Note: There are seven Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 35 dated 27-11-2025 as follows:

1. Extraordinary dated 28-11-2025 from pages 1209 to 1210 regarding Trade Circular from Department of Finance.

2. Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 29-11-2025 from pages 1211 to 1216 regarding Order and Notifications from State Election

Commission, Goa.

3. Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 29-11-2025 from pages 1217 to 1218 regarding Order from Department of Finance.

4. Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 29-11-2025 from pages 1219 to 1222 regarding Orders from State Election Commission, Goa.

5. Extraordinary (No. 5) dated 29-11-2025 from pages 1223 to 1228 regarding Orders and Notification from State Election

Commission, Goa.

6. Extraordinary (No. 6) dated 01-12-2025 from pages 1229 to 1230 regarding Corrigendum from State Election Commission, Goa.

7. Extraordinary (No. 7) dated 04-12-2025 from pages 1231 to 1232 regarding Corrigenda from State Election Commission, Goa.

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs

Order

In pursuance to Clause 8 of the Aviation Turbine Fuel (Regulation of Marketing) Order, 2001, issued by

the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, New Delhi, published in the Gazette of

India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (i) vide notification No. G.S.R. 241 (E) dated 31^st March,

2001, the Government of Goa hereby authorizes the following Officers for the purpose of Clause 8 of the

said Order within their specified jurisdiction:-

1. The Assistant Director of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs posted in Enforcement Section/Flying

squad within the State of Goa.

2. The Assistant Director of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs of Taluka within their respective

jurisdiction.

3. Superintendent of Police within their respective jurisdiction.

4. Deputy Superintendent of Police within their respective jurisdiction.

5. Mamlatdar of Taluka within their respective jurisdiction.

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

Sanjiv M. Gadkar, IAS, Secretary (Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs).

Panaji.

No. DCS/ENF/ATF/2025-26/3130

Date : 21-Nov-2025

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

1233

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

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Panaji, 04th December, 2025 (Agrahayana 13, 1947)

SERIES II No. 36

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Department of Fisheries

Directorate of Fisheries

Order

In pursuance to Clause 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”)

the following officer/officials are hereby appointed as Assistant Public Information Officer for the

Directorate of Fisheries to deal with the applications received from the public under the said Act.

Sr.

No.

Name and designation of the Assistant

Public Information Officer

Name & designation of the Link Assistant

Public Information Officer

Jurisdiction

Smt. Ashwini Dessai, Lower Division

Clerk

General Branch

Shri Ankush Shirodkar, Fisheries Surveyor

State of Goa

Smt. Sonia Amar Naik, Lower Division

Clerk

Aquaculture & Marketing Section

Kum. Shenia Coutinho, Fisheries Surveyor

State of Goa

Smt. Prajakta A. Haldankar, Lower

Division Clerk

Enforcement & Offshore

Shri Jatin Shirodkar, Fisheries Surveyor

State of Goa

Shri Ganpat Chari, Net Mending

Instructor

Fisheries Training Centre

Smt. Sharvi Naik, Junior Technician

State of Goa

Shri Damodhar Kalangutkar, Lower

Division Clerk

North Block

Smt. Seema Dessai, Fisheries Surveyor

State of Goa

Shri. Gaston Silva, Lower Division

Clerk

South Block

Smt. Nishi Naik, Fisheries Surveyor

State of Goa

Smt. Canira Raicar, Lower Division

Clerk

Central Block

Smt. Saily Madkaikar, Fisheries Surveyor

State of Goa

Shri Ashutosh Kerkar

Establishment Section

Smt. Anita Madkaikar, Lower Division

Clerk

State of Goa

Shri Palhavi Dangui, Upper Division

Clerk

Accounts Section

Kum. Frida Barreto, Lower Division Clerk

State of Goa

10.

Shri Nath Bhagat, Statistical Assistant

Planning & Statistic

Smt. Priyanka Nayak, Investigator

State of Goa

The Assistant Public Information Officer shall on receipt of the applications for information or appeal

under the RTI Act forwarded the same forthwith to the Public Information Officer, as required under sub-

section (1) of Section 7.

The Public Information Officer shall on receipt of a request under Section 6 as expeditiously as possible

and in any case within thirty days of the request, either provides the information on payment of such fees as

may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons of the specified under Section 8 & 9.

The Dy. Director of Fisheries (General & Aquaculture) will be the First Appellant Authority for General

Branch, South Zone, Central Zone and Offshore/Enforcement Section under this Act to hear the appeals

against the decision of the Public Information Officer and Assistant Public Information Officer.

No. DF/ADMN/DEP/FISH/VOL.I/88/3910

Date : 11-Oct-2025

1234

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

The Dy. Director of Fisheries (Enforcement/Offshore) will be the First Appellant Authority for

Aquaculture/Marketing, Fishermen Training Centre/Ela/Keri Farms and North Zone under this Act to hear

the appeals against the decision of the Public Information Officer and Assistant Public Information Officer.

The Dy. Director of (Admn.) will be the First Appellant Authority, Establishment and Accounts Section

under this Act to hear the appeals against the decision of the Public Information Officer and Assistant Public

Information Officer.

The Dy. Director of (Planning & Statistic) will be the First Appellant Authority for Planning & Statistics,

under this Act to hear the appeals against the decision of the Public Information Officer and Assistant Public

Information Officer.

This supersedes all earlier RTI order.

Dr. Shamila Monteiro, Director of Fisheries.

Panaji.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Forest

Order

Government is pleased to order transfer and posting of following Officer of Goa Forest Department, with

immediate effect, in public interest:-

Sr.

No.

Name of Officer and current posting

Transferred as/additional charge

Shri Vishwanath Pingulkar, Assistant Conservator of

Forest, Principal, Goa State Forest Training School,

Valpoi with additional charge of Zoo Manager,

Bondla

Assistant Conservator of Forests at Sub

Divisional

Forest

Office,

Mapusa

with

additional charge as Principal, Forestry Training

Institute, Valpoi and additional charge of Zoo

Manager, Bondla.

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

Sitaram Gurudas Sawal, Under Secretary (Forests).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Goa Legislature Secretariat

Order

In pursuance of Rule 4(2) of the Goa Legislature Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1988, the Governor in consultation with the “BOARD” is pleased to promote Smt. Maria Celestina

Sequeira, Chief Reporter of the Goa Legislature Secretariat to the post of Editor of Debates, Legislature,

Group “B” (Gazetted) in the Pay Matrix Level-7, with effect from 25^th November, 2025 (f.n.) on regular

basis.

2. The said promotion is made against the post of Editor of Debates caused due to retirement of Smt.

Lavina Andrade, Editor of Debates on superannuation.

3. The pay of Smt. Maria Celestina Sequeira, shall be fixed as per the rules.

No. 4/4/2024-FOR/316

Date : 25-Nov-2025

LA-ADMN-2025-2846

Date : 25-Nov-2025

1235

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

4. The expenditure on account of this be debited to the Budget Head “2011—Parliament/State/U.T.

Legislature; 02—State/U.T. Legislature; 103—Legislative Secretariat; 01—Legislature Secretariat of State;

00—General; 01—Salaries.”

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

Mohan J. Gaonkar, Joint Secretary, Legislature.

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Industries

Notification

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Goa Investment

Promotion and Facilitation of Single Window Clearance Act, 2021 (Goa Act 19 of 2021) and in supersession

of the Government Notification No. 3/23/2021-IND/256 dated 17-11-2023, the Government of Goa hereby

re-establishes the Goa Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board consisting of the following, namely:-

(i)

Chief Minister of Goa

—

Chairperson, ex-officio

(ii)

Minister for Industries

—

Vice-Chairperson, ex-officio

(iii)

Minister for Finance

—

Ex-officio member

(iv)

Chairman, Goa Industrial Development Corporation

—

Ex-officio member

(v)

Chief Secretary

—

Ex-officio member

(vi)

Secretary (Industries)

—

Ex-officio member

(vii)

Secretary (Environment)

—

Ex-officio member

(viii)

Secretary (Town and Country Planning)

—

Ex-officio member

(ix)

Secretary (Tourism)

—

Ex-officio member

(x)

Secretary (Revenue)

—

Ex-officio member

(xi)

Secretary (Power)

—

Ex-officio member

(xii)

Shri Shrinivas V. Dempo, nominee, Goa Chamber of

Commerce and Industry (GCCI)

—

Member

(xiii)

Shri Pradip Da Costa, nominee, Goa State Industries

Association (GSIA)

—

Member

(xiv)

Shri Arjun Chowgule, nominee, Confederation of Indian

Industry (CII) Goa

—

Member

(xv)

Shri Jack Ajit Sukhija, nominee, Travel and Tourism

Association of Goa (TTAG)

—

Member

(xvi)

Shri Mangirish Salelkar, nominee from Goa Technology

Association (GTA)

—

Member

(xvii)

Shri Rajkumar Kamat

—

Member

(xviii)

Chief Executive Officer, Goa Investment Promotion and

Facilitation Board

—

Member Secretary

No. 3/23/2021-IND/266

Date : 26-Nov-2025

1236

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

This Notification shall come into force with immediate effect.

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

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

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Labour

Notification

The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 16-10-2025

in Case Ref. No. C-IT/09/1997 is hereby published as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

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

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

Porvorim.

___________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar, Hon’ble Presiding Officer)

Case No.: C-IT/09/1997

Mr. Prakash Gaonkar,

C/o. Mr. Francis Rodrigues,

Par, Khandepar,

Ponda-Goa.

… Complainant/Applicant

V/s

1. M/s M.R.F. Limited,

Tisk, Usgao,

Ponda-Goa.

… Opponent(1)

2. Mr. E. M. Mathai,

Sr. General Manager,

M/s. MRF Ltd.,

Ponda-Goa.

… Opponent(2)

Workman/Party I represented by Learned Adv. Shri. P. Agrawal.

Employer/Party II (1) & (2) represented by Adv. Shri S. B. Karpe along with Adv. Ms. S. Vaigankar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 16^th day of the month of October of the year 2025)

The present Complaint has been filed by the Applicant/Party I under Section 33A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The Opponent/Party II is the Employer of the Applicant/Party I.

2. The Applicant was issued a charge-sheet dated 26/09/1996 for his habitual and unauthorized

absenteeism which according to the Opponent was a misconduct under Item XXV and LII of Clause 21 of the

Certified Standing Order of the Company which reads as:

No. 28/02/2025-LAB/Part-II/649

Date : 17-Nov-2025

1237

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

Clause 21 Item XXV

Habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 8

consecutive days or overstaying sanctioned leave without satisfactory

explanation.

Clause 21 Item LII

Any act subversive of discipline.

3. Upon receipt of the Complaint from the Complainant/Party I, the same was registered as C-

IT/09/1997 and registered A/D notices were issued to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notice, the

Opponent/Party II filed its Reply at Exhibit 4 objecting the complaint of the Party I/Workman.

4. The Complainant/Party I in brief as stated in the complaint is that since the formation of the Union,

the Company has been attempting to disrupt the unity of the workmen employed by the Company who are

members of the Union and 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 based

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.

Prakash Gaonkar.

5. The Party I states that the Workman was issued a letter/charge-sheet dated 26/09/1996, which itself

was illegal and untenable at law and was based totally on concocted charges solely to victimize the Workman

for his union activities. The Complainant/Party I states that the Opponent/Company issued Charge-sheet

dated 26/09/1996, thereby alleging certain acts of misconduct against the Complainant/Workman, which

according to the Complainant/Party I is illegal, invalid and untenable at law was based totally on concocted

charges to victimize him for his bonafide Union activities.

5. Complainant/Party I further stated that, during the course of enquiry, many irregularities and

discrepancies were brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer. However, he failed to consider any of such

discrepancies raised while submitting his findings to the Opponent/ Company. It is submitted that the inquiry

was conducted in undue haste. The Complainant/Party I was called upon to examine management witness in

absence of his defense representative. The inquiry was closed without following the principles of natural

justice despite several request made by the Complainant. The Complainant/Party I stated that the charge-

sheet issued to him was ex-facie illegal and untenable at law. He further stated that the Enquiry Officer has

conducted the enquiry devoid of the principles of natural justice.

6. The Complainant states that his union i.e. the Goa MRF Employees Union had served a letter dated

29/08/1996 on 30/08/1996 to the Labour Commissioner at Panaji calling for the conciliation proceedings on

the Charter of Demand dated 15/02/1996 of the workmen for wage rise and better service conditions. 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.

7. The Complainant/Party I states that the Opponent/Party II attended the conciliation proceedings on

the said Charter of Demands and even filed its reply to the justification of the Complainant/Party I on the

general 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 of Panaji was pleased to call for further meetings between

the management and the Union. The last meeting to the best of Union’s knowledge, was held on 17/02/1996

at 3.00 p.m. for trying to conciliate and settle the dispute. The Labour Commissioner was called for the said

joint meeting on 17/02/1997 vide letter dated 11/02/1997 bearing No. IRM/CON/PONDA/(104)/96/752.

8. The Complainant/Party I states that he was dismissed on 28/10/1996while proceedings before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ponda were still pending and the Failure Report in the said conciliation

proceedings on the general demands were not been sent or received by the appropriate Government. The

Government of Goa was pleased to refer the said dispute to this Hon’ble Tribunal for adjudication only on

05/06/1997 vide its Order No. ALC/PONDA/C.H.OF DEMANDS/MRF/2488.

9. Under these circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the Opponent/Party IIwas required to seek

approval of its action for dismissal under Section 33Aof the Industrial Dispute Act, which it had failed to do

so. Therefore, its action of dismissing the Complainant/Party I without seeking approval of the Conciliation

Officer/Labour Commissioner is contrary to the Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, hence illegal and

void.

1238

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

10. The Complainant/Party I further stated that there was no evidence supporting the charges levelled

against him, and that the charges levelled 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 an act of

unfair labour practice under 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 the Complainant/Party I be revoked

and he be reinstated in service with full back wages.

11. In its Written Statement filed, the Opponent/Party II submitted that Mr. Prakash Gaonkar was

charge-sheeted vide Charge-sheet dated 26/09/1996 for alleged act of misconduct as referred in the said

charge-sheet. Thus, it is stated that these alleged acts committed by the Workman, if proved, amounts to gross

misconduct under Item XXV and LII of Clause 21 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Company/Party II

and the charges in the charge-sheet reads as under:

Clause 21 Item XXV

Habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 8

consecutive days or overstaying sanctioned leave without satisfactory

explanation.

Clause 21 Item LII

Any act subversive of discipline.

12. As the charge-sheet outlines the misconduct of the Complainant/Workman, the Workman has been

charged with misconduct by referring to the acts on his part in the backdrop of the Certified Standing Orders.

13. According to the Opponent/Party II, the enquiry was conducted in the accordance with the principles

of natural justice and that the Enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence on record, submitted his

findings dated 26/10/1996 holding the Party I/Workman guilty of the charges. The Party II states that the

Findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record and that the enquiry had been conducted

in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

14. The Opponent/Party II submits that in view of gravity of proved misconduct as well as on account of

past record of the Complainant, the Management dismissed the Complainant/Party I vide letter dated

28/10/1996 as the enquiry established warranted extreme punishment of dismissal of the Complainant from

its service. The Party II states that the punishment of termination was consequent to properly conducted

enquiry and based on the proved acts of misconduct committed by the Complainant.

15. The Opponent/Party II submits that the enquiry was fair and proper and was conducted in

accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Complainant 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 Complainant/Party I was guilty

of the charges leveled against him. The Opponent/Party II submits that the termination by way of punishment

of the Complainant/Party I is pursuant to the charge-sheet and properly conducted enquiry by an impartial

Enquiry Officer who has considered all the evidence on record and has submitted reasoned findings, and that

the termination by way of punishment of Complainant/Party is legal and justified.

16. The Opponent/Party II denied that there has been large scale harassment and 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 termination or

charge-sheets are issued to the workman 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. Prakash Gaonkar was an active member of the Union.

17. It is further denied that the Complainant’s defence was prejudiced due to non-issuance of show-

cause notice, as in any event, a reasonable opportunity was given to the Complainant during the course of the

enquiry to present his defence. It is denied that the Enquiry Officererred in coming to the conclusion of guilt,

as alleged, or that the Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence of the workman, or that he was

biased. It is denied that the Termination Order of the Workman was for collateral purposes or was solely to

victimize the workman for his continued allegiance to the said union, as alleged. Itis denied that there has

been any gross discrimination in imposing the punishment of termination of the Party I/Workman, as alleged,

and hence it is submitted that the Party I/Workman 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.

1239

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

18. On completion of the pleadings, the following Issues were framed at Exhibit 8 by this Tribunal

which reads as under:

ISSUES

Whether the Workman/Applicant proves that the Employer/Opponent terminated his services in

contraventions of the provision of Section 33 of the I.D Act.

Whether the Workman/Applicant proves that the domestic enquiry held against him is not fair and

proper?

Whether the charges of misconduct levelled against the Workman/Applicant are proved to the

satisfaction of the Tribunal by acceptable evidence?

Whether the Party I proves that this dismissal from service is illegal and unjustified?

Additional Issue No. 4A: Whether the Party II(1) has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 33(2)

(a)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act before dismissing the workman from the services?

Whether the Workman/Applicant is entitled to any relief?

What Award? Orders?

19. From the issues framed hereinabove, Issue No.1, 2, 3 and 4A 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:

Issue No. 1 & 2

In the Affirmative

Issue No. 3

In the Negative

Issue No. 4A

In the Negative

REASONS

20. Issue No.1, 2 & 3: It is in the evidence of Shri Ratnakar Amonkar, Manager Production of the

Opponent/Party II in the Production Department that the Complainant/Party I was issued with the charge-

sheet dated 26/09/1996. The Complainant/Party I was appointed as a Trainee with the Opponent/Party II vide

letter dated 03/08/1978 signed by the Sr. General Manager, Mr. Eonk Koshy who was competent to do so.

The appointment of the Complainant/Party I was probationary appointment and later on he was confirmed in

the service after completion of the probation period vide Confirmation Letter dated 15/05/1980. All the

corresponding letters have been identified by Shri Ratnakar Amonkar when the same were produced in the

domestic enquiry as well produced before this Tribunal for identification. In the said enquiry, the Company

appointed Shri S. B. Nayak as an Enquiry Officer who submitted his findings to the management on the

conclusion of the enquiry.

21. He further deposed that on completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer gave his findings dated

26/10/1996 holding the Complainant/Party I guilty of the charges referred to in the charge-sheet and

submitted his findings to the Management. In his cross-examination, the Management witness Shri Francis

Gonsalves denied that no fair and proper enquiry was conducted or that the findings given by the Enquiry

Officer are perverse.

22. The management examined Shri Edwin Mora is as the witness No. 2, he being the Enquiry Officer

who had conducted the enquiry against the Complainant in respect of Charge-sheet dated 19/03/1996. In the

said inquiry the management was represented by Shri Crospy D’Douza and the Workman/Complainant

represented by Shri Dulcidonio Fernandes. He further confirmed that the proceedings and records of the said

inquiry are true and correct. The Enquiry Officer in the cross-denied that he was biased and favoured the

management in the said inquiry and that he did not give fair and proper opportunity to the Workman to

defend his case.

23. Both the witnesses examined by the management however did not throw light as regards to the

enquiry into the charge-sheet dated 26/09/1996 which is actually the subject matter of the complaint. Both

the management witnesses did not give any details as regards the charge-sheet dated 26/09/1996 of alleged

unauthorised absenteeism pursuance to which the Complainant/Applicant was dismissed from services which

1240

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

act of the management gave a cause of action to the Complainant to approach this Tribunal with the present

complaint against the Management/Opponent for illegal termination of his services.

24. The Complainant/Party I examined himself whereby he reiterated and maintained all the facts stated

by him in his Complaint and deposed to say that he was not given fair opportunity to cross-examine the

Management Representative. He further stated that Enquiry Officer did not give him an opportunity to

examine his witness though he had made a request and that the Enquiry Officer had closed the inquiry in

haste. He further stated that the Findings given by Enquiry Officer are perverse and not based on the

evidence on record. In the cross-examination, the Complainant has denied that he was given opportunity to

cross-examine the management witnesses.

25. The other main defence which the Complainant/ Party I has raised is that according to the

Complainant vide letter dated 19/09/2022 the union to which the workman concerned is the member, had

written a letter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ponda for withdrawal of his Demotion Order issued to

him pursuance to the charge sheet dated 19/03/1996. The ALC Ponda than issued notice dated 26/09/1996 to

the Opponent asking them to attend the meeting fixed by him on 03/10/1996 at 4.00 p.m. He further deposed

that the disciplinary action was taken against him by issuing to him the present charge-sheet dated

26/09/1996 as he remained absent from 16/08/1996. According to him he did not remain absent from

16/08/1996 but was reporting to Curing Department as he was demoted and transferred to Leave Reserve

Department. That despite he having reported to the Supervisor to the Curing Department, he was being

marked absent.

26. He further stated that vide his reply dated 26/09/1996 he had informed Shri P. S. Naik of Personnel

Department that the conciliation proceeding was in respect of his demotion which were pending before the

ALC, Ponda. He further stated that the Party II/Opponent vide letter dated01/10/1996 addressed to ALC,

Pondahad authorised their legal consultant Adv. Shri Sardessai to represent them before the ALC. On his

behalf Shri Rohidas Naik, the President of the Union had filed Justification Statement. His evidence further

reveals that on 26/09/1996 he was issued with the second charge-sheet for alleged absenteeism. However, the

said charge-sheet is a vague charge-sheet as the same did not mention that here mained absent in which

Department. Accordingly, he had filed his objection dated 11/10/1996 pointing out to the Enquiry Officer

about the conciliation proceeding being pending before the ALC. The Enquiry Officer however, pending the

said conciliation proceeding before ALC, Ponda in ahaste concluded the inquiry proceeding in respect of the

absenteeism and submitted his findings to the Opponent/Party II pursuance to which the Party I/Complainant

was dismissed from the services without even calling for any explanation from him or without issuing any

show-cause notice to that effect. The ALC, Ponda was constrained to close the conciliation proceeding on the

dismissal of the Applicant Party I.

27. The Complainant/Party I has produced all the necessary documents including the minutes of the

meeting dated29/10/1996 at Exhibit C-11. The closure of the conciliation proceedings was objected by the

President vide letter dated 22/11/1996 at ExhibitC-12. The ALC, Ponda vide its letter dated 06/12/1996

informed the President that the matter pertaining to the demotion of the Applicant/Party I was only at

discussion level and never admitted in conciliation. The Party I/Workman further stated that the dispute as

regards to the Charter of Demand submitted by the Union was pending for conciliation before the Labour

Commissioner and that his services have been terminated pending conciliation proceeding on the Charter of

Demands and that the Opponent had not obtained any permission from the labour Commissionernor the

Applicant/Party I was paid his one month wages. The above plea of the Complainant being not paid one

month’s wages has been supported by the witness of the Opponent itself. Shri R. S. Amonkar when asked

categorically admitted that he has no document to show that the complainant was paid one month wages at

the time when this Dismissal Order was passed. The payment of one months’ wages since is one of the factor

required to be complied by the employer to show that the Employer has complied with the with the

provisions of Section 33(2)(a)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore having not complied the same,

strengthens the complaint of the Complainant/Party I to the extent of the management violating the

mandatory provision of the Section 33(2)(a)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Ac, 1947.

28. In support of its subsequent amended pleading in the Application, the Complainant examined Shri

Rohidas Naik. It is in the evidence of Shri Rohidas Naik who claims to be the President of the Union that his

Union had issued Letter dated 29/08/1996 on 30/08/1996, upon the ALC, Ponda, thereby calling for the

conciliation proceedings on Charter of Demands dated 15/02/1996 of the workmen, including the Party I

Workman, for wage rise and better service conditions and the said Workman was also concerned in the said

1241

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

dispute covered under the said Charter of Demands, then pending before the Labour Commissioner as on

30/08/1996. The Party II/Company had, in fact, attended the conciliation proceedings, on 24/10/1996, in

respect of the aforesaid Charter of Demands. Since, the Party II/Company was not ready to accede to the

demands of the Union, the Labour Commissioner, Panaji, was pleased to call for further meetings between

the said Company and the said Union and the last meeting, to the best of the knowledge, was held on

17/02/1997, for trying to conciliate and settle the dispute.

29. That the said Company did not even wait for the Conciliation Officer or the Labour Commissioner

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 this Hon’ble Tribunal, the Party II/Company dismissed the Party

I/Workman on 28/10/1996. It is pertinent to note that the Government of Goa was pleased to refer the

aforesaid dispute on the Charter of Demand to this Hon’ble Tribunal for adjudication only on 05/06/1997.

That the dismissal of the said Workman, while the aforesaid conciliation proceedings were pending before

the Conciliation Officer, amounts to an unfair labour practice.

30. The Letter dated 17/10/1996 is addressed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Party II. By

this letter, the Assistant Labour Commissioner requested both the Parties to remain present and stated that he

shall hold discussions and necessary conciliation proceeding under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes

Act in respect of the dispute raised by the said Workman and the date of hearing was fixed on 29/10/1996 at

11.00 a.m. On the date of hearing i.e. on 29/10/1996 no one remained present on behalf of the Party

II/Company. As per the minutes drawn on the said day, the President of the Union was present and the ALC

received letter from the Party II stating that the Company has dismissed the Party I/Workman on 28/10/1996,

consequent to which the Assistant Labour Commissioner closed the proceedings on behalf of the dismissal of

the Workman by the Party II/Company.

31. Vide letter dated 22/11/1996 at Exhibit C-12, the Union filed their response to the closure of the

conciliation proceeding by the ALC bringing to his knowledge that such a closure by ALC was not proper in

view of the facts that the management had not dismissed the workman concerned without the express

permission in writing with the authorities concerned and as such the Management has violated the provisions

of section 33(2)(a)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. All this documentary evidence produced on record, the

management could not discard the same and could not justify their act of dismissing the Part I/workman

pending conciliation proceeding and without taking permission in writing from the authorities concerned.

32. It is a matter of record that the fact pertaining to the conciliation proceeding is pending before the

authorities was brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer as well to the notice of the Management despite

of which the Enquiry Officer proceeded to give his findings and based on those findings the management

proceeded to dismiss the Party I/Workman.

33. It is therefore the contention of the Party I/Workman that he was dismissed by the Party

II/Management firstly without seeking written permission from the authorities concerned pending

conciliation proceeding. Secondly, the Party I/Workman was not paid one month’s wages no ran application

for approval of the decision taken by the management was filed before the court of law thereby the dismissal

of the workman was in non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act

and hence the same is illegal and void.

34. The record speaks for itself and the document to that effect shows that the Party I/Workman was

dismissed on 28/10/1996, when actually the matter pertaining to Charter of Demand was pending before the

conciliation authority. Thus, it is clear from the records that the services of the Party I/Workman were

terminated when the matter was sub-judice for conciliation before the Conciliation Officer and the

management had dismissed the Party I/Workman, without paying him his one months’ wages as required

under the Act. Thus, the Party I/Workman through oral as well as documentary evidence, was able to prove

his stand of the Party II/Company having clearly violated the requirements prescribed under the provisions of

Section 33 (2)(a)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

34. Shri Rohidas Naik has highlighted the relevant and material facts pertaining to the conciliation

proceeding before the Labour Commissioner. The said witness Shri Rohidas Naik stood by his testimony in

the cross-examination to support and substantiate the stand taken by the Party I/Workman as regards the

Party II/Company violating the mandatory provisions of the Section 33 of the Act. In addition to the oral

testimony and documentary evidence on record, the Applicant Workman has placed reliance in the case of

1242

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

Jaipur Zila Sahadari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. V/s. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others [(2002) 2 SCC

244].

35. Therefore the ratio laid down in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahadari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. (Supra)

has come to the rescue of this Workman. The Party I/Workman has been able to establish that his termination

was illegal as the same was done pending the Charter of Demands, in 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) 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”.

36. Furthermore, as per the ratio laid down in Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. v/s Shankar Prasad

(1999) 6 SCC it is but obvious that the impugned termination of the said Workman on 17/02/1997, amounts

to unfair labour practice. The relevant portion is reproduced which read thus.

‘… (19) NOW it must be stated that the impugned termination order was passed against the respondent-

workman on 22/06/1982. Within three days thereof, 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 1. 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 appellants 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 respondents 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.

(20) THE Conciliation Officer took the dispute in conciliation within his discretion even though as

appellants 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 respondents union for preliminary discussions on 14/4/1982 in his office

and thereafter the matter was adjourned during conciliation from time to time.

(21) IT can therefore, be said that by 14/04/1982 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 on22/06/1982 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 appellants 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.

(22) 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 Office. 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 pending before

1243

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

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

13/08/1982 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.

(23) 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.

(24) WE shall refer to these provisions in greater detail later on while considering the question of legality

of notice under Section 9-A of the I. D. Act. For the time being, it is sufficient to note that the question of

violation of Section 33(1) of the I. D. Act has a direct nexus with the further question whether on 22/6/1982

when the impugned termination-order was passed, conciliation proceedings were pending before the

authority or not.

(25) IN order to answer these questions, it is necessary to note Ss. (4) of Section 12 of the 1. 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.

(26) 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 22/06/1982 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 22/6/1982. 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

1244

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

proceedings. He remained very much seized of these proceedings tilt 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.…’.

37. The Ld. Adv. Shri S. B. Karpe appearing for Party II in support of their defence on the issue of

alleged violation of Section 33, placedreliance in the case of East Asiatic & Allied V/s Shelke (B. L.) (1961

ILLJ162 Bom), Ambuja Cement V/s U B Group, Gopinath Daulat Dalvi V/s State of Maharashtra,

Suresh Vithoo Nare V/s Dharamsi Morarji Chemicals1991 Lab. I.C. 1932 Bom, and VIP Industries

Shramik Sangh V/s. VIP Industries Ltd. MANU/MH /1929/ 2024.

38. Relying on the ratios in the citations above, Ld. Adv. Shri S. B. Karpe submitted that unless the

Conciliation Officer applies his mind and decides to enter in conciliation, the conciliation cannot be said to

have commenced.

39. The above contention of Ld. Adv. Shri S. B. Karpe is contrary to the records produced by the Party

I/Workman and the evidence on record supports the defence taken by him as regard his termination being

illegal and in contraventions to the provisions of Section 33. The same is duly supported by the ratio in the

case of Lokmat Newspaper Pvt. Ltd.(Supra), as the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) has been settled in the

case of Lokmat (Supra), the same being later in time than the ones relied upon by the Party II. Hence, it is the

contention of the Party/Workman that the facts in question and the provisions of law involved in the case of

Lokmat (Supra) are the same as in the present reference. Therefore, it directly applies to the case in hand,

giving no room to this Tribunal to deviate from the ratio laid down in the citation above.

40. That, except a mere submission being made “that unless the Conciliation Officer applies his mind

and decides to enter in conciliation, the conciliation cannot be said to have been commenced” there is nothing

produced on record by the Management. Nor could the management discard the evidence adduced by the

Party I/Workman, which clearly indicates his termination being ordered pending the conciliation proceedings

sans the Failure Report and sans the payment of one month’s wages as required tube paid to the workman

under the Act which clearly shows that the termination was against the principles of natural justice.

41. 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 laid down in the case of Jaipur Zila would be squarely applicable to the

present reference, wherein it is held “Amendments to Section 33 of the I.D. 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.”

42. 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 in operative 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

1245

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

aggrieved Party could make a complaint under Section 33-Achallenging 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 straight away 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. 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 other wise justified on merits.

43. The Party I/Workman thus has successfully discharged his burden to prove that the domestic enquiry

held against him was not fair and proper, the same being in violation of provision of Section 33 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, the charges of unauthorized absenteeism cannot be said tobe proved

again for the reason that there has been violations of mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The

act of violations of provisions of Section 33(2)(a)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Opponent/Party II

since go to the root of the matter therefore the entire enquiry amounts to void act initio so also the Order of

Dismissal of the Applicant/Party I becomes illegal and unjustified. Hence, the Issue No. 1 and 2 stands

answered in favour of the Party I/Workman in the affirmative. Consequently this Tribunal holds that the

Management has failed to discharge their burden of proving the misconduct for which the Issue No. 3 is

answered against the management in the negative.

44. Additional Issue No. 4A: While discussing the Issue Nos. 1 and 2, this Tribunal has taken into

consideration all the sequential events to show that the Employer/Party II has violated the mandatory

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hence this Issue stands against the Management and therefore

the same is answered in the negative. This is a fit case where the ratio laid down in the case of Jaipur Zilla

squarely applies, leaving no room for any further prolonged litigation but to put a full stop to the entire

litigation by applying the ratio laid down in the case of Jaipur Zilla (Supra).

45. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Jaipur Zila (Supra) while referring to the case of

Strawboard Mfg. Co. v. Govind, 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 that “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.

46. Considering this observation, this Tribunal is of the opinion that no further purpose would be served

if this Tribunal proceeds to pass the Order on the preliminary issues only and keeps the reference alive for

holding enquiry on other issues when the termination of the Party I/Workman itself is illegal, and void the

same being in violation of provisions of Section 33 (2) (a) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Hence, the final Order:

ORDER

It is held that the action of the management of the Opponent/M/s MRF Ltd., Usgao-Ponda in

terminating the services of the Complainant/Shri Prakash Gaonkar is illegal and unjustified.

ii.

Consequently, the Opponent/Party II is hereby directed to re-instate in service the

Complainant/Party I, Shri Prakash Gaonkar with full back wages from 28/10/1996.

iii.

Inform the Government accordingly.

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

Panaji.

1246

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

Notification

The following Award passed by the Labour Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 03-10-2025 in Case Ref. No. LC-

II/LCC/06/2023 is hereby published as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(Central Act 14 of 1947).

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

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

Porvorim.

__________

THE LABOUR COURT– II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/LCC/06/2023.

Shri Gurudas G. Verlekar,

Flat No.G2, Romat Appt.,

Fatorda, Salcete-Goa.

……

Applicant/Party-I

V/s

M/s. Advani Hotels & Resorts (I) Ltd.,

Unit Caravele Beach Resort, Varca Beach,

Salcete-Goa 403721, India.

……

Opponent/Party II

Applicant/Party-I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat.

Opponent/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri Rishi Ashok.

Panaji, dated: 03-10-2025.

JUDGMENT

1. This judgment shall determine a claim application of the Applicant dated 06/11/2023 filed u/s

33-C (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

2. By the present claim application, the Applicant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,54,329/- being an

amount of Rs. 8523/- towards P. L. encashment of 22 days from retirement gift of Rs. 5001, being

1,40,805/- towards gratuity for 21 years of service.

3. The Opponent filed his written statement thereby resisting the claim of the Applicant.

Thereafter, the Applicant filed his re-joinder on 29-01-2024. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties

herein above, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to frame the certain issues on 19-02-2024 at Exb. 5.

Thereafter, the Applicant led his evidence. After completion of the evidence of the Applicant the

Opponent examined its manager. He was partly cross-examined by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat appearing

for the Applicant and the case was fixed for the further cross examination of the said witness of the

Opponent.

4. On 03-10-2025 Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat present along with the Applicant. The Opponent

represented by its HR Director Shri Praveen Karmali. Both the parties filed a joint application for

settlement of the claim application of the Applicant at exb. 36. The terms of settlement as arrived

between the parties herein above are reproduced hereunder:

a. It is hereby agreed between the parties that the Management of the Opponent shall pay a sum of Rs.

3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the Applicant/Workman in full and final settlement of all

claims, whether raised in the present application or otherwise. This settlement shall be towards arrears

of wages, difference of wages (if any), gratuity (if any), bonus (if any) and the Workman Applicant

No. 28/02/2025-LAB/Part-III/667

Date : 26-Nov-2025

1247

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

confirms that he shall not file any claim, petition or complaint against the company in any manner in

the future before any court of law or any authority.

b. It is agreed and declared by the parties that the amount payable by the Opponent/Company to the

Applicant/Workman, as stated hereinabove, shall constitute full and final settlement and satisfaction of

all claims, demands, and entitlements of the Applicant/Workman against the Company. Upon filing of

these consent terms, the Applicant/Workman shall not raise any further claims of whatsoever nature

against the Company.

c. It is agreed that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) shall be paid to the

workman/applicant, within 7 days of filing of these consent terms before the Labour Court-II for

orders, by DD drawn in favour of the Applicant failing which the Opponent shall pay interest @ 6%

p.a. after 7 days from 03-10-2025.

5. I have carefully perused the terms of settlement signed between the parties herein above and is

of the opinion that the terms of settlement are beneficial to both the parties therein above and hence I

consented for the same.

In view of above, the present claim application filed by the Applicant stands disposed off in terms of

settlement dt. 03-10-2025. Consequently, the claim application stands disposed off.

No order has to costs.

Pronounced in the Open Court.

Suresh N. Narulkar, Presiding Officer, Labour Court–II.

___________

Notification

The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 11/11/2025

in Case Ref. No. IT/04/2022 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)

Ref. No. IT/04/2022

Workmen,

Rep. by the President,

Goa Trade & Commercial Workers’ Union,

Velho’s Building, 2^nd Floor,

Opp. Municipal Garden,

Panaji-Goa.

…

Workmen/Party I

V/s.

The HQ,

Palette Hotels (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

Swatantra Path,

P. O. Box 31,

No. 28/02/2025-LAB/Part-VI/668

Date : 02-Dec-2025

1248

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

Vasco-da-Gama-Goa.

…

Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Learned Advocate Shri Suhaas Naik.

Employer/Party II represented by Learned Advocate Shri G. K. Sardessai.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 11^thday of the month of November of the year, 2025)

By Order dated 03-03-2022 bearing No. 28/53/2021-LAB/113, 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), hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the existing dispute between the Management of

M/s The HQ, Palette Hotels (India) Private Limited, Swatantra Path, P. O. Box 31, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa and

its workmen represented by the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union has referred the following

dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji Goa, constituted under Section 7-A of the

said Act.

SCHEDULE

“Whether Mrs. Linda D’Silva, Executive House-Keeper, can be construed as “Workman” as

defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

If answer to Issue No.(1) above is in affirmative then whether the severance of the

employer/employee relationship between the management of M/s The HQ, Palette Hotels (India)

Private Limited, Swatantra Path, P. O. Box 31, Vasco –da-Gama, Goa and its workperson Mrs.

Linda D’Silva, Executive Housekeeper represented by the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’

Union is on account of termination of services or is a result of voluntary action on the part of the

workperson?

Whether the severance of employer/employee relationship between the management of M/s The HQ,

Palette Hotels (India) Private Limited, Swatantra Path, P. O. Box 31, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa and

their workmen namely Mr. Namdev Kamble, DCDP Chef, Mrs. Anandi Ashok Hoble, Housekeeping

Utility represented by the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union is on account of termination

of their services or is a result of voluntary action on the part of the workmen?

Are the workmen entitled to any relief and to what extent?”

5. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered as IT/04/2022 and registered A/D notices were

issued to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notice, both the Parties put in their appearance. Party I

filed their Claim Statement at Exhibit 4.

6. Briefly it is the case of the Workman that Mrs. Linda D’Silva was employed with Party

II/Company as Executive House-keeper in the House-keeping Department and had joined services on

17/05/2010, Mr. Namdev Kamble as a Chef and had joined the services of the Party II on 01/12/2011

and Mrs. Anandi Ashok Hoble as Utility worker who had joined the services of the Party II/Hotel on

03/08/2010. That, during the pandemic time, when the Hotel business was badly hit, the Management

of Party II/Hotel informed all the above named workmen to tender their resignation on the assurance

that all will be taken back in employment once the pandemic situation improves in the country. The

Party II/Hotel used security personnel to threaten these workmen and restrain them physically in the

Hotel premises not allowing them to go out of the Hotel and obtained their resignations under force,

threats, duress and coercion.

7. The Party I stated that the Resignation Letters dated 27/07/2020 had been obtained by the Party

II under force, threat duress and coercion with the help of security personnel by the Party II and the

Resignation Letters were even submitted by these workmen voluntarily. The Party II had assured these

workmen that they will provide re-employment once the Hotel business activity re-starts and as such

their Resignation Letters were obtained on false promises and assurances.

8. The Party I states that their termination vide Resignation Letters dated 27/07/2020 is in

contravention of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the same amounts to termination

of the services of the Party I/Workmen. Hence, the present reference.

1249

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

9. The Party II in their Written Statement opposed the reference as well as defended the Claim

Statement stating that this Tribunal before going into the issue of severance of employer-employee

relationship between the Party I/Workman and the Management has to consider the issue as to whether

Mrs. Linda D’Silva i.e. the Party I/Workman, Executive House-Keeper can be construed as a

‘workman’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as referred in the Schedule of

reference, before considering the issue as to whether the termination of services is a result of voluntary

action on the part of the workman. On merits the Party II/Management has disputed the entire Claim of

the Party I/Workmen.

3. Considering the pleadings of both the Parties this Tribunal framed issues on 07/06/2024 at Exhibit 9.

The issues read as under:

ISSUES

Whether the Workmen/Party I proves that Party II/Management under force, threat, duress and

coercion and with the help of security personnel obtained the resignation of the workmen/Party

Whether the Workmen/Party I proves that the Party II management gave assurance to workmen

that they will provide the employment to them once the hotel business activity restarts and

thereby obtained their resignation letters on false promises and assurances?

Whether the Party I proves that the termination of the workmen by Party II is in contravention of

the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, same being obtained under duress as such all the

three workmen are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity in services with

all consequential benefits?

Whether the Party II proves that the dispute raised by Party I/workmen is not an ‘industrial

dispute’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

Whether the Party II proves that Mrs. Linda D’Silva since was predominantly performing

supervisory functions, therefore is not a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

Whether the Party II proves that Party I/all the 3 workmen have voluntarily resigned from their

services after accepting all the legal dues arising out of their resignation in full and final

settlement?

What Relief? What Award?

4. When the matter came up for evidence, the Party I/Workman failed to lead evidence despite of being

given several opportunities and despite the matter being adjourned time and again at the request of the

Advocate of the Party I, Shri Suhaas Naik. On 04/09/2025, Adv. Suhaas Naik filed an application seeking his

withdrawal from the matter. On the next date of hearing, Adv. Naik informed to this Tribunal that the dispute

was raised by the Union and that he is unable to contact the workmen personally nor he has the address of the

workmen to reach out. As such this Tribunal also could not issue notices to the workmen after the withdrawal

of the Advocate and is constrained to pass the following Award.

In view of above, I pass the following Order:

ORDER

(i)

The reference stands dismissed for default of appearance of the Party I/Workmen.

(ii)

No order as to costs.

(iii)

Inform the Government accordingly.

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

Panaji.

1250

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

Notification

The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 17-11-2025

in Case Ref. No. IT/09/2024 is hereby published as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

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

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

Porvorim.

___________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Shivolkar, Hon’ble Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/09/2024.

Shri Amarnath Kamble,

Rep. by the President,

Goa Trade & Commercial Workers’ Union,

Velhos Building, Opp. Municipal Garden,

Panaji-Goa.

…

Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Markasans Pharma Limited,

Plot No. L-82, L-83,

Verna Industrial Estate,

Verna-Goa.

…

Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Learned Advocate Shri Suhaas Naik.

Employer/Party II represented by Learned Advocate Shri P. Chawdikar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 14^thday of the month of November of the year 2025)

By Order dated 18-03-2024 bearing No. 28/06/2024-LAB/190, 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), hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the existing dispute between the Management of

M/s. Marksans Pharma Limited, Plot No. L-82, L-83, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa and its

workman, Shri Amarnath Kamble, represented by Goa Trade & Commercial Workers, has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section

7-A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of M/s. Marksans Pharma Limited, Plot No. L-82, L-83, Verna

Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa in transferring workman, Shri Amarnath Kamble from Goa to

Company’s Research and Development Centre, situated at Marksan Research Centre, Plot No. D 185

and D 186, TTC Industrial Area, TB Road, MIDC, Shiravane, Navi Mumbai, Thane, with effect from

13-02-2023, is legal and justified?

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

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered as IT/09/2024 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notice, both the Parties put in their appearance. Party I filed his

Claim Statement at Exhibit 5.

No. 28/02/2025-LAB/Part-VI/670

Date : 01-Dec-2025

1251

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

3. Briefly it the case of the Workman/Party I that he is employed with Party II /Company and he is the

unionized member of this I/Union and is the permanent workman of M/s. Marksans Pharma Limited. The

Party I/Workman was working as a ‘Granulation Machine Operator’ and was working on the Machine under

the overall supervision, instruction and guidance of the Production Officer and Production In-charge. It is

stated that though Party I/Workman and his other colleagues were working on weekly off-days, paid public

holidays they were not paid overtime in accordance with the law. Aggrieved by the same, all the workmen

including Party I/Workman formed the trade union of their choice and became the union member of Goa

Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union. Soon after the unionization, the Party II/Company started harassing

the workmen and pressurized Party I/Workman to resign from the Union. Having failed to do so, the

Company started issuing Summary Termination Letters to all the workmen and some of them were also

issued illegal Transfer Letters. It is specifically stated that Mr. Shridhar Naidu and Mr. Pramod Sulakhe

forced and pressurized the Party I/Workman to resign from the Union membership, when refused, he was

asked to go out of the Factory and was refused employment w.e.f. 14/02/2023.

4. The Party I thereafter raised an industrial dispute before DLC, Margao. Thereafter, the Party II issued

him a Transfer Letter dated 13/02/2023. That without prejudice to the grounds, defence and rights of the

Party I/Workman, the Party I/Workman travelled to Mumbai to join his duty at the place of transfer in

Mumbai, however the In-charge Mr. Vijendra Auti informed of the Party I/Workman that there is no work

available and that he has been instructed not to allow Party I and his other colleagues to report to duties.

5. The Party I states that by not allowing Party I to report at the transferred place despite having been

transferred to the said place, that he has been illegally refused employment and the Transfer Letter dated

13/02/2023 is illegal, unjust and bad in law, hence the reference.

6. The Party II in its Written Statement filed at Exhibit 6, the Party II submitted that there exists no

dispute for adjudication as Party I has abandoned his duties on his own after reporting for his duties at the

transferred place in Mumbai. The Party II denied that the Transfer Orders are as by way of harassment and

victimization as alleged. It is also denied that they have been issued illegal Transfer Letters as alleged. It is

submitted that the Manangement of Party II has not engaged in illegal act of refusal of employment as

alleged. It is denied that the Transfer Letter dated 13/02/2023, is illegal, unjust and bad in law and as an act of

harassment, victimization done with malice and malafide intentions which is an act of unfair labour practice

done in violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act when the industrial disputes were pending

before the Office of the labour Commissioner in conciliation as alleged by Party I. It is denied that the

Transfer Letter issued to Party I was an after-thought defence to justify and cover-up illegal refusal of

employment as alleged.

7. The Party I in his Rejoinder filed at Exhibit 7 denied the defence taken by Party II in their Written

Statement and maintained and reiterated the facts stated in his Claim Statement.

8. Considering the pleadings of both the Parties this Tribunal framed issues on 18/11/2024 at Exhibit 9.

The issues read as under:

ISSUES

Whether the Party I/Workman proves that the action of Party II/Company in transferring the

services of Shri Amarnath Kamble to Marksans Research and Development Centre located at Navi

Mumbai, Maharashtra w.e.f. 13-02-2023 is malafide, illegal and bad in law and whether it amounts

to an act of unfair labour practice, harassment and victimisation?

Whether Party II/Company proves that the Party I/Workman is not workman as defined u/s. 2(S) of

the I. D. Act, 1947?

Whether Party II/Company proves that the Party I/Workman has abandoned his services

voluntarily?

Whether Party II/Company proves that this Hon’ble Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the

present industrial dispute?

What Order? What Relief?

9. When the matter came up for evidence, Party I/Workman Shri Amarnath Kamble examined himself

and filed his Affidavit in Evidence at Exhibit 13 and produced on record all the relevant and material

1252

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

documents in support of his Claim and the matter was fixed for the cross-examination of Shri Kamble on the

next date of hearing. On 11-08-2025, Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar filed an application for withdrawal along with

Memorandum of Settlement at Exhibit 43 Colly. Opportunity was granted to the Party I/Workman to give his

say on Exh. 43 Colly however despite given opportunity Party I did not file his say on Exh. 43 Colly. Hence,

this Tribunal passed the Order on Exh. 43 Colly accepting the terms of compromise and ordered to pass the

following Award.

10. This Settlement has been arrived at under Section 2(p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 which is at Exh. 43Collywhich has been agreed and duly signed by both the Parties along

with their representatives.

The terms of Settlement are as follows:

a. The Employer states that they have already paid all the dues to Shri Amarnath Kamble vide bank

transfer on 22-07-2025, total amount of Rs. 93,270/- (Rupees ninety three thousand two hundred and

seventy only) as full and final settlement of all his legal dues as per the terms of his appointment letter

which he has duly received and acknowledged.

b. The Management further agreed to pay him the gratuity amount of Rs. 55,731/- (Rupees fifty five

thousand seven hundred and thirty one only).

c. The Management further agreed to assist him withdrawal/transfer of his PF dues with the necessary

compliance with the Provident Fund Corporation.

d. In view of the above, Shri Amarnath Kamble agreed that his all dues are cleared and his dispute with

the Employer/Management is conclusively settled and he is having no claim of whatsoever nature

against the Employer/Management.

e. Shri Amarnath Kamble further agreed that he will not file any further claim against the Management

company before any Court of law as he is no longer interested in working for the Management

company as he is presently interested in taking alternate employment.

f. That Shri Amarnath Kambel further stated that he does not wish to pursue his matter that is case before

the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court bearing Ref. IT/09/2024, Application bearing No.13/2023 before

the Labour Court-II and Charter of Demands matter bearing No.IT/15/2023. He shall submit this

Memorandum of Settlement for the records of the said Court requesting the Hon’ble Judge/Presiding

Officer of the said Tribunal/Court to pass an Award in terms of this Settlement and treat the said

reference as duly settled and that this agreement is voluntarily executed by him out of his own free will

and without any coercion.

g. That Shri Amarnath Kamble agrees to file application before the appropriate courts on their respective

dates of hearing. It is also agreed that if needed both Parties shall file joint application to treat the said

application/reference case in Ref. No. 09/2024, Appln. No. 13/2023 and Ref. No. IT/15/2023 as duly

settled or for passing no dispute award and also to withdraw the applications filed by Mr. Kamble as no

industrial dispute exists/survives.

h. In view of the above, it is agreed that the issue/dispute between both the Parties is conclusively settled.

Shri Amarnath Kamble hereby agrees and undertakes not to act or cause to act against the interest of

the company directly or indirectly in the future. It is agreed that Shri Amarnath Kamble has

relinquished and waived all his claims and demand for reinstatement, re-employment, monies or other

claims on receipt of the amount of Rs. 93,270/- under this settlement.

i. In view of the above terms, Shri Amarnath Kamble agrees to withdraw all the

applications/cases/complaints etc. filed by him or on his behalf against the management company with

Labour Court/Labour Commissioner or any other Court, Government/Non-Government or statutory

authority/authorities as all the disputes between both the Parties are treated as conclusively settled.

j. The Management also agreed to issue Experience Certificate to Shri Amarnath Kamble as per his

request which will assist him in taking up new employment.

k. In view of above, it is further agreed that all the issues/disputes between both the Parties are

conclusively settled and both the Parties do not have any claim of whatsoever nature against each

other.

11. I have gone through the application dated 22-07-2025 along with the Memorandum of Settlement at

Exh. 43 Colly filed on record duly signed by both the Parties. The terms of settlement are acceptable to both

1253

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

the Parties which in my view, are just and fair to bring about harmony and industrial peace. As such the

Settlement is accepted.

In view of above, I pass the following Order:

ORDER

(i)

The reference at the instance of both the Parties stands disposed off in view of the Settlement

arrived at by both the Parties at Exhibit 43 Colly.

(ii)

No order as to costs.

(iii)

Inform the Government accordingly.

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

Panaji.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Personnel

Order

On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order transfer and

posting of the following Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with immediate effect:-

Sl.

No.

Name and present posting of the officer

Posted as

Shri Manthan Manoj Naik, Under Secretary (Home-II) with

additional charge of Under Secretary (ARD) and Under

Secretary, Finance (DMU)

Under Secretary (Home-I) with

additional

charge

Under

Secretary (Home-II)

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

Under Secretary (ARD)

Shri Omkar Asolkar, Under Secretary (Protocol) shall hold the charge of Under Secretary, Finance

(Budget) in addition to his own duties.

Shri Shreyas Dsilva, Under Secretary (GA-I) holding additional charge of Under Secretary (GA-III) shall

also hold the charge of Under Secretary (GA-IV) in addition to his own duties.

Smt. Shweta Harmalkar alias Smt. Sweta Gurav, Under Secretary (GA-II) shall hold the charge of Under

Secretary, Finance (DMU) in addition to her own duties.

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.

No. 5/1/2025-PER/3490

Date : 18-Nov-2025

1254

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

Order

The Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint Shri Shakeel UI Rehman Rather, IAS (AGMUT:2013) as

Secretary to Government, with immediate effect.

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

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

Porvorim.

_____________

Order

Read: Order No. 7/5/2015-PER/2661 dated 02-09-2025.

In continuation to the order cited in the preamble, the following shall be the standing arrangement of

Link Secretary for disposal of work relating to Departments under their charge during his/her absence due to

tour/training/leave/transfer unless specific orders are otherwise issued.

Sr.

No.

Name & Designation

1^st Link Secretary

2^nd Link Secretary

Shri Polumatla P. Abhishek, IAS

(2017)

Secretary (Science, Technology and

Waste Management)

1. Science, Technology and Waste

Management

2. Director (Transport)

3. Managing Director, Goa

Industrial Development

Corporation Ltd.

Shri Prasanna A. Acharya, IAS

(2016), Secretary (Fisheries)

(except Sr. No. 2 & 3)

Shri Santosh G. Sukhadeve, IAS

(2017), Secretary (Industries, Trade

& Commerce) (except Sr. No. 2 &

Ms. Ankita Mishra, IAS (2018)

Secretary (Protocol)

1. Protocol

2. General Administration

3. Museum

4. CEO, Goa CSR Authority

Shri Santosh G. Sukhadeve, IAS

(2017), Secretary (Industries,

Trade & Commerce)

Shri Arjun Mohan, IAS (2019),

Secretary to Governor

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

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

Porvorim.

___________

Order

On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer

and posting of the following Senior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with immediate

effect:-

No. 7/17/2022-PER/3568

Date : 26-Nov-2025

No. 7/5/2015-PER/3577

Date : 24-Nov-2025

No. 6/5/2023-PER/3639

Date : 28-Nov-2025

1255

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

Sr.

No.

Name & Designation

Departments

Shri Sarpreet Singh Gill, IAS (2009)

Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Water Resources)

1. Water Resources

2. Environment

3. Information & Publicity

4. Social Welfare

5. Planning & Statistics

6. Commissioner of State Taxes

Shri Sanjiv M. Gadkar, IAS (2013)

Secretary (Civil Supplies)

1. Civil Supplies

2. Factories and Boilers

3. Legal Metrology

4. Town & Country Planning

5. Nodal Officer, India Energy Week, 2026

Sr.

No.

Name and present posting of the officer

Posted as

Shri Damodar S. Morajkar, Managing Director,

Goa Handicrafts Rural & Small Scale Industries

Development Corporation

Chief Executive Officer, North Goa Zilla

Panchayat

Smt. Asha Harmalkar, awaiting posting

Member Secretary, Ravindra Bhawan, Margao

w.e.f. 01-12-2025 on superannuation of Smt.

Swati Dalvi on 30-11-2025

Shri Gauresh Ashok Pilgaonkar, Managing Director, Goa Energy Development Agency shall hold the

charge of Managing Director, Goa Handicrafts Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation in

addition to his own duties.

The officers appointed on ex-cadre deputation posts shall be governed by the standard terms of

deputation, as amended from time to time.

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.

_________________

Notification

Read:-

1. Notification No. 7/27/2022-PER/21 dated 03-01-2024.

2. Notification No. 7/17/2022-PER/187 dated 16-01-2025.

3. Notification No. 7/17/2022-PER/1620 dated 30-05-2025.

4. Notification No. 7/27/2022-PER/1899 dated 20-06-2025.

5. Notification No. 7/17/2022-PER/2031 dated 02-07-2025.

6. Notification No. 7/17/2022-PER/2568 dated 19-08-2025.

7. Notification No. 7/17/2022-PER/3294 dated 30-10-2025.

In partial modification to the Notifications read in the preamble, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order

allocation of work/Departments amongst the following Secretaries to the Government, with immediate

effect:-

No. 7/17/2022-PER/3569

Date : 26-Nov-2025

1256

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

Shri Yetindra M. Maralkar, IAS (2013)

Secretary (Health)

1. Health

2. Women & Child Development

3. Urban Development

4. Nodal Officer SBM(U) and PMAY(U).

Shri Shakeel UI Rehman Rather, IAS (2013)

Secretary (Co-operation)

1. Co-operation

2. Printing & Stationery

3. Transport

4. Secretary, Goa State Commission for Protection

of Child Rights

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

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

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Revenue

Notification

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1988 (Goa Act 22 of 1988) read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No.

10 of 1897), the Government of Goa hereby amends the Government Notification No. 24/2/87-RD (Part)/332

dated 21-04-2020, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 6 dated 07-05-2020 (hereinafter referred to

as the “principal Notification”), as follows, namely:-

In the principal Notification, in the Schedule, for the existing entries against Serial No. 2, the following

entries shall be substituted, namely:-

“2. Deputy General Manager (Legal), Goa Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Panaji-Goa”.

This Notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

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

Agnelo D’souza, Under Secretary (Revenue-II).

Porvorim.

No. 24/2/87-RD(Part)/7665

Date : 26-Nov-2025

1257

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 36

04TH DECEMBER, 2025

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published by the Director, Printing & Stationary,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

Price—Rs. 25.00

PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—325/80-12/2025.