Note: There are three Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 5 dated 2-5-2025, as follows:-
1. Extraordinary dated 2-5-2025 from pages 243-244 regarding Notification from Goa State Election Commission.
2. Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 3-5-2025 from pages 245-246 regarding Notification from Department of General Administration.
3. Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 6-5-2025 from pages 247-254 regarding Instructions from Department of Finance.
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Education
Directorate of Technical Education College Section
Order
Smt. Harsha Mandurkar, Assistant Professor in Fine Art (Painting), Goa College of Art, Altinho, Panaji-
Goa shall hold the charge of Principal, Goa College of Art in addition to her own duties with effect from
31/03/2025 (a. n.), until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director of Technical Education and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary.
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆
Order
On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission conveyed vide their letter No.
COM/II/11/12/33(1)/2022/454 dated 13/03/2025 the Government of Goa is pleased to declare the following
Group ‘A’ Gazetted Officer of Goa College of Pharmacy, Panaji-Goa who have satisfactorily completed his
probation period and confirm him in the post with effect from date mentioned in the respective column against
his name.
Sr.
No.
Name of the
incumbent
Designation
Date of
confirmation
Appointment order No.
and date
Date of joining
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.
Dr. Madhusudan
P. Joshi
Associate
Professor in
Pharmacology
28/06/2011
No. DTE/ADC/11/1/41/
2007/Pt. II/3284 dated
27/02/2009 and
29/06/2009
8/1/81/Charge/GCA/DTE/2019/3922
Date: 10-Mar-2025
11/4/59/2001-DTE/GCP/PF-I/158
Date: 11-Apr-2025
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
255
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Panaji, 08th May, 2025 (Vaisakha 18, 1947)
SERIES II No. 6
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
,,,,
No. 11/4/71/09/JMP/ DTE/976
dated 13/07/2009
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Dr. Vivek B. Kamat, Director of Technical Education & Ex-Officio Addl. Secretary.
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆◆◆
Department of Fisheries
Directorate of Fisheries
Order
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 4 of the Goa Marine Fishing
Regulation Act, 1980 (Act No. 3 of 1981), the Government of Goa, having regard to the need to conserve fish,
hereby prohibits fishing by fishing vessels fitted with mechanical means of propulsion and by means of trawl-
net and purse-seine net, except fishing by registered motorized canoes using gill nets only, and fitted with
outboard or inboard motors, of upto 10 HP capacity, as a means of propulsion, along the sea coast of the State
of Goa and the territorial waters of the State of Goa, with effect from 1st June, 2025 till 31st July, 2025 (both
days inclusive).
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Yashaswini B, IAS, Director (Fisheries).
Panaji.
..................................................................................
◆◆◆
Department of General Administration
Notification
In pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 40A of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Goa Act No. 14 of
1994) the Government of Goa hereby declares Sunday, the 11th May, 2025 (Vaisakha 21, Saka 1947) as a
“paid holiday” being the “Polling Day” for the Bye Election to Ward No. I of Village Panchayat Tivim and
Ward No. VII of Village Panchayat Assonora, Taluka Bardez, North Goa District and Ward No. I of Village
Panchayat Chicalim, Taluka Mormugao, South Goa District in the State of Goa for the voters of the said Bye
Elections.
The aforesaid paid holiday shall be in addition to the holidays indicated in the Government Notification
No. 37/3/2024-GAD-III/4247 dated 22/10/2024, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 30 dated
24/10/2024, to the workers of the following establishments, provided that they are the voters for the aforesaid
Bye Elections.
(i) industrial workers of the State of Goa;
(ii) daily wage workers of the Government Departments and State Government Industrial Departments;
(iii) commercial and industrial workers of private establishments in the State of Goa;
(iv) workers of all private establishments;
(v) daily wage/casual workers employed in any business, trade, industrial undertakings or any other
establishments;
No. 2-1-81-FSH
Date: 05-May-2025
37/3/2019-GAD-III/1639
Date: 02-May-2025
256
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
(vi) workers of the institutions governed under the explanation to Section 25 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 (Act 26 of 1881).
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Shreyas Dsilva, Under Secretary (GA-I).
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆◆◆
Department of Home
Home-General Division
Notification
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 162 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(Central Act No. 46 of 2023), the Government of Goa, hereby designates all District Magistrates, within their
jurisdiction, to issue order to any person not to repeat or continue a public nuisance, as defined in the
Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (Central Act No. 45 of 2023) or any special or local law.
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.
Manthan Manoj Naik, Under Secretary (Home-II).
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆◆◆
Department of Labour
Notification
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 61 read with sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 17A of the Goa Shops and Establishment Act, 1973 (Goa Act 13 of 1974), the Government of Goa,
hereby exempts M/s. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited, Acacia Palms Resort (Unit of Tonia Estate
& Resorts Private Limited) from the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 17A of the said Act, for a period
of two years from the date of issue of this Notification, subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(1) Employment between the hours of 7.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. shall be with the consent in writing of the
concerned women worker.
(2) Employment of women employee shall be on rotation basis.
(3)
The provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 (Central Act No. 14 of 2013) and the Goa Shops and Establishment Act, 1973 or
any other law in force, as applicable to the Establishment, shall be complied with.
(4)
No women worker shall be employed against the maternity benefit provisions laid down under the
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 or any other law in force.
(5)
Adequate and separate transportation facilities accompanied by security guard shall be provided to
the women worker to pick up and drop such worker at her residence. However, careful selection of
routes shall be made in such a way that no women employee shall be picked up first and dropped last.
(6)
The workplace including passage towards conveniences or facilities concerning toilet, washrooms,
drinking water, entry and exit of women workers shall be well-lit.
(7)
CCTV cameras shall be provided and maintained in the work areas where women workers will be
employed.
(8)
Shall provide safe, secure and healthy working condition such that no women worker is
disadvantaged in connection with her employment.
25/03/2025-Conf-Powers/HD(G)/BNSS/1159
Date: 05-May-2025
26/11/2025-LAB/296
Date: 29-Apr-2025
257
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
(9)
If any Establishment fails to comply with the above conditions, it may lead to cancellation of the
Registration Certificate and/or withdrawal of the above exemption in respect of such Establishment.
(10)
The exemption granted may be revoked at any time without prior notice.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆
Order
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase IV, Verna Industrial
Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa and it’s workman, Mr. Ramchandra Gurunath Parab, in respect of the matter
specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute
for adjudication to the Labour Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of
the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private Limited, Plot
No. N4, Phase IV, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa, in dismissing Mr. Ramchandra
Gurunath Parab, Senior Production Welder, with effect from 12/02/2024, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆
Order
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Centaur Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Plant-II, Plot No. 39-41, Tivim Industrial
Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa and it’s workman, Shri Rahul Ratnakar Shetkar, in respect of the matter
specified in the Schedule hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute
for adjudication to the Labour Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of
the said Act.
SCHEDULE
(1)
Whether the action of the management of M/s. Centaur Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Plant-II,
Plot No. 39-41, Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa, in dismissing the services of Shri
Rahul Ratnakar Shetkar, Junior QC Officer, with effect from 19/11/2024, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim.
28/11/2025-LAB/299
Date: 30-Apr-2025
28/10/2025-LAB/300
Date: 30-Apr-2025
258
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
..................................................................................
◆
Order
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Indus Cama, Plot No. 80-85, Bicholim Industrial Estate, Bicholim, Goa and it’s
workmen, represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule
hereto;
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.
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. Indus Cama, Plot No. 80-85, Bicholim Industrial Estate,
Bicholim, Goa, in refusing to consider the following demands raised by Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh on
behalf of the workers employed in said establishment/factory, is legal and justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
1.
Demand No. 1: PAY SCALES:-
Grades:
Grade I:
5000-150-5750-175-6620-200-7625-225-8750-250-10000-275-11375-300-12875.
Grade II:
5500-185-6425-210-7475-235-8650-260-9950-285-11375-310-12925-335-14600.
Grade III:
6000-225-7125-250-8375-275-9750-300-11250-325-12875-350-14625-375-16500.
2.
Demand No. 2: FLAT RISE:-
It is demanded by the Union that all the workmen shall be given the flat rise of Rs. 3500/- the said
amounts shall be added to the existing basic and thereafter fitted in the revised pay scale in the higher stage.
3.
Demand No. 3: SENIORITY INCREMENTS:-
It is demanded by the Union that the workmen shall be given Seniority increments as mentioned
below:
Service up to 3 years: One Increment.
Service from 3 years to 6 years: Two Increments.
Service from 6 years to 9 years: Three Increments.
Service from 9 years to 12 years: Four Increments.
Service from 12 years to 15 years: Five Increments.
Service above 15 years: Six Increments
4.
Demand No. 4: VARIABLE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE (VDA) :-
It is demanded by the Union that the VDA shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 3/- per point rise
above Rs. 6500 points (1960=100) the computation of VDA shall be made quarterly based as per
existing system.
5.
Demand No. 5: FIXED DEARNESS ALLOWANCE (FDA):-
It is demanded by the Union that all the existing FDA shall be revised by adding Rs. 2500/- to the
existing FDA.
6.
Demand No. 6: HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE (HRA):-
28/06/2025-LAB/304
Date: 05-May-2025
259
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
It is demanded by the Union that HRA shall be paid at the revised rate of 30% of Basic, and Dearness
Allowance, as the cost of accommodation is very high in Goa due to Tourist State.
7.
Demand No. 7: CHILDREN EDUCATION ALLOWANCE:-
It is demanded by the Union that the Children Education Allowance shall be paid by adding an amount
of Rs.1000/- to existing allowance per month.
8.
Demand No. 8: CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE:-
It is demanded by the Union that the Conveyance Allowance shall be revised by adding Rs.1000/- to
the existing Conveyance Allowance.
9.
Demand No. 9: PAID HOLIDAYS:-
It is demanded by the Union that all the workmen shall be granted paid holidays at rate 15 days per
year. Union further demands that the festival holidays that fall on weekly off day shall be changed to
next day or one day earlier, which shall be finalized in consultation with the Union.
10. Demand No. 10: LEAVE:-
It is demanded by the Union that all the workers shall be given leave on following basis:
(A) Earned Leave: Union demands that all the workmen shall be given earned Leave at the rate 30 days
E.L per year with accumulation up to 120 days and leave shall be allowed to take 10 times in a
year.
(B) Casual Leave: Union demands that all the workmen shall be given casual Leave at the rate of 15
days per year with encashment facility.
(C) Sick Leave: Union demands that all the workmen shall be given Sick Leave at the rate of 24 days
per year with an accumulation of 78 days.
11. Demand No. 11: LEAVE TRAVEL ASSISTANCE (LTA):-
It is demanded by the Union that LTA shall be paid at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per annum with minimum
of four earned days leave. The amount shall be paid one week before the commencement of leave.
12. Demand No. 12: FESTIVAL ADVANCE:-
It is demanded by the Union that all the workman shall be granted festival advance once in a year at the
time of festival of one month salary each to meet the additional expenses incurred by him for such festival
and the same shall be recovered in 10 equal installments.
13. Demand No. 13: BONUS/EX GRATIA:-
It is demanded by the Union that all the workers shall be paid Bonus/Ex-gratia at the rate of 20% of
gross wages every year, before Ganesh Festival.
14. Demand No. 14: SUPPLY OF UNIFORM:-
It is demanded by the Union that two sets of cotton uniform shall be supplied to each workmen every
year.
15. Demand No. 15: WASHING ALLOWANCE:-
It is demanded by the Union that all the workmen shall be paid Rs. 500/- per month to meet the
washing expenses.
16. Demand No. 16: ACCIDENT LEAVE:-
It is demanded by the Union that whenever workmen met with an accident while on duty his/her period
of such absence shall be granted special full pay leave.
(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.
..................................................................................
260
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
◆
Notification
The following Award passed by the Labour Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 27/03/2025 in Case No. Ref. LC-
II/IT/02/2024 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 LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
PANAJI-GOA
(BEFORE SHRI SURESH N. NARULKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)
Case. No. LC-II/IT/02/2024
Shri. Krushna Chandra Panda,
C-102, Jai Residency, Behind SBI Branch, Evershine City,
Vasai East, Palghar, Maharashtra (401208)
….
Workman/Party I.
V/s
The Managing Director,
M/s. Gopaldas Visram & Company Ltd.,
Plot No. B-56, Kundaim Industrial Estate,
Kundaim, Goa (403115).
….
.
Employer/Party II.
Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri. S. Kamat.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri. S. Pathak.
PANAJI, DATED: 27/03/2025.
AWARD
1.
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, by Order dated 14/03/2024,
bearing No. 28/03/2024-Lab/178 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Labour Court-II
of Goa at Panaji, Goa.
“(1) Whether Shri Krushna Chandra Panda, Works Manager, could be construed as “Workman” as
defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the affirmative, then, what the action of the
management of M/s. Gopaldas Visram and Company Limited, B-56, Kundaim Industrial
Estate, Kundaim, Goa in terminating the services of Shri Krushna Chandra Panda, w.e.f.
13/04/2023, is legal and justified?”
(3) If the answer to issue No. (2) above is in negative, then what relief the workman is entitled to?”
2.
On receipt of the reference, a case was registered under No. LC-II/IT/02/2024 and registered A/D notice
was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to the said notice, the Parties put in their appearance. The
Workman/Party-I (for short ‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on 24/04/2024 at Exhibit 7. The
facts of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/Party-II (for short
“Employer”) is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered
office at 16, Shamaldas Gandhi Marg, Mumbai 4000002. He stated that the Employer is manufacturing
of DMF grade plastics bottles and caps for pharma sector. He stated that he had approached the
Employer for services in July, 2022. He stated that he is well qualified worker both academically and
28/02/2025-LAB/303
Date: 05-May-2025
261
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
technically (Science Graduate with PGD in plastics engineering from Central Institute of Plastics
engineering and technology (CIPET) and also an MBA-Operations Management Graduate having 25
years of work experience) originally hailing from Odisha. He stated that he was working as “Works
Manager” with the Employer at their Kundaim plant. He stated that he had undertaken various initiatives
to repair and run efficiently the idle and under breakdown capital assets such as screw compressor, Air
handing unit, defective moulds that were lying neglected for 4-5 years. He stated that he had introduced
daily production report to monitor work performance for improvement. He stated that he had suggested
to use liquid soaps and hand sanitizers after every toilet use to improve workers hygiene as the
Employer’s products are mainly supplied to the major pharma companies. He stated that he had
introduced preventive maintenance protocol of moulds and tools for efficient working during their
production run. He stated that there was no drinking water storage facility for the worker and employees
in the employer’s plant and he had taken immediate action and arranged it within 15 days of joining. He
stated that the Lizards and other insects were roaming inside the production zones which is completely
flouting the US and Canada FDA norms and current good manufacturing practices in compliance to the
Pharma CGMP requirement. He stated that he was the first to take initiative to find all such lapses and
strengthen the CGMP. He stated that there are mainly such good initiatives which he has taken to
highlight work performance and dedication to the responsibilities.
3.
He stated that the previous Work Manager Mr. Satya Srinivas got promoted to the position of General
Manager and was deputed to the new plant of the Employer that was under construction at Halol,
Baroda, Gujarat before 5-6 months of joining. He stated that he was urgently offered to join the Goa
plant of Employer instead of the upcoming new plant at Halol. He stated that he was performing
efficiently and there was absolutely no issue with regard to his work and conduct. He stated that some of
his good initiatives taken for the betterment of the Employer and to excel plant performance caused an
eyesore and jealousy to Mr. Satya Srinivas and Mr. Sanjeev Seth, the Vice-President of the Employer. He
stated that the Managing Director (Hon’ble Chairman of the Employer) had asked the reason to the
General Manager Mr. Satya Srinivas about his negligence/no action done for the same work in the past
by him during his 5 years working as works manager. He stated that for the aforesaid reason Mr. Satya
Srinivas developed a personal grudge against him. He stated that Mr. Satya Srinivas fixed term contract
was about to expire on 11/05/2023. He stated that the Chairman of the Employer was not interested to
renew and extend his fixed term contract beyond 11/05/2023. He stated that on 17/03/2023 he was also
invited to travel to Halol Baroda, accompanying with seven other plant officials to attend the opening
ceremony of new plant thereon 18/03/2023. He stated that the Employer had arranged their stay at a
good hotel and travel around few local visiting places including statue of unity etc. He stated that his VP
Mr. Sanjeev Seth had even was offered him two silver coins engraved with GVCL logo as a token of
good performer as Halol Hotel. He stated that one silver coin was himself and the VP Mr. Sanjeev Seth
to him to give another coin to the quality head.
4.
He stated that during the trip to Halol, Mr. Satya Srinivas had told that he had resigned from the services
and his last day with the Employer was 11/05/2023 and he would join a new company. He stated that on
around 21/03/2023 Mr. Satya Srinivas again called him on his number and said that his resignation has
been accepted and it is now confirmed that he had to leave the Employer Company. He stated that till
31/03/2023, there was absolutely no issue as he had felt and believed. He stated that however on
01/04/2023 for the first time he smelt and sensed some kind of stiff and opposition, resistance, ulterior
motive and dislike from Mr. Satya and Mr. Sanjeev of his good initiatives being undertaken to rectify old
issues pertaining with the moulds and tools that were causing serious products quality issues. He stated
that since March, 2020 during Corona lockdown one screw compressor was under breakdown on 3-4
years. He stated that he took the initiative to repair it and got it to run within 20 days of his joining. He
stated that being work manager it was his responsibility to do take necessary corrective action to
improve product quality and plant performance. He stated that he did the actions only to ensure that no
one should questioned him in future and to achieve the plant performance. He stated that but under the
misguidance, backbiting and wrong narrative by Mr. Satya Srinivas from Halol Baroda, the Vice
President Mr. Sanjeev Seth who was then away to South Africa on a personal tour sent to him a
surprising email on 01/04/2023 questioning his remedial action of mould problems to discourage him
and diminish his good work and asked him to not take any initiatives without Mr. Satya’s approval as an
attempt to high and cover up the past performance, mistake and negligence. He stated that he had always
taken all the actions after consultation with all the team members including Mr. Satya Srinivas. He stated
that Mr. Satya Srinivas stated in the email dated January, 2023 that the rectification in the concerned
262
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
mould G-024 was not possible and suggested to make new mould instead with financial investment. He
stated that he went ahead with rectification of the old mould and given to understand later after his exist,
the issues with the mould/tool G-024 has been better/ improve because of his action undertaken earlier
before the sudden termination of his services.
5.
He stated that the Chairman of the Employer had come to Goa to visit to the plant on 04/04/2023. He
stated that he was invited by him to have a breakfast with him together in the hotel Sun Inn, Ponda. He
stated that the Chairman had visited the plant along with him. He stated that the Chairman expressed his
happiness before living to Mumbai. He stated that after returning from the personal vacation trip from
South Africa, the VP of the Employer called him on 09/04/2023 around 11 a.m. He stated that the V.P.
questioned him that why did he marked email copy to the MD as like he questioned him so in the past
many times not marked any report to the MD. He stated that his reporting authority as per the letter of
appointment was the Chairman/MD. He stated that it was his duty and responsibility to report Chairman,
on every important plant matters. He stated that but the VP Mr. Sanjeev wanted him to hide. He stated
that there are many such matters where he had been questioned by the VP as well as his subordinate that
why did he report to the MD and he was constantly being subjected to such unwanted interference. He
stated that he had tolerated everything and was working with patience. He stated that he politely told
them if he doesn’t report important matters to the MD now who is going to be answerable if something
untowards happens in the plant tomorrow.
6.
He stated that there was a shortage of manpower towards the end of March/1st week of April as the
school and college examinations were over and workers had gone on leave. He stated that because of
this, the bottles being produced were not checked fully on daily basis. He stated that the computerized
camera enabled vision systems installed at each machine to check the bottles were not working properly
since his joining. He stated that he had already initiated action to validate and calibrate all the vision
systems so that the checking and packing of the bottles could be done efficiently and time being. He
stated that however because of this some checking and packing backlogs get accumulated. He stated that
the colleague Mr. Jeetendra Gurjar, first responsible person (FPR), for production who was supposed to
take care of the checking and packing a job, didn’t either work efficiently or intentionally/deliberately
being taken action and went on leave. He stated that instead of trying to clear the backlog, he shared the
images of backlog to Mr. Satya Srinivas and Mr. Sanjeev Seth with some ulterior motives to create chaos
in the plant. He stated that he had taken steps sent and suggested ideas to get the backlogs finished such
as by allocating extra over time to the checking and packing worker and utilizing the camera in enabled
vision systems installed in the production zones where the production was not running there at that time.
He stated that on 11th April, Mr. Sanjeev and Mr. Satya suddenly made a surprise visit to the Goa plant
by flight without giving him any information about their visit plan and took images of backlogs
accumulated only in 2-3 production zones out of 21production zones in the early morning and misguided
to the Managing Director.
7.
He stated that the backlog was a normal problem in the plant routine affairs. He stated that the
production was looked after by the production manager Mr. Jitendra Gurjar and it was his main
responsibility. He stated that Mr. Jitendra Gurjar was paid a handsome salary of Rs.70-80 thousands per
month for the job and had been working with the Employer, for the last 2-3 years. But no question to
him was made. He stated that there were valid reasons for the backlogs also. He stated that there were
such backlogs in the past too for many occasions when Mr. Satya Srinivas himself was stationed there as
works manager in the Goa plant. He stated that but then there was no big noise, no photography made
and shared with the MD. He stated that but this time he was blamed selectively to make him a scapegoat
in retaliation. He stated that the VP Mr. Sanjeev and the General Manager Mr. Satya Srinivas of the
Employer misguided to the MD against him (Party I) for the backlog and pressed for his immediate
termination while the MD was trying to save him in defending him. He stated that but they both
continued to put pressure on the respected Chairman for 2-3 days. He stated that the VP had clearly
threatened by calling him (Party I) on 9th April 2023, Sunday saying him, “he and the MD now take care
the business and he is stepping down immediately” and the same arm-twisting tactics he applied to the
respected MD Sir too. He further stated that the Chairman tried to save him and advised to clear the
backlogs as early as possible. He stated that on 12-Apr-2023, the day before the illegal termination, the
Chairman had already spoken to him and given him 7 days’ time to clear the backlog and report him
once the backlog is cleared. He stated that he has the voice note recording with Party-I to substantiate his
innocence. He stated that further, there was no simple questioning to either the very old and first
responsible person Mr. Jitendra Gurjar or to the contractors of the manpower suppliers who were
263
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
providing contractual checking workers. He stated that Arbitrary, ultimate and harshest punishment was
selectively taken against him only. He stated that the Employer had no workers in their muster roll and
totally dependent on the contractors manpower. He stated that the checking and packing job is not
seasonal or temporary. He stated that it’s permanent and regular job/activity. He stated that throughout
the year, the bottles and caps are produced to supply to the Pharma companies. He stated that checking
and packing of the said manufactured bottles and caps is required all the times throughout the year. He
stated that however, on 13th April, the VP again tried to pressurize the Chairman and said the backlog
accumulated was due to his inefficiency and urged him to terminate his services on spot immediately. He
stated that the Chairman called up him and asked him, that had he informed the manpower issue to either
him or anybody else in the Head Office. He stated that he had always informed about the manpower
shortage including Mr. Sanjeev Seth, VP, VP’s team member Ms. Nisha and even to the Chairman. He
stated that he had informed this in email dated 5th April and 7th April apart from verbal discussions. He
stated that Mr. Sanjeev Seth’s team member Ms. Nisha was pressurizing him to run all the machines
while he had suggested to run only those urgent machines with respect to manpower availability and till
the accumulated backlogs get cleared. He stated that Ms. Nisha had insisted him to run all the machines
and suggested him to clear the backlogs later. He stated that but unfortunately, within one hour after the
phone call with the respected Chairman, he was asked to come in the conference hall by another
employee Mr. Sachin who is working with M/s. GBC, a sister concern of the Employer.
8.
He stated that he was given the termination letter mentioning poor work performance and mismatch to
the position and took away the laptop, mobile phone and with 15 minutes he was out of the Employer
Company being escorted by the security guard. He further stated that in the appointment letter, it’s
agreed that during probation period there is one month’s notice period and after 6 months the notice
period is of 2 months. He stated that the Employer although said at the time of termination that to pay
and clear his all legal dues including adequate notice pay, didn’t pay anything except paying 13 days
salary. He stated that he was expecting that the Employer Company might ask him to come back to work
after few days. He stated that after waiting 5-6 days, on 18th April, 2023, he approached to the HR
Manager Ms. Kiran for reinstatement. He stated that she replied arrogantly that the termination decision
is irreversible and whatever dues were to be paid to him has already been paid on 13th April itself and
further no dues were pending and asked him that he can approach any authority he wants to.
9.
He stated that he decided to register his grievance with the Labour and Employment department and sent
an email to the respected Labour Commissioner, Panaji. He stated that he personally met with the
Labour Inspector Mr. Karkare at the labour office, Ponda to whom he had known when he was
representing on behalf of the company to resolve labour related non-compliance matter. He stated that
after the labour inspector Mr. Karkare’s intervention and they paid him some amount that he had
received under predicament, duress. He stated that after 5-6 reconciliation meetings held at the Labour
office, Ponda-Goa over 5-6 months, respected ALC, Ponda concluded the failure reconciliation report on
dt.24-Nov-2023.He submitted that there was no tiny issue or complaint raised against him during his
working tenure with the Employer. He submitted that he was never informed by anyone for any poor or
bad performance and work deficiency. He submitted that he was never served with a performance
improvement plan (PIP) to improve his performance as alleged in the termination letter. He submitted
that there was no written memo or charge sheet or warning issued against him. He submitted that he was
never given any opportunity to present his sides.
10. He submitted that he was never told about any performance shortcomings and provided ample of
opportunities for improvement before inflicting the absolute and harshest punishment or illegal
termination. He submitted that the termination of his services was done and liberty was made to bend
upon the arbitrary will of few company officials who had become jealous. He submitted that they wanted
him to be out so that the fixed contract of Mr. Satya Srinivas could be extended as the chairman was not
keen and interested to retain him (Mr. Satya Srinivas) more and extend his services beyond 11-May-
2023. He submitted that his illegal termination was also planned in support with the Vice President as
they had thought that once he got removed from the position, the chairman would be revise Mr. Satya
Srinivas’s fixed term contract and extend his service. He submitted that the Chairman was so unhappy
with his performance that he did’nt extend his service even though they were successful in terminating
his services suddenly. He submitted that there have also been similar many arbitrary and unjustified
termination in the last 1-2 years in the history of Goa plant under the arbitrary influence and insistence
of Mr. Satya Srinivas and Mr. Sanjeev Seth. He submitted that the Employer, apart from carrying out an
unethical, unfair and illegal termination, tried to deny and clear whatsoever the dues to settle the dispute
264
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
amicably and gracefully. He submitted that as per the employment norms, the Employer was supposed to
clear the full and final dues including adequate compensation in 2 days, but the Employer Company
violated grossly, and whatever sum the Employer paid to him that was done after the intervention of the
Ponda Labour inspector Mr. Karkare. He submitted that his service termination was very disrespectful,
humiliating and disgusting without a valid cause and strong ground. Everyone in the plant was very
shocked knowing the termination. He submitted that the Employer under the insistence of their VP Mr.
Sanjeev Seth and the GM Mr. Satya Srinivas, still tried to harass and torture him mentally more when
they denied to pay his legitimate dues. He further stated that he had accepted the terms and conditions of
the employment offer in good faith, sanctity and with a good expectation of fair and ethical business
practices from the Employer. He stated that since the action of termination is not fair, justified, valid and
ethical, it breaches the terms and conditions of the employment contract itself. He submitted that the
Employer has maligned his image and put a stigma in his candidature for life time. He submitted that the
Employees unethical, illegal and arbitrary action has caused a serious loss of reputation of his
candidature in the market and it will be haunting him for life long. He and his family know the
sufferings, hardships and pain for long 8-9 months.
11. He stated that he is a sole earning member of his family and also other responsibilities towards his
widow mother. He stated that has affected his job stability and he is even today in terrific tension and
worries and going through a feeling of insecurity. He stated that he was compelled to ask for and borrow
money from his relatives and friends (to whom he never had approached in the past) during the tough
times of unemployment to manage his family and his liabilities. He stated that he and his family knows
only the unexplainable suffering and pains that they went through for long 8-9 months. He stated that the
unjustified action of the Employer, he was forced to come to North India leaving his family alone there
at Mumbai to earn a livelihood. He further stated that termination of his services even in probation
period without providing ample of opportunities for improvement and without proper procedural fairness
is illegal and bad in law. He further stated that he is the workmen of Employer and was appointed as a
Works Manager and continued to work as same at the time of illegal termination of his services by the
management of the Employer. He stated that he was employed to perform skilled, technical and
operational role in the plant and was having no authority of cheque signing, granting leave to other
workmen. He stated that HR manager at HO was authorized to approve the leave. He stated that he is a
migrant worker, originally hails from Odisha state and work outside his own State for the last 25 years
for a livelihood. He further states that he was rendering unblemished services with the Employer until
they terminated fairness vide termination letter dated 13-Apr-2023. He states that the termination of his
services is bad in law and void ab initio and non’est since he was terminated without following the
statutory mandates of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further stated that the Employer has taken
shelter of arbitrariness, unfair and unethical business practices.
12. He further stated that when he approached to the Asst. Labor Commissioner, Ponda, Goa for their
intervention for his reinstatement of his services and an amicable resolution to his grievances, the
Employer has levelled allegations that he is trying to extort money from Employer and his complaint is
totally false, baseless and imaginary. He submitted that the action of Employer to terminate his services
by a stroke of a pen vide letter dated 13th April 2023 is illegal, bad in law and unjustified and is in
contravention of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 and other employment guidelines of the Nation. He
submitted that since the validity of the termination order by the Employer itself is arbitrary and not
justified, the Employer has violated the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. He stated that
nowhere in the appointment letter, there is a clause that the Party can terminate his services arbitrarily
and unjustified.
13. The Employer resisted the claim of the Workman by filing its written statement 06/06/2024 at Exb.9.
The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary objections filed in the written statement, submitted that
the reference is not tenable in law and on facts and hence liable to be rejected, that the party-I has
levelled false allegation and that the Employer denied the employer-employees relationship with the
party-I, that the party –I has mischievously suppress many facts which are relevant and that the party-I
has not come with clean hands.
The Employer stated that the party-I was appointed as a “Works Manager” w.e.f. 21/11/2022 vide order
dt.07/11/2023. The Employer stated that the nature of duties were clearly managerial and supervisory in
nature and he was heading the plant at the factory situated at Goa. The Employer stated that the yearly
CTC of the party-I was Rs.13,00,000/-. The Employer stated that being on a very senior position, he was
expected to perform to the satisfaction of the management and to ensure smooth functioning of the
265
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
manufacturing operations of the Goa plant. The Employer submitted that the post of works manager in
an organization is very crucial for the smooth functioning of its factory and hence no establishment will
terminate services of the said person unless the performance and management is really poor. The
Employer submitted that the performance of the party-I was not to the satisfaction of its management.
The Employer submitted that one of the example of his poor performance was heavy rejection of goods
which were manufactured under his supervision which resulted in huge business losses. The Employer
stated that its management lost confidence in the party-I, hence his services were terminated w.e.f
13/04/2024. The Employer stated that the total length of service of the party-I was 4 months and 23
days. The Employer submitted that during the conciliation proceedings, it is his own admission in all the
correspondence that the party-I as a manager and not a workman. The Employer submitted that the
Party-I is not a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The Employer submitted that the
party-I has not completed 240 days of continuous services and hence he cannot approach this Hon’ble
Court under the I. D. Act, 1947. The Employer denies the employer-employees relationship with the
party-I. The Employer submitted that since the provisions of I. D. Act, 1947 does not apply to the party-I
for the reasons mentioned herein above and the terms of his appointment shall be governed by the offer
letter issued to him, which has been dully accepted by him. The Employer stated that it is clearly
mentioned in the offer letter dated 07/11/2022 in clause 4 that he will be in probation for six months. The
Employer stated that it has cleared the entire legal dues of the party-I as per the terms of offer letter
dated 07/11/2022 and the same was accepted by him without any protest. The Employer therefore
submitted that this Hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute. The Employer
denied the overall case as pleaded by the party-I and prayed to answer the reference in negative.
14. Thereafter, the party-I filed his rejoinder on 27/06/2024 at Exb.10. The party-I, as and by way of its
rejoinder, confirms and reiterates all their submissions, averments and statements made in their Claim
Statement to be true and correct and denies all the statements, averments and submissions made by the
Employer in its Written Statement, which are contrary to their Statement and averments made in their
Claim Statement.He stated that he was performing role as an operational and supervisory work, falls
very much within the bracket for protection and justice as defined under the I.D. Act, 1947. He stated
that when someone’s services were arbitrary and illegally terminated and taken away just before one
month and 7 days of completion of the probation period how could he fulfill and meet the 240 days
working conditions and criteria. He stated that he has worked for 4 month and 23 days in a Goa plant in
establishment, hence he is fully entitled to get relief in accordance with the said Act.
15. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties here in above, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to frame the
following issues on 02/08/2024 at exb.11.
1. Whether the Party-I/Workman proves that he is a “Workman” as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947?
2. Whether the Party-I/Workman proves that the action of the Employer in terminating his services w.e.f.
13/04/2023 is illegal and unjustified?
3. Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that the present reference is not maintainable in view of reasons
stated in para 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the written statement?
4. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to any relief?
5. What order? What award?
16. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as under:
(a)
Issue No. 1
:
In the Negative.
(b)
Issue No. 2
:
Does not arise.
(c)
Issue No. 3
:
In the Affirmative.
(d)
Issue No. 4
:
In the Negative.
REASONS:
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri. S. Kamat appearing for the Party-I as well as Ld. Adv.
Shri. S. Pathak appearing for the Employer. Both the parties also filed their synopsis of written arguments
respectively. I have carefully perused the entire records and proceedings of the present case. I have also
carefully considered the oral as well as written submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and is of the considered opinion as under:
266
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
17. Issue No. 1:
The Employer resisted the claim of the Party-I by contending that the he is not a “workman” as defined
under section 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. Therefore the burden was cast on the party-I that he is the
workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947.
18. Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947 defines the term workman and it means…….
Section 2 (s), ‘Workman’ means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any
manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied and for the purposes of any proceedings under
this act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged
or retrenched in connection with or a consequence of that dispute or dismissal, discharge or retrenchment
has laid to that dispute, but does not include any such person
(1)
who is subject to the AIR Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or the
Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or
(2)
who is employed in the police service or as an Officer or other employee of a prison or
(3)
who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity
(4)
who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs.10,000/- per mensem or
exercises either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in
him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
Thus, in order to prove that the Party – I is/was a “Workman” as defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947,
one has to prove that he was performing the duties of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work and it is not enough that he/she was not performing the duties of supervisory,
administrative and managerial in nature.
19. In the case of H. R. Adyanthaya v/s Sandoz (I) Ltd. reported in 1994 (69) FLR 593 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held that a person claiming to be a “workman” under the I. D. Act, 1947 must show that he
was employed to do the work of any of the category which of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory and that is not enough that he was not covered by either of the four
exceptions to the definition of the Workman.
20. In the case of Management of M/s Sonepate Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s Ajit Singh reported in
2005 LAB IC 1315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the question as to whether the
employee has been performing a clerical work or not is required to be determined upon arriving at the
findings as regards the dominant nature of duty with a view to give effect to the expression to do “any
manual unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work”, the job of the concerned
employee must fall within one or other category thereof. It would therefore not be correct to contend that
merely because the employee had not been performing any managerial or supervisory duties, ipso facto,
he would be a Workman”.
21. In the case of Bhatiya General Hospital and anr. (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in para
16 and 18 observed as under:
“16. The definition of “workman” under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is of wide
amplitude. Four classes of employees are, however, specifically excluded from the definition of workman.
An employee who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity or the one who is
employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding Rs. 10,000/- per month or exercises, either by
nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a
managerial nature is, inter alia, excluded from the definition of workman. The use of the term, “mainly”
underscores the dominant nature of the duty so as to fall outside the protective umbrella of the labour
legislation. By its very nature, the question as to whether an employee is a workman or not is rooted in
facts”.
“17. This being the nature of the definition of workman, the nomenclature of the post held by an employee
is not of decisive significance. It is in the nature of the duty and not the nomenclature of the position that
matters. Whether the overall consideration of the duty performed by the employee satisfies the description
of the duties being either supervisory or mainly managerial nature, is the question to be posed.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in its aforesaid case is well established
and also applicable to the case in hand.
267
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
22. Thus, in order to prove that the Party – I was a “Workman” as defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947, the
Party – I has to prove that he was performing the duties of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,
operational, clerical or supervisory work. It is well settled law that whether a person is a ‘workman’ or not
as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has to be decided on the basis of the predominant nature of
duties performed by concerned person at the relevant time, it cannot lay down any straight jacket formula.
23. In the case of Vinayak Baburao Shinde v/s. S.R. Shinde and Ors., reported in 1985 I CLR 318, the
Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay observed as under:
“The word “supervisor” means to oversee, that is to look after the work done by other persons. The word
‘supervision’ occurring in Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act means supervision in relation to
work or in relation to persons. The essence of supervision consists in overseeing by one person over the
work of others. This also involves a power in the person overseeing to direct and control the work done by
the persons over whom he is supervising. In an industrial establishment normally there are three layers of
work. One is the clerical or the manual work which is done by the workmen, the second is the supervisory
work done by a supervisor, and at a higher level is the work of a manager. The last mentioned officer is
normally in a position to give orders and to see that the work is done. He has got powers to lay down the
norms and to direct that the work shall be done in accordance with those norms. He has also, naturally,
the power to take disciplinary action and in case where applications for leave are made it is within his
power to sanction or reject those applications.”
A supervisor is distinguished from a manager in as much as he has no powers to command others to do a
particular work. His function is to see that the work is done in accordance with the norms laid down by
the management. If the work is done, he has to assist the workmen to do it correctly in accordance with
the norms. If, however, a workman does not to do the work correctly or properly, the supervisor has no
power to take any disciplinary action. In the case of leave applications, a supervisor can only recommend
them and not sanction or reject them, the latter being within the jurisdiction of a manager.”
24. In the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v/s Sri Kishan Bhageria, reported in(1988 (1)
L.L.N. 675), the Hon’ble Apex court held that:
A supervisor is one who has authority over others to superintend and direct. A supervisor may possess the
authority to hire, transfer, suspend. lay-off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward or discipline other
employees, or the responsibility to direct them or to adjust their grievances or effectively to recommend
such action. The work of a supervisor is distinguished from work which is of a clerical nature by the
exercise of independent judgment. The decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this court have been
considered in a judgment of Shri. Justice Rebello, speaking for this court, in Union Carbide (India) Ltd
v/s. D. Samuel and others [1999 (2) L.L.N. 165]. The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company
Ltd. v/s. R.A. Bidoo and Others [1989 (2) L.L.N. 483] Division Bench of this court held that “a
supervisor is an overseer. A person can be said to be a supervisor if there are persons working under him
over whose work he has to keep a watch. A supervisor is empowered to take corrective steps if a
subordinate errs in work assigned to him.
25. In the case of Tanojkumar B. Chatterji V/s. Solapur Municipal Corporation, reported in 2004(2 LLN
566),the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in para 5 of its judgment held as under:
“5. Now, it is well-settled in this branch of law, as in many others, that designations are not dispositive.
The Court has to have due regard to the real nature of the duties and functions. In so far as a supervisor is
concerned, he or she is one who can bind the employer by taking some kind of decision on his behalf.
National Engineering Industries Ltd. V. Sri Kishan Bhageria (1998 (I) L.L.N. 675). A supervisor is one
who has authority over others to superintend and direct. A supervisor may possess the authority to hire,
transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or the
responsibility to direct them or to adjust their grievances or effectively to recommend such action. The
work of a supervisor is distinguished from work which is of a clerical nature by the exercise of
independent judgment. The decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court have been considered
in a judgment of Sri Justice Rebello, speaking for this Court, in Union others (1999 (2)L.L.N.165). The
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company, Ltd. v. R. A. Bidoo and others (1989 (2) L.L.N.483), a
Division Bench of this Court held that a supervisor is an overseer. A person can be said to be a supervisor
if there are persons working under him over whose work he has to keep a watch. A supervisor is
empowered to take corrective steps if a subordinate errs in work assigned to him”.
268
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
26. In the case of Twenty first Century Printers Ltd., Mumbai v. K.P. Abraham and Anr. reported in
2008 III CLR 616, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in para 9 of its judgment held as under :
“9. Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) defines “management as the people in a company who are
responsible for its operation. In Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Panna Lal Gupta. (AIR 1967 SC 428), the Supreme
Court held that a manager or administrator generally occupies a position of command or decision and is
authorized to act in certain matters within the limits of his authority. This decision was subsequently
referred to by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S. K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (1994 II CLR
359) wherein the Supreme Court observed that a manager’s duty generally involve supervision as
distinguished from the stereotype work of a clerk. Having regard to the duties and powers of the Purchase
officer in question. I am of view that the respondent performed mainly a view that the respondent
performed mainly a managerial function and is, therefore, excluded from the definition of “workman”.
27. In the case of Anand Regional Co-op. Oil Seeds Growers Union Ltd. v/s. Shailesh Kumar
Harshadbhai Shah, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 548, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 15 explained the
term ‘supervision’ as under:
“15. Supervision contemplates direction and control. While determining the nature of the work performed
by an employee, the essence of the matter should call for consideration. An undue importance need not be
given for the designation of an employee, or the name assigned to, the class to which he belongs. What is
needed to be asked is as to what are the primary duties he performs. For the said purpose, it is necessary
to prove that there were some persons working under him whose work is required to be supervised. Being
in charge of the section alone and that too it being a small one and relating to quality control would not
answer the test.”
28. In the case in hand, to prove his case, the party-I has examined himself as his sole witness. On the
contrary, the Employer examined its HR manager Ms. Kiran Ramesh Soni as its witness. Since the
Employer Challenged the status of the Party-I as a “workman” as defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947,
the Party-I is duty bound to prove that as a “Works Manager” employed with the Employer, he is a
“workman” as defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947.
29. To prove his case as a “workman” within the meaning of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947, the Party-I is
required to plead and deposed on evidence his predominant nature of duties. However, neither the Party-I
failed to plead nor stated in his evidence, the predominant nature of duties and responsibilities which he
was performing at the time of termination of his services as a Works Manager. Failure to plead and state
of evidence, the Party-I has failed to prove that he is a Workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the
I.D. Act, 1947.
30. Even otherwise, the Party-I, in his oral evidence on record, deposed that he is well qualified worker both
academically and technically (Science Graduate with PGD in Plastic Engineering from Central Institute of
Plastics Engineering and Technology (CIPET)and also an MBA Operations Management Graduate having
25 years of work experience. He deposed that he was working efficiently as Work Manager with the
Employer at their Kundaim Plant. He deposed that he had undertaken various initiatives to repair and run
effectively the idle and under breakdown capital assets such as Screw Compressor, Air Handling Unit,
Defective Moulds that were lying neglected for 4-5 years. He deposed that he had introduced daily
production report to monitor work performance for improvement. He deposed that he had suggested to use
liquid soaps and hand sanitizers after every toilet use to improve workers hygiene as the Employers
products are mainly supplied to the major Pharma Companies. He deposed that he had introduced
preventative maintenance protocol of moulds and tools for efficient working during their production run.
He deposed that there was no drinking water storage facilities for the workers and employees in the
company’s plant and he had taken immediate action and arranged it within 15 days of joining. He deposed
that lizards and other insects were roaming inside the production zones which is completely floating the
US and Canada FDA norms and current good manufacturing practices in compliance to the Pharma
CGMP requirement. He deposed that he was the first to take initiative to find all such lapses and
strengthen the CGMP. He deposed that there are many such good initiatives which he is mentioning a few
of them only to highlight work performance and dedication to responsibilities. He deposed that however,
stated that he was performing role as a operational and supervisory work and produced on record a copy
of letter of offer dt.07/11/2022 at Exb.15. The party-I in his cross examination deposed that he had utilized
his experience of managerial skills especially engineering skills. He admits that he used to supervise as
well as checking the machinery. He deposed that he used to supervise all the 151 workers of the Employer
269
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
Company. On the Contrary, the sole witness of the Employer, Ms. Kiran Soni, HR Manager of the
Employer in her Affidavit in Evidence deposed that the nature of duties of the party-I were purely
managerial and supervisory in nature.
31. Indisputably, the party-I was appointed as works manager at GBCL, Goa by the Employer in a probation
period for the first 6 months on a CTC of Rs.13,00,000/- per annum. The offer letter of the party-I at
exb.15 on record indicates that the job role of the party-I were as production operation and maintenance of
machine, production/productivity as per the targets/cycle time, Production should be as per the quality
requirement in line of technical specification/drawing within 3% rejection level, Maintenance of
Machines & Molds, Mold changing, Man power handling with co-ordial relations, Maintaining safety
standards, Other office and admin responsibilities, Daily reporting to the management, Stores
responsibilities and to coordinate for Purchase between head office and plant.
32. Thus, the party-I was appointed was a “Works Manager” at GBCL Goa on a annual total employment
costs of Rs.13,00,000/- on a probation period for the first six months. The aforesaid duties and
responsibilities as stated hereinabove implies that the Party-I was taking decision on behalf of the
Employer. The aforesaid duties and responsibilities are managerial and supervisory in nature and as such
the party-I is not a “workman” as defined u/s 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947. Hence, it is held that the party-I
failed to prove that he is a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. act, 1947. The issue No.1 is therefore
answered in the Negative.
33. Issue No. 2:
While deciding the issue No.1 is hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the conclusion that the party-I
is not a workman as defined in the section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Thus the action of the Employer in
terminating the services of the party-I w.e.f. 13/04/2023 is illegal and unjustified, does not arise. The issue
No.2 is therefore answered as does not arise.
34. Issue No. 3:
The Employer, as by way of his preliminary objections, submitted that the reference is not tenable in law
and on facts, that the Party-I has levelled false allegations and that the Party-II denied Employer
relationship with the Party-I. The burden was cast on the Employer to prove its aforesaid allegations.
While deciding the issue No.1 is hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the conclusion that the party-I
is not a workman as defined in the section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The reference is therefore answered
in the Negative. Hence, it is held that the Employer proved that the reference is not maintainable in view
of the reasons stated in its written statement. The issue No.3, is therefore answered in the Affirmative.
35. Issue No. 4
While deciding the issue No.1 is hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the conclusion that the party-I
is not a “workman” as defined in the section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. As the Party-I is not a “workman”
within the meaning of section 2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947, this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate the present reference. Consequently, the Party-I is not entitled to any relief. The issue No.4, is
therefore answered in the Negative.
In view of above, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that Shri. Krushna Chandra Panda, Works Manager is not a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2
(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
2. It is further held that the action of the management of M/s. Gopaldas Visram and company
Limited, B-56, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim-Goa, in terminating the services of Shri
Krushna Chandra Panda, Works Manager, with effect from 13/04/2023, is illegal and unjustified,
does not arise.
3. Shri. Krushna Chandra Panda, is not entitled to any relief.
4. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Suresh N. Narulkar, Presiding Officer-Labour Court-II.
Porvorim
..................................................................................
270
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
◆◆◆
Department of Personnel
Order
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:-
Sr.
No.
Name and present posting of the officer
Posted as
1.
Shri Manoj Korgaonkar,
Mamlatdar, Canacona
Mamlatdar, Dharbandora with additional
charge of Joint Mamlatdar-I,
Dharbandora
2.
Shri Gajesh P. Shirodkar,
Joint Mamlatdar-III, Mormugao
Mamlatdar, Canacona
Shri Pravinjay Pandit, Mamlatdar, Mormugao shall hold the charge of Joint Mamlatdar–III, Mormugao in
addition to his 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.
..................................................................................
◆
Order
On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order transfer &
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
1.
Shri Ganesh Barve,
Joint Director, Information and Publicity
Deputy Collector & SDM-I, Salcete.
2.
Shri Laxmikant R. Dessai,
Chief Officer, Quepem Municipal Council
with
additional
charges
of
Forest
Settlement
Officer,
South
and
Chief
Officer, Canacona Municipal Council
Chief Officer, Canacona Municipal Council
with additional charge of Forest Settlement
Officer, South.
Shri Manohar Lavu Karekar, Deputy Collector & SDM, Quepem shall hold the charge of Member
Secretary, Ravindra Bhavan, Curchorem and Chief Officer, Quepem Municipal Council in addition to his own
duties.
No. 15/2/2020-PER/1182
Date: 29-Apr-2025
5/3/2025-PER/1125
Date: 02-May-2025
271
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
Sr.
No.
Name & present posting of the Officer
Posted as
1.
Shri Nehal G. Talaunekar
Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes with
additional charge of Chief Officer, Bicholim
Municipal Council
Dy. Collector and SDM, Bicholim
with additional charge of Chief
Officer, Bicholim Municipal Council.
2.
Shri Bhimnath P. Khorjuvekar
Dy. Collector and SDM, Bicholim with additional
charge of Chief Officer, Sankhali Municipal Council
Assistant Commissioner of State
Taxes.
Shri Sanket Sakhardande, Assistant Commissioner of Excise-II shall hold the charge of Joint Director,
Information and Publicity in addition to his own duties.
The Officer at Sr. No. 2 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.
..................................................................................
◆
Order
The Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following IPS officer, with
immediate effect.
Sr. No.
Name & Designation
Present posting
Posted as
1.
Shri Akshat Kaushal, IPS
(AGMUT:2018)
Superintendent of
Police, North
Superintendent of Police, State
Police Control Room
Shri Rahul Gupta, IPS (AGMUT:2017), Superintendent of Police Crime shall hold the charge of
Superintendent of Police, North, in addition to his own duties, with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆
Order
On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the transfer &
posting of the following Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with immediate effect:-
Shri Shivprasad S. Naik, Dy. Collector and SDM, Pernem shall hold the charge of Chief Officer, Sankhali
Municipal Council in addition to his own duties, until further order.
22/10/2018-PER/1130
Date: 03-May-2025
5/3/2025-PER/1131
Date: 03-May-2025
272
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
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.
..................................................................................
◆
Order
On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order transfer &
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
1.
Smt. Durga Kinlekar,
Deputy Collector (Revenue), South
Under Secretary, Personnel-II.
2.
Shri Brucelee Jesus Nazario Savio Quadros,
Awaiting posting
Deputy Collector (Revenue), South.
3.
Shri Praveen Shirodkar,
Awaiting posting
Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes.
4.
Shri Jayesh Mayenkar,
Project Officer, DRDA, North with additional
charge of OSD, Mines and Administrator of
Communidade, Central Zone
Administrator of Communidade,
Central Zone.
5.
Shri Suyash Sinai Khandeparkar,
Deputy Collector (LA), North with additional
charge of Deputy Collector (Disaster
Management), North
Chief Officer, Ponda Municipal
Council with additional charge of
Deputy Registrar, Goa Engineering
College, Farmagudi.
6.
Shri Yogiraj Gosavi,
Chief Officer, Ponda Municipal Council with
additional charge of Deputy Registrar, Goa
Engineering College, Farmagudi
Deputy Collector (LA), North with
additional charge of Deputy Collector
(Disaster Management), North.
7.
Shri Abhijeet Nikam,
Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes
Administrator of Communidade,
South Zone.
8.
Shri Daulatrao Rane Sardesai,
Awaiting posting
Project Officer, DRDA, North.
9.
Shri Agnelo D’souza,
Deputy Director, Industries, Trade &
Commerce with additional charge of Deputy
Director (Admn.), Sports & Youth Affairs
Under Secretary, Revenue-II.
10.
Shri Prataprao Gaunkar,
Awaiting posting
Deputy Collector & SDM, Canacona
with additional charge of Member
Secretary, Ravindra Bhavan,
Canacona.
11.
Shri Raghuraj Faldesai,
Under Secretary, Personnel-II with additional
charge of Under Secretary, Personnel-I
Under Secretary, Personnel-I.
5/3/2025-PER/1185
Date: 29-Apr-2025
273
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
Shri Girish Sawant, Deputy Director, Apna Ghar holding additional charge of Deputy Director (Child
Welfare), Women & Child Development shall also hold the charge of Deputy Director (Admn.), Women &
Child in addition to his own duties.
Shri Pandurang Talgaonkar, Deputy Director (Admn.), O/o the DGP shall hold the charge of Deputy
Director (Admn.), Sports & Youth Affairs in addition to his own duties.
Shri Naresh Gaude, Under Secretary, Finance (Exp.) shall hold the charge of Under Secretary, Finance
(R&C) and Under Secretary (DMU) in addition to his own duties.
Shri Pratik Porob, Deputy Director (Admn.), Industries, Trade & Commerce shall hold the charge of
Deputy Director, Industries, Trade & Commerce in addition to his own duties.
Shri Manohar Lavu Karekar, Deputy Collector & SDM, Quepem shall hold the charge of Chief Officer,
Cuncolim Municipal Council in addition to his own duties.
The Officers at sr. No. 5 & 8 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.
Tushar Halarnkar, Joint Secretary (Personnel).
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆◆◆
Department of Public Health
Order
On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide their No.
COM/II/12/30(2)/2025/66 dated 01/04/2025, Government is pleased to declare the following doctor as having
satisfactorily completed his probation period of two years and to confirm him in the post of Assistant Professor
in Medical Imaging Technology under Allied Health Science Courses in Goa Medical College and Hospital,
Bambolim, with effect from the date of completion of his probation period.
Sr.
No.
Name of the Officer
Date of completion of probation period
1.
Shri Mohit Kumar Pandey, Assistant Professor in
Medical Imaging Technology
17-11-2023
By order and in the name of Governor of Goa.
Gautami S. Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-I).
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆
Order
On recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide their No.
COM/II/11/30(2)/98/07 dated 01/04/2025, Government is pleased to promote the following Pharmacist to the
post of Assistant Pharmaceutical Chemist (Group "B" Non-Gazetted) in Goa Medical College and Hospital,
4/11/2025-II/PHD/999
Date: 29-Apr-2025
4/26/2008-II/PHD/PART-II/1014
Date: 29-Apr-2025
274
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
Bambolim on regular basis in the Level 6 of Pay Matrix and other allowance to be fixed as per rules with
immediate effect:-
1. Shri. Narayan A. Ghantkar.
2. Shri. Sebastiao Dias (ST).
The promotion is made against the vacancies occurred due to (i) retirement of Shri Pandurang Sawant,
Assistant Pharmaceutical Chemist on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017 and revived vide
Order No. 4/1/2018-II/PHD/1194 dated 14.08.2019; (ii) retirement of Smt. Lizette P. Almeida, Assistant
Pharmaceutical Chemist on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2022.
By order and in the name of Governor of Goa.
Gautami S. Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-I).
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆◆◆
Department of Public Works
Office of the Principal Chief Engineer
Order
Ref: 1) Order No. 14-17-2012/PCE-PWD-EO/04 dated 18-04-2012.
2) Order No. 14-17/PCE/PWD/EO/2021-22/244 dated 10-02-2022.
In pursuance of sub-section (1) & (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter called
the “said Act”), the following officers are designated as State Public Information Officer and Assistant State
Public Information officer for the below mentioned offices of Public Works Department, for carrying out the
functions prescribed under the said Act in partial modification to this Department’s order referred above.
Sr.
No.
Name of office
Officer designated as SPIO
Officer designated as ASPIO
1.
Office of Chief Engineer-
I
Assistant Surveyor of Works,
O/o Chief Engineer-I
Junior Engineer, O/o Chief
Engineer-I
2.
Office of Chief Engineer-
II
Assistant Surveyor of Works,
O/o Chief Engineer-II
Junior Engineer, O/o Chief
Engineer-II
3.
Office of Chief Engineer
(NH,R&B)
Assistant Surveyor of Works,
O/o Chief Engineer
(NH, R&B)
Junior Engineer, O/o Chief
Engineer (NH, R&B)
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
U. P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer (PWD) & Ex-Officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji.
..................................................................................
No. 14-17/PCE/PWD/EO/2024-25/31
Date: 02-May-2024
275
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
◆◆◆
Department of Revenue
Order
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (Central Act 2 of 1899), as in force in the State of Goa, the Government of Goa hereby remits whole
stamp duty payable under the said Act by the Cofre Da Capela De N. Sra Das Angustias, De Palmar Grande,
Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa, on Deed of Sale towards purchase of plot admeasuring 2,300 sq. mtrs., under
Survey No. 91/10 in Chinchinim Village of Salcete Taluka, Goa.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Vrushika P. Kauthankar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).
Porvorim.
..................................................................................
◆◆◆
Department of Town and Country Planning
Office of the Chief Town Planner (Admn.)
Order
In supersession of all earlier orders pertaining to appointment of Public Information Officers and
Appellate Authority in the Headquarters, Office of Town and Country Planning Department, Panaji and in
pursuance to Section 5(1) and 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the following officers are hereby
appointed as Public Information Officers as specified in the column No. 2 and Appellate Authority as specified
in column No. 4, with immediate effect until further orders:
Sr. No
Name/Designation of Public
Information Officer
Unit/Section/Subjects
Appellate Authority
1
2
3
4
1.
Smt. Tecla Fernandes,
Superintendent
Public Information Officer-1
Administration
Dy. Director (Administration)
2.
Smt. Anushka Hadkonkar,
Statistical Assistant
Public Information Officer-2
Statistics/Revenue/Budget
Registration of professionals
Shri. M.K.C. Srikanth, Town
Planner (HQs)/D.D.O.
3.
Kum. Saloni Naik,
Accountant
Public Information Officer-3
Accounts matters
Shri M.K.C. Srikanth, Town
Planner (HQs)/D.D.O.
4.
Shri Prakash P. Bandodkar,
Dy. Town Planner,
Public Information Officer-4
Section 17 (2) matters/
Regional Plan matters and
matter related to Section 39
(A),
Shri Vinod Kumar Chandra,
Town Planner (HQs.
35/03/01/2025-RD/2037
Date: 05-May-2025
21/22/RTI-GEN/TCP-HQ/2020-21/908
Date: 06-May-2025
276
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
5.
Shri Manguirish N. Verenkar,
Dy. Town Planner
Public Information Officer-5
TCP Board/Petroleum
Rules/16-A Committee
(Public Projects), Court
matters, Storage of
explosives/petroleum
products
Shri Vinod Kumar Chandra,
Town Planner (HQs)
6.
Smt. Sampurna P. Bhagat,
Dy. Town Planner,
Public Information Officer-6
Complaints (Public
Grievances)/Complaints
(Offline)/Miscellaneous
(Technical)/Consumer
Protection Court matters
Shri Anand Deshpande, Town
Planner
7.
Shri Ram alias Tanay Sandesh
Timblo,
Dy. Town Planner,
Public Information Officer-7
Conservation/30% FAR
for 4 & 5 Star Hotels/
Land Acquisition by TCP
Dept./Compensation
issues etc., /Zoning
Plans/ODP related
matters/ NMA/Mopa
Airport related matters
Shri Anand Deshpande, Town
Planner
8.
Shri. Snoken Luis Caetano Dias
Dy. Town Planner
Public Information Officer-8
Legislation/TCP Act/
GLDBCR/Regulations/
BPAMS/matters related to
IGBC/Notary
Architect/Engineer/
Deregulations/Garbage
Management Site issues
Shri M.K.C. Srikanth, Town
Planner (HQs)/D.D.O.
9.
Shri. Rajesh Tirodkar,
Planning Assistant,
Public Information Officer-9
Matters related to Section
17-A
Chief Town Planner (Land
Use)
Matters related to
Committee for regulation
6.1.1 and 25000m2 &
above
Shri Vinod Kumar Chandra,
Town Planner (HQs)
This is issued with the approval of Secretary (TCP).
Vertika Dagur, Chief Town Planner (Administration).
Panaji.
..................................................................................
◆◆◆
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
Order
Consequent upon the promotion of Motor Vehicle Inspector, the following Assistant Director of Transport
are hereby transferred with immediate effect on administrative grounds.
5/2/93-Tpt/P.F./1172
Date: 30-Apr-2025
277
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
Sr.
No.
Name of the Assistant Director
of Transport
Present posting
Posting on transfer
1.
Shri Kamlakant Karapurkar
O/o. A.D.T., Bicholim
O/o. A.D.T., Pernem
2.
Shri Sanjay Parwadkar
Newly promoted
O/o. A.D.T., Bicholim
The above Assistant Directors of Transport are directed to join the new place of posting immediately and
complete handing over/taking over formalities accordingly.
Further, the said Officers are directed not to avail joining period or any type of leave till they assume
charge at the new place of posting.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
P. Pravimal Abhishek, IAS, Director of Transport.
Panaji.
..................................................................................
◆◆◆
Department of Tribal Welfare
Directorate of Tribal Welfare
Order
Read:- Order No. DTW/2023-24/3286 dated 08-11-2023.
Whereas, the Government has notified a scheme “Financial Assistance for Medical Treatment for
infertility amongst Scheduled Tribes couples by IVF (Invitro Fertilization) & IUI (Intra Uterine Insemination)
Method under MATRUTVA YOJANA” vide notification No. DTW/STAT/PC/2017-18/53 dated 08/2/2018.
And whereas, vide order No. DTW/Scheme/MY/2023-24/3286 dated 08/11/2023, Kamat Nursing Home,
Upper Bazar, Shantinagar, Ponda-Goa was empanelled under Matrutva Yojana Scheme with the approval of
the Government.
And whereas, Dr. Abhijit Kamat, Kamat Nursing Home, Upper Bazar, Shantinagar, Ponda-Goa vide email
dated 23/12/2024 has informed “Inability to continue service under Matrutva Yojana Scheme” due to demise
of Dr. Jayant R. Kamat.
And whereas, the Monitoring Committee recommended to de-empanell Kamat Nursing Home, Upper
Bazar, Shantinagar, Ponda-Goa under Matrutva Yojana Scheme.
Now, therefore, Kamat Nursing Home, Upper Bazar, Shantinagar, Ponda-Goa is stands de-empanelled
under Matrutva Yojana Scheme with immediate effect.
This is issued with the approval of Government vide U.O. No. 9263/F dated 18/02/2025.
By order and in the name of Governor of Goa.
Dashrath M. Redkar, Director & Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (Tribal Welfare).
Panaji.
DTW/Scheme/MY/2024-25/5805
Date: 06-Mar-2025
278
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 6
08TH MAY, 2025
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published by the Director, Printing & Stationary,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
Price—Rs. 24.00
PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—43/80-5/2025.