human Resource Department and

was considered as an act subversive of discipline.

As such, the Management decided to terminate the

services of the Applicant and accordingly his

services were terminated by notice dated 28-09-2021.

The plain reading of the statements above shows

certain acts of misconduct being committed by the

Applicant while he was in service of the Opponent/

/Party II. If this was the case, then the

Opponent/Party II ought to have issued to the

Applicant a show-cause or a charge-sheet giving him

an opportunity to explain his unauthorized

absenteeism. As per Exh.18, which is the Performance

Appraisal of the Applicant, the charges/misconduct

that have been ticked mark are tardiness,

impoliteness to colleagues, negligence in performing

job duties, un-cooperative, poor or unsatisfactory

work performance, refusal/failure to follow job

requirements, disobedience to Superiors. The

punishment which has been ticked mark in the

column of action to be taken is second/final written

warning. The charges stated in the Written Statement

and those ticked marked in the Performance

Appraisal are totally distinct. The punishment

prescribed is only the second/final written warning.

The Applicant however has been directly terminated

from the services without giving any Warning Letter

in terms of the Performance Appraisal at Exh. 18 nor

the Applicant has been served with the show-cause

notice or has been issued a charge-sheet in the

alleged misconduct by the Opponent/Party II.

Moreover, the Applicant till today has not been paid

his full and final legal settlement dues and other

terminal benefits by Opponent/Party II though stated

in the Written Statement that the Opponent/Party II

is ready to pay by depositing the same before this

Tribunal or is willing to hand over the cheques to the

Applicant without prejudice to their contentions that

this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the present

matter.

29. In the case of S. K. International a Partnership

Firm (Supra) it is held that “the services of the

Respondent No. 1 are terminated on moral ground,

without mentioning the nature of alleged misconduct.

In the absence of appropriate disciplinary inquiry to

establish the misconduct or in the absence of adducing

any evidence before the Labour Court to justify the

termination on the ground of moral turpitude, the

termination of services of the Respondent No. 1 is in

breach of mandate contained in Section 25-F of the

Act, 1947 and can be said to be wholly illegal. The

reference was made assailing the illegal termination

and seeking reinstatement in service with continuity

of service and back wages. The residuary relief Clause (f)

in the Statement of Claim is elastic enough to subsume

in its fold the prayer for re-instatement, even though

there was no specific final prayer of reinstatement in

the Claim. No endeavor was made to establish the

misconduct before the Labour Court by the Petitioners.

This act leads to arbitrary and an act of victimization

justifying reinstatement in service with back wages.

So far as the back wages are concerned, the

Respondent No. 1 has discharged initial burden by

affirming in the Statement of Claim as well as in the

Affidavit of evidence that after the termination he has

not been able to secure any employment despite the

best efforts. It is not the case of the employer that

Respondent No. 1 has been working with a particular

employer. It was for the employer to demonstrate that

Respondent No.1 has been gainfully employed which

is not fulfilled. The Respondent No. 1 as permanent

worker has rendered five years’ service. It is not the

claim of the Petitioner that the work which the

Respondent No. 1 was discharging is not available.

The Respondent No. 1 has been out of employment for

more than four years. In the totality of the

circumstances to meet the ends of justice the

impugned Award stands modified. Direction to

reinstate the Respondent No. 1 in service with

continuity of service w.e.f. 2nd April, 2019 stands

confirmed. The Petitioner is directed to pay 70% of the

back wages computed at the last drawn wages w.e.f.

24th April, 2019 instead of full back wages ordered by

the Labour Court.

It is a tried law that even where the services of an

employee are terminated by the Employer without

resorting to a disciplinary enquiry, when a

termination is challenged before the Labour Court/

/Industrial Tribunal, the employer has a right to justify

the termination by establishing misconduct before the

Court/Tribunal. In the instant case, the Labour Court

found that the employer had not made a serious

endeavor to justify the termination by adducing

evidence in support thereof before the Labour Court.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

959

Before adverting to consider the legality and

correctness of this finding, it may be appropriate to

deal with the preliminary challenge to the award on

the ground that the Respondent No. 1 was not a

workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the

Act, 1947. An endeavor was made on behalf of the

Petitioners to draw home the point that the

Respondent No. 1 was not a workman as he was

discharging supervisory functions. The leaned

Presiding Officer was of the view that the designation

of the post was not decisive. The Employer failed to

adduce any evidence to show that the Respondent

No. 1 was discharging supervisory functions, neither

the Respondent No.1 supervised the work of any other

employee, not the Respondent No. 1 was vested with

any independent decision making power. Whether the

aforesaid approach of the learned Presiding Labour

Court is justifiable?

On the aspect of determination of status of workmen,

within the nature of the meaning of Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the legal position is fairly

crystalized. Such determination must be based on the

appreciation duties performed by the employee.

Nomenclature of the post, which the employee holds,

is not of decisive significance. The description of the

nature of the duties also does not furnish a surer

foundation for determination. Use of grand-standing

expressions and management jargon to describe

otherwise ordinary and normal functions, is not

uncommon. It is, therefore, necessary to correctly

appreciate the nature of the core duties discharged by

a person whose status is questioned.

Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

defines the expression ‘workman’ to mean any person

employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,

skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory

work for hire or reward. In the case of H. R.

Adyanthaya and Ors. V. Sandoz (India) Ltd., 1994

II CLR 552 (S.C.): (1994) SCC 737 the Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court enunciated “that to be

qualified to be workman under Section 2(s), the person

must be employed to do the work which falls in any of

the specified categories, manual, unskilled, skilled,

technical, operational, clerical or supervisory. To put

in, in other words, it is not enough that a person is

not covered by any of the four exceptions to the

definition. It is also fairly well settled that the burden

is on the person, who asserts the status of the

workman under S. 2(s) to establish with reference to

the dominant nature of his duties that the work which

the said person performs falls within one of the

specified categories under S. 2(s) of the Act, 1947.

30. In the case of Arkal Govind Raj Rao v. CIBA

Geigy and India Ltd., (1985) 3 SCC 371, another

three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court re-exposited

the principle in the following words:

“where an employee has multifarious duties and a

question is raised whether he is a workman or someone

other than a workman the Court must find out what

are the primary and basic duties of the person

concerned and if he is incidentally asked to do some

other work, may not necessarily be in tune with the

basic duties, these additional duties cannot change

the character and status of tne person concerned. In

other words, the dominant purpose of employment

must be taken into consideration and the gloss of some

additional duties must be rejected while determining

the status and character of the person.

The determinative factor is the main duties of the

employee concerned and not some works incidentally

done. In other words, what is, in substance, the work

which employee does or what in substance he is

employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the employee

is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or

for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical

work, the employee should be held to be doing

supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of

manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact

that some supervisory or other work is also done by

the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of

working time is devoted to some supervisory works,

the employee will come within the purview of

‘workman’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act.

The aforesaid enunciation indicates that it is the

dominant nature of work or duties which determines

the status and not the incidental work, which an

employee may be called upon to perform. Herein lies

the task before the industrial adjudicator or Court to

decipher the dominant nature of duties and remove

the gloss. Often the industrial adjudicator and Court

come across a verbose and labyrinth description of

the duties. Still an effort is warranted to remove the

gloss and find out the dominant nature of the duties.

In the case of Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v/s

employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 a three Judge Bench of

the Supreme Court postulated the criteria for grant

of back wages where the termination has been held

to be illegal. It was, inter alia, observed that: “It is no

more open to debate that in the field of industrial

jurisprudence a declaration can be given that the

termination of service is bad and the workman

continues to be in service ..... If thus the employer is

found to be in the wrong as a result of which the

workman is directed to be reinstated, the employer

could not shirk his responsibility of paying the wages

which the workman has been deprived of by the illegal

or invalid action of the employer. Speaking realistically,

where termination of service is questioned as invalid

or illegal and the workman has to go through the

960

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

gamut of litigation, his capacity to sustain himself

throughout the protracted litigation is itself such an

awesome factor that he may not survive to see the day

when the relief is granted. More so in our system where

the law’s proverbial delay has become stupefying. If

after such a protracted time and energy consuming

litigation during which period the workman just

sustains himself, ultimately he is to be told that though

he will be reinstated, he will be denied the back wages

which would be due to him, the workman would be

subjected to a sort of penalty for no fault of his and it

is wholly undeserved. Ordinarily, therefore, a workman

whose service has been illegally terminated would be

entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was

gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. That

is the normal rule. Any other view would be a premium

on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer.

If the employer terminates the service illegally and the

termination is motivated as in this case viz., to resist

the workmen’s demand for revision of wages, the

termination may welf amount to unfair labour practice.

In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal

rule, it should be followed with full back wages ...”

The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial

Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even

though the enquiry held against the employee/

/workman is consistent with the rules of natural

justice and/or certified standing order, if any, but

holds that the punishment was disproportionate to

the misconduct found proved, then it will have the

discretion not to award full back wages. However,

if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that

the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any

misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false

charge, then there will be ample justification for

award of full back wages.

It is, undoubtedly, true when the question arises

as to whether the back wages is to be given and as

to what is to be the extent of back wages, these are

matters which will depend on the facts of the case

as noted in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra). In a

case where it is found that the employee was not

at all at fault and yet, he was visited with illegal

termination or termination which is actually

activised by malice, it may be unfair to deny him

the fruits of the employment which he would have

enjoyed but for the illegal/malafide termination. The

nature of the charges, the exact reason for the

termination as evaluated and, of course, the

question as to whether the employee was gainfully

employed would be matters which will enter into

the consideration by the Court”.

31. In the case of Raghubir Singh V/ G. M.

Haryana Roadways, Hissar S.C.523, it has been

held that “Now, it is necessary for this Court to

examine another aspect of the case on hand,

whether the Appellant is entitled for reinstatement,

back wages and the other consequential benefits.

In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti

Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed) and Ors.

2014 II CLR 813 S.C., this Court opined as under:-

“The very idea of restoring an employee to the

position which he held before dismissal or removal

or termination of service implies that the employee

will be put in the same position in which he would

have been but for the illegal action taken by the

employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is

dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated

from service cannot easily be measured in terms of

money. with the passing of an order which has the

effect of the employer-employee relationship, the latter

source gets dried up, not only the concerned employee

but the entire family suffers great adversities. In the

case of Kumar Verma v/s Central Govt, Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court it is held “plain common

sense dictates that the removal of an order

terminating the services of the workman must

ordinarily lead to the re-instatement of the services

of the workman. That the relief must be awarded

where no special impediment in the way of awarding

the relief is clearly shown. It is true occasional

hardship may be caused to an employer but more

often than not comparatively far greater hardship is

certain to be caused to the workman if the relief is

denied.”

32. In the case in hand, the Applicant/Party I has

conclusively proved that he is the ‘workman’ within

the ambit of the definition of ‘workman’ as defined

under the Act and further proved that his services

have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably

without resorting to the principles of natural justice

w.e.f. 23-09-2021 by Order dated 28-09-2021.

Therefore, in contextual circumstances, the

Applicant/Party I workman is entitled to be

reinstated in the services of the Opponent/Party II

for which I am to answer that the Issue No. 4 is

answered in the negative.

Hence the following Order:

ORDER

1. The Application stands allowed. Consequently,

the termination Order dated 28-09-2021 issued

to the Applicant/Party I by the Opponent/Party II

stands set aside.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

961

2. The Employer/Party II is directed to pay to the

Applicant/Party I his full back wages from the

date of retrenchment till he is re-instated back in

the services of the Opponent/Party II.

(i) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal-cum-

-Labour Court.

——————

Department of Public Health

––––

Order

No. 7/4/2003-I/PHD/Part-I/167

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide letter No. COM/II/11/

/56(2)/2024/369 dated 15-01-2025, the Government

is pleased to promote the following Assistant Drugs

Controller to the post of Deputy Director in the

Directorate of Food & Drugs Administration on

regular basis in the Level 11 of Pay Matrix of 7th Pay

Commission [PB-3: Rs. 15600-39100+GP: Rs. 6,600/-

(pre-revised)] and other allowances to be fixed as

per rules with immediate effect:-

1. Smt. Swati V. Bhonsule alias Swati G. Lad.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 31st January, 2025.

—–––––—

Notification

No. 22/5/2015-I/PHD/Part/149

Read: Notification No. 22/5/2015-I/PHD/Part/709

dated 10-05-2023.

In partial modification to the Government

Notification read in the preamble, the Government

of Goa has filled the vacant posts.

In view of above, the constitution of the council

is as follows:

1. Director of Health Services

— Ex officio

Member.

2. Dean, Goa Medical College

-— Ex officio

Member.

3. Dr. Wilson Fernandes, Principal, — Member.

Institute of Nursing Education,

Bambolim-Goa

4. Oslinda Clara Fernandes, Ward

— Member.

Incharge, Goa Medical College,

Bambolim-Goa

5. Rekha Naik, Matron, MPT,

— Member.

Headland Sada-Goa

6. Helena Monteiro, Ward Incharge, — Member.

Institute of Psychiatry & Human

Behavior

7. Vandana Dessai, Ward Incharge,

— Member.

Hospicio Hospital, Margao,

South Goa

8. Mrs. Lisma Borges Barnetto,

— Member.

Public Health Nurse, Primary

Health Centre, Cortalim

9. S. Rajeswari, Professor-cum-

— Member.

-Principal, Vrundavan Institute

of Nursing Education,

Colvale-Goa

10. Geeta Sawal, Auxiliary Nurse-

— Member.

-Midwife, Primary Health Centre,

Aldona, Sub-Centre, Boatora-Goa

11. Miss Ekta Karkal, Tutor,

— Member.

Institute of Nursing Education,

Bambolim-Goa

12. Mrs. Ankita Patil, Staff Nurse

— Member.

(Teaching Faculty), Institute of

Nursing Education

13. Pratap S. Parab, TNAI Member,

— Member.

Ward Incharge (OT), Goa

Medical College, Bambolim,

Secretary, TNAI, Goa Branch

14. Mrs. Clevy D’souza, Ward

— Member.

Incharge, North Goa District

Hospital, Mapusa-Goa

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 28th January, 2025.

——————

Department of Urban Development

(Municipal Administration)

––––

Notification

No. 10/369/2018-DMA/Part/3198

As per the National Policy on Urban Street

Vendors, 2009 and subsequent notification of the

962

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

6TH FEBRUARY, 2025

Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and

Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (Central

Act 7 of 2014), and Goa Street Vendors (Protection

of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending)

Rules, 2016 the following Town Vending Committee

has been constituted by the Urban Local Bodies to

protect the livelihood of street vendors:-

Sr.

Ponda Municipal

Designation

No.

Council

1. Chief Officer, Ponda Municipal

Chairperson.

Council

2. Chairperson, Ponda Municipal

Member.

Council

3. Shri Rupak Desai, Councillor

Member.

& Member of Local Authority

4. Smt. Jyoti A. Naik, Councillor

Member.

& Member of Local Authority

5. Collector or his representative

Member.

6. Chairman of Planning &

Member.

Development Authority or his

representative

7. Chief Traffic Police or their

Member.

representative

8. Police Inspector, Ponda Police

Member.

Station or their representative

9. Amchi Vyapari Sanghatana,

Member.

representative of Municipal

Market Association

10. Ponda Business & Professional

Member.

Forum, representative of Trade

Association

11. Nari Shakti/Asara Foundation

Member.

Trust, representative of NGO

12. Rotaract Club of Ponda,

Member.

representative of NGO

13. Green Army Foundation

Member.

Community Based Organization

representative of (CBO)

14. Rajangan Co-op. Housing Society,

Member.

Ponda, representative of Resident

Welfare Association (RWA)

15. Ponda Gharkul Co-op. Housing

Member.

Society Ltd., representative of

Resident Welfare Association (RWA)

16. IDBI Bank representative of

Member.

Lead Bank of Ponda City

17. Vaishnavi V. Shet, female (General),

Member.

representative of Street Vendors

Association

18. Mumtaz A. Khan, female (General),

Member.

representative of Street Vendors

Association

19. Jyoti S. Dhekne, female (General),

Member.

representative of Street Vendors

Association

20. Priya Arvind Naik, female (OBC),

Member.

representative of Street Vendors

Association

21. Shambhu S. Naik, male (OBC),

Member.

representative of Street Vendors

Association

22. Vishwanath Yedvi, male (General),

Member.

representative of Street Vendors

Association

23. Maruti Narvekar, male (General),

Member.

representative of Street Vendors

Association

24. Pramad J. Shrivant, male (OBC),

Member.

representative of Street Vendors

Association

25. Paresh Ramesh Mamletdar,

Member.

male (OBC), representative of

Street Vendors Association

26. Sonu Rama Gaude, male (ST),

Member.

representative of Street

Vendors Association

27. Maruti Rama Tendulkar,

Member.

male (ST), representative of

Street Vendors Association

Brijesh Manerkar, Director (Municipal Administration/

/Urban Development) & ex officio Joint Secretary.

Panaji, 29th January, 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. 16.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—352/80—02/2025.