Panaji, 2nd March, 2017 (Phalguna 11, 1938)

SERIES II No. 48

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

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

1067

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

__

Order

No. 2/12/98-AGR/Part II/317

Ex-post facto approval of the Government is

conveyed with regard to acceptance of the

resignation of Shri Kiran M. Kandolkar, Chairman of

Goa State Horticultural Corporation Ltd., and

relieve him w.e.f. 09-01-2017 as per his request.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

U. B. Pai Kakode, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 27th February, 2017.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Labour

__

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/92

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on

28-11-2016 in reference No. C-IT/37/10 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Case No. C-IT/37/10

Mr. Sagar Naik,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

Ponda-Goa.

…

Complainant

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,

Fatorda, Margao, Goa

…

Respondent

Complainant represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.

Respondent represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.

Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month

of November of the year 2016)

This is a complaint filed under Section 33-A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. In short, the case of the Complainant is that

he was transferred from Margao to Mapusa

workshop with effect from 16-03-2009 with malafide

intention in order to harass him as he along with

others joined Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh to which

he protested vide his representation. The

Complainant raised a dispute before Assistant

Labour Commissioner, Margao asking her

intervention in the matter. The Complainant on

19-11-2010 reported for work, however he was not

Note:-

There are two Extraordinary issues to the

Official Gazette, Series II No. 47 dated 23-02-2017

as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 26-02-2017 from pages

1063 to 1064 regarding Notification from Goa

Legislature Secretariat.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 01-03-2017 from

pages 1065 to 1066 regarding Notification from

Goa Legislature Secretariat.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1068

allowed to resume his duties. The action of

Respondent in refusing him to join duties amounts

to violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, hence the complaint.

3. In the written statement at Exhibit 4, the

Respondent has stated that the allegations made

by the Complainant are totally false. The transfer

of the Complainant was done due to business

exigencies and as per Certified Standing Orders.

The Respondent has not violated any provisions of

law and therefore the complaint be dismissed.

4. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 5

denying the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement.

5. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 8.

6. In the course of further proceedings, the

parties filed an application wherein they have

agreed that in view of the settlement in reference

IT/2/13 & IT/5/11, the Complainant, Shri Sagar Naik

withdraws the complaint against the Respondent

and that the Respondent is not guilty of

contravention of Section 33 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 as contained in the said

complaint and that the complaint is voluntarily

withdrawn.

7. The above application is signed by Shri

Humberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri Hillary

Fernandes for Complainant, so also Shri Puti

Gaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Respondent. I

have gone through the said application and the

records of the case and I am convinced that in

view of the settlement in reference No. IT/2/13 &

IT/5/11, the Complainant has voluntarily

withdrawn the complaint against the Respondent.

Hence, I have no difficulty in allowing the said

application.

8. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The application at Exhibit 20 for

withdrawal of the above complaint stands

granted. Consequently, the complaint

stands withdrawn.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/93

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on

28-11-2016 in reference No. IT/37/09 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/37/09

Shri Sagun Naik & 11 Ors,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Apartment,

Tisk, Ponda-Goa-403 401

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,

V. V. Naik Road, Fatorda,

Margao, Goa-403 602

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.

S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month

of November of the year 2016)

By Order dated 25-11-2009, bearing No. 28/29/

/2009-LAB/ 1191, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act)

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik, Fatorda,

Margao, Goa in refusing employment to the

12 workmen (mentioned below) and

represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh, with effect from 01-09-2008 is legal

and justified?

1. Mr. Sagun Naik

5. Mr. Olvish Cruz

2. Mr. Pankaj Naik

6. Mr. Gloria Paugo

3. Mr. Rohidas Talekar

7. Mr. Jayesh Naik

4. Mr. David Paugo

8. Mr. Rajan Achari

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1069

9. Mr. Santosh Betkikar 11. Mr. Ankush Gaonkar

10. Mr. Sanjay Parab

12. Mr. Suresh Mhalsekar

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

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/37/09 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a claim statement at Exhibit 4 and

Party II filed a written statement at Exhibit 5.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that

Party I workmen were working with Party II since

last several years in their main workshop at Fatorda

continuously till their refusal of employment/date

of termination. The Party II has not revised their

wages and allowances and their services were not

confirmed and accordingly in June, 2008 they

joined the union viz. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

and thereafter submitted a charter of demands

dated 28-6-2008, however Party II refused to

negotiate with the union and on contrary, started

harassing and threatening the workers. The

workers were not allowed to resume their duties

w.e.f. 1-9-2008 as they joined the union. The Party II

has not conducted any enquiry and were not paid

or offered retrenchment compensation, notice pay

and other dues and therefore their refusal of

employment is illegal.

4. In the written statement, the Party II has stated

that there was no employer-employee relationship

between them. The entire reference is not

maintainable and bad-in-law as the management

has not terminated the services of workmen

concerned in the reference. The workmen were

never employed in the firm but were employed by

the service provider, P. B. Human Resources.

5. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 6

denying the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement.

6. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 7.

7. In the course of further proceedings, the

parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed

consent terms along with Annexure-A at Exhibit

30 colly.

8. The consent terms read as follows:

(1) It is agreed between the parties that

following workmen concerned in the

reference namely Mr. David Paugo at

serial No. 4, Mr. Olivish Cruz at serial

No. 5, Mr. Gloria Paugo at serial

No. 6, Mr. Santosh Betkikar at serial

No. 9, Mr. Suresh Mhalsekar at serial

No. 12 are workmen employed by P. B.

Human Resources and not employed by

Party No. II and have settled all their dues

with P. B. Human Resources and that there

exists no employee-employer relationship

between the Party No. II and above

workmen.

(2) The union does not press their demands as

they have already settled their entire

dispute in connection with employment

and non-employment and condition of

labour with the said employer.

(3) It is further agreed between the parties

that the workmen whose names are

mentioned in Annexure-A shall have no

claim of whatsoever nature against the

Party No. II including any claim of benefit

which can be computed in terms of money

and/or claim of re-instatement or

re-employment against the Party No. II.

(4) In so far as the workmen concerned in

above reference namely Mr. Sagun Naik

at serial No. 1, Mr. Pankaj Naik at serial

No. 2, Mr. Rohidas Talekar at serial No. 3,

Mr. Jayesh Naik at serial No. 7, Mr. Rajan

Achari at serial No. 8, Mr. Sanjay Parab at

serial No. 10, Mr. Ankush Gaonkar at serial

No. 11 who are concerned in the reference

and whose names are mentioned in

Annexure-A of the settlement shall be paid

money mentioned against their names in

full and final settlement of all their claims

arising out of their employment with Party

No. II and they further confirm that their

entire claim arising out of their reference

including any claim/benefit which can be

computed in terms of money has been fully

and satisfactorily settled in terms of

settlement and they shall not claim any

re-instatement or re-employment.

9. The above consent terms are signed by

Shri Humberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri

Hillary Fernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also Shri

Puti Gaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for

Employer/Party II. I have gone through the records

of the case and the above consent terms and I am

convinced that the consent terms filed by the

parties are just and fair and are in the interest of

the Workmen/Party I and Employer/Party II and

therefore, the same are accepted.

10. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The reference stands disposed of in view

of the consent terms filed by the parties,

at Exhibit 30 colly.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1070

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/94

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on

28-11-2016 in reference No. IT/05/11 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/05/11

Shri Loyal Fernandes & 4 Ors,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Apartment,

Tisk, Ponda-Goa-403 401

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,

V. V. Naik Road, Fatorda,

Margao, Goa-403 602

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.

S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month

of November of the year 2016)

By order dated 22-3-2011, bearing No. 28/3/2011-

-LAB/104, the Government of Goa in exercise of

powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik, Fatorda, Goa,

in transferring Shri Loyal Fernandes,

Shri Narendra Naik, Shri Abhay Jambaulikar,

Shri Sagar Naik and Shri Abhit Naik vide

order dated 03-03-2009 is legal and justified?

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

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/05/11 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed the claim statement at Exhibit 4 and

Party II filed the written statement at Exhibit 5.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that Party I

workmen were working with Party II continuously

since last several years and that on 03-03-2009 all

the workmen concerned were issued transfer order

transferring them to the Party II’s Mapusa workshop

w.e.f. 16-3-2009 as majority of the workmen had

joined the union viz. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

who had submitted a charter of demands as there

was no proper wage structure or consistent wage

revision. The said transfers were illegal and

malafide and done only to victimize them. The

workers made letters to withdraw the transfer

letters as workshop at Mapusa is of different nature

than the workshop at Margao. The transfer of the

workmen is highly improper, illegal and amounted

to victimization for trade union activities.

4. In the written statement, the Party II has stated

that the entire reference is bad-in-law and not

maintainable. The workmen were issued individual

transfer orders without changing the service

conditions including remuneration package. The

transfer of workmen concerned in the reference is

legal and justified having regards to transfer clause

mentioned in appointment letter issued to

workmen concerned and that the workmen were

transferred to Mapusa due to exigency of work

w.e.f. 16-3-2009. No case has been made out for

granting any relief claimed by Party I.

5. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 6

denying the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement.

6. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 9.

7. In the course of further proceedings, the

parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed

consent terms along with Annexure at Exhibit 23

colly.

8. The consent terms read as follows:

(1) It is agreed between the parties that

Mr.

Loyal

Fernandes,

Mr.

Abhay

Zambaulikar, Mr. Sagar Naik and Mr. Abhit

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1071

Naik shall be paid each Rs. 10,000/- in full

and final settlement of their all claim

arising out of reference and they shall not

have any claim of whatsoever nature

including any claim which can be

computed in terms of money.

(2) It is agreed between the parties that since

Mr. Narendra Naik workmen concerned in

reference has resigned from services of

company and by accepting his dues in full

and final settlement arising out of his

employment that nothing is due and

payable to him arising out of reference in

terms of money or otherwise.

9. The above consent terms are signed by

Shri Humberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri

Hillary Fernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also Shri

Puti Gaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for

Employer/Party II. I have gone through the records

of the case and the above consent terms and I am

convinced that the consent terms filed by the

parties are just and fair and are in the interest of

the Workmen/Party I and Employer/Party II and

therefore, the same are accepted.

10. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The reference stands disposed of in view

of the consent terms filed by the parties,

at Exhibit 23 colly.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/95

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on

28-11-2016 in reference No. IT/30/09 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/30/09

Shri Chidanand Volvoikar & 5 Ors,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Apartment,

Tisk, Ponda-Goa 403 401

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,

Fatorda,

Margao, Goa 403 602

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.

S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month

of November of the year 2016)

By Order dated 7-9-2009, bearing No. 28/7/2009-

-LAB/909, the Government of Goa in exercise of

powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik of refusing

employment to Shri Chidanand Volvoikar,

Shri Vinod A. Chari, Shri Aditya C. Naik and

Shri Ziy-aul S. Shaikh with effect from

01-08-2008 and to Shri Krishnanand Gajinkar

and Shri Prashant Bandekar with effect from

04-08-2008 is legal and justified?

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

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/30/09 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed the claim statement at Exhibit 4 and

Party II filed the written statement at Exhibit 5.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that Party I

workmen were working with Party II since last

several years in their sales and service workshop

and to carryout maintenance and repairs of the

vehicles, they were employed at their main

workshop at Fatorda continuously till their refusal

of employment/date of termination. The Party II

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1072

has not revised their wages and allowances and

their services were not confirmed and accordingly

in June, 2008 they joined the union viz. Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh and thereafter submitted Charter

of Demands dated 28-6-2008, however Party II

refused to negotiate with the union and on

contrary, started harassing and threatening the

workers. The workers were not allowed to resume

their duties as they joined the union. The Party II

has not conducted any enquiry and were not paid

or offered retrenchment compensation, notice pay

and other dues and therefore their refusal of

employment is illegal.

4. In the written statement the Party II stated

that since Party II is dealing with vehicles of ‘Tata

Motors Ltd.’, it was engaging various contractors

to provide expert services including P. B. Human

Resource and Services, who was deploying

manpower as and when required. The workman

Shri Chidanand Volvoikar accepted all his dues

and severed his relationship with Party II. The other

workmen viz. Shri Vinod A. Chari, Shri Aditya C.

Naik & Shri Ziy-aul S. Shaikh are not the employees

of Party II as they are the workers of P. B. Human

Resources and Services. The workshop has been

permanently closed and the workers have been

paid all the legal dues.

5. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 6

denying the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement.

6. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 7.

7. In the course of further proceedings, the

parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed

consent terms at Exhibit 27 colly along with

Annexure.

8. The consent terms read as follows:

(1) It is agreed between the parties that

Shri Chidanand Volvoikar having resigned

from the services of the Party No.II is not

entitled to any relief of whatsoever nature,

arising out of reference as he had already

accepted all dues arising out of his

employment and nothing is due and

payable to him by the Party No. II. The

union does not press their demands of Shri

Chidanand Volvoikar.

(2) It is further agreed between the parties

that Shri Vinod A. Chari, Shri Aditya C.

Naik, Shri Ziy-aul S. Shaikh the workmen

concerned in the reference being employee

of P. B. Resources, another employer and

not being workmen of the Party No. II, the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, the union do

not desire to press their claim as all of

them already settled their all claims with

P. B. Resources and therefore they do not

have any claims against the Party No. II as

there is no employee-employer relationship

between them.

(3) In so far as Shri Krishnanand Gajinkar and

Shri Prashant Bandekar is concerned, it is

agreed between the parties that these

workmen shall be paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-

each as full and final settlement of all their

claims arising out of their employment of

the Party No. II which includes Notice Pay,

Retrenchment Compensation, Gratuity, Ex-

Gratia etc. and nothing further due and

payable to them arising out of employment

and/or reference.

(4) It is further agreed between the parties

that 2 workmen mentioned above as well

as other workmen who are concerned in

the reference shall have no claim of

whatsoever nature which can be computed

in terms of money and this settlement is

full and final settlement of all their claims

arising out of reference including claim of

re-instatement or re-employment.

9. The above consent terms are signed by Shri

Humberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri Hillary

Fernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also Shri Puti

Gaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Employer/Party II.

I have gone through the records of the case and

the above consent terms and I am convinced that

the consent terms filed by the parties are just and

fair and are in the interest of the Workmen/Party I

and Employer/Party II and therefore, the same are

accepted.

10. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The reference stands disposed of in view

of the consent terms filed by the parties,

at Exhibit 27 colly.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1073

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/96

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on

28-11-2016 in reference No. IT/2/13 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/2/13

Workmen,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Apartment,

Tisk, Ponda-Goa 403 401

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,

V. V. Naik Road,

Fatorda, Goa – 403 602

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.

Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month

of November of the year 2016)

By Order dated 25-02-2013, bearing No. 28/3/

/2013-Lab/90, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik, Fatorda, Goa,

in terminating the services of the below

mentioned workmen, with effect from

01-08-2012 is legal and justified?

(1) Shri Humberto Cardoso, Mechanic.

(2) Shri Manuel Vaz, Lathe Room (IN).

(3) Shri Gokuldas Naik, Mechanic.

(4) Shri Agnelo Rodrigues, Tool Room In-charge.

(5) Shri Shivaji Tanavji, Mechanic.

(6) Shri Mahadev Naik, Mechanic.

(7) Shri Hillary Fernandes, Mechanic.

(8) Shri Freddy Fernandes, Tool Room In-charge.

(9) Shri Sandesh Kawlekar, Mechanic.

(10) Shri Uttam Chodankar, Tin Smith.

(11) Shri Narayan Naik, Tin Smith.

(12) Shri Milagres Pachaco, Mechanic.

(13) Shri Abhay Zambaulikar, Mechanic.

(14) Shri Loyal Fernandes, Mechanic.

(15) Shri Abit Naik, Mechanic Helper.

(16) Shri Sagar Naik, Mechanic Helper.

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

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/02/13 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed the claim statement at Exhibit 4 and

Party II filed the written statement at Exhibit 6.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that Party I

workmen were working with Party II since last

several years in their sales and service workshop

and to carry out maintenance and repairs of the

vehicles, they were employed at their main

workshop at Fatorda. The Party II has not revised

their wages and allowances and their services were

not confirmed and accordingly in June, 2008 they

joined the union viz. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

and thereafter submitted a Charter of Demands

dated 28-6-2008, however Party II refused to

negotiate with the union and on contrary, started

harassing the workers and has illegal terminated

their services. The action of management in

terminating the services and engaging new workers

is an unfair labour practice. The Party II has not

conducted any enquiry and were not paid or offered

retrenchment compensation, notice pay and other

dues and therefore their termination of employment

is illegal.

4. In the written statement the Party II stated

that the termination of services of workmen is

arising out of permanent closure of establishment

under Section 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes

Act and therefore the said termination cannot be

considered as retrenchment as contemplated under

Industrial Disputes Act. The entire closure is fully

legal and justified. The Party I had not made out

any case and therefore the reference be dismissed.

5. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 7

denying the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1074

6. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 10.

7. In the course of further proceedings, the parties

arrived at an amicable settlement and filed consent

terms along with Annexure-A at Exhibit 11 colly.

8. The Consent terms read as follows:

(1) It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen concerned in the reference shall

be paid money as per Annexure-A in full

and final settlement arising out of

employment and reference and the amount

mentioned in Annexure-A shall include

Notice Pay, Retrenchment Compensation,

Gratuity, Ex-Gratia, etc. and these workmen

shall not have any further claim against

the Party No. II other than what is

mentioned in Annexure-A or as also any

benefit which can be computed in terms of

money, including re-instatement and re-

employment.

(2) It is further agreed between the parties

that the workmen concerned in the above

reference shall have no other claim other

than amount mentioned against in

Annexure-A of the settlement and their

entire matter in connection with the

employment, non employment and

condition of labour is full and final

settlement arising out of the reference and

nothing is due and payable to them and

that they are not entitled to claim any re-

instatement or re-employment to the Party

No. II.

(3) It is agreed between the parties that since

the workman concerned in the reference

at serial No. 5 Shri Shivaji Tanavji has

already settled with the Party No. II by

taking his dues by full and final settlement,

the union does not press his demand as

contained in the order of reference and he

would not get his claim for any money

which can be computed in terms of

money is fully and finally settled and he

gave up his claim for re-instatement/

/re-employment.

9. The above Consent terms are signed by Shri

Humberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri Hillary

Fernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also Shri Puti

Gaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Employer/Party II.

I have gone through the records of the case and

the above consent terms and I am convinced that

the consent terms filed by the parties are just and

fair and are in the interest of the Workmen/Party I

and Employer/Party II and therefore, the same are

accepted.

10. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The reference stands disposed of in view

of the consent terms filed by the parties,

at Exhibit 11 colly.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/97

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on

28-11-2016 in reference No. IT/31/09 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/31/09

Workmen,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Apartment,

Tisk, Ponda-Goa 403 401

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

The Managing Director,

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,

Fatorda,

Margao, Goa 403 602

… Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.

S. Bandodkar.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1075

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month

of November of the year 2016)

By Order dated 7-9-2009, bearing No. 28/7/2009-

-LAB/910, the Government of Goa in exercise of

powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the following demands raised by

the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vide letter

dated 28-06-2008 before the management of

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik, Fatorda,

Margao, Goa are legal and justified?

Demand No. 1: Pay Scales

Grade

Pay Scales

I

1750-60-2050-70-2400-80-2800-90-3250-

-100-3750-110-4300-120-4900

II

1850-65-2175-75-2550-85-2975-95-3450-

-105-3975-115-4550-125-5175

III

1950-70-2300-80-2700-90-3150-100-3650-

-110-4200-120-4800-130-5450

IV

2050-75-2425-85-2850-95-3325-105-3850-

-115-4425-125-5050-135-5725

V

2150-80-2550-90-3000-100-3500-110-4050-

-120-4650-130-5300-140-6000

Demand No. 2: Flat Rise

It is demanded that all the workmen should be

given a flat rise of Rs. 1000/- and the same shall be

added to the existing basic and thereafter fitted in

the revised pay scale in the higher stage.

Demand No. 3: Seniority Increments

It is demanded that the workmen shall be given

seniority increments as mentioned below:

Service up to 4 years

Two increments

Service above 4 years and

Three increments

upto 8 years

Service above 8 years and

Four increments

upto 13 years

Service above 13 years

Five increments

Demand No. 4: Variable Dearness Allowances

It is demanded that the Variable Dearness

Allowance shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs.

3/- per point rise above 2000 points (1960=100).

The computation of Variable Dearness Allowance

shall be made quarterly based as per existing

system.

Demand No. 5: House Rent Allowances

It is demanded that the House Rent Allowance

shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 30% of basic

and Dearness Allowance, as the cost of

accommodation is very high in Goa on account of

it being a Tourist State.

Demand No. 6: Children Education Allowance

It is demanded that the Children Education

Allowance shall be paid by adding an amount of

Rs. 500/- to existing allowance per month.

Demand No. 7: Conveyance Allowance

It is demanded that all workmen shall be paid

Conveyance Allowance at the rate of Rs. 750/- per

month.

Demand No. 8: Paid Holidays

It is demanded that all the workmen shall be

granted paid holidays at the rate of 16 days per

year. It is further demanded 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.

Demand No. 9: Leave

It is demanded that all the workers shall be

given leave on following basis:

(A) Earned Leave:- It is demanded that all the

workmen shall be given earned leave at the

rate of 30 days Earned leave per year with

accumulation up to 120 days and leave shall

be allowed to be taken 10 times in a year.

(B) Casual Leave:- It is demanded that all the

workmen shall be given casual leave at the

rate of 15 days per year with encashment

facility.

(C) Sick Leave:- It is demanded that all the

workmen shall be given sick leave at the

rate of 15 days per year with accumulation

of 60 days.

Demand No. 10: Leave Travel Assistance

It is demanded that Leave Travel Assistance

shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 5000/- per

annum, with minimum of four days earned leave.

The amount shall be paid one week before the

commencement of leave.

Demand No.11: Medical Reimbursement/Medical

Allowance

Workmen are working in the dusty place, which

causes major hazards to the health of the workers,

and as such the cost of medicine is very high which

cannot be met with the wages paid to the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1076

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

workmen. It is, therefore demanded that the cost of

all medical expenses of the workmen and their

family shall be reimbursed and an amount of

Rs. 4500/- should be paid as medical allowance to

meet the day to day needs of the family members

of the workmen.

Demand No. 12: Festival Allowance

It is demanded that all the workmen shall be

granted festival allowance of Rs. 3500/- once in a

year at the time of festival to meet the additional

expenses incurred by him for such festival.

Demand No. 13: Bonus/Ex-Gratia

It is demanded that all the workers shall be paid

Bonus/Ex-gratia at the rate of 20% of gross wages

every year, before Diwali.

Demand No. 14: Canteen Subsidy

It is demanded that all the workmen shall be

paid canteen subsidy @Rs.500/- per month.

Demand No. 15: Washing Allowance

It is demanded that the existing washing

allowance shall be revised to Rs. 350/- per month.

Demand No. 16: Daily Bhatta/Outdoor Allowance

It is demanded that those workmen who are

required to work on outstation duties, they shall

be paid actual travelling and accommodation and

the daily bhatta at the rate of Rs. 350/- per day.

Demand No. 17: Special Sick Leave

It is demanded that those workmen who meet

with accident while on duty shall be granted

special sick leave for the period they are under

medical treatment.

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

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/31/09 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed the claim statement at Exhibit 5 and

Party II filed the written statement at Exhibit 8.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the

Party II was engaged in sales and service of vehicles

of Tata Motors in Goa. The Party I submitted a

Charter of Demands as the wages of workers are

very low and not revised for many years. The

financial position of the company is very sound

and they can bear additional cost of demands made

by the workers. The other comparable

establishments functioning in Goa are paying much

higher wages and allowances to the workmen. The

workers have joined the union and on account of

that the management started implementing various

unfair labour practices. The Party II failed to resolve

the issue of Charter of demands. The dispute raised

before the Dy. Labour Commissioner ended in

failure. Hence, the reference.

4. In the written statement, the Party II has stated

that the entire reference is vague and imaginary.

The Party II has permanently closed its workshops

undertakings at Fatorda and Mapusa. The demands

made by Party I are bad in law, illegal and

unjustified. Party I has not made out any case and

therefore the entire demands and reference be

rejected.

5. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 9

denying the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement.

6. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 25.

7. In the course of further proceedings, the

parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed

consent terms at Exhibit 28.

8. The Consent terms read as follows:

(1) In view of the settlement in reference

No. IT/30/09, IT/37/09, IT/5/11 and IT/2/13,

Complaint No. C-IT/37/10 and Approval

Applications No. A-IT/42/11 and A-IT/43/

/11, and since all the workmen have given

up their claims for employment, matters in

connection with the employment and non

employment and conditions of labour

having been settled in above matters and

since no more employee- employer

relationship exists between the workmen

concerned in the above reference,

complaint and applications, the union/

/workmen do not press their demands as

contained in the reference.

9. The above Consent terms are signed by Shri

Humberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri Hillary

Fernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also Shri Puti

Gaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Employer/

/Party II. I have gone through the records of the

case and the above consent terms and I am

convinced that the consent terms filed by the

parties are just and fair and are in the interest of

the Workmen/Party I and Employer/Party II and

therefore, the same are accepted.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1077

10. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The reference stands disposed of in view

of the consent terms filed by the parties,

at Exhibit 28.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/98

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on

09-12-2016 in reference No. IT/22/03 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/22/03

Shri Dinesh V. Velingkar,

Near Primary School,

Mangueshi, Goa.

… Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd.,

G-20, Angarki Bldg.,

Ponda-Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Mrs.

Suvarna Naik.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S.

M. Tendulkar

along with Ld. Adv. Shri Sarvesh

Naik.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 9th day of the month

of December of the year 2016)

By Order dated 04-04-2003, bearing No. 28/11/

/2003-LAB/108, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10 (1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd., Hubli,

having their branch at Ponda-Goa, in

terminating the services of Shri Dinesh V.

Velingkar (Mktg. Executive), with effect from

22-08-2002, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/22/03 and registered A/D notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 4 and

Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 13.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that he was

a workman employed with Party II at its unit at

Ponda and was appointed on probation for a period

of six months w.e.f. 8-10-2001 as a Sales Executive

on a fixed salary of Rs. 4000/- per month. The Party I

worked for about 11 months and during the said

period he had not received either a letter of

extension of probation period or confirmation of

services in the organization. The employer had not

conducted appraisal test and had also not made

the performance report during the period of 11

months service in the said organization. The

employer had issued him one warning memo dated

8-6-2002 during the period of 11 months advising

him to improve his performance and that he would

be kept on close observation of his performance

and activities. There was no other memo sent to

him regarding his performance, however on

20-8-2002 without any reason, the management

forced him to resign his services and on the same

date faxed him a termination letter. The workman

had raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Ponda on 23-8-2002 for injustice done

on him by the management by illegally terminating

his services.

4. In the written statement at Exhibit 6, the

Party II has stated that the Government of Goa is

not the Appropriate Government to refer any

dispute to the Tribunal. The Party II is a company

duly registered under Companies Act having

registered office at Murudeshwar Bhavan, Gokula

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1078

Road, Hubli and its factory at Krishnapur Village,

Hubli, Karnataka. The Regional and Administrative

office of Party II is also at Hubli. The Party I was

employed at Hubli and was placed under

Dy. General (Marketing) at Hubli and was directed

to report at the office at Hubli. The Party I joined

at Hubli and his salary and other amounts due and

payable under the appointment letter were paid

by the Accounts Department, Hubli. The Party I,

though was initially stationed at Goa, all his

activities were supervised and controlled by Hubli

office of Party II. The termination letter was issued

at Hubli by Dy. General Manager, Hubli and

therefore the Government of Goa has no jurisdiction

to refer the dispute to the Tribunal.

5. The Party I was never a workman as defined

in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is not entitled

for any relief under the Act. The duty and

responsibility while in employment of Party I was

supervisory and promotive in nature and required

initiative to promote sales. The Party I was employed

as Sales Executive which required skilled work

and creative ideas to supervise and control the

business. The Party I vide its application dated

31-8-2001 addressed to Party II at Hubli applied for

the post of Sales Executive and the Party II

appointed him as a Sales Executive upon the terms

and conditions mentioned in the appointment

letter and was directed to report at Hubli. The

Party I during the period of employment was unable

to discharge the duty to the satisfaction of Party II

and was always negligent which prompted

Party II to extend his probation and consequently,

the services of Party I were terminated and

therefore, the claim of Party I be rejected.

6. The Party I filed a rejoinder denying the case

put forth by Party II in the written statement. The

Party I has claimed that his services were in Goa

and was stationed at Goa as Sales Executive. He

also claimed that he is a permanent resident of

Mangueshi, Goa and is entitled to institute a case/

/dispute before the Court/within the jurisdiction

where the workman resides. All the letters were

addressed to him by Party II at his residential

address at Mangueshi, Goa and that he was

working under Area Manager posted at Goa and

was directed to sign attendance register and to

inform day-to-day sales and other activities to Area

Manager, Ponda, Goa. The Party II deliberately and

intentionally avoided to issue a confirmation

letter even after the prescribed work period. The

Dy. General Manager has no power and authority

to terminate the services.

7. Issues framed at Exhibit 16 are as follows:

(1) Whether the Party I proves that he was a

“Workman” within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) of

the I.D. Act, 1947?

(2) Whether the Party I proves that termination

of his services is illegal and unjustified?

(3) Whether the Party I proves that the

appropriate Government was Government of

Karnataka?

(4) Whether the Party II proves that this Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the

dispute?

(5) Whether the Party II proves that the services

of the Party I were terminated during

probation

period

for

unsatisfactory

performance?

(6) What relief? What Award?

8. In the course of evidence Party I Shri Dinesh

Velingkar examined himself as witness No. 1 and

produced on record a copy of appointment letter

at Exb. W-1, a copy of letter dated 26-9-2001 at

Exb. W-2, a copy of pay slip at Exb. W-3, a copy of

warning memo at Exb. W-4, a copy of reply to

warning memo at Exb. W-5 and a copy of

termination letter dated 21-08-2001. On the other

hand, the Party II examined Shri Anand Shetty as

their witness and produced on record a copy of

appointment letter dated 8-10-2001 at Exb. 29, copy

of complaints dated 23-8-2002 and dated 4-10-2002

filed before the ALC, Ponda at Exb. 30 & 31

respectively, a copy of notice dated 3-9-2002 issued

by ALC, Ponda at Exb. 32, a copy of reply dated

4-10-2002 to ALC, Ponda at Exb. 33, a copy of

minutes of conciliation proceedings dated

20-12-2002 at Exb. 34 and a copy of extract of

resolution passed by Party II authorizing him to

depose, etc in the matter at Exb. 35.

9. Heard arguments. Notes of written arguments

came to be placed on record by the parties.

10. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the submissions made

by the learned advocates for Parties. I am

reproducing herewith the issues along with their

findings and reasons thereof.

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

1

2

3

1. Whether the Party I proves

In the affirmative

that he was a “Workman”

within the meaning of Sec. 2(s)

of the I. D. Act, 1947?

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1079

2. Whether the Party I proves

In the negative

that termination of his

services is illegal and

unjustified?

3. Whether the Party II proves In the negative

that the appropriate Govern-

ment was Government

of Karnataka?

4. Whether the Party II proves In the negative

that this Tribunal has no

jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon the dispute?

5. Whether the Party II proves In the affirmative

that the services of the Party I

were terminated during

probation period for unsatisfac-

tory performance?

6. What relief? What Award?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Issue No. 1:

11. Ld. Adv. Mrs. Suvarna Naik for the Party I

has submitted that Party I workman worked on

probation for 11 months without any extension

letter or confirmation letter from the management.

Even though Party II has designated Party I as

Sales Executive but no power and authority was

given to him. The designation without power has

no meaning and therefore he does not fall in the

category of management but in the category

of workman. The Party II deliberately and

intentionally avoided issuing a confirmation letter

even after the prescribed work period. He was

employed as Sales Executive only after considering

his skilled work and creative ideas.

12. Ld. Adv. Shri S. M. Tendulkar for Party II has

submitted that Party I was never a workman as

defined under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

duty and responsibility while in employment with

Party I was supervisory and promotive in nature

and required initiative to promote sales. The Party I

was employed as Sales Executive which required

skilled work and creative ideas to supervise and

control the business. The nature of business of

Party I clearly show that Party I does not fit into

the definition of a “workman” and therefore no

reference could be validly considered.

13. It is well settled that for a person to be a

“workman” under the Act, he must be employed

to do the work of any of the categories mentioned

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

It would therefore be useful to consider the

definition of workmen given in section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The definition reads

as under:-

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 express or implied, and for the

purposes of any proceeding under this Act in

relation to an industrial dispute, includes any

such person who has been dismissed, discharged

or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but does not include any such person.

14. In the present case, the workman Shri Dinesh

Velingkar has claimed that he joined his duties

at Hubli on 8-10-2001 pursuant to the letter at

Exb. W-2. He has however not specified the nature

of duties which he was performing in terms of

appointment letter dated 8-10-2001 at Exb. W-1 nor

there is any annexure to appointment letter

specifying the nature of duties which the workman

had to perform. The workman has produced on

record Warning Memo at Exb. W-4 which stipulates

the shortfalls regarding his performance during

8 months of duty with Party I wherein it has been

stated that he had not increased business to the

company and also fared poorly in activities like,

enquiry generation, follow-up, reporting to H.O.

letters and has not improved his performance in

achieving his target nor generated enquiries and

the reports submitted by him are just like activity

chart and not sales report, although he was

informed about how to write sales report giving all

details asked for and other shortfalls.

15. The above Warning memo clearly shows the

nature of duty the Party I/workman had to perform

including achieving the sales target, making

enquiries, furnishing sales report, responding to

I.O.Ms, circulars sent by H.O., following instructions

from H.O., planning for days sales activities, taking

prior appointment, informing the Area Manager,

reporting to the Area Manager about days

happenings, which are indication that the nature

of the duty of the Party I Workman is of clerical

type involving manual, skilled, technical,

operational or supervisory work which the Party I

was doing during his employment with Party II.

Therefore, considering the nature of duty which

was expected from Party I which is reflected in

1

2

3

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1080

Warning memo at Exb. W-4, it is more than clear

that the Party I was performing the duty of clerical

in nature and therefore covered by the definition

of workman given in Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The Party I therefore proved

that he was a “workman” within the meaning of

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

therefore Issue No. 1 is answered in affirmative.

Issue Nos. 2 & 5:

16. Ld. Adv. Mrs. Suvarna Naik for the Party I

has submitted that the termination of services of

the workman employed by Party II was illegal and

unjustified. The employer did not conduct

appraisal test nor made performance report during

the period of 11 months service in the above named

organization. The employer had issued only one

warning memo dated 8-6-2002 for period of one

month advising him to improve his performance

and that he was kept on close observation of his

performance and activities and that the said period

of one month was completed on 8-7-2002 after

which there was no other memo issued to him

regarding his performance. The employer without

any reason thereafter on 20-8-2002 forced him to

resign his service and on the same day faxed him

the termination letter without giving him

reasonable opportunity to represent his case

thereby denying him natural justice. The workman

was on probation for 11 months without any

extension letter or confirmation letter from the

management and as per law if the workman puts

in attendance of 240 days in one organization

without break in service then the workman

automatically gets confirmed in the organization.

In support of her contention, she relied upon the

case of The State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh,

1968 3 SCR 1.

17. Per contra, Ld. Adv. S. M. Tendulkar for the

Party II has submitted and righty so that the

Party I was placed under probation for a period of

six months from the date of joining duty and the

said probation period could be extended further

till the Party I was issued a letter in writing

confirming him in service and that during the

probation period the Party II could terminate the

services of Party I without assigning any reason

and/or without notice and/or compensation.

Discernibly, Clause 1 of the appointment letter at

Exb. W-1 dated 8-10-2001 clearly states that Party I

would be on probation for a period of six months

from the date of joining duty and during the

probation the services can be terminated without

assigning any reason and/or without notice and/or

compensation. Importantly, in the said clause it is

stated that the Party I would be confirmed in

services of the company only if he is intimated to

that effect in writing. The Party I in his cross

examination has admitted that as per the

appointment letter dated 8-10-2001 at Exb. W-1, he

was on probation for a period of six months from

the date of joining duty and that he was never

given any letter by Party II stating that he was

confirmed in the services of the company.

18. The Workman/Party 1 also admitted that he

had signed the appointment letter at Exb. W-1 for

having accepted the terms and conditions of the

said appointment letter. The documents and

evidence on record clearly point out that the Party I

was initially appointed for the period of six months

and that his services could be confirmed only if he

was intimated to that effect in writing. Admittedly,

the Party I was never issued any letter in writing

by Party II indicating the confirmation of the

services in the company. The Party I has accepted

the terms and conditions of the appointment letter

which clearly states that his services would be

confirmed only if he is intimated in writing by the

company. There was admittedly no letter of

confirmation issued to Party I by the company. It

therefore cannot be said that the services of Party

I was confirmed as claimed by Party I. It therefore

follows that the Party I was on probation during

his services with Party II.

19. The next question is whether the termination

of Party I is illegal and unjustified and whether the

services were terminated for unsatisfactorily

performance. The Appointment letter at Exb. W-1

clearly indicates that during the period of

probation the services of Party I could be

terminated without assigning any reasons and/or

without notice and/or without compensation. The

Party I was issued a warning memo dated 8-6-2002

which has not been replied to by him. His services

were terminated by Party II from 21-8-2002 and he

admitted that he did not reply to the termination

letter. The termination letter at Exb. W-6 shows

that the management was displeased with his

performance inspite of their warning memo listing

out therein various deficiencies and that they are

therefore constrained to terminate his services w.e.f.

22-8-2002. The termination letter at Exb W-6 cannot

be termed illegal as reasonable opportunity was

given to Party I to improve his performance. He

was issued warning memo as well as inter office

memo at Exb. W-5 dated 18-6-2002 and was kept on

close observance on his performance and activities.

He has not produced on record any evidence

contrary to the memos issued to him to improve his

performance. The workman inspite of opportunity

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1081

and warnings given to him, failed to show any

improvement nor replied to the memo dated

8-6-2002 or termination letter dated 22-8-2002.

Moreover, the Party II as per terms and conditions

of appointment letter dated 8-6-2001 was not

required to give any reason for termination of

service since the Party I was under probation

period.

20. The documents and evidence on record are

indication of the fact that termination of the

services of the Party I Workman was legal and

justified as the termination letter clearly states that

since the management was not satisfied with the

performance of Party I, the services were

terminated and was also offered salary of one month

in lieu of notice period which was paid to him. The

services of Party I were terminated during probation

period for the reasons mentioned in the said

termination letter after following the principles of

natural justice and therefore the submission of

Party I that there were no other memos; no

appraisal tests; no performance reports or that he

was forced by Party II to resign without giving

opportunity to represent himself or there has been

violation of principle of natural justice cannot be

accepted. Moreover, the claim of Party I of

Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation also cannot

sustain which Party II is not liable to pay. The

services of Party I are lawfully terminated as the

performance of Party I who was under probation

was found unsatisfactory and therefore the claim

of Party I cannot be granted. Hence, the issue

No. 2 is answered in negative and issue No. 5 is

answered in the affirmative.

Issue Nos. 3 & 4:

21. Ld. Adv. S. M. Tendulkar for the Party II has

submitted that the Tribunal has no territorial

jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of the

dispute between Party I and Party II as industrial

dispute has arisen outside the jurisdiction of the

Court, more so when the Party II is a company duly

registered under Companies Act and is having

registered office, its factory so also regional and

administrative office at Hubli, Karnataka. The Party I

is employed at Hubli and placed under Dy. General

(Marketing) at Hubli. The Party I had joined at

Hubli as per appointment letter. The salary and

other amounts due and payable under the

appointment letter were paid by the Accounts

Department at Hubli and all his activities were

supervised and controlled by the Hubli office of

Party II. The termination letter by Party II was also

issued at Hubli and therefore the Appropriate

Government under the Industrial Dispute Act

would be Government of Karnataka and not

Government of Goa. In support to his contention,

he relied upon cases of (1) J. & J. Dechane

Distributors vs. State of Kerala and others, 1974

II L.L.J. 9 and (2) Association of Medical

Representatives (M.&V.) vs. Industrial Tribunal,

Madhya Pradesh, Indore and another, 1966 I

L.L.J. 614.

22. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Mrs. Suvarna Naik for

the Party I has submitted that the Party I was a

permanent resident of Mangueshi, Goa and all the

correspondence were addressed to Party I at his

residential address including appointment letter,

warning memo and termination letter. The Party I

was working under Area Manager posted at Goa

and was directed to sign attendance register every

day in the morning and in the evening and to

inform day-to-day sales and activities to Area

Manager at Ponda and was directed to handover

all the records and belongings of the company to

one Mr. Ratan Gajendragad, Area Manager, Goa

and therefore the Appropriate Government is the

Government of Goa and not the Government of

Karnataka. In support of her contention, she relied

upon the cases of (1) Pritam Singh vs. Presiding

Officer, Labour Court, 2004 0 Supreme (P&H) 638

and (2) Lohia Starlinger Limited and Anr. vs.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., 2006(3) SCT 214

(Delhi).

23. Needless to mention, the provisions of the

Industrial Dispute Act need to be interpreted

liberally to achieve the legislative intent. The

provisions of the Act are silent with respect to an

occurrence of a cause of action, yet the principles

laid down for determining territorial jurisdiction of

a Civil Court can ordinarily be borrowed and

pressed into service for seeking reference to an

industrial dispute. Even, if part of cause of action

has arisen in the territory of a State, its Government

is competent to refer the dispute and if the facts

culminating into occurrence of “cause of action”

are scattered in the territories of more than one

State, it is open to the aggrieved party to approach

any one of the State Governments for getting the

dispute referred. That being the case even an

industrial dispute and occurrence of an industrial

dispute does not necessarily depend only upon

the situs of the employment where the worker was

employed or where the order of dismissal of his

service, suspension or retrenchment is received as

observed in the case of Pritam Singh, supra.

24. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Lalbhai

Tricumlal Mills vs. Vin (D.M) and Ors. 1956(I)

LLJ 557 has held that the Act did not deal with

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1082

the cause of action nor did it indicate what factors

will confer jurisdiction upon the court and

consequently the well known tests of a jurisdiction

would require to be complied with to which the

court or tribunal would have jurisdiction in the

matter. It also held that a Court or Tribunal would

have jurisdiction if the parties reside within

jurisdiction or if the subject-matter of the dispute

substantially arose within jurisdiction.

25. The workman, Shri Dinesh Velingkar has

produced on record the appointment letter dated

8-10-2001 addressed to him at his residential

address at Mangueshi. There is no dispute that

Party I is a permanent resident of Mangueshi-Goa

and all the correspondence were addressed to his

residential address at Mangueshi and that he was

stationed at Goa as Sales Executive on behalf of

Party II for achieving the sales target of the product

of Party II and that he was relieved from office for

failing to achieve the targets. The cause of action

therefore had arisen in the territory of State of Goa

as he was working on behalf of Party II in Goa.

Moreover, the Party I resided within the jurisdiction

of State of Goa and the subject matter of dispute

substantially arose within the jurisdiction of State

of Goa and therefore, it was open to Party I to

approach any of the State Governments for getting

the dispute referred and therefore the State of Goa

is competent to refer dispute to this Tribunal. The

contention of Ld. Adv. Shri S. M. Tendulkar and the

reliance placed on the above citations turned on

its own facts and therefore are not applicable to

the case at hand. The Tribunal has therefore

territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute

referred by the Government being the Government

of Goa and not the Government of Karnataka. It is,

therefore, issue No. 3 & 4 are answered in negative.

26. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the action of the

management of M/s. Murudeshwar

Ceramics Ltd., Hubli, having their branch

at Ponda-Goa, in terminating the services

of Shri Dinesh V. Velingkar (Mrkg.

Executive), with effect from 22-08-2002, is

legal and justified. The Party I, is therefore

not entitled to any relief.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-Lab/Part-IV/79

The following compromise memorandum of

settlement signed on 12-11-2016 before the National

Lok Adalat in case No. P-IT/50/16 is hereby

published 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.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

______

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT

COMPROMISE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

IN CASE No. P-IT/50/16 FILED UNDER

SECTION 33 (1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Case No. P-IT/50/16

M/s. Elsteel Modular Products

India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. 3, Phase 3,

Honda Industrial Estate,

Satari Goa 403530

.... Applicant/Party I

V/s

Shri Sarvesh Malik,

H. No. 194, Near Petrol Pump,

Pratap Nagar, Sanquelim-Goa .... Opponent/Party II

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

Dispute in brief is that pursuant to the

suspension orders dated 28-09-2016 made by the

Company M/s. Elsteel Modular Products (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

Honda, Satari Goa, suspending the workmen

namely, S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, Vithal

Gawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik, Rajendra

Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh Rawal, Kiran

Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar, Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas

Malik and Mahadev Jaiwant Narvekar (For short the

said workmen) pending permission of the Hon’ble

Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Panaji in reference

No. IT/21/2016, the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

Ponda Goa espoused the cause of the said workmen

before the company vide its letter dated 02-10-2016.

The Union also endorsed a copy of the said notice

to this office i.e. the Assistant Labour Commissioner

and Conciliation Officer, Mapusa for intervention.

The union/said workmen challenged their

suspension pending permission and payment of

subsistence allowance @ 50% of the last drawn

wages. The Union also gave a notice of strike by all

the workmen w.e.f. 17-10-2016 if the matter of the

said workmen is not resolved.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1083

A notice for discussion was served on the

management of the Company and the Union to

appear before this office on 07-10-2016. The

management and the union alongwith the said

workmen attended the discussions accordingly on

7-10-16, 13-10-16, 14-10-16, 20-10-16, 25-10-16 and

28-10-16. The matter is admitted was admitted in

conciliation and further discussions were held. The

management had contended that the suspension

of the said workmen was pending permission to

dismiss the said workmen. The applications dated

28-9-16 have been simultaneously filed by the

company before the Industrial Tribunal of Goa,

Panaji before whom the main adjudication on

Charter of demands by the Union is pending.

The proposals were exchanged between the

parties on the settlement of the dispute of the

Union/said workmen amicable. The management

stated that the management shall not take back the

said workmen and that they are ready to settle the

matter of the said workmen on monetary basis.

The said workmen and the union had separate

discussions on the proposals given by the company

in respect of the settlement of the dispute of the

said workmen on monetary terms. The management

has also contended that the criminal complaint

filed by the Union/workmen has to be withdrawn

before setting the matter.

The union informed this office that the said

workmen as well as the workmen of the Company

have agreed and decided to settle the dispute on

terms spelt out below.

TERMS OF COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT

1. It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen of M/s. Elsteel Modular Products India Pvt.

Ltd., Honda Goa, namely, S/Shri Sanjay Hilekar,

Sarvesh Malik, Vithal Gawas, Pratap Nagvekar,

Pravin Naik, Rajendra Narulkar, Amit Ekawade,

Rupesh Rawal, Kiran Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar,

Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas Malik and Mahadev

Jaiwant Narvekar shall be deemed to have resigned

from the service w.e.f. 28-10-16.

2. It is agreed between the parties that each of

the workmen above named shall be paid an amount

of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs & fifty thousand

only) in full and final settlement of their legal dues,

except gratuity and leave encashment, Bonus and

earned wages which will be paid separately on the

last drawn wages as on 31-8-2016. It is agreed

between the parties that all the said workmen shall

be issued bonafide service certificate.

3. It is agreed between the parties that in view

of Clauses (1) and (2) above named the applications

filed by the Company, for permission to dismiss the

said workmen, shall be withdrawn.

4. It is agreed and declared by the Union and the

said workmen that the amount payable by the

company to the said workmen in the manner

hereinabove provided for are in full and final

settlement and satisfaction of all the claims of the

said workmen against the Company including

claims for compensation for loss of office or

otherwise whatsoever.

5. It is agreed between the parties that the

Complaint filed by the Union/Workmen before the

Police Inspector at Valpoi Police Station, Valpoi,

against the General Manager, Mr. Kalidas Jadhav

shall be withdrawn on or before 15-11-2016.

6. It is agreed between the parties that the said

amount payable to the said workmen shall be paid

on or before 15-11-2016.

Signed on this 12th day of November, 2016.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-Lab/Part-IV/80

The following compromise memorandum of

settlement signed on 12-11-2016 before the National

Lok Adalat in case No. P-IT/49/16 is hereby

published 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.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1084

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT

COMPROMISE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

IN CASE No. P-IT/49/16 FILED UNDER SECTION

33 (1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Case No. P-IT/49/16

M/s. Elsteel Modular Products

India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. 3, Phase 3,

Honda Industrial Estate,

Satari Goa (403530)

… Applicant/Party I

V/s

Shri Rupesh Pandurang Rawal,

H. No. 40, Dhab-Dhaba,

Bicholim Goa

… Opponent/Party II

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

Dispute in brief is that pursuant to the

suspension orders dated 28-09-2016 made by the

Company M/s. Elsteel Modular Products (I) Pvt.

Ltd., Honda, Satari Goa, suspending the workmen

namely, S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, Vithal

Gawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik, Rajendra

Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh Rawal, Kiran

Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar, Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas

Malik and Mahadev Jaiwant Narvekar (For short

the said workmen) pending permission of the

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Panaji, in

reference No. IT/21/2016, the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh, Ponda Goa espoused the cause of the said

workmen before the company vide its letter dated

02-10-2016. The Union also endorsed a copy of the

said notice to this office i.e. the Assistant Labour

Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Mapusa

for intervention. The Union/said workmen

challenged their suspension pending permission

and payment of subsistence allowance @ 50% of

the last drawn wages. The Union also gave a notice

of strike by all the workmen w.e.f. 17-10-2016 if the

matter of the said workmen is not resolved.

A notice for discussion was served on the

management of the Company and the Union to

appear before this office on 07-10-2016. The

management and the union alongwith the said

workmen attended the discussions accordingly on

7-10-16, 13-10-16, 14-10-16, 20-10-16, 25-10-16 and

28-10-16. The matter is admitted was admitted in

conciliation and further discussions were held. The

management had contended that the suspension

of the said workmen was pending permission to

dismiss the said workmen. The applications dated

28-9-16 have been simultaneously filed by the

company before the Industrial Tribunal of Goa,

Panaji before whom the main adjudication on

Charter of demands by the Union is pending.

The proposals were exchanged between the

parties on the settlement of the dispute of the

Union/said workmen amicable. The management

stated that the management shall not take back

the said workmen and that they are ready to settle

the matter of the said workmen on monetary basis.

The said workmen and the union had separate

discussions on the proposals given by the Company

in respect of the settlement of the dispute of the

said workmen on monetary terms. The management

has also contended that the criminal complaint

filed by the union/workmen has to be withdrawn

before settling the matter.

The union informed this office that the said

workmen as well as the workmen of the Company

have agreed and decided to settle the dispute on

terms spelt out below.

TERMS OF COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT

1. It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen of M/s. Elsteel Modular Products

India Pvt. Ltd., Honda Goa, namely

S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, Vithal

Gawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik,

Rajendra Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh

Rawal, Kiran Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar,

Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas Malik and Mahadev

Jaiwant Narvekar shall be deemed to have

resigned from the service w.e.f. 28-10-16.

2. It is agreed between the parties that each of

the workmen above named shall be paid an

amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs &

fifty thousand only) in full and final

settlement of their legal dues, except gratuity

and leave encashment, bonus and earned

wages which will be paid separately on the

last drawn wages as on 31-8-2016. It is agreed

between the parties that all the said workmen

shall be issued bonafide service certificate.

3. It is agreed between the parties that in view

of Clauses (1) and (2) above named the

applications filed by the Company, for

permission to dismiss the said workmen, shall

be withdrawn.

4. It is agreed and declared by the Union and

the said workmen that the amount payable

by the company to the said workmen in the

manner hereinabove provided for are in full

and final settlement and satisfaction of all

the claims of the said workmen against the

Company including claims for compensation

for loss of office or otherwise whatsoever.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1085

5. It is agreed between the parties that the

Complaint filed by the Union/workmen

before the Police Inspector at Valpoi Police

Station, Valpoi, against the General Manager,

Mr. Kalidas Jadhav shall be withdrawn on or

before 15-11-2016.

6. It is agreed between the parties that the

said amount payable to the said workmen

shall be paid on or before 15-11-2016.

Signed on this 12th day of November, 2016.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-Lab/Part-IV/81

The following compromise memorandum of

settlement signed on 12-11-2016 before the National

Lok Adalat in case No. P-IT/48/16 is hereby

published 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.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

______

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT

COMPROMISE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

IN CASE No. P-IT/48/16 FILED UNDER SECTION

33 (1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Case No. P-IT/48/16

M/s. Elsteel Modular Products

India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. 3, Phase 3,

Honda Industrial Estate,

Satari Goa (403530)

… Applicant/Party I

V/s

Shri Rajendra Dharma Narulkar,

H. No. 101, Dhab-Dhaba,

Bicholim Goa

… Opponent/Party II

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

Dispute in brief is that pursuant to the

suspension orders dated 28-09-2016 made by the

Company M/s. Elsteel Modular Products (I) Pvt.

Ltd., Honda, Satari Goa, suspending the workmen

namely S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, Vithal

Gawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik, Rajendra

Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh Rawal, Kiran

Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar, Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas

Malik and Mahadev Jaiwant Narvekar (For short

the said workmen) pending permission of the

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Panaji, in

reference No. IT/21/2016, the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh, Ponda Goa espoused the cause of the said

workmen before the company vide its letter dated

02-10-2016. The Union also endorsed a copy of the

said notice to this office i.e. the Assistant Labour

Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Mapusa for

intervention. The Union/said workmen challenged

their suspension pending permission and payment

of subsistence allowance @ 50% of the last drawn

wages. The Union also gave a notice of strike by all

the workmen w.e.f. 17-10-2016 if the matter of the

said workmen is not resolved.

A notice for discussion was served on the

management of the Company and the Union to

appear before this office on 07-10-2016. The

management and the union alongwith the said

workmen attended the discussions accordingly on

7-10-16, 13-10-16, 14-10-16, 20-10-16, 25-10-16 and

28-10-16. The matter is admitted was admitted in

conciliation and further discussions were held. The

management had contended that the suspension

of the said workmen was pending permission to

dismiss the said workmen. The applications dated

28-9-16 have been simultaneously filed by the

company before the Industrial Tribunal of Goa,

Panaji before whom the main adjudication on

Charter of demands by the Union is pending.

The proposals were exchanged between the

parties on the settlement of the dispute of the

Union/said workmen amicable. The management

stated that the management shall not take back

the said workmen and that they are ready to settle

the matter of the said workmen on monetary basis.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1086

The said workmen and the union had separate

discussions on the proposals given by the Company

in respect of the settlement of the dispute of the

said workmen on monetary terms. The management

has also contended that the criminal complaint

filed by the union/workmen has to be withdrawn

before settling the matter.

The union informed this office that the said

workmen as well as the workmen of the Company

have agreed and decided to settle the dispute on

terms spelt out below.

TERMS OF COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT

1. It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen of M/s. Elsteel Modular Products

India Pvt. Ltd., Honda Goa, namely,

S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, Vithal

Gawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik,

Rajendra Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh

Rawal, Kiran Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar,

Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas Malik and Mahadev

Jaiwant Narvekar shall be deemed to have

resigned from the service w.e.f. 28-10-16.

2. It is agreed between the parties that each of

the workmen above named shall be paid an

amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs &

fifty thousand only) in full and final

settlement of their legal dues, except gratuity

and leave encashment, bonus and earned

wages which will be paid separately on the

last drawn wages as on 31-8-2016. It is agreed

between the parties that all the said workmen

shall be issued bonafide service certificate.

3. It is agreed between the parties that in view

of Clauses (1) and (2) above named the

applications filed by the Company, for

permission to dismiss the said workmen, shall

be withdrawn.

4. It is agreed and declared by the Union and

the said workmen that the amount payable

by the company to the said workmen in the

manner hereinabove provided for are in full

and final settlement and satisfaction of all

the claims of the said workmen against the

Company including claims for compensation

for loss of office or otherwise whatsoever.

5. It is agreed between the parties that the

Complaint filed by the Union/workmen

before the Police Inspector at Valpoi Police

Station, Valpoi, against the General Manager,

Mr. Kalidas Jadhav shall be withdrawn on or

before 15-11-2016.

6. It is agreed between the parties that the

said amount payable to the said workmen

shall be paid on or before 15-11-2016.

Signed on this 12th day of November, 2016.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-Lab/Part-IV/82

The following compromise memorandum of

settlement signed on 12-11-2016 before the National

Lok Adalat in case No. P-IT/48/16 is hereby

published 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.

Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.

______

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT

COMPROMISE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT

IN CASE No. P-IT/47/16 FILED UNDER SECTION

33 (1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Case No. P-IT/47/16

M/s. Elsteel Modular Products

India Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No. 3, Phase 3,

Honda Industrial Estate,

Satari Goa (403530)

… Applicant/Party I

V/s

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1087

Shri Amit Anand Ekwade,

H. No. 92, Van New Wada,

Maulingem, Bicholim Goa

… Opponent/Party II

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

Dispute in brief is that pursuant to the

suspension orders dated 28-09-2016 made by the

Company M/s. Elsteel Modular Products (I) Pvt.

Ltd., Honda, Satari Goa, suspending the workmen

namely S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, Vithal

Gawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik, Rajendra

Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh Rawal, Kiran

Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar, Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas

Malik and Mahadev Jaiwant Narvekar (For short

the said workmen) pending permission of the

Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Panaji, in

reference No. IT/21/2016, the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh, Ponda Goa espoused the cause of the said

workmen before the company vide its letter dated

02-10-2016. The Union also endorsed a copy of the

said notice to this office i.e. the Assistant Labour

Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Mapusa for

intervention. The Union/said workmen challenged

their suspension pending permission and payment

of subsistence allowance @ 50% of the last drawn

wages. The Union also gave a notice of strike by all

the workmen w.e.f. 17-10-2016 if the matter of the

said workmen is not resolved.

A notice for discussion was served on the

management of the Company and the Union to

appear before this office on 07-10-2016. The

management and the union alongwith the said

workmen attended the discussions accordingly on

7-10-16, 13-10-16, 14-10-16, 20-10-16, 25-10-16 and

28-10-16. The matter is admitted was admitted in

conciliation and further discussions were held. The

management had contended that the suspension

of the said workmen was pending permission to

dismiss the said workmen. The applications dated

28-9-16 have been simultaneously filed by the

company before the Industrial Tribunal of Goa,

Panaji before whom the main adjudication on

Charter of demands by the Union is pending.

The proposals were exchanged between the

parties on the settlement of the dispute of the

Union/said workmen amicable. The management

stated that the management shall not take back

the said workmen and that they are ready to settle

the matter of the said workmen on monetary basis.

The said workmen and the union had separate

discussions on the proposals given by the Company

in respect of the settlement of the dispute of the

said workmen on monetary terms. The management

has also contended that the criminal complaint

filed by the union/workmen has to be withdrawn

before settling the matter.

The union informed this office that the said

workmen as well as the workmen of the Company

have agreed and decided to settle the dispute on

terms spelt out below.

TERMS OF COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT

1. It is agreed between the parties that the

workmen of M/s. Elsteel Modular Products

India Pvt. Ltd., Honda Goa, namely,

S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, Vithal

Gawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik,

Rajendra Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh

Rawal, Kiran Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar,

Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas Malik and Mahadev

Jaiwant Narvekar shall be deemed to have

resigned from the service w.e.f. 28-10-16.

2. It is agreed between the parties that each of

the workmen above named shall be paid an

amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs &

fifty thousand only) in full and final

settlement of their legal dues, except gratuity

and leave encashment, bonus and earned

wages which will be paid separately on the

last drawn wages as on 31-8-2016. It is agreed

between the parties that all the said workmen

shall be issued bonafide service certificate.

3. It is agreed between the parties that in view

of Clauses (1) and (2) above named the

applications filed by the Company, for

permission to dismiss the said workmen, shall

be withdrawn.

4. It is agreed and declared by the Union and

the said workmen that the amount payable

by the company to the said workmen in the

manner hereinabove provided for are in full

and final settlement and satisfaction of all

the claims of the said workmen against the

Company including claims for compensation

for loss of office or otherwise whatsoever.

5. It is agreed between the parties that the

Complaint filed by the Union/workmen

before the Police Inspector at Valpoi Police

Station, Valpoi, against the General Manager,

Mr. Kalidas Jadhav shall be withdrawn on or

before 15-11-2016.

6. It is agreed between the parties that the

said amount payable to the said workmen

shall be paid on or before 15-11-2016.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 48

2ND MARCH, 2017

1088

Signed on this 12th day of November, 2016.

———‹‹‹———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

__

Notification by the High Court of Judicature

Appellate Side, Bombay.

No. A-1205/G/2017/680

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974), the High Court is

pleased to appoint the following Assistant Sessions

Judges as the Additional Sessions Judges to

exercise jurisdiction in the Courts of Sessions with

immediate effect.

Name of the Judicial Officers and present posting

Sr.

Name of Judicial Officers

No.

1. Ms. Vijaya V. Ambre,

Ad hoc District Judge-2 & Assistant Sessions

Judges (F.T.C.), Panaji.

2. Ms. Bela N. Naik,

Ad hoc District Judge-1 & Assistant Sessions

Judge (FTC), North Goa, Mapusa.

High Court, Bombay,

Mangesh S. Patil

Dated: 16th February, 2017.

Registrar General

Department of Transport

Directorate of Transport

__

Notification

No. D. Tpt/EST/1997/(PF) 2015/441

Read: Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/2002/2012/1619

dated 26-04-2012.

Government is pleased to accept the resignations

tendered by Shri Jose Luis Carlos Almeida, Vasco

as Chairman on the Board of Directors of Kadamba

Transport Corporation Ltd.

Consequently said Shri Jose Luis Carlos Almeida,

Vasco ceased to be the Chairman on the Board of

Directors of Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd.

with effect from 16-01-2017.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sunil Masurkar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Transport).

Panaji, 22nd February, 2017.

________

Notification

No. D. Tpt/EST/1997/(PF) 2016/445

In pursuance of Article 68 read with Article 78

of the Articles of Association of the Kadamba

Transport Corporation Limited, the Government is

pleased to appoint Shri Dharmendra Sharma, IAS,

Secretary (Transport) as Chairman of the Kadamba

Transport Corporation Limited w.e.f. 16-01-2017

vice Shri Jose Luis Carlos Almeida, former Chairman

of Kadamba Transport Corporation Limited.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sunil Masurkar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Transport).

Panaji, 22nd February, 2017.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 22.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–354/350–3/2017.