Goa Gazette, No. 2526-2, 10 April 2025

click here for IIIF manifest

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

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Panaji, ¹⁰th April, ²⁰²⁵ (Chaitra ²⁰, ¹⁹⁴⁷) SERIES II No. 2

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Note: There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 1 dated 03-04-2025 namely, Extraordinary dated 07-

04-2025 from pages 15 to 26 regarding Trade Circular from Department of Finance.

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Archaeology

Order

1(66)/HP/2023-24/Archaeology-475 Date: 30-Oct-2024 Read: Order No. 1) 1(66)/HP/2023-24/Archaeology-561 dated 20th November, 2023.

2) 1(66)/HP/2023-24/Archaeology-86 dated 27th May, 2024.

3) 1(66)/HP/2023-24/Archaeology-417 dated 08th October, 2024.

As per the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee for drafting of Heritage Policy for the State of Goa, Government is pleased to constitute a Drafting Panel for Drafting the Heritage Policy for the State of Goa. The composition of the Drafting Panel is as under:

Scope of work of Drafting Panel is as follows:

1. To compile the inputs received from the members of the Monitoring Committee for drafting the Heritage Policy for the State of Goa.

2. To Prepare the draft Heritage Policy for the State of Goa for placing before the Monitoring Committee for drafting of the Heritage Policy for the State of Goa.

The Drafting Panel shall submit the Draft Heritage Policy for the State of Goa on or before 31st December, 2024.

The Non-Official members of the Drafting Panel shall be entitled for TA/DA and Sitting Allowance as per rules.

Dr. Nilesh B. Fal Dessai, Director of Archaeology.

Panaji, 30th October, 2024.

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected] 27OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 ..................................................................................

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies

16/88-89/BBSCCS/ARCS/CZ/2294 Date: 06-Jan-2025

INTERIM ORDER AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 20 (1) OF THE GOA CO-

OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 2001 AND RULES, 2003.

Whereas, The Bank of Baroda Staff Coop. Credit Society Ltd., Panaji-Goa was registered with this office on 04/07/1988 under code symbol No. Reg. No. ARCS/CZ/8(a)/43/Goa under the erstwhile Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 as was applicable to the State of Goa, classified as a "Resource Society" and sub-classified as Service Resource Society and now it is deemed to be registered under the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 and Rules, 2003.

And whereas, the avowed objectives of the society have been specified in the Bye-laws No. 4 i.e. to encourage Thrift by enabling members to have part of their income in a safe and convenient way with the prospects of a fair profit, and to prevent indebtness by making loans available on reasonable terms.

And whereas, the Chairman of the society vide letter dated 12/12/2024 inwarded to this office on 18/12/2024 has informed that the society has already stopped its business activities since most of the members of the society has ceased to be members on the ground of retirement and no new members could admit during last more than five years and only 3 members are remained in the society. It is also informed that the General Body in the meeting convened on 31/08/2024 has decided to close the society. A copy the minutes of the General Body Meeting wherein the resolution to close the functioning of the society has been adopted and enclosed alongwith the above said letter.

And whereas, the society was registered with a certain objectives and purpose as laid down in it's bye- laws No. 4 and to achieve the same every member have to show their interest in undertaking it's functioning of the society. However, from the decision of the general body inference can be drawn that no members are interested in running the affairs of the society for which it was organized and registered.

Now, therefore, this office satisfied that this is a fit case for de-registration of the society. However, before passing any Order, the Chairman, Secretary and all Board of Directors as well as all the members of the society are hereby directed to show cause in writing on or before 17/01/2025, as to why an order should not be passed under section 20(1) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 declaring that the Bank of Baroda Staff Coop. Credit society ltd., Panaji-Goa is de-registered and also for making other incidental and consequential orders under sub-section (2) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001.

Further, I call upon the Chairman, Secretary and all the other Board of Directors as well as members of the society to remain present in this office on 31/01/2025 at 3.00 p.m. to submit their say with documentary evidence, if any, to defend in the matter, failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in the matter and the undersigned will be constrained to take action as proposed hereinabove.

This show cause notice is being served by passing on the registered address of the society and is also being served to the Board of Directors of the society at their residential addresses calling upon in the interested members and or the Board of Directors to appear before the undersigned on the above scheduled date, time and place.

Take notice that if no reply is received within the time mentioned hereinabove, or failure to appear for personal hearing on given date and time, further necessary action will be initiated ex-parte without affording any further opportunity.

The office bearers of the society are hereby directed to publish a copy of this notice on the society's notice board for service to all members and also display on such other conspicuous places in society premises for knowledge of all members. The office bearers of the society shall also serve a copy each of this notice to each individual member and take his/her acknowledgement towards the service.

In case it is not possible to serve the notice on any member of the society than the office bearers of the society shall publish a copy of this notice on any one newspaper published in Goa and having wide circulation in the District in which the office of the society is situated.

A copy of this notice is also being published on the notice board of this office and the office of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Sahakar Sankul, 4th floor, Patto, Panaji-Goa.

Given under the seal on this office.

Smita Kankonkar, Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Central Zone, Panaji–Goa.

Panaji, 06th Janaury, 2025.

..................................................................................

Office of the Registrar of Co-op. Societies

Order

3/6/Urban Credit/TS-II/QZ/2019/RCS/4166 Date: 14-Feb-2025

Read: 1. No. Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TS-II/PZ/2017/RCS/Suppl/5306 dated 10-Feb-2020.

2. No. Letter No. 2-7-2012/ARQZ/URBAN(VOL-I)/386 dated 01-Jul-2024.

Whereas, vide letter referred at Sr.No. 2 above, the Unit Incharge II O/o. the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Quepem Zone, Quepem Goa has forwarded the proposal of the Canacona Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Canacona Goa for appointment of Mrs. Shilpa R. Shirodkar, General Manager of the society to act as a 'SALES CUM RECOVERY OFFICER" for recovery of debts due to the society.

And whereas, the Registrar is satisfied that it is necessary to appoint "SALES CUM RECOVERY OFFICER" for recovery of debts.

Now, therefore in exercise of powers conferred upon me vide Notification read at Sr. No. 1 above, Mrs. Shilpa R. Shirodkar, the General Manager of the Canacona Urban Coop. Credit Society Ltd., Canacona Goa is hereby empowered to act as "SALES CUM RECOVERY OFFICER" as provided under Section 91D and Section l23B of the Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 in relation to recovery of debts and to attach and sell the property of defaulters or to execute any decree by attachment and sale of property and execution of all recovery orders passed by the Authority subject to the following conditions:-

1. The Officer empowered with the powers of Sales Cum Recovery Officer shall work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Socicties, Arbitration/ Execution, South Goa District, Margao-Goa.

2. She shall follow the procedures as laid down under the Goa Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and the Goa Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 or in compliance with any other relevant provision of any other ACT/Rules and also bye-laws of the society concerned while execution of decree.

3. The Board of Directors of the society shall be fully responsible along with the General Manager for any acts in contravention of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws.

4. The Board of Directors shall review the performance of the General Manager every month and ensure compliance.

5. The order shall remain in force for one year from the date of its issue and the same can be withdrawn at any stage without assigning any reasons thereof.

Kabir K. Shirgaonkar, Registrar of Cooperative Societies Panaji, Goa.

Panaji, 14th February, 2025.

..................................................................................

Notification

5-2044-2024/ARSZ/HSG/206 Date: 19-Apr-2024

Read: 1. No. Application Ref. No. 3593813112023475 dated 02-Nov-2023.

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "Maheen Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Near Chapel, Madel Margao Goa" is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2024250101.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 19th April, 2024.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"Maheen Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Near Chapel, Madel Margao Goa" has been registered on 19/04/2024 and its bears registration Code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250101 and its classified as "Co-operative Housing Society" under sub-classification "No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society" in terms of rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 19th April, 2024.

..................................................................................

Notification

5-1977-2022/ARSZ/HSG/205 Date: 19-Apr-2024

Read: 1. No. Application Ref. No. 3593829042022202 dated 27-Mar-2024.

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "Green Field Apartments Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Chandrawado, Near Minguel Miranda House, Fatorda, 403602"-Goa is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2024250100.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 19th April, 2024.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"Green Field Apartments Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Chandrawado, Near Minguel Miranda House, Fatorda, 403602"-Goa has been registered on 19/04/2024 and its bears registration Code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250100 and its classified as "Co-operative Housing Society" under sub-classification "No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society" in terms of rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 19th April, 2024.

..................................................................................

Notification

5-2048-2024/ARSZ/HSG/201 Date: 19-Apr-2024

Read: 1. No. Application Ref. No. 3593618012024544 dated 19-Apr-2024.

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "The Dio-Mira Mansion Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Ward No. 16, Near La- Rose, Mangoor Hill, Vasco da Gama" - Goa is registered under code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250099.

Monal Manerikar. Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor),PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 19th April, 2024.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"The Dio-Mira Mansion Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Ward No. 16, Near La-Rose, Mangoor Hill, Vasco da Gama" - Goa has been registered on 19/04/2024 and its bears registration Code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250099 and its classified as "Co-operative Housing Society" under sub-classification "No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society" in terms of rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar. Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor),PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 19th April, 2024.

..................................................................................

Notification

5-2038-2024/ARSZ/HSG/4358 Date: 01-Mar-2024

Read: 1. No. Application Ref. No. 3593822112023478 dated 24-Nov-2023.

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "The City Oasis Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited Near Om Ice Factory, Borda, Fatorda, Salcete"-Goa is registered under code symbol No.-RCSSZ2023-240089.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao - Goa. 403602.

Margao, 1st March, 2024.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"The City Oasis Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Limited, Near Om Ice Factory, Borda, Fatorda, Salcete"- Goa has been registered on 01/03/2024 and its bears registration Code symbol No. RCSSZ2023-240089 and its classified as "Co-operative Housing Society" under sub-classification "No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society" in terms of rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao - Goa. 403602.

Margao, 1st March, 2024.

,

..................................................................................

Notification

5-2049-2024/ARSZ/HSG/115 Date: 10-Apr-2024

Read: 1. No. Application Ref. No. 3593815022024558 dated 06-Mar-2024.

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "Ocean Way Apartments Cooperative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Mungul Salcete Goa" is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2024250097.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 10th April, 2024.

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"Ocean Way Apartments Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd, Mungul Salcete-Goa"- Goa has been registered on 10/04/2024 and its bears registration Code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250097 and its classified as "Co-operative Housing Society" under sub-classification "No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society" in terms of rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 10th April, 2024.

..................................................................................

Notification

5-2036-2024/ARSZ/HSG/116 Date: 10-Apr-2024

Read: 1. No. Application Ref. No. 3593819112023476 dated 19-Nov-2023.

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, "Blessings Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd. Dongorim, Navelim Salcete Goa" is registered under code symbol No.- RCSSZ2024250096.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 10th April, 2024.

CER

CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

"Blessings Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Dongorim, Navelim Salcete Goa" has been registered on 10/04/2024 and its bears registration Code symbol No. RCSSZ2024250096 and its classified as "Co-operative Housing Society" under sub-classification "No.7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society" in terms of rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003.

Monal Manerikar, Asst. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, C Type Quarters, C-2 (Ground Floor), PWD Complex, Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 403602.

Margao, 10th April, 2024.

..................................................................................

3-12/11-12/ARPZ/Urban/Reg/2354 Date: 27-Mar-2025 Read: 1. Certificate of Registration dated 11/09/1998 of The Sumangal Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Durbhat, Ponda Goa.

2. This Office Order No. dated No.3-12/11-12/ARPZ/Urban/Reg/2352 dated 27/03/2025.

3. This Office Memo No.3-12/11-12/ARPZ/Urban/Reg/2353 dated 27/03/2025.

Consequent upon the change in classification vide amendment at Sr. No. 03 of above, the certificate of Registration of The Sumangal Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Durbhat, Ponda Goa.

AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

The Certificate of Registration dated 11/09/1998 bearing registration Code Symbol ARCS/CZ/8- (a)-111/Goa stands amended as ARCS/PZ/Ser-Reso/MP/25/Goa with immediate effect to the following extent.

The sub-classification of the society appearing in the registration Certificate referred at Sr. No.1, be read as the The Sumangal Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd. Durbhat, Ponda Goa under classification No. 10(C) under sub Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Goa Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003.

Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Ponda Zone, Ponda-Goa.

..................................................................................

Department of Finance

Order

11/1/2024-Fin(DMU)/8754 Date: 08-Apr-2025

Dated: - 04/04/2025

Whereas, case stands registered before the Economic Offences Cell vide Crime No. 03/2023 u/s 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 3 & 5 of the Goa Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 against accused persons namely Myron Rodrigues and his wife Deepali Parab both r/o Villa No. 10, Costa Ninho Verde, Kirbhat Nuvem, Salcete-Goa and also residing at Villa No. C-08, CD Countryside, Murida, Margao, Salcete-Goa

And whereas, during the course of investigation the properties belonging to accused partners were identified for attachment in order to protect the interest of depositors.

And whereas, the office of Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Cell, Panaji, Goa vide letter dated 07/02/2025 has proposed to issue ad-interim Order of Attachment of properties.

Now therefore, in exercise of the power conferred under section 3 of Goa Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, the Government hereby passes an ad-interim order for attachment of property alongwith bank deposits as mentioned herein below till further orders and transfer the control over the said properties in the name of Additional Collector South, Competent Authority under Goa Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, with direction to take further necessary action.

1. Villa No.10, admeasuring a carpet area of 138 sq. mts. Corresponding and equivalent to a super built up area of 175 sq. mts. along with exclusive balcony area of 4.02 sq. mts. and exclusive terrace area of 11.73 sq. mts. in the residential project known as "Costa Ninho Verde" along with proportionate right in the common area of the said project.

2. Property bearing Flat No. B-1604A, admeasuring of 509 sq. ft. of carpet area, on 16th Floor Wing "B" in the building known as Lodha Enchante, New Cuffe Parade Project in Wadala, Mumbai, Opp. Imax Dome, Wadala (East), Mumbai- 400022 along with car parking space

3. Property identified as Apartment No. 101, situated on First Floor admeasuring approximately 105 sq. mtrs of super built up area, corresponding to the built up area being 93.72 sq. mtrs and which is co- related to the corresponding carpet area of said apartment being 81.46 sq. mtrs. in Block C of the housing complex called "Chandra Meadows", Surveyed No. 223/2 of Cortalim village, duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar of Mormugao at Vasco Da Gama, Goa under No. 521 at pages 141 to 157, Book I, Vol. No. 815, dated 28/03/2008.

4. Property bearing Flat No. 1205, on 12th Floor, "B" Wing, admeasuring 641 Sq. ft. Carpet area in the building known as "Vaishnavi Heights Bldg. "B" Co-operative Housing Society Limited, near K. M. Agarwal College, Kalyan-421301 lying being and situated at Plot bearing Survey No. 35, Hissa No.1/M (Old S. No. 35, Hissa No.1/12) of village Kolivali, Kalyan, Thane.

5. Property bearing Flat No.10, area admeasuring 55 sq. mts (433 sq ft carpet area i.e. 595 sq ft built up area) 2nd floor, Wing No. 03, Lake view No. 3, Survey No. 130, Hissa no. 1/A, Survey No.139, Hissa No.1A of village-Daswe Town, Lavasa, Taluka-Mulshi, Dist-Pune.

6. Property bearing Flat No. 801, 8th Floor, A-Wing, Tower-7, Estrella, area admeasuring approx. 456 sq. ft. (carpet area) i.e. 42.36 sq. mts., Lodha New Cuff Parade, near Imax Dome, Wadala (East), Mumbai- 400037.

7. Row Villa No. C-08 having super built up area of 139.33 squares meters in the complex known as "Rainbow Villas" located at Murida, Fatorda, Margao-Goa more particularly described in Schedule-II, duly registered in the office of Civil Registration cum Sub Registrar, Salcete, Margao-Goa under Reg. No. MGO-1-2244-2021, dated 27/07/2021, at Serial No. 2021-MGO-2319 in Book 1.

8. Details of Bank Deposits:

I. Bank Account of Myron Rodgrigues

II. Bank Account of Deepali Parab @ Rukmini Naik

III. Fixed Deposit of the accused Bank Account of Deepali Parab in HDFC Bank A/c No.

01941020000581 at Kalyan Branch, Kalyan West, Thane, Maharashtra.

By Order and in the name of Governor of Goa.

Dr. Pranab G. Bhat, Under Secretary, Finance (Bud-II).

"

..................................................................................

Department of Handicrafts, Textile and Coir

Order

5/5/2025-HT&C/50 Date: 03-Apr-2025 Read: - Order No. 8/5/2010-IND dated 08th January, 2011.

Government is pleased to re-constitute the Committee under Preferential Purchase Scheme as follows:-

1. The Chairman at Sr. No. 1 to be substituted as the Secretary (Handicrafts, Textile & Coir) instead of the Secretary (Industries).

2. The Member at Sr. No. 5 to be substituted as Director, Department of Handicrafts, Textile & Coir instead of the Director, Directorate of Industries.

The rest of the content shall remain unchanged.

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

Darshani S. Dessai, Under Secretary, Handicrafts, Textile & Coir.

Porvorim, 3rd April, 2025.

..................................................................................

Department of Home

Home-General Division

Order

2/7/2022/HD(G)/951 Date: 03-Apr-2025 ,,,,,,Read: Order No. 2/7/2022/HD(G)/ 3439 dated 27/09/2024

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Goa Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1988 (Goa Act No. 20 of 1989), Government of Goa being satisfied that in the public interest it is necessary so to do, hereby extends the period prohibiting strike in any form in all establishments engaged in manufacturing, packaging, distribution and transportation of pharmaceutical products and components thereof in pharmaceutical sector in the State of Goa mentioned in the above order for further period of two months with effect from 10/04/2025.

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

Manesh Hari Kedar, Under Secretary (Home-I).

..................................................................................

Department of Labour

Order

28/04/2025/LAB/219 Date: 02-Apr-2025

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Vedanta Limited, River Fleet & Shipping Office, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa and it's workman, represented by Goa Union of Industrial workers, 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 dispute35 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 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 the management of M/s. Vedanta Limited, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa, in denying the benefit of two paid holidays such as Holi and Eid on 25/03/2024 and 17/06/2024 respectively to Shri Santosh Narvekar, Asst. Master on barge, 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, 1st April, 2025.

..................................................................................

Order

28/03/2025-LAB/220 Date: 02-Apr-2025

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Tevapharm India Private Limited, 8th Floor, Tower C, Times Square Building, Andheri- Kurla Road, Gamdevi, Marol, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 059 and M/s. Marksans Pharma Limited, Plot No. A-1, Phase 1A, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa and it's workmen represented by the Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, 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 Tevapharm India Private Limited, 8th Floor, Tower C, Times Square Building, Andheri-Kurla Road, Gamdevi, Marol, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400059 and M/s Marksans Pharma Limited, Phase 1A, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete – Goa, in not conceding the following demands raised by the General Secretary, Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Union, Shiv Sena Bhavan, Shree Khandoba Chowk, Mumbai-Pune Juna Mahamarg, Akurdi, Pune, is legal and justified?

Demand No. 1. Applicability:-

The revision as per the charter of demand (COD) shall be applicable to all permanent workmen who are members of the said union and it shall also be applicable to those probationers who would be subsequently absorbed as permanent employees and those employees who become the members of the Union hereafter.

Demand No. 2. Pay Scales:-

Demand No. 3. Flat Rise:-

Union demands that all the workmen shall be given the Flat Rise of Rs. 7000/- per month.

Fitment: The above amounts should be added to the existing basic and thereafter fitted in the revised pay scale in the higher stage.

Demand No. 4. Seniority Increments:-

Union demands that the workmen should be given Seniority increments as mentioned below:

(i)    Service up to 3 years                   One increment
(ii)   Service from 3 years to 7 years         Two increments
(iii)  Service from 7 years to 10 years        Three increments
(iv)   Service above 10 years                  Four increments

Demand No. 5. Allowances:

(i) Fixed Dearness Allowance:- With effect from 01 April 2022 each workman should be paid fixed Dearness Allowance at 15% of the revised basic.

(ii) Variable Dearness Allowance:- Union demands that VDA shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 25/- per point rise beyond 123 points of AICPI (2016) the computation of VDA shall be made quarterly based on the increase or decrease in the average consumer Points for the preceding quarter.

(iii) House Rent Allowance:- The Union demands that HRA should be paid at the revised rate of 30% of Basic, DA and VDA, as the cost of accommodation is very high in Goa due to Tourist State.

(iv) Education Allowance:- The Union demands that all the workmen shall be paid Education Allowance @ Rs. 3000/- per month over and above the existing allowance.

(v) Conveyance Allowance:- The Union demands that all the workmen shall be paid Conveyance Allowance by adding Rs. 3000/- to the existing allowance.

(vi) Shift Allowance:- The Union demands that all those workmen who work in the shifts shall be paid shift allowance as under:

Second Shift: Rs. 150/- per second shift

Third Shift: Rs. 200/- per third shift

(vii) City Compensatory Allowance:- The Union demands that all the workmen shall be paid CCA at the revised rate by adding Rs. 2000/-.

(viii) Telephone Reimbursement Allowance:- Company should be given telephone reimbursement allowance 2000 per month. The company is already paying this allowance of Rs. 1000/- to some of the workers.

(ix) Superannuation Allowance:- Company should give Rs. 25,000/- superannuation allowance to all the workmen from Grades J-05 to J-07 as is given to employees in Grades J-9 and above.

(x) Up-keep Allowance:- Company should revive this allowance which was in existence till May 2014 and unilaterally withdrawn from June 2015. The Union demands that this allowance be given @15% of the Basic.

(xi) Fixed Medical Allowance:- Company should give Fixed Medical allowance 1200 per month.

(xii) Attendance Allowance:- All the workmen should be given Attendance Allowance as shown below:

For 26 days present Rs. 900/-

For 24 days present Rs. 700/-

For 22 days present Rs. 500/-

(xiii) Maintenance Allowance:- Maintenance allowance of Rs. 1,000/- should be given to technicians who are working in engineering department.

(xiv) Medical Reimbursement Allowance:- The Union demands that all the workmen should be given Medical Reimbursement allowance at the revised rate by adding Rs. 1,000/- to the existing Medical Reimbursement allowance.

(xv) Special Allowance:- The Union demands that all the workmen shall be paid Special allowance at the revised rate by adding Rs. 3,000/- to the existing Special allowance.

Demand No. 6. Paid Holidays:-

The Union demands that all the workmen shall be granted paid holidays at the rate 15 days per year.

Demand No. 7. Leave:-

The Union demands that all the workers should be given leave on following basis:

A. Privilege Leave:- All the workmen should be given following privilege leave every year.

(a) For first 240 Days : 30 days P/L

(b) After 240 Days : For every 5 working days, one day

Union demands that all the workmen should be given privilege Leave per year with accumulation up to 120 days.

B. Casual Leave:- Union demands that all the workmen should be given casual leave at the rate of 15 days per year with encashment facility.

C. Sick Leave:- Union demands that all the workmen covered under ESIC should be given sick leave at the rate of 15 days per year. And those workmen outside the purview of ESIC shall be given 15 days sick leave per year with accumulation up to 75 days.

D. Special leave should be granted for chronic illness which is sanctioned by doctors till the fitness of patient.

E. Paternity Leave:- Workmen should be given 10 days of paternity leave.

F. Bereavement Leave:- In case of death of any family member, workmen should be given 12 days Bereavement leave.

G. Short Leave:- Company should be given short paid leave for 02 hours (early going and late coming) two times in a month.

H. Leave Encashment:- Leave encashment should be given on gross salary.

Demand No. 8. Leave Travel Assistance:-

The Union demands that LTA should be paid at the rate of one month Gross wage per annum with minimum of four days privilege leave. The amount shall be paid one week before the commencement of leave.

Demand No. 9. Bonus/Ex Gratia:-

The Union demands that all the workers should be paid Bonus/Ex-gratia at the rate of 20% of annual gross wages every year. The Union also demands that those workers who are outside the purview of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 should be paid bonus as per the Performance Policy of the company on CTC.

Demand No. 10. One Time Pay:-

All the workmen should be given one time pay as paid to some workers of Teva and all workers of Watson.

Demand No. 11. Rewards and Recognition:-

As a part of motivation and as a gesture of goodwill the company shall decide to revise the rewards and recognition.

Award Type Award Amount

(i)   Man of the month             5000/-
(ii)  Divisional Man of the Year   10000/-
(iii) Teva Man of the Year         20000/-

Demand No. 12. Service Reward:-

All the workmen should be given service reward as shown below:

(i)    Completion of 05 years of service    Rs. 15,000/-
(ii)   Completion of 10 years of service    Rs. 20,000/-
(iii)  Completion of 15 years of service    Rs. 25,000/-

Demand No. 13. Sports Day Celebration:-

The company shall organize various sports activities (Volley ball, cricket, chess and carrom) and wherever possible will send best of our teams for external competitions.

Demand No. 14. Bandh Day:-

If any union or workers or agitations resort to Goa Bandh/Strike and the workers are unable to reach the work place on account of the same, Company should take all responsibility and provide free transportation to the workmen from home to Company and back in the event the Company insists on running the factory. If not, company should give paid holidays on such day.

Demand No. 15. Medical Facility:-

(a) All the workmen should be covered under mediclaim policy up to Rs. 5 lacs and include spouse, children's up to age of 25 years, father and mother of the workmen is beneficiary with full cover of the said scheme in addition Rs. 30 lakh corporate buffer for all sum assured.

(b) All the workmen should be covered under death insurance scheme of Rs. 20 lakh for any kind of death.

(c) All the workmen should be covered under accident insurance scheme of Rs. 25 lakh.

(d) If any workmen undergoes medical treatment for any disease and remain absent on duty due to sickness for long period, he should be given full pay special leave till he resumes on duty.

(e) Company should tie up to two standard hospitals near company to get immediate medical treatment to the workmen in emergency.

(f) Company should make available an ambulance for 24 hours in the Company's premises.

(g) Company should give medical help including vehicle facility to the workmen's family.

(h) Company should give Rs. 30,000/- as emergency medical help in case of hospitalization /death of any family member of the workmen.

(i) Company should arrange transport/air ticket in case of emergency of workmen.

Demand No. 16. Medical Reimbursement:-

The Union demands that those workmen, who are outside the purview of the ESIC, shall be reimbursed full medical expenses incurred by him for self and his family including dependant father and mother.

Demand No. 17. Accident benefits while on duty and while coming for duty and while going from the

duty:-

The Union demands that those workmen who met with an accident while coming for duty and going back from duty shall be treated as accident while on duty and they shall be given all the benefits such as full wages and full medical reimbursement to the concern workmen.

Demand No. 18. Death Relief Fund:-

In case of death of workmen during the service inside the factory premises or outside company, all the workmen should contribute one day wages and the employer should contribute an amount of Rs. 10/- lakh39 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 contribution towards death relief fund and such amount should be handed over to the legal heirs of the deceased workmen.

Demand No. 19. Death Benevolent Pension and Permanent Disablement Fund:-

If any workmen dies then company should give Rs. 15,000/- per month as a pension to his family and any workmen suffers permanent disablement then company should give one time financial help of Rs. 25 lac rupees in addition to Rs. 15,000/- pension per month.

Demand No. 20. Loan Facility:-

(a) Personal Loan: All workmen should be given interest free personal loan @10 times of monthly gross salary. The amount of personal loan will be repayable in easy monthly installments.

(b) Housing Loan: All workmen should be given interest free Housing loan of Rs. 10 lakh. The amount of Housing loan will be repayable in easy monthly installments.

(c) Two wheeler and Car Loan: All workmen should be given interest free two and four wheeler loan.

The amount of loan will be repayable in easy monthly installments.

Demand No. 21. Other Facilities:-

(a) Festival Advance: All workmen should be given Rs. 25,000/- as festival advance.

(b) Marriage Gift: On workmen's marriage one month's gross salary should be given as gift to him.

(c) Casual/helper should be provided wherever required in production area.

(d) Housekeeping personal should be provided in each area for Housekeeping work.

(e) Birthday coupon price to be given Rs. 1500/-.

(f) All the workmen should be given a pair of shoes twice in a year.

(g) All the workmen should be given one Raincoat or Umbrella in the first week of June every year.

(h) Rest Room to be improved with well equipment facility.

(i) Company should provide well-furnished Union office, Union notice Board, Computer equipment to do the Union work.

(j) Company should relieve Unit Committee to do Union work/attending meeting/training program etc. and grant them special leave for the same.

(k) Incentives: All workmen should be given 1% of the profit share per annum.

(l) Punching Card: Provision of punching card should be near the security gate.

(m) Company should give time for Union to take meetings in the premises at every 3 months.

(n) Company should give two T-shirts, two caps and one winter jersey to all workmen every year.

(o) If plant is running on festivals/national holidays then company should pay triple overtime and one C/OFF.

(p) In the night shift management should give 15 minute rest after every hour of working with a reliever operator during the said period.

Demand No. 22. Diwali Gifts:-

Company should provide 2Kg dry fruits and 1Kg sweet box with 5000/- rupees Amazon coupon.

Demand No. 23. Canteen Facility:-

(a) Snacks: All the workmen should be given free snacks for 1st, 2nd, 3rd shift and general shift.

(b) Inspection of the caterers' kitchen should be done by the company and union jointly at every 15 days.

(c) Canteen facility should be improved and superior quality food should be provided to all the workmen.

(d) Contract of canteen should be changed every 01 year.

(e) The Canteen Committee comprising of Union members and management employees presently functioning should continue.

Demand No. 24. Lump Sum Payment:-

All the workmen should be given one time lump sum amount of Rs. 10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as settlement signing incentive.

Demand No. 25. Interim Relief:-

Rs. 10000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) be granted to each of the workers w.e.f. 01/04/2022 by way of Interim Relief pending finalisation of the charter of demands (COD).

Demand No. 26. Educational subsidy for children's:-

The company should reimburse the school fees fully.

Demand No. 27. Service Gratuity:-

All the workmen should be given @45 days total wages for every completed years of service.

Demand No. 28. Picnic:-

Company should arrange 03 days overnight picnic out of Goa with proper quality and standard arrangement in the month of July every year for all the workmen. If it is not possible each workmen should be given Rs. 5000/- towards the picnic. If any workmen required to attend the duty on such days, he should be given cash benefits as mentioned above.

Demand No. 29. Family Day:-

Company should arrange Family Day for all the workmen and their family members in month of November or once in every year. If it is not possible each workmen should be given Rs. 10000/- towards the picnic. If any workmen required to attend the duty on such days, he should be given cash benefits as mentioned above.

Demand No. 30. Retrospective Effect:-

All the above demands should be given with effect from 01/04/2022 to 31/03/2025. Period of agreement will be for 3 years.

Demand No. 31:-

All the workmen who are working with you shall be transferred to M/s Watson Pharma Private Limited, the other Unit of Teva at Verna Goa with continuity in service w.e.f. 01/04/2023 on the same terms and conditions.

OR

The transferee Company shall not transfer the workers outside Goa without the written consent of the concerned workmen.

Demand No. 32:-

The services of the workmen so transferred will not be interrupted by such transfer.

Demand No. 33:-

The terms and conditions of service applicable to the workmen after such transfer are not in any way less favorable to the workmen then those applicable to them immediately before the transfer.

Demand No. 34:-

The new employer is under the terms of such transfer or otherwise, legally liable to pay to the workmen, in the event of retrenchment, compensation on the basis that the services have been continuous and has not been interrupted by the transfer. The Union calls upon to accept the said additional demands with immediate effect

(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, 1st April, 2025.

..................................................................................

Notification

28/02/2025/LAB/PART-I/202 Date: 21-Mar-2025 The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 10/03/2025 in Case No. IT/05/1998 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).

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(BEFORE MRS. VIJAYALAXMI SHIVOLKAR, HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

Case No. IT/05/1998

Mr. Walson Thomas Rep. by the Goa MRF Employees Union, Saidham, Dhavalimol, 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 along with Adv. Arshad Sheikh.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri. G. K. Sardessai alongwith Adv. Ms. M. Rao.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 10th Day of the Month of March of the Year 2025)

By Order dated 11th November, 1997 bearing No. IRM/CON/PONDA/(146)/, the Government of Goa in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act of 14 of 1947), 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 terminating

the services of the workman Mr. Walson Thomas with effect from

4-3-1997, 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/05/1998 and registered A/D notices were issued to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notice, Party I filed his Claim Statement at Exhibit 4.

3. The Party I stated that since the formation of the Union, the Company has been attempting to disrupt the unity of the workmen employed by the Company and who are members of the Union. Of late, there has been large scale harassment and victimization of the Union Office bearers and its other members due to their legitimate trade union activities. The harassment, inter-alia, include illegal changes in service conditions, unjustified and unwarranted suspensions, charge-sheets on false and fabricated charges, refusal to negotiate in good faith and impositions of unfair labour practices in the guise of following management policy etc. and further including the termination of the Workman, Mr. Walson Thomas.

4. The Party I states that the Workman was issued a letter/charge-sheet dated 30/09/1996 which itself was illegal and untenable at law and was based totally on concocted charges solely to victimize the42 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 Workman for his union activities. The Party I stated that the charge-sheet was based inter-alia on the allegation that the Management/Party II was convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the Party I/Workman had deliberately slowed production without any justification and that the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet did not concur with the alleged facts set out in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet was supported by two Warning Letters which were given without seeking any explanation from the Workman nor were given any details therein. It is submitted that the Warning Letters were issued solely to build up a false case against the Workman and to spoil his otherwise unblemished service record and that the wording of the charge-sheet indicated that the entire issue was pre-decided by the Management and the charge-sheet was issued to falsely show a formality of compliance with the rules of natural justice for which the Workman was asked to submit his written explanation within 48 hours of the receipt of the charge-sheet.

5. The Party I stated that by letter dated 07/10/1996, the said workman was illegally and unjustifiably suspended by the Party II. The said workman was further issued another Charge-sheet dated 09.10.1996 on the ground that the Workman deliberately slowed production without any reasons from 04/10/1996 till 05/10/1996 which was below the normal expected average tyre production and was asked to file his written explanation within 48 hours. The Party I states that by letter dated 22/10/1996, the Workman denied the charges set out in the charge-sheets and informed the Party II that the normal expected alleged average tyre production mentioned by the Company was imaginative and concocted solely to victimize him for his legitimate trade union activities and called upon the Party II to furnish him the details of performance during the relevant period of any permanent workman. He also requested information regarding breakdown/material hold-ups on particular days for which he was charged with low production and also to supply him the name of the Manager who had signed the charge-sheets and the Suspension Letter as well as the copies of the standards of production for 10.20 SMLN6 (SEA) Tyres for both single and double building including the working towards the same.

6. The Party I states that the Management did not supply any information sought by the Workman and with malafide intention purported to consider the reply as unsatisfactory and by letter dated 11/11/1996 sent notice of enquiry on 11/11/1996 i.e. on the same day, which action of the Management severely prejudiced the Workman for not giving him enough time to reply to the charge- sheets and tantamount to violation of the rules of natural justice as the Workman was called upon to answer charges based on facts and figures without he being supplied any working or material towards any purported figures considered to be normal average tyre production.

7. The Party I stated that the charge-sheet issued to him was ex-facie illegal and untenable at law and that he was not allowed to be defended by a person of his choice. He further stated that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry devoid of the principles of natural justice and did not afford even a reasonable opportunity of defence to him nor did he call upon the Parties to give their final submissions before closing the enquiry proceedings.

8. Party I further stated that there was no evidence supporting the charges leveled against him and the charges leveled did not constitute any misconduct either major, or at all and that he was prejudiced at each stage of the enquiry. He stated that his illegal termination from services was also an act of unfair labour practice of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He stated that the penalty of illegal and unjust termination is grossly disproportionate to the charges on which the termination is based and moreover the same is discriminatory. Hence, it is prayed that the illegal termination of Party I be revoked and he be reinstated in service with full back wages.

9. In its Written Statement filed at Exhibit 5, the Party II stated that Mr. Walson Thomas was charge- sheeted vide Charge-sheet dated 30.09.1996 for alleged misconduct whereby it is alleged that the Workman was deliberately slowing down production of tyres from 07/09/1996 to 29/09/1996 without any justified reason. These alleged acts to have been committed by the Workman, if proved, amounts to gross misconducts under Item II, XV, XX, L and LII of Clause-21 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company/Party II which reads as under:

Clause 21 Item II : Striking work either singly or with other workmen in

contravention of these Standing Orders, any statute, law,

rule of enactment for the time being in force or that may be

framed from time to time or inciting any workman to strike

work.

Clause-21 Item XV : Malingering or slowing down of work alone or in

combination or with other workmen and includes stoppage

of work in violation of Company's rules and regulations.

Clause-21 Item XX : Failure to perform his normal duties and/or responsibilities,

any other work for which he has the basic skills or may be

trained by the company from time to time.

Clause-21 Item L : Habitual breach of any provisions of the Standing Orders or

any law applicable to the Company of any rules or

instructions for the maintenance and the working of any

department.

Clause-21 Item LII : Any act subversive of discipline and with which you are

charged.

10. The Party No. II submits that the enquiry was initially conducted by Mr. P. S. Nayak and subsequently by Shri Suhaas Naik vide his Appointment Letter dated 13.10.1997 and Mr. R. S. Amonkar was appointed as Management Representative. The Party II submits that the workman was represented by Mr. Rohidas Naik at the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after considering the evidence on record submitted his findings holding the Party I/Workman guilty of the charges. The Party II states that by letter dated 21.02.1997, the Party I workman was informed that the management had perused the proceedings of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer and that the enquiry had been conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice and that the management concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

11. The Party II submits that the proved misconduct established at the enquiry warranted extreme punishment of dismissal of Party I/Workman from its service. The Party II states that a lenient view was taken in the matter and the Party I/Workman was let off with a lighter punishment by way of suspension from work of one day without wages. The Party II states that the punishment of suspension was consequent to properly conducted enquiry and based on proved acts of misconduct committed by the workman.

12. The Party No. II submits that the enquiry was fair and proper and was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Party I was given every opportunity to defend himself and only after appreciating the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer gave a reasoned finding on the basis of which any prudent person would come to the conclusion that the Party I was guilty of the charges leveled against him. The Party II submits that the suspension by way of punishment of Party I is pursuant to a charge-sheet and properly conducted enquiry by an impartial Enquiry Officer who has considered all the evidence on record and has submitted a reasoned findings and that the suspension by way of punishment of Party I/Workman is legal and justified.

13. Party II denied that there has been large scale harassment & victimization of the union office bearers and its other members due to their legitimate trade union activities as alleged. It is denied that there are any illegal changes in the service conditions or unjustified or unwarranted suspension or charge-sheets are issued to the workmen on false and fabricated charges or that there is refusal to negotiate in good faith as alleged. It is denied that there is commission of unfair labour practice. It is specifically denied that Mr. Walson Thomas was an active member of the Union.

14. It is further denied that the workman's defence was prejudiced for non-issuance of show-cause notice as in any event, a reasonable opportunity was given to the workman during the course of the enquiry to present his defence. It is denied that the Enquiry Officer erred in coming to the conclusion of guilt as alleged and that the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence of the workman or that he was biased. It is denied that the suspension order of the workman was for collateral purpose or was solely to victimize the workman for his continued allegiance to the said union as alleged. It is denied that there has been any gross discrimination in imposing the punishment of suspension of the Party I/Workman as alleged and hence submitted that the Party I is not entitled to the relief sought in the Claim Statement and prays that the claim of the Party I/Workman may be rejected on the aforesaid grounds.

15. On completion of the pleadings following Issues were framed at Exhibit 6 by this Tribunal which reads as under:

ISSUES

1. Whether the Party I proves that the enquiry held against him is not fair, proper and impartial?

2. Whether the charges of misconduct levelled against the Party I are proved to the satisfaction of

the Tribunal by acceptable evidence?

2A. Whether the dismissal of the Party I/Workman by the Party II on 04.03.1997 is against

provisions contained in Sec.33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as such the dismissal is

illegal and unjustified?

2B. Does Party I prove that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse?

3. Whether the Party I proves that the termination of his services by the Party II is by way of unfair

labour practice and victimization?

4. Whether the Party I proves that the termination of his service by the Party II w.e.f. 4.3.97 is

illegal and unjustified?

5. Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?

6. What Award?

16. From the issues framed hereinabove, Issue No.1 and 2 have been taken up to be tried as preliminary issues and accordingly both the Parties to the proceeding led their evidence in respect of these preliminary Issues and my findings to the same with reasons are as follows:

R E A S O N S

17. Issue No. 1: It is in the evidence of Shri Sharad Chodnekar, the then Officer working for Party II in Human Resource Department that the Party I was issued with charge-sheets dated 30/09/1996, 09/10/1996 and19/10/1996. The Party I was appointed as a Trainee Operator with the Party II vide letter dated 07/12/1987 signed by the Sr. General Manager Mr. E. M. Mathai who was competent to do so. The appointment of the Party I was probationary appointment and later on he was confirmed in the service after completion of the probation period vide Confirmation Letter dated 31/08/1989. All these letters Shri Chodankar identified at Exh.E3Colly produced in the domestic enquiry. In the said enquiry, the Company appointed Shri Suhaas Naik as Enquiry Officer by replacing Mr. P. S. Naik who was initially appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 20/10/1996 to conduct the enquiry in respect of the charge-sheet issued to the Party I which letter was signed by the Resource Manager, Mr. George Nainan (Exh. E1 Colly of the domestic enquiry). The Management was represented by Mr. R. S. Amonkar and later on Mr. Amonkar was replaced and the Company appointed Mr. Kurien as Management Representative vide letter dated 13/01/1997. That pending enquiry, the Party I was placed under suspension. The Letter of Suspension dated 07/10/1996 was issued by Mr. E. M. Mathai who was competent to do so. That prior to the Letter of Suspension, the Party I was issued warning letters duly signed by Mr. Michael Ribeiro, the Production Manager of the Plant. Said Mr. Michael Ribeiro also issued Notice of Enquiry dated 30/12/1996.

18. He further deposed that on completion of enquiry the findings dated 20/02/1997 (Exh.E-1 Colly) holding the Party I guilty of the charges referred in the charge-sheet was submitted to the Management. The Management during the pendency of the enquiry paid subsistence allowance to Party I in terms of provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. Nothing contrary to the deposition of this witness was45 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 brought on record by Party I to discard the evidence of the Management witness No.1 as regards to the detailed facts stated by MW1 pertaining to the domestic enquiry conducted in respect of the said charges issued to the Party I. The cross-examination of MW1 is nothing but a suggestive denial of the facts stated in the examination-in-chief.

19. The Management witness No.2, Shri Suhaas Naik in his deposition stated that he conducted enquiry against Party I. On behalf of the Management, Shri R. S. Amonkar put up the case of the Management and thereafter Mr. T. M. Kurien took over. On behalf of the Party I, Shri Rohidas Naik represented. The Party I was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. Both the Parties led evidence and upon completion of the enquiry, he submitted his findings based on the evidence on record holding Party I/Workman guilty of the charges.

20. The Enquiry Officer in his cross-examination stated that the copies of the documents were given to the Party I on 13/01/1997 during the course of recording of the statement of the Management Representative. In the cross-examination of the Management witness No.2, the Party I alleged prejudice being caused to him on account of the Enquiry Officer not adjourning the enquiry on 30/01/1997 and on account of the Enquiry Officer not giving direction to the Management to furnish copies of the documents on which the Management relied upon before recording the statement of the Management Representative. To this the Enquiry Officer has stated that for the reasons recorded in the said proceedings, the request of the Party I was rejected. Except the above two incidents, no other incident or any act detrimental to the interest of Party I being committed by the Enquiry Officer has been brought on record in the cross-examination to suggest that the Enquiry Officer was bias or that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner.

21. The Party I upon given opportunity to cross-examine the Management witness could not bring anything contrary to suggest that the enquiry conducted against the Opponent was not fair and proper. The cross-examination of the Management witnesses is nothing but a mere suggestive denial of the facts stated in the Claim Statement as well as of the facts deposed by the Management witnesses in their examination-in-chief.

22. On behalf of the Party I, Shri Rohidas Naik deposed and stated that he is the President of Goa MRF Employees' Union who has raised the present dispute on behalf of the Workman, Shri Walson Thomas. He further stated that the workman concerned in the present dispute is also a workman concerned/covered in the dispute/demand which were pending before the Labour Commissioner as on 30/08/1996.

23. The Party I when given opportunity before this Tribunal did not bring anything contrary to the records and proceedings that was held in the domestic enquiry to show that the Management did not follow/adopted the fair procedure while conducting the enquiry proceedings. The Party I also could not bring anything on record to show that he was not given fair opportunity to put his defence. As regards the charge-sheet being signed by the unauthorized person, it is suggested to this witness that the said charge-sheet was signed by Sr. General Manager, Shri E. M. Mathai who was competent and authorized to sign the charge-sheet on behalf of the Management/Party II, the knowledge of which was denied by this witness. Nothing contrary was brought on record either through the evidence of the Party I or through the witness of the Management/Party II to show that the charge-sheet in question was signed by the person not having the authority to do so or that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Management was not competent to hold such an enquiry.

24. Shri Rohidas Naik is the witness examined by the /Party I has supported the case of the Party I to the extent to state that workman concerned in the present dispute is also a workman concerned/covered in the dispute/demand which were pending before the Labour Commissioner as on 30/08/1996.

25. The Party I in the cross-examination has merely denied all the facts stated by the Management witness as regards the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charge-sheet. However, the Party I could not discard any of the facts by way of oral as well as by documentary evidence to show that no fair opportunity was given to the Party I to represent or defend himself in the said domestic enquiry conducted against him in respect of the alleged charges leveled against him in the charge-sheet. The enquiry reveals that the Party I was given opportunity to defend his case in the said domestic enquiry pursuance to which the Enquiry Officer submitted its findings. Absolutely, no evidence has been adduced to show that the enquiry was without following the principles of natural justice or that the same was against the Certified Standing Orders of the Party II.

26. In the Case of Cholan Roadways Ltd v/s G. Thirugnanasambandam reported in 2005 (I) CLR 524, it was held that : "There cannot, however, be any doubt whatsoever that the principle of natural justice are required to be complied with in a domestic enquiry. It is, however, well-known that the said principle cannot be stretched too far nor can be applied in a vacuum. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal while considering an application for grant of approval has succinctly been stated by this Court in Martin Burn Ltd. V/s R.N. Banerjee (AIR 1958 SC 79). While exercising jurisdiction under Section 33(2(b) of the Act, the Industrial Tribunal is required to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out as regard the validity or otherwise of the domestic enquiry held against the delinquent; keeping in view the fact that if the permission or approval is granted, the order of discharge or dismissal which may be passed against the delinquent employee would be liable to be challenged in an appropriate proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act. In Martin Burn's case (supra) this court stated: "A prima facie case does not mean a case proved to the hilt but a case which can be said to be established if the evidence which is led in support of the same were believed. While determining whether a prima facie case had been made out the relevant consideration is whether on the evidence led it was possible to arrive at the conclusion in question and not whether that was the only conclusion which could be arrived at on that evidence. It may be that the Tribunal considering this question may itself have arrived at a different conclusion. It has, however, not to substitute its own judgment for the judgment in question. It has only got to consider whether the view taken is a possible view on the evidence on the record".

27. Upon scrutiny, the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer vis-a-vis the evidence led by both the Parties, it is seen that a due procedure was followed by the Management/Party II in the said domestic enquiry that was held pursuance to issuance of charge-sheets to Party I and he was also given opportunity to defend himself in the said proceeding. If one considers the chain of events, then one has to accept that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedures laid down under the law by giving a fair opportunity to the Party I to defend himself in the matter. Hence, the Issue No.1 stands answered in the negative.

28. Issue No.2: It is the case of the Party I that the charge-sheet dated 30/09/1996 issued to him was based totally on concocted facts solely to victimize him for his union activities. The Party II without any proper justification deliberately held that he had slowed down the production. The charges mentioned in the charge-sheet did not concur with the alleged facts set out in the charge-sheet. He further stated that warnings were given without seeking any explanation from the workman nor was he given details of the facts pertaining to the charges. That by letter dated 09/10/1996, Workman was issued another charge-sheet on the same ground stating that the Party I deliberately slowed down the production and further alleged that his performance from 04/10/1996 till 05/10/1996 was below the normal expected tyre production. That the Party I stated that he was illegally and unjustifiably suspended vide letter dated 07/10/1996.

29. The charge-sheet dated 30/09/1996 reads that the Party I/Workman was assigned to build 10.20 SMLC Tyre, however, it is found that despite earlier warning, he was performing much below the average of the department without any justified reason. According to Party II the normal expected average tyre production of 10.20 SMLC Tyre is 22 tyres single building and 34 tyres double. That since the tyre buildings are less than the normal expected average, therefore the Management convinced themselves to come to a conclusion that Party I was deliberately slowing down production without any justified reason. Hence, it is alleged that the Party I committed gross misconducts under Item No.II, XV, XX, L and LII of Clause 21 of Certified Standing Orders in force in the Company which reads as under:

Clause 21 Item II :

Striking work either singly or with other workmen in

contravention of these Standing Orders, any statute law,

rule or enactment for the time being in force or that

may be framed from time to time or inciting any

workmen to strike work.

Clause-21 Item XV :

Malingering or slowing down of work alone or in

combination or with other workmen and includes

stoppage of work in violation of Company's rules

and regulations.

Clause-21 Item XX :

Failure to perform his normal duties and/or

responsibilities, any other work for which he has

the basic skills or may be trained by the company

from time to time.

Clause-21 Item L :

Habitual breach of any provisions of the Standing

Orders or any law applicable to the Company of

any rules or instructions for the maintenance and

the working of any department.

Clause-21 Item LII : Any act subversive of discipline.

30. The Management representative in the said enquiry produced on record the Worksheets of the other regular builders to show that their production was at higher level than that of the Party I. He further produced on record the Worksheets of Trainee Builders to show that when assigned to them to build 1020 SMLN6(SEA) Tyres, they were performing consistently higher level of production. He has also given the table to depict the figure of building tyres in both the category so as to consider 100% performance of the Tyre Builder. Thus, it is the contention of the Management that the Party I/Workman when assigned to build sizes other than 1020 SMLN6(SEA) Tyres, is performing at higher level of production and deliberately producing on low level 10.20 SMLN6(SEA) Tyres.

31. In support of the above contention, the Party II placed reliance in the case of Management of Thanjavur Textiles Limited v/s P. O, I Additional Labour Court, Madras & Anr. In the said citation there was an Workload Fixation Award by the Dy. Commissioner of Labour and as per the said Award, the Union had agreed to take a stipulated production, however, the 2nd Respondent in the said case chose to take a lesser production as against stipulated quantity which is not the case here as there is no specific stipulation of quantity agreed upon by the Union with the Management and the said issue was still pending. Moreover, the Management not even accepted the Minutes of Meeting at Exh.M6 stating that it is an unsigned Minutes of Meeting. Hence, the citation above is not applicable to the case in hand.

32. The Judgment in the case of Dunlop Rubber Corporation India Limited v/s their Workmen again is of no help to the Party II as in the said case, there was an overall fall in the output of dual auto mills at all the three shifts. As such the low production was considered as misconduct under Clause-10(XVI) on the Company's Standing Orders for Operators and under clause-C of the Labour Union Agreement for Operators which is again not a case here and the low production is based on the mere Worksheet submitted by the Management without there being any violation of any specific clause under the Company's Standing Orders.

33. As against this, the Party I/Workman when examined himself in his defence stated that he is working in Tyre Building Department from 1989 and has been given a Letter of Appreciation dated 05/03/1996 appreciating his work as a Tyre Builder. As regards the charges pertaining to low production, he specifically denied the same and gave a justification/difficulty faced by him as a Tyre Builder while producing 10.20 SMLN6(SEA) Tyres. He stated that the drum size of SEA size tyre is very big and the first band which we stitch is very hard and does not stick to the drum set and the third band of this size 10.20 SEA is very long and hence a builder cannot spin properly this band, the chaffer of this 10.20 SEA size is double in size due to which a builder cannot fold the chaffer. Due to these problems we are unable to produce the department performance given by Tyre Building Department and the said fact was brought to the notice of our Union (Goa MRF Employees' Union). After this, the Union had a meeting with the Management. The Union had issued a letter to the Management dated 03/10/1995 which is at Exh.C/8. The Management had also written a letter dated 21/09/1995 to the Union which is at Exh.C/7. The said issue was discussed in the Minutes dated 02/08/1995 which is at Exh.C/6 and the said meeting was attended by Mr. R. S. Amonkar, Mr. F. Lawrence, Mr. Ghadi and others but the Minutes of the Meeting were not signed. He also stated that he was building 10.20 superlug tyres, 10.20SMLN6(SEA) tyres and the percentage of 120% and more. The process involved in 10.20 superlug tyres is much easier and less problematic as compared to 10.20 SEA tyres which he said he cannot produce 17 tyres of this size. He further said that he even after putting lot of efforts on 10.20 SEA size tyres he could not produce more than 17 tyres on this size. He further stated that he used to build tyres on seniority basis and used to build 10.20 tyres and the junior builders used to build 9.20,48 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 10.20 SEA and the project tyres. The 10.20 SEA size trainees and junior builders were asked to build these tyres and sometimes whenever if there was any hold-up or any kind of breakdown, the confirmed builders were put on 10.20 SEA tyres and the schedule for 10.20 is not fixed. Therefore, it is the contention of the Party I that the charge-sheet in question is an act of harassment and victimization by the Party II as he refused to sign the new Union. That in furtherance to his refusal to become the part of the new Union, he was asked to build 10.20 SEA size tyres continuously which work he used to do intermittently or occasionally. That he was never issued any Warning Letter prior to 14/09/1996 and 20/09/1996.

34. CSW during the enquiry also brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer that in the charge-sheet dated 30/09/1996 it was wrongly mentioned about Party I building 11 double building tyres instead of 15 tyres on 11/09/1996 and again there is a wrong entry in respect of tyre building data on 14/09/1996 whereby he produced 21 tyres in double building and not 14 tyres in single building. It is pertinent to note here that the Warning Letter has been issued on 14/09/1996 and 20/09/1996. The Warning Letter dated 14/09/1996 must have been issued by evaluating the performance of the workman on 14/09/1996. There was an error made on behalf of the management of showing the tyre building as 14 instead of 21 tyres. Therefore, as on 14/09/1996, the performance of the Workman cannot be below 100% if he has built 21 tyres.

35. The Party I/Workman has given a detailed justification for not building 100% 10.20 SEA size tyres and one such reason being that the Party I/Workman was not building 10.20 SEA size tyres regularly and he used to do it occasionally which fact has been categorically admitted by the Management Representative when he was asked whether the Party I produced SEA tyres at any point of time prior to the period mentioned in the charge-sheet and whether he can produce the Worksheet of the said period to which the Management witness has answered that he does not know whether the Party I/Workman had produced SEA tyres.

36. Further, when the Management Representative was asked as to whether any other confirmed Workman has achieved the Department Performance on SEA tyres during the period for which the Party I has not been charge-sheeted to which again he answered in the negative.

37. The Enquiry Officer in his Findings has rejected the defence taken by the Party I/Workman justifying the reason and the cause for his low production presuming without admitting that there was low production on his production of 10.20 SEA size tyres merely on the ground that the minutes dated 02/08/1995 were unsigned minutes at Exhibit C/6. However, the Management did not specifically deny the letter dated 21/09/1995 at Exhibit C/7 and the letter dated 03/10/1995 at Exhibit C/8. To add to this, the Party I/Workman has also justified that it is possible to produce 100% tyres if there is no hold-up in the full shift. In this context when the Management Representative was asked if the Workman produces 100% without hold-up, do you initiate any action, to which he again replied saying that he is not aware if any action is initiated.

38. The evidence on record reveals that though the SEA tyres were introduced in the year 1995, however the Party I was asked to produce the same only in the month of September, 1996. It is interesting to note here that the Management has given a Letter of Appreciation dated 05/03/1996 to the Party I/Workman appreciating his work as a Tyre Builder just 6 months prior to the issuance of the first charge-sheet. The Workman who has been appreciated as a good Tyre Builder on an earlier date, how is that six months later he becomes a bad employee in production of tyres? The evidence on record also reveals that this Party I/Workman was never charge-sheeted earlier to September, 1996. He was not given any opportunity to give his explanation before giving any warnings to him. All these material evidence on record suggest that the Party I/Workman was targeted for not being part of the Internal Union of the Management. The Enquiry Officer has not at all considered all these evidence while giving his Findings and has given one-sided findings without taking into account all the material evidence put in defence by the Party I/Workman. The plea of the Party I/Workman pertaining to the Union bringing to the knowledge of the Management the difficulty faced by them in building 10.20 SEA size tyres has been summarily rejected on the ground that the Minutes of Meeting are not signed, thereby totally neglecting the earlier correspondence between the Management and the Union, the knowledge of such correspondence has been simply denied by the Management Representative without giving any cogent reason.

39. The Party I/Workman has been charge-sheeted for charges specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet, however, the evidence on record does not reveal that there was an intentional act on the part of the49 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 Party I/Workman done deliberately to reduce the production of the tyres and to cause loss to the Company. In the present case, there is no stoppage of work on behalf of Party I/Workman neither there is any violation of breach of any rules or regulations of the Company. The Enquiry Officer has failed to detail out the manner in which the Party I/Workman failed in his duty or there was an act of habitual breach of rules and regulations of the Certified Standing Orders. The Enquiry Officer solely relied upon the Worksheet produced on record by the Management Representative. The said Worksheet had incorrect entries which were corrected later on at the instance of the Party I/Workman, therefore the Enquiry Officer committed a gross error on relying upon on the said Worksheet when the Workman in his cross-examination has specifically stated that in some Worksheets there is no mention of hold-ups and breakdowns, as such he cannot tell exactly whether he agrees or not with the dates mentioned in the charge-sheet vis-a-vis its respective production entries.

40. Considering the evidence on record, this Tribunal finds no reason as to why such a vital evidence adduced by the Party I/Workman was overlooked by the Enquiry Officer. At the risk of repetition, this Tribunal would like to reproduce the defence taken by the Party I/Workman in simple words is that he had unblemished past record and he was appreciated for his work as a Tyre builder just 6 months prior to the issuance of the 1st charge-sheet. That upon his refusal to sign the Management Union, he was brought to produce the tyres which he used to do occasionally and not regularly and finally his valid justification and the problem faced by the Tyre Builders and pursuance to which the communication made by the Union to the Management, all these vital evidence was not even considered before rejecting the same with reasons by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the contention of the Party I/Workman that it was a pre-planned act by the Management to make Party I/Workman to produce the 10.20 SEA Tyre during that particular period when the alleged charge-sheet was issued cannot be said to be a concocted or a false defence. Presuming without admitting there was some less production of 10.20 SEA tyres by the Party I/Workman for the above period, even than the justification given by the Workman along with his past record ought to have been considered by the Enquiry Officer while giving his Findings on the charges leveled against the Party I/Workman.

41. Having not done so and having not considered the vital evidence adduced by the Party I/workman in his defence, it cannot be said that the Findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the legally admissible evidence. This discrimination done by the Enquiry Officer in not considering the evidence that was going in favour of the Party I/Workman goes to the root of the matter to show that the Party I/Workman was victimized and the entire charge-sheet is not free from the cloud of doubt and the probability of conspiracy being hatched against the Party I/Workman cannot be washed out completely. In the findings, the Enquiry Officer completely ignored all these vital piece of evidence brought on record by the Workman not only in the evidence of the Workman but these facts have been brought on record in the cross-examination of the Management witness itself. The Enquiry Officer had selectively picked and chose the statement to prove the charges against the Workman/Party I.

42. In the facts and circumstances and considering the evidence on record and the enquiry proceedings, this Tribunal is not in the agreement with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer that the charges as leveled in the charge-sheet against the Party I/Workman has been proved by legally acceptable evidence. Hence, the Issue No.2 stands answered in the negative.

43. Issue No.2A: The Party I/Workman amended the Claim Statement in the year, 2005 raising two grounds which according to Party I were going to the root of the matter. In the amended pleadings, the Party I/Workman set out the case wherein it is stated that the Party I had served a letter dated 29/08/1996 on 30/08/1996 on the Labour Commissioner, Panaji calling for conciliation proceedings on Charter of Demands dated 15/02/1996 of the workmen for wage rise and better service conditions and the workman concerned in the present dispute is also a workman concerned/covered in the dispute/demand pending before the Labour Commissioner as on 30/08/1996. The Party I also stated that the Party II attended the conciliation proceedings on the said Charter of Demands on 24/10/1996. In the meanwhile, since the Management was not ready to accede to the demands of the Union, the Labour Commissioner, Panaji was pleased to call for further meetings between the Management and the Union and the last meeting to the best of Union's knowledge was held on 17/02/1997 for trying to conciliate and settle the dispute. The Party I also states that without waiting for the Conciliation Officer to record failure and without waiting for the appropriate Government to receive the report to consider the same or make reference of the dispute to the Tribunal, the Party II dismissed the Party I/Workman on 04/03/1997. Thereafter, the Government of Goa was pleased to refer the said dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication only on 05/06/1997.

44. It is further the case of the Party I in the amended pleading that the dismissal of the Workman while conciliation proceedings on the general demands of the Union were pending before the Conciliation Officer is an unfair labour practice. It is further stated that the Dismissal Order was passed in haste and without even waiting for the Conciliation Officer to forward the Report of Failure of conciliation on the general demands to the Appropriate Government or waiting for the Government of Goa to receive the same or consider the same or make a reference of the dispute is also an unfair labour practice.

45. In support of their above amended pleadings, the Party I/Workman examined Shri Rohidas Naik, their witness No.2. He produced on record Exh.23, the letter dated 10/09/1996 addressed to the Sr. General Manager by Asst. Labour Commissioner. By this letter, the Asst. Labour Commissioner requested the Party II to offer their comments on the Charter of Demands raised by the Party I/Workmen. In response, the Plant Human Resource Manager, Shri George Nainan vide letter dated 19/09/1996 at Exh.24, requested for 3 weeks' time to give their comments. The Office of the Asst. Labour Commissioner vide letter dated 07/10/1996 (Exh.25) intimated to both the Parties that he shall hold discussions and if necessary conciliation proceedings u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the dispute raised by the Party I and the date of hearing was fixed on 14/10/1996 at 11.00 a.m. Exhibit 26 is the Request Letter seeking time to file their comments by the Party II. Exhibit 27 and Exhibit 28 are the Proceeding Sheet write-ups of the business of the day before the Conciliation Officer whereby the Party I objected for the Management's request of seeking more time to give their comments on the Charter of Demands raised by the Union.

46. The Assistant Labour Commissioner considering the request of the Party II thereafter placed the matter for discussions/conciliation on 24/10/1996. On the said day, the proceeding before the Conciliation Authority reads "the Management submitted their Written Statement on the Justification Statement given by the Union on Charter of Demands and asked for revised reasonable Charter of Demands as the Charter of Demands are raised at an increase of average of Rs.40,000/- per employee per month and the period of settlement effective is for 2 years. The demands raised are unreasonable by any standards and further the Union has not given any reply to the Charter of Demands of the Management without which it is difficult to consider any proposals. Our reply to both is required to continue with the discussions else we did not like to say discussion in the presence of any other than our employees, employees who are on the rolls of the Company…………"Accordingly, the Minutes of Meeting were drawn detailing the business of the day and before concluding the Minutes, the Conciliation Officer held that both the Parties have stuck up to their own stand, as such suggested that they should both think about their stand taken by them so as to have amicable solutions and postponed the discussions on 28/10/1996 at 11.00 a.m.

47. The joint discussions continued on 28/10/1996 and in the Minutes of Meeting that was drawn on 28/10/1996 at Exhibit 30, the Officer again held that both the Parties have stuck up to their own stand as the Union was not ready to amend their demands and the Management was not ready to give any offer, as such the Officer was pleased to close the discussion and informed both the Parties to await for further report. The Assistant Labour Commissioner vide its letter dated 29/10/1996 forwarded to the Commissioner, Labour the report of failure of discussion of the Charter of Demands between both the Parties along with original File for its perusal and further necessary action. The Office of the Commissioner, Labour vide their letter dated 15/11/1996 called upon the Party I/Union for discussion with reference to the report submitted to him by the Asst. Labour Commissioner.

48. The Office of the Labour Commissioner vide their letter dated 14/01/1997 (Exh.33) informed the Party I/Union that the Hon'ble Minister for Labour wants to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement on the whole dispute. The Office of the Labour Commissioner vide letter dated 11/02/1997 (Exh.34) called upon both the Parties for joint discussion on 17/02/1997 at 3.00 p.m. in the Office of the Labour Commissioner. There is no further correspondence nor is there any report or write-up produced before this Tribunal about the joint discussion that was proposed to be held on 17/02/1997 in the Office of the Labour Commissioner.

49. The submission of the Failure Report to the Labour Commissioner by the Conciliation Officer is an internal departmental affair. Even after submission of the Failure Report, the Office of the Commissioner thought it appropriate to call upon the Parties for further joint discussion. The matter did not stop at this stage but there was an intervention by the Hon'ble Minister for Labour who too probably felt it appropriate to have a joint discussion with both the Parties. However, thereafter there is absolutely nothing on record as to what happened to the said joint discussion, whether it continued or51 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 whether the discussion did not happen at all, that is the question which remained unanswered throughout.

50. In the event, the joint discussion had failed, it was incumbent upon the Conciliation Officer to submit Failure Report to the Government but it was not done till such time the Party I filed Writ in the Hon'ble High Court pursuance to which the Additional Government Advocate produced on record the reference dated 05/06/1997. Thus, it is quite obvious from the records that the Conciliation Officer did not send the Failure Report in view of the date being fixed for further discussions even after the Failure Report was sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to his Superior i.e. the Office of the Labour Commissioner and further from the Office of the Labour Commissioner the joint discussions were proposed to be held with the intervention of the Hon'ble Minister for Labour.

51. In rebuttal to the above stand by the Party I that the Workman in the present reference was terminated pending discussion/conciliation thereby the Party II has violated the provisions 33(2) of the Act. The Party II has relied upon letter dated 06/09/2007 (Exh.40 Colly) thereby placing on record the Outward Register of the Office of the Labour Commissioner to show that the Office of the Labour Commissioner had forwarded the Failure Report to the Government prior to the termination of the Workman under the present reference pending discussions/conciliation in the Charter of Demands raised by the Union to which the Workman in the present reference was also a Party.

52. On perusal of the said Outward Register, it says that the File ALC/Ponda/Demand/MRF was forwarded to addressee Labour Minister. Be that as it may, interestingly, the Office of the Labour Commissioner vide their letter dated 14/01/1997 (Exh.33) informed the Party I/Union that the Hon'ble Minister for Labour wants to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement on the whole dispute, therefore, an unsuccessful attempt has been made to show that the Failure Report was sent to the Government vide this Outward number by the Office of the Labour Commissioner which is devoid of any substance for the simple reason that the letter at Exhibit 33 confirms that the Hon'ble Minister wanted to have joint discussion with both the Parties and accordingly the Minutes of the Failure Report were forwarded to him for further discussion/settlement between the Parties, hence by no stretch of imagination it can be construed that the File containing the Minutes of the Failure sent to the Labour Minister is the Failure Report being sent to the Government of Goa u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

53. Presuming without admitting that this Report was sent to the Government which infact is not the same has been addressed to the Labour Minister but still assuming for a moment that this is the Failure Report even then the Party II cannot escape the brunt of they having violated the requirements of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the Outward Register seems to be sent on 04/06/1997 whereas the Workman in the present reference has been terminated on 04/03/1997 i.e. much prior to the date that is mentioned in the Outward Register. Therefore the ration laid down in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahadari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Lrd. V/s Ram Gopal Sharma and Others (2002) 2 SCC 244 has come to the rescue of this Workman. The Party I/Workman since has been able to establish that his termination was illegal as the same was done pending the Charter of Demands which Charter of Demands he too was a concerned workman therefore the Party II ought to have refrained from taking any action pending such conciliation in view of Section 33(2) (b). Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 therefore the question of violation of Section 33(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires to be considered in the light of the relevant statutory provisions. Section 33 of the I.D. Act, sub-section (1) reads as under :

"33. Conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.- (1) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before [an arbitrator or] a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute, no employer shall,- (a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute, alter, to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or (b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, any workman concerned in such dispute".

54. The Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai appearing for the Party II in support of their defence on the issue of alleged violation of Section 33 placed reliance in the case of East Asiatic & Allied V/s Shelke (B.L.) (1961 ILLJ 162 Bom, Association of Engineering Workers v/s Iron & Metal Traders Pvt. Ltd. &Ors. (1996) I CLR 95 Bom, Pratap Chandra Mohanty v/s Union of India and Anr. 1971 II LLJ 196 Ori and Suresh Vithoo Nare v/s Dharamsi Morarji Chemicals 1991 Lab.I.C. 1932 Bom.

55. Ld. Advocate Shri Arshad Shaikh on behalf of Party I submitted that all the citations relied upon by the Party II since prior to the Judgment in the case of Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v/s Shankar Prasad (1999) 6 SCC, they cannot be looked into as the issue as regards the violations of provisions of Section 33(2)(b) has been settled in the case of Lokmat (Supra) same being later in time than the one which has been relied upon by the Party II. In this case the respondent raised an industrial dispute by filing a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Act alleging that the impugned termination order amounted to `unfair labour practice'.

Before the impugned termination order was passed by the management, it had already served a notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act to the respondents union to the effect that it proposed to introduce a change in the conditions of service of the respondent and other members of the union on the ground that it was proposing to rationalise the printing work at the appellant's concern at Nagpur by setting up photo-type machine for carrying out the work of composing, resulting in substantial reduction in the work of composing by hand. It may be stated that the respondent was employed as a foreman in the hand-composing department of the appellant at the relevant time. The respondent's union objected to the said notice of change and approached the Conciliation Officer under Section 12(1) of the I.D. Act which reads as under :- "12. Duties of Conciliation Officers.- (1) Where an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the conciliation officer may, or where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given shall, hold conciliation proceedings in the prescribed manner." The Conciliation Officer took the dispute in conciliation within his discretion even though as appellant's concern was not a public utility service it was not mandatory for the Conciliation Officer to start conciliation proceedings. As the report of the Conciliation Officer submitted to the State Government shows, he invited the management and the respondent's union for preliminary discussions on 14.4.1982 in his office and thereafter the matter was adjourned during conciliation from time to time.

It can, therefore, be said that by 14th April, 1982 the matter was taken up for investigation and thus the conciliation proceedings had commenced. It is also well established on the record of the case that the parties could not come to any settlement with the result that on 22nd June, 1982 the investigation was closed by the Conciliation Officer at 4.35 p.m. at Nagpur. Immediately, thereafter, the appellant passed the impugned order of termination against the respondent and others on the very same day i.e. on 22.6.1982 at 5.00 p.m. The said order was placed on the notice board of the appellant's office at Nagpur on the evening of that day. It is not in dispute between the parties that thereafter the Conciliation Officer submitted his report to the Government which reached the State Government on 13.8.1982.

On the aforesaid facts, the question arises whether the impugned termination order dated 22.6.1982 was passed during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings. It is not in dispute between the parties that before passing such an order no express permission in writing was obtained by the appellant from the Conciliation Officer. The Labour Court, the Industrial Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court have taken the view that because investigation was closed by the conciliator by 4.35 p.m. on 22.6.1982, immediately thereafter the conciliation proceedings could be said to have ended and were not pending before him. Consequently at 5.00 p.m. on that very day when the appellant issued the impugned order, it did not violate Section 33 of the I.D. Act. While, on the other hand, the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment has taken the view that merely because the conciliator closed the investigation in the evening of 22.6.1982 till he prepared his report as per Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act and till that report reached the Government, conciliation proceedings were deemed to have continued and had not got terminated till 13th August, 1982 and as in the meantime on 22.6.1982, the impugned termination order was passed without following the procedure of Section 33(1) of the I.D. Act, it got vitiated in law.

Under these circumstances, a moot question arises whether the impugned retrenchment order was passed on 22.6.1982 during the pendency of conciliation proceedings. It cannot be disputed that the impugned order was directly connected with the matter in dispute before the Conciliation Officer wherein the question of legality of notice under Section 9-A of the I.D. Act was under consideration for the purpose of arriving at any settlement between the parties in this connection. The impugned order had definitely altered to the prejudice of the respondent his conditions of service. It was not a case of retrenchment simpliciter but was a consequential retrenchment on the introduction of the scheme of rationalisation as contemplated by Section 9-A read with Schedule IV item no.1 of the I.D. Act, that the question of violation of Section 33(1) of the I.D. Act has a direct nexus with the further question53 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 whether on 22.6.1982 when the impugned termination order was passed, conciliation proceedings were pending before the authority or not.

In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to note sub- section (4) of Section 12 of the I.D. Act which reads as under : "(4) If no such settlement is arrived at, the conciliation officer shall, as soon as practicable after the close of the investigation, send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and for bringing about a settlement thereof, together with a full statement of such facts and circumstances, and the reasons on account of which, in his opinion, a settlement could not be arrived at." A mere look at this provision shows that if the Conciliation Officer finds during conciliation proceedings that no settlement is arrived at between the disputing parties, then after closing the investigation he has, as soon as practicable, to send to the appropriate Government a full report setting forth the steps taken by him for ascertaining the facts and circumstances relating to the dispute and has also to mention all other details as required to be mentioned in the report under Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act.

The aforesaid statutory requirements leave no room for doubt that after closing the investigation and after having arrived at the conclusion that no settlement is possible between the parties, the Conciliation Officer has to spend some more time before submitting his detailed written report about failure of consideration for information and necessary action by the State Government. In the very nature of things, therefore, such requirement will take at least a couple of days, if not more, for the conciliator after closing the investigation to enable him to send an appropriate report to the State Government. It is, therefore, obvious that on 22.6.1982 when by 4.35 p.m. the Conciliation Officer declared that settlement was not possible between the parties and he closed the investigation, neither his statutory function did not come to an end nor did he become functus officio. His jurisdiction had to continue till he submitted his report as per Section 12(4) to the Appropriate Government. Even such preparation of the report and sending of the same from his end to the Appropriate Government would obviously have taken at least a few days after 22.06.1982. It must, therefore, be held that the conciliator remained in charge of the conciliation proceedings at least for a couple of days after 22.6.1982. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how within half an hour after the closing of investigation by the conciliator and before his getting even a breathing time to prepare his detailed written report about failure of conciliation to be sent to the Government as per Section 12(4), the appellant could persuade itself to presume that conciliation proceedings had ended and, therefore, it was not required to follow the procedure of Section 33(1) and straightaway could pass the impugned order of retrenchment within 25 minutes of the closing of the investigation by the conciliator on the very same day. It is difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the Labour Court that after the closer of investigation the conciliator became functus officio and the management could not have approached him for express written permission to pass the impugned order. It is easy to visualise that even on the same day i.e. on 22.6.1982 or even on the next day, before the conciliator had time even to start writing his report, such an express permission could have been asked for by the appellant as the conciliator by then could not be said to have washed his hand off the conciliation proceedings. He remained very much seized of these proceedings till at least the time the report left his end apart from the further question whether conciliation proceedings could be said to have continued till the report reached the State Government. Thus, on the express language of Section 12(4) the conclusion is inevitable that closer of investigation by 4.35 p.m. on 22.6.1982 did not amount to termination of conciliation proceedings by that very time. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant was that closer of investigation automatically amounted to termination of conciliation proceedings. This argument proceeds on a wrong premise that closer of investigation by the conciliator is the same as closer of conciliation proceedings. The legislature while enacting Section 12(4) has deliberately not used the words `closer of conciliation' but, on the contrary, provided that after closer of investigation something more was required to be done by the conciliator as laid down under Section 12(4) before he can be said to have done away with conciliation proceedings earlier initiated by him. On this conclusion alone the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court that the impugned order of termination dated 22.6.1982 was issued by the appellant without following the procedure of Section 33(1) of the I.D. Act has to be sustained.

56. The facts in question and the provisions of law involved in the case of Lokmat (supra) are the same as in the case of present reference, therefore directly applies to the case in hand, giving no room to this Tribunal to deviate from the ratio laid down in the citation above.

57. Ld. Advocate Shri G. K. Sardessai tried to carve out certain portion as relating to the date of commencement of the conciliation from the citation above to bring the case of the Party II within the ambit of Section 33 (2)(b) to show that there was no such violation and that the termination was done post sending of the Failure Report by the Conciliation Officer to the Government. It was also argued that the Assistant Labour Commissioner only sought to have joint discussions. The above arguments are unsustainable since this Tribunal has discussed in detail the contents of each and every correspondence between the Union and the Management and vice versa, the Union and the Conciliation Authority and vice versa, and the Minutes of the Meetings/Proceeding Sheets held during the conciliation. The notices issued and the letters issued from the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner clearly indicates that they have been issued with reference to the conciliation in the matter of Charter of Demands raised by the Union against the MRF Management. As such, this Tribunal is unable to accept the above contention of Learned Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai that the ratio in the case of Lokmat does not support the case of the Party I/Union.

58. That, except a vague document i.e. a page of an Outward Register showing Failure Report being sent to the Hon'ble Minister of Labour from the Office of the Labour Commissioner, there is nothing placed on record to show that the Conciliation Authority forwarded to the Government of Goa the Failure Report prior to the date of termination of the services of the Party I/Workman. Be that as it may be, even the above vague document cannot come to the rescue of the Party II considering the date mentioned therein which date is again post the date of termination of the service of the Party I/Workman. Thus, this is a clear case of violation of mandatory provisions of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the ratio in the case of Japipur Zila would be squarely applicable to the present reference wherein it is held "Amendments to Section 33 of the ID Act in the year 1956 were made at a time when no remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act was available to the individual workman to challenge the termination of his employment. At that time, the dismissal of an individual workman could form the subject-matter of an industrial dispute only if it was espoused by the fellow workmen. In those days, dismissal of workmen who actively participated in raising an industrial dispute was not uncommon. In order to obviate this contingency, Section 33 imposed an obligation on the employer to seek approval or permission for the dismissal of any workman to be effected during the pendency of an industrial dispute. Apart from imposing an obligation on the employer to file such an application, in order to protect the workman against any termination which might be made without seeking approval or permission, Section 33-A was enacted creating a right in favour of the aggrieved workman to file a complaint which will be dealt with like adjudication of an industrial dispute. In other words, a right which was not available to the individual workman to approach the Labour Court or Tribunal for adjudication of a dispute relating to his dismissal was conferred by Section 33-A.

59. The Supreme Court in the case under review has ruled that failure to apply for approval by the Employer would make the order of dismissal inoperative and that the workman may get wages and other benefits. It was also held that even if the application for approval is granted by the authority, still the aggrieved could make a complaint under Section 33-A challenging the approval. It is to be considered whether an interpretation can be placed on Section 33 to the effect that even without a judicial declaration about the validity of the order of dismissal, as a result of the failure to seek approval or permission, the workman could straightaway proceed on the footing that the dismissal is invalid and inoperative and work out his rights for recovery of wages and other benefits. The case-law placed before the Supreme Court does not support the present ruling.

60. In order to dispel any doubt in the minds of the litigants and the lower courts, it may be clarified that no dismissed workman can claim the relief of reinstatement without a declaration by a competent court that the order of termination is not valid and no punitive order of termination be interfered without any technical grounds if such an order is otherwise justified on merits.

61. The Additional Government Advocate Ms. Coutinho in the Writ Petition No.135/97 filed by the Party I/Union against the Government of Goa, produced on record a copy of the Order of Reference No. ALC/Ponda/C.H. dated 05/06/1997 u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, the Workman in the present reference has been terminated on 04/03/1997. There is absolutely no document or any record which shows that the Failure Report was submitted to the Government of Goa by the Conciliation Officer prior to the date of termination of the Party I/Workman. On the other hand Party I/Workman has proved the conciliation/discussion on the demands continued even after the authority sent the minutes of meeting to its superiors which was only a internal correspondence between the Conciliation Officer and the Commissioner of Labour and the said correspondence by no stretch of55 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 imagination can be held to be a Report u/s 12(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That u/s 20(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have concluded when the Failure Report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the Appropriate Government so as to put a full stop to the conciliation proceedings initiated u/s 12(1), till then the conciliation is treated to be continued, till such time the Failure Report reaches the Appropriate Government. In the present reference, there is no such Failure Report till the time the Additional Government Advocate produced on record the copy of the reference which was done at much later stage i.e. after more than 3 months after the termination of the Party I/Workman. The Party I/Workman thus has been able to prove that there has been gross violation of the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, this issue stands answered in favour of the Party I/Workman in the affirmative.

62. Issue No. 2B: This Tribunal having answered the Issue No.2 in the negative, this Issue No.2B, the burden of which is on the Party I/Workman and the Party I/Workman having discharged the same as discussed while answering Issue No.2 in favour of the Party I/Workman, this Issue therefore again stands answered in favour of the Workman in the affirmative. In the case of Jaipur Zila (Supra) while referring to the case of Strawboard Mfg. Co. v. Govind¹ the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "the application for approval was rejected by the Tribunal". Dealing with the consequence of such rejection, the Supreme Court held: "If the Tribunal does not approve of the action taken by the employer, the result would be that the action taken by him would fail and thereupon the workman would be deemed never to have been dismissed or discharged and would remain in the service of the employer. In such a case no specific provision as to reinstatement is necessary and by the very fact of the Tribunal not approving the action of the employer, the dismissal or discharge of the workman would be of no effect and the workman concerned would continue to be in service as if there never was any dismissal or discharge by the employer." Considering this observation, this Tribunal is of the opinion that no further purpose will be served if this Tribunal proceeds to pass the Part Award on the preliminary issues only and keep the reference alive for holding enquiry on other issues when the termination of the Party I/Workman itself is illegal, same being in violation of provisions of Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the final Award.

O R D E R

i. The reference stands allowed.

ii. Consequently, the Party II is hereby directed to re-instate in service the Party I/ Workman, Mr. Walson Thomas with full back wages from 04/03/1997.

iii. No Order as to Cost.

Sd/- Vijayalaxmi R. Shivolkar, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court.

Panaji, 10th March, 2025.

..................................................................................

Department of Law and Judiciary

Law(Establishment) Division

Order

8-5-2015-LD(Estt)/Part-I/665 Date: 06-Mar-2025

Read: 1. No. 8-5-2015-LD(Estt) /Part-I/665 dated 06-Mar-2025.

In pursuance of the provisions of Section 6 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952), read with Rule 17 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, the Government of Goa hereby publishes a list of Notaries appointed by it and in practice at the beginning of the Year, 2025, as shown in the Schedule, annexed hereto.

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

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

SCHEDULE List of Notaries appointed and in practice at the beginning of the Year, 2024 (Rule 17 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, r/w. Section 6 of the Notaries Act, 1952).

..................................................................................

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 15/2/2020-PER/927 Date: 01-Apr-2025 On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following officers in the cadre of Mamlatdar/Joint Mamlatdar/Vigilance Officer, in public interest, with immediate effect:-

The officers shall complete handing over and taking over process with immediate effect and submit compliance.

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

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 28th March, 2025.

..................................................................................

Order

5/39/2024-PER/900 Date: 28-Mar-2025 Read:- Memorandum No. 5/39/2024-PER dated 13/03/2025.

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide its letter no. COM/I/5/42(1)/2007/Part File-1/396 dated 06/03/2012, the Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint the following candidates as Junior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service, (Group 'A' Gazetted) under the Government of Goa notionally w.e.f. 23/05/2012, in the pay scale of PB-3, Rs. 15600-39100 plus grade pay Rs. 5400/- in view of the order dated 12/02/2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 616/2012, Writ Petition No. 568/2012 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 125/2016 in terms of the consent terms filed subject to fulfillment of all conditions such as Medical Examination, Character Certificate, Caste Certificate and other verification as the case may be:-

1) Shri Brucelee Jesus Nazario Savio Quadros113 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 2) Shri Praveen Prakash Shirodkar

3) Shri Nilesh Bhagwant Naik (OBC)

4) Shri Daulatrao Vijayrao Rane Sardesai (CFF)

2) Their pay will be fixed in accordance with the Central Civil Service (Revised pay) Rules, 2008 in accordance with the terms stipulated in the Offer of Appointment read in the preamble and in terms of the consent terms filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 616/2012, Writ Petition No. 568/2012 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 125/2016.

3) The appointment of the above candidates shall be subject to verification of their Character and Antecedents and production of fitness certificate from the Medical Board, Goa Medical College, Bambolim.

4) The appointment shall also be subject to all the conditions stipulated in the Offer of Appointment read in the preamble.

5) The above candidates shall be on probation for a period of two years with effect from their date of joining, during which they shall undergo a departmental training and shall have to pass the Departmental Examination prescribed under the rules.

6) The pay and allowances of the above candidates shall be debited to the Budget Head controlled by the concerned Department wherever they are posted from time to time, or as per specific orders issued by Personnel Department.

7) The above candidates shall join their duties in the Personnel Department, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order.

By Order and in the name of the Governor of Goa

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 28th March, 2025.

..................................................................................

Order

13/12/2024-PER/911 Date: 28-Mar-2025 The Governor of Goa is pleased to grant further extension in service to Shri. Santosh H. Fadte, Deputy Conservator of Forest (Planning and Statistics), Forest Department beyond the date of his superannuation for a period of six months w.e.f. 01/04/2025 to 30/09/2025, in public interest. This order is subject to Vigilance Clearance from Vigilance Department, concurrence of Finance Department and approval of Council of Ministers.

The extension is further subject to termination without assigning any reasons during the period of extension.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 28th March, 2025

..................................................................................

Order

13/04/2025-PER(Part)/910 Date: 28-Mar-2025 The Governor of Goa is pleased to grant further extension in service to Shri. Nelson Albuquerque, Superintendent of Police, Goa Police Service, Police Department beyond the date of his superannuation for a period of five months w.e.f. 01/04/2025 to 31/08/2025, in public interest. This order is subject to Vigilance Clearance from Vigilance Department, concurrence of Finance Department and approval of Council of Ministers.

The extension is further subject to termination without assigning any reasons during the period of extension.

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

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 28th March, 2025.

..................................................................................

Department of Public Grievances

Notification

41/1/2022/PG(Notification)/1489 Date: 26-Mar-2025 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 4 and clause (b) of section 2 of the Goa (Right of Citizen to Time–Bound Delivery of Public Services) Act, 2013 (Goa Act 19 of 2013), read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act 10 of 1897), the Government of Goa hereby amends the Government Notification No. 41/1/2022/PG(Notification)/235 dated 31/10/2022, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 31, dated 03/11/2022 (hereinafter referred to as the "principal Notification") as follows, namely:-

In the Schedule to the principal Notification, under the heading "Department of Industries", after the existing entries at serial No. 136A, the following shall be inserted, namely:-

This Notification shall come into force on the date of it's publication in the Official Gazette.

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

Prasad Volvoikar, Director (Public Grievances) & Ex-Officio Jt. Secretary to the Government. Porvorim, 26th March, 2025.

..................................................................................

Department of Revenue

Order

35/01/01/2024-RD/1893 Date: 04-Apr-2025 Read : Order No. 35/01/01/2024-RD/664 dated 08/07/2024

Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded to the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited (SHCIL) to appoint National E-governance Service Limited (NeSL) as its "Authorised Collection Centre" for online payment of stamp duty through SCHIL for following Non– Registrable documents.

This supersedes the earlier Order No. 35/01/01/2024–RD/664 dated 08/07/2024.

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

Vrushika P. Kauthankar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim, 4th April, 2025.

..................................................................................

Directorate of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship

3/1694/ATS/2024/09 Date: 04-Apr-2025

Sub:- Re -Constitution of State Apprenticeship Council Regd…

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, and in supersession of the notification of the State Government dated 25th May, 2017 the Government of Goa is pleased to re-constitute the State Apprenticeship Council, as under:-

1.    Minister of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship                 - Chairman
2.    Secretary of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship Department     - Vice Chairman
3.    State Apprenticeship Advisor/Director-Skill Development &        - Member Secretary
      Entrepreneurship
4.    Other Members:-
A.    Representatives of employers in establishments in the Public Sector:
(i)   Chairman, Mormugao Port Trust, Vasco-Goa                         - Member
(ii)  Chairman, Goa Shipyard Limited, Vasco-Goa                        - Member
(iii) Chairman, Economic Development Corporation Limited, Panaji-      - Member
      Goa
(iv)  Chairman, Kadamba Transport Corporation Limited, Panaji-Goa      - Member
B     Representatives of employers in establishments in the Private Sector:-
(i)   Chairman, Dempo Group of Companies, Goa                          - Member
(ii)  Chief Manufacturing Officer, Zuari Industries Limited,           - Member
      Zuarinagar-Goa
(iii) Director-Corporate Human Resources, Taj Group of Hotels,         - Member
      Sinquerim, Bardez-Goa
(iv)  The General Manager, M.R.F. Limited, Ponda-Goa                   - Member
C     Representatives of Central Government:
(i)   The Director-Apprenticeship Training Directorate General of      - Member
      Training, Ministry of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship,
      Government of India, New Delhi.
(ii)  The Regional Director, Regional Directorate of Apprenticeship    - Member
      Training (Western Region), Government of India, Sion-Mumbai
D     Representatives of State Government:
(i)   Principal Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Panaji-Goa    - Member
(ii)  Labour Commissioner Department of Labour and Employment,         - Member
      Panaji-Goa
(iii) Director, The Directorate of Industries, Trade and Commerce,       Member
      Panaji-Goa
E     Persons having special knowledge and experience in the matters relating to Industry,
      Labour and Technical Education:
(i)   President, Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Goa State Office - Member
      (Western Region), 1st Floor, Salgaocar Centre, Rua de Ourém,
      Panaji-Goa
(ii)  President, Goa State Industries Association (GSIA), Panaji-Goa   - Member
F     Representatives  of  the  Board  of  Technical  Education  or  the  State  Council  of  Technical
      Education:
(i)   Chairman, Board of Technical Education (Goa State) or his        - Member
      Representative, Porvorim-Goa

(ii) Chairman, Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary

- Member

Education or his Representative, Porvorim-Goa

G Representatives of State Government Institutions: -

(i) Director or his Representative, Department of Education,Porvorim - Member

Goa.

The terms of reference of the council shall be as follows:-

Review from time to time the implementation of the programme of Apprenticeship Training and make recommendations to the Central Apprenticeship Council (through the State Government) for possible improvements and/or modifications considered necessary in the standards of training already laid down.

Conduct periodical inspection of establishments, where the Apprenticeship Training programmes are in operation, with a view to finding out, if the requirements for Apprenticeship Training laid down in the Act and the Rules made thereunder are being observed.

Arrange for the collection, dissemination and display of any useful information pertaining to the training of apprentices.

Arrange for the periodical assessment of the requirement for trained persons in the industries.

On the basis of such assessment, make recommendations to the Central Apprenticeship Council (through the State Government), regarding the additional trades, which should be specified as designated trades and the areas and industries, which should be covered by the Act.

Generally to assist the Central Apprenticeship Council in the discharge of its responsibilities.

The term of the council shall be three years from the date of Publication of this notification in the official Gazette. The non-official members who attend the meeting/s shall be paid honorarium of Rs. 1,500/- per meeting-sitting and no other TA/DA shall be payable.

S.S. Gaonkar, Director (SD&E)/State Apprenticeship Advisor .

..................................................................................

Department of Town and Country Planning

Notification

36/18/353/17(2)/Chopdem/17/1(Part)/TCP/2025/173 Date: 04-Apr-2025

Read: 1. No. 36/18/353/17(2)/Chopdem/17/1(Part)/TCP/2025/173 dated 04-Apr-2025.

Whereas, the Town and Country Planning Department received Application dated 05/02/2024 of Brahm Agro Terra Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Applicant"), under sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975) for correction of inconsistent/incoherent zoning in the Regional Plan for Goa-2021 (RPG-2021) in respect of the plot of land as specified in detail in columns (2) to (5) of the Table below:

TABLE

And whereas, the rectifications/corrections as requested in the said Application by the Applicant were scrutinized and recommendation of the Expert Committee alongwith the Report from registered professionals was submitted to the Government for decision;

And whereas, the Government considered the said Reports and it was of the opinion that alterations/modifications as specified in column (6) of the above Table corresponding to survey numbers as specified in column (2) of said Table were necessary to be carried out to the RPG-2021 for the purpose of rectifying inadvertent errors that have occurred, and for correction of inconsistent/incoherent zoning proposals in the RPG-2021 and as such on 11/06/2024, the Government directed the Chief Town Planner (Planning) to carry out alterations/modifications as specified in column (6) of the above Table to the RPG-2021;

And whereas, the rates of processing fees and other fees for correction of inconsistent/incoherent zoning in the Regional Plan for Goa-2021 (RPG-2021) were notified vide the Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT(PART)/897 dated 15/03/2023, published in Official Gazette, (Supplement), Series I No. 50, dated 16/03/2023;

And whereas, the said Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT(PART)/897 dated 15/03/2023 came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette i.e., 16/03/2023;

And whereas, the said rates have been revised vide the Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT/2023/579 dated 28/03/2024, published in Official Gazette, (Supplement), Series I No. 52, dated 28/03/2024;

And whereas, the said Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT/2023/579 dated 28/03/2024 came into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette i.e., 28/03/2024;

And whereas, the Town and Country Planning Department carried out the assessment of fee payable in respect of the said Application dated 05/02/2024 of the Applicant as per the rate notified in the Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT(PART)/897 dated 15/03/2023, published in Official Gazette, (Supplement), Series I No. 50, dated 16/03/2023, by considering the rate of fee which was applicable on the date of receipt of the said Application i.e. 05/02/2024 and accordingly issued Assessment Order No. 36/18/353/17(2)/Chopdem/17/1(P)/TCP/2024/1243 dated 11/06/2024 and collected fee of Rs. 1,79,00,000/- (Rupees One crore and seventy nine lakhs only) from the Applicant;

And whereas, the Department of Finance (Revenue and Control) vide letter No. 21/9/2024- Fin(R&C)/26193 dated 01/08/2024 and letter No. 21/9/2024-Fin(R&C)/26638 dated 24/09/2024 requested and clarified to the Town and Country Planning Department to collect fees as published in Official Gazette dated 28/03/2024 for all applications approved after that date i.e., 28/03/2024;

And whereas, in view of the said letters received from the Department of Finance (Revenue and Control), the Government directed that fees to be collected as published in the Official Gazette dated 28/03/2024 for all proposals considered for assessment of fees after that date;

And whereas, in view of the aforesaid letters of the Department of Finance (Revenue and Control) and direction of the Government, the Town and Country Planning Department re-assessed the fee payable in respect of the said Application dated 05/02/2024 of the Applicant as per the revised rate notified in the Government Notification No. 21/1/TCP/GTCPACT/2023/579 dated 28/03/2024 and accordingly issued another Assessment Order No. 36/18/353/17(2)/ Chopdem/17/1(P)/TCP/2024/103 dated 26/02/2025 along with e-challan No. 202500145132 dated 26/02/2025 to the Applicant requesting him to deposit an additional fee of Rs. 7,16,00,000 (Rupees Seven crores and sixteen lakhs only) within 7 days of issue of Order, by way of e-challan as enclosed therewith and informing that on failure to do so, further decision as regards to correction/rectification of zone as notified vide Official Gazette, Series II No. 13, dated 27/06/2024 shall be taken for the property referred in the said Order;

And whereas, the said Assessment Order No. 36/18/353/17(2)/Chopdem/17/1(P)/TCP/ /2024/103 dated 26/02/2025 was duly received by the Applicant;

And whereas, the said matter of non-payment of the additional fee of Rs. 7,16,00,000/- (Rupees Seven crores and sixteen lakhs only) by the Applicant was placed before the 213th meeting of the Goa Town and Country Planning Board held on 07/03/2025 and the Goa Town and Country Planning Board recommended that if the applicant has not paid the additional fees, the rectification carried out in respect of the plot of land specified against serial No. 1 of the Table of the Government Notification No. 36/18/17(2)/Notification (4)/TCP-2024/1264 dated 19/06/2024, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 13, dated 27/06/2024 needs to be rescinded;

And whereas, the said recommendation of the Goa Town and Country Planning Board was submitted to the Government decision, whereupon, the Government upon noticing that the applicant has neglected and119 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 2 10TH APRIL, 2025 failed to deposit the said additional fee within the given time, has decided that the Government Notification No. 36/18/17(2)/Notification(4)/TCP-2024/1264 dated 19/06/2024, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 13, dated 27/06/2024, to the extent of the correction/rectification of zone carried out in respect of the plot of land specified against serial No. 1 of the Table of the said Government Notification No. 36/18/17(2)/Notification(4)/TCP-2024/1264 dated 19/06/2024 to be rescinded;

Now, therefore, as decided by the Government and in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Goa Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 (Act 21 of 1975) read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), the Government Notification No. 36/18/17(2)/Notification(4)/TCP-2024/1264 dated 19/06/2024, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 13, dated 27/06/2024, is hereby rescinded only to the extent of the correction/rectification of zone carried out in respect of the plot of land specified against entry at serial No. 1 of the Table of the said Government Notification No. 36/18/17(2)/Notification (4)/TCP- 2024/1264 dated 19/06/2024.

This Notification shall come into force with immediate effect.

Rajesh J. Naik, Chief Town Planner (Planning).

Panaji, 4th April, 2025.

..................................................................................

Department of Urban Development

Municipal Administration

10/369/2018-DMA/Part-I/032 Date: 03-Apr-2025 In supersession of earlier Notification No. 10/369/2018-DMA/Part/3198 dated 29th January, 2025 published in the Official Gazette- Government of Goa , Series II No. 45 dated 06th February, 2025, the revised Notification of Ponda Municipal Town Vending Committee members, is as follows :

Brijesh Manerkar, Director of Municipal Administration/Urban Development Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to Government of Goa.

Panaji, 03rd April, 2025.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published by the Director, Printing & Stationary,

Government Printing Press, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.