Panaji, 8th June, 2017 (Jyaistha 18, 1939)
SERIES II No. 10
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
1063
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
Note:-
There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 9 dated 01-06-2017 as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 06-06-2017 from pages 1055 to 1056 regarding Corrigenda from Department of
Panchayati Raj & Community Development.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 07-06-2017 from pages 1057 to 1062 regarding Notification from Department
of Elections and Order from Department of Home.
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Higher Education
__
Order
No. 5/29/AC/98-DHE/1844/Vol. II/662
Read: Government Order No. 5/29/AC/98-DHE/1844 dated 21-5-2009.
Whereas, vide Order read in preamble as above, Government of Goa has allowed the teacher and
equivalent service cadres employees in Goa University and in it affiliated colleges and academic staff
to avail the benefits of revised pay scales as recommended by the UGC and approved for implementation
by the Government of India, vide scheme No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I (i) dated 31-12-2008, consequent upon
acceptance of recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission.
And whereas, as envisaged under para (2) (a) (ix) of the said scheme, the incumbents Readers and
Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed 3 years in the pay scales of Rs. 12,000-18,300 as on
01-01-2006 shall be placed in Pay Band of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000/- and shall be re-
designated as Associate Professor;
And whereas, proviso 2(a)(x) of the said scheme says that the incumbents Readers and Lecturers
(Selection Grade) who had not completed 3 years in the pay scales of Rs. 12,000-18,300 on 1-1-2006 shall
be placed at the appropriate stage in the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 with AGP of Rs. 8,000/- till they
complete 3 years of service in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader, and thereafter shall be
placed in the higher pay band of Rs. 37,400-67,000 and accordingly re-designated as Associate Professor.
Now therefore, the following Assistant Professors of the Government College of Arts, Science &
Commerce, Khandola, who have completed 3 years of service are eligible for placing them in the higher
Pay Band-4 of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000/- and re-designated them as Associate Professor
from the date of their eligibility:-
Sr.
Name of the faculty
Date of Selection Grade Scales
Date of eligibility for
No.
Pre-revised Rs. 12,000-420-18,300
placement in the Pay
Revised: Rs. 15,600-39,100
Band-4 of Rs. 37,400-67,000
+AGP: Rs. 8,000/-
1
2
3
4
Government College of Arts, Science & Commerce, Khandola
1.
Ms. Radhamani Divakar,
15-02-2007
15-02-2010.
Assistant Professor in Commerce
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1064
2.
Ms. Ana B. Gracy Fernandes,
25-06-2007
25-06-2010.
Assistant Professor in Computer Science
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Higher Education).
Porvorim, 1st June, 2017.
________
Order
No. 5/29/AC/98-DHE/1844/Vol. II/663
Read: Government Order No. 5/29/AC/98-DHE/1844 dated 21-5-2009.
Whereas, vide Order read in preamble as above, Government of Goa has allowed the teacher and
equivalent service cadres employees in Goa University and in it affiliated colleges and academic staff
to avail the benefits of revised pay scales as recommended by the UGC and approved for implementation
by the Government of India, vide scheme No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I (i) dated 31-12-2008, consequent upon
acceptance of recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission.
And whereas, as envisaged under para (2) (a) (ix) of the said scheme, the incumbents Readers and
Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed 3 years in the pay scales of Rs. 12,000-18,300 as on
01-01-2006 shall be placed in Pay Band of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000/- and shall be
re-designated as Associate Professor;
And whereas, proviso 2(a)(x) of the said scheme says that the incumbents Readers and Lecturers
(Selection Grade) who had not completed 3 years in the pay scales of Rs. 12,000-18,300 on 1-1-2006 shall
be placed at the appropriate stage in the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 with AGP of Rs. 8,000/- till they
complete 3 years of service in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader, and thereafter shall be
placed in the higher pay band of Rs. 37,400-67,000 and accordingly re-designated as Associate Professor.
Now therefore, the following Assistant Professor of the Sant Sohirobanath Ambiye Government College
of Arts & Commerce, Virnoda, Pernem-Goa who have completed 3 years of service are eligible for placing
them in the higher Pay Band-4 of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000/- and
re-designated them as Associate Professor from the date of their eligibility:-
Sr.
Name of the faculty
Date of Selection Grade Scales
Date of eligibility for
No.
Pre-revised Rs. 12,000-420-18,300
placement in the Pay
Revised: Rs. 15,600-39,100
Band-4 of Rs. 37,400-67,000
+AGP: Rs. 8,000/-
Sant Sohirobanath Ambiye Government College of Arts & Commerce, Pernem
1.
Dr. B. K. Haravi,
24-12-2010
24-12-2013.
Assistant Professor in Geography
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Higher Education).
Porvorim, 1st June, 2017.
________
Order
No. 5/29/AC/98-DHE/1844/Vol. II/664
Read: Government Order No. 5/29/AC/98-DHE/1844 dated 21-5-2009.
Whereas, vide Order read in preamble as above, Government of Goa has allowed the teacher and
equivalent service cadres employees in Goa University and in it affiliated colleges and academic staff
to avail the benefits of revised pay scales as recommended by the UGC and approved for implementation
by the Government of India, vide scheme No. 1-32/2006-U.II/U.I (i) dated 31-12-2008, consequent upon
acceptance of recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission.
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1065
And whereas, as envisaged under para (2) (a) (ix) of the said scheme, the incumbents Readers and
Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed 3 years in the pay scales of Rs. 12,000-18,300 as on
01-01-2006 shall be placed in Pay Band of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000/- and shall be
re-designated as Associate Professor;
And whereas, proviso 2(a)(x) of the said scheme says that the incumbents Readers and Lecturers
(Selection Grade) who had not completed 3 years in the pay scales of Rs. 12,000-18,300 on 1-1-2006 shall
be placed at the appropriate stage in the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100 with AGP of Rs. 8,000/- till they
complete 3 years of service in the grade of Lecturer (Selection Grade)/Reader, and thereafter shall be
placed in the higher pay band of Rs. 37,400-67,000 and accordingly re-designated as Associate Professor.
Now therefore, the following Assistant Professors of the Government College of Arts, Science &
Commerce, Quepem who have completed 3 years of service are eligible for placing them in the higher
Pay Band-4 of Rs. 37,400-67,000 with AGP of Rs. 9,000/- and re-designated them as Associate Professor
from the date of their eligibility:-
Sr.
Name of the faculty
Date of Selection Grade Scales
Date of eligibility for
No.
Pre-revised Rs. 12,000-420-18,300
placement in the Pay
Revised: Rs. 15,600-39,100
Band-4 of Rs. 37,400-67,000
+AGP: Rs. 8,000/-
Government College of Arts, Science & Commerce, Quepem
1.
Smt. Maria Jacqueline,
01-10-2005
01-10-2008.
Assistant Professor in Chemistry
2.
Smt. Sarita P. Usgaonkar,
14-09-2009
14-09-2012.
Assistant Professor in Commerce
3.
Ms. Olivia Soares,
27-06-2007
27-06-2010.
Assistant Professor in Computer Science
4.
Shri Filipe Rodrigues,
02-01-2009
02-01-2012.
Assistant Professor in Computer Science
5.
Ms. Liana Maria Ismalia Da Costa,
08-09-2010
08-09-2013.
Assistant Professor in Computer Science
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Higher Education).
Porvorim, 1st June, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Finance
Revenue & Control Division
__
Order
No. 6/3/2015-Fin (R&C)/Part/2374
The Government of Goa is pleased to order transfer and posting of the following Commercial Tax
Officers in the Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, with effect from 1st June, 2017, in the
public interest:-
Sr.
Name of Commercial
Present place of posting
Transferred and posted as
No.
Tax Officer (CTO)
1
2
3
4
1.
Smt. Asha A. Harmalkar
CTO, Panaji Ward
CTO, Ponda Ward, vice Smt.
Swati A. Dalvi, CTO transferred.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1066
2.
Smt. Prasanni Halarnker
CTO (Headquarter),
CTO, Bicholim Ward, vice Smt. Dipali
O/o. Commissioner of
Naik, CTO transferred.
Commercial Taxes, Panaji
3.
Smt. Dipali Naik
CTO, Bicholim Ward
CTO, Vasco Ward, against vacant
post consequent upon promotion
of Shri Chandresh Kunkalkar.
4.
Smt. Swati A. Dalvi
CTO, Ponda Ward
CTO, Panaji Ward, vice Smt. Asha
A. Harmalkar, CTO transferred.
5.
Shri Gaurish V.
CTO, Panaji Ward
CTO (Headquarter), O/o. Commi-
Khedekar
-ssioner of Commercial Taxes,
Panaji, vice Smt. Prasanni Halarnkar,
CTO transferred.
6.
Smt. Darshani S. Dessai
CTO, Curchorem Ward
CTO, Margao Ward, vice Smt. Lata
Madangerikar, CTO transferred.
7.
Smt. Lata Madangerikar
CTO, Margao Ward
CTO, Curchorem Ward, vice
Smt. Darshani S. Dessai, CTO
transferred.
All the above officials shall complete their handing over and taking over formalities within a period
of week and submit compliance to the Finance (Rev. & Cont.) Department.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Ajit S. Pawaskar, Under Secretary, Finance (R&C).
Porvorim, 26th May, 2017.
________
Order
No. 3/1/2009-Fin (R&C)/2413
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Goa Entertainment Tax Act,
1964 (Act No. 2 of 1964), the Government of Goa is pleased to exempt the Hindi film “SACHIN A BILLION
DREAMS” from the liability of payment of entertainment tax in whole, when screened in any of the
theatres in State of Goa for a period upto 30th June, 2017 from the date of publication of this Order in
the Official Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Michael M. D’Souza, Additional Secretary (Finance).
Porvorim, 1st June, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
1
2
3
4
Department of Fisheries
Directorate of Fisheries
__
Order
No. DF/ADMN/RIT/2006/Vol.-IV/2017/1342
In pursuance to Clause 5 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
“the said Act”), the following officer/official are
hereby appointed as Public Information Officer and
Assistant Public Information Officer for the
Directorate of Fisheries, to deal with the
applications received from the public under the
said Act.
Sr. Name and desig-
Designated
Jurisdiction
No.
nation of the
as
officer/official
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Chandra-
Public Infor-
State of Goa.
kant D. Velip,
mation Officer
Dy. Director of
Fisheries
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1067
2. Shri Pratha-
Assistant
State of Goa.
mesh Shirodkar, Public Infor-
Lower Division
mation Officer
Clerk
The Assistant Public Information Officer shall on
receipt of the applications for information or appeal
under the RTI Act forwarded the same forthwith to
the Public Information Officer, as required under
sub-section (1) of Section 7.
The Public Information Officer shall on receipt
of a request under Section 6 as expeditiously as
possible and in any case within thirty days of the
request, either provide the information on payment
of such fees as may be prescribed or reject the
request for any of the reasons specified in Section
8 & 9.
The above designated officer/official shall
exercise and perform the powers/functions laid
down under the RTI Act, 2005 with immediate
effect.
The Director of Fisheries will be the First
Appellate Authority under this Act to hear the
appeals against the decision of the Public
Information Officer and Assistant Public
Information Officer of the Department.
This supersedes earlier office order No. DF/RIA/
/2006. Vol. III/2015/4664 dated 29-11-2016.
Dr. Shamila Monteiro, Director (Fisheries).
Panaji, 1st June, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Home
Home—General Division
__
Order
No. 24/51/2012-HD(G)/1512
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by Goa Public
Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/58(2)/
/2011/626 dated 16-05-2017, the Government is
pleased to promote the following Public Prosecutors
(Ad hoc) to the post of Public Prosecutors (Group
“A” Gazetted) in the Directorate of Prosecution on
regular basis in the pay scale of Pay Band-3 of
Rs. 15,600-39,100+Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/- and other
allowances to be fixed as per Rules with immediate
effect:-
1. Ms. Nita Marathe, Public Prosecutor.
2. Ms. Clarita A. Simoes, Public Prosecutor.
The pay of the above officers shall be fixed in
terms of provisions of F.R. 22(1)(a)(1) and they shall
exercise option within one month from the date of
issue of this order.
The expenditure towards the pay and
allowances shall be debited under:-
“Demand No. 5
2014 — Admn. of Justice, 00 (Non Plan);
114 — Legal Advisors & Counsels;
01 — Public Prosecutors (North);
02 — Public Prosecutors (South);
01 — Salaries”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Home).
Porvorim, 26th May, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Industries
Directorate of Industries, Trade and Commerce
__
Order
No. 3/421/2009-10/ADM/DITC/PIO/2662
In pursuance to Clause 5 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
“the said Act”) the following officers are hereby
appointed as Public Information Officer and
Assistant Public Information Officer for the
Directorate of Industries, Trade and Commerce to
deal with the application received from the public
under the said Act.
Sr.
Designation
Designated
Jurisdiction
No.
of the Officer
as
1. General Manager Public
State of Goa.
(DIC),
Information
Department of
Officer
Industries, Trade
and Commerce
2. Functional
Assistant
State of Goa.
Manager (II),
Public
Department of
Information
Industries, Trade Officer
and Commerce
The Assistant Public Information Officer shall
on receipt of the applications for information or
appeal under the RTI Act, forward the same
forthwith to the Public Information Officer, as
required under sub-section (1) of Section 7.
1
2
3
4
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1068
The Public Information Officer shall on receipt
of a request under Section 6, as expeditiously as
possible and in any case within thirty days of the
receipt of the request, either provide the
information on payment of such fees as may be
prescribed or reject the request for any of the
reasons specified in Section 8 and 9.
The above designated officers shall exercise and
perform the powers/functions laid down under the
RTI Act, 2005 with immediate effect.
The Director of Industries, Trade and Commerce
will be the First Appellate Authority under this
Act to hear the appeals against the decision of the
Public Information Officer of the Department.
This Order supersedes all Orders issued earlier
by this Directorate in this connection.
V. P. Dangui, Director (Industries, Trade &
Commerce).
Panaji, 26th May, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Labour
__
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/383
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 19-04-2017 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/08/10 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.
Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 24th May, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/08/10
Shri Shashikant Kunkolienkar,
r/o. Kinkolirem, Chokinwada,
Post-Mardol, Ponda-Goa.
… Workman/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Garware Goa Nets Ltd.,
Corlim Industrial Estate,
Corlim-Goa.
… Employer/Party-II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri H.
Shirodkar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
Panaji, Dated: 19-04-2017
AWARD
1. 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, by Order dated 29-06-2010,
bearing No. 28/27/2010-LAB, referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal
of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in turn assigned the
present dispute to this Labour Court-II, vide his
order dated 16-08-2010.
“(1) Whether the action of M/s. Garware Goa
Nets Limited, Corlim Industrial Estate,
Corlim, Goa in refusing employment to
Shri Shashikant Kunkoliekar, Operator
with effect from 22-09-2002, is legal and
justified?
(2) If not, what relief, the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/08/10 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 28-02-2011 at Exb-5. The
facts of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workman
are that he was initially appointed by the Employer
(for short “Employer”) as temporary worker w.e.f.
01-05-1982. He stated that he was confirmed in
service w.e.f. 01-01-1983 as Asst. Operator/
/Helper. He stated that he was thereafter promoted
to the post of Sr. Operator due to his untainted
record. He stated that initially the Employer
Company was functioning under the name and
style as ‘Sainet Private Limited’ and now changed
as “Garware Goa Nets Limited”. He stated that on
22-09-2002, he reported on duty as usual, but the
security personal posted on the gate of the
Employer factory did not allow him to enter the
factory premises. He stated that upon enquiry with
the Employer, he was informed that his services
are terminated with effect from 22-09-2002 and that
he should not report for work henceforth. He stated
that he was not given any letter of termination by
the Employer. He submitted that he had sought an
intervention of the Labour Commissioner,
Government of Goa in the matter of his alleged
illegal refusal of employment, which ended in
failure due to adamant attitude of the Employer.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1069
3. He contended that at the time of termination
of his service, he was not given any reasons for
refusal of work. He contended that the Employer
has violated the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25-F,
25-G and 25H of the I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted
that neither he was given nor offered any notice of
termination or one month notice pay in lieu of
notice before termination of his service. He
submitted that neither seniority list was prepared
nor the principles of last come first go was followed
at the time of termination of his service. He
submitted that the termination of his service by
the Employer is an act of unfair labour practice.
He submitted that the Employer Company
deliberately fixed the enquiry at Mumbai knowing
that he was not financially sound to appear before
the Enquiry Officer at Mumbai. He submitted that
the aforesaid act on the part of the Employer
amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
He submitted that the enquiry conducted against
him by the Enquiry Officer is bad-in-law. He
submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer
are perverse and illegal and as such termination of
his service is illegal. He submitted that the
Employer is in the habit of harassing the workers
on one pretext or another. He submitted that his
co-workers were also terminated from service on
the same ground. He submitted that some of the
workers settled the dispute and some of the
workers have expired. He submitted that the action
of the Employer in terminating his service without
offering him any opportunity of being heard is
against the principles of natural justice, biased
and vindictive. He submitted that he is the only
earning member in his family and his wife and
three children are fully depending on him. He
submitted that he is unemployed since the
termination of his service. He therefore prayed
that the Employer be directed to reinstate him
back in their services with full back wages and
other consequential reliefs.
4. The Employer disputed the claim of the
Workman by filing its Written Statement on
27-06-2011 at Exhibit-7. The Employer, as and by
way of preliminary objection, submitted that the
reference is null and void as there does not exists
an “Industrial Dispute” as defined u/s 2(k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 and that the reference has been made
by the Government of Goa, without any material
on record, in haste and without application of mind.
The Employer admitted that the Workman was
employed with them as an ‘Operator’ since the
year 1982. The Employer also stated that the charge-
sheet dated 10-07-2002 was issued to the Workman
and he was informed that they have decided to
hold an enquiry against him in respect of the said
charges. The Employer stated that it was also
informed to the Workman that the enquiry would
be conducted at Mumbai. The Employer stated that
the Workman was informed in the charge-sheet
issued to him that he would be reimbursed to and
fro second class railway fare, from Goa to the venue
of the enquiry as per his grade on the scheduled
date of enquiry. The Employer stated that the
Workman did not bother to respond the charge-
-sheet, nor did he bother to attend the enquiry.
The Employer stated that thereafter another
opportunity was given to him by adjourning the
hearing. The Employer stated that the Workman
still did not bother to attend the hearing. The
Employer stated that an independent Enquiry
Officer, Mr. K. Parmeshwaran was appointed as an
Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry with respect
to the said charge-sheet. The Employer stated that
the enquiry was conducted in an impartial manner
and every opportunity was given to the Workman
to defend the charges leveled against him. The
Employer stated that the Enquiry Officer conducted
the enquiry ex-parte in the absence of the
Workman, after giving him sufficient opportunities.
The Employer stated that the Enquiry Officer
submitted his findings dated 02-09-2002 after
appreciating the facts of the case and held that
the Workman is guilty of the charges leveled
against him. The Employer stated that they have
considered the proceedings of the enquiry, the
findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 02-09-2002
and concurred with the same.
5. The Employer stated that all other workers
duly settled their dispute before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner by duly signing the settlement. The
Employer stated that the Workman was adamant
and as such his dispute could not be settled. The
Employer stated that they considered the past
record of the Workman. The Employer stated that
they did not find any extenuating circumstances.
The Employer stated that considering the gravity
of the proved misconduct, they decided to dismiss
the Workman from the service. The Employer stated
that prior to dismissal of service of the Workman,
he was given an opportunity to submit his
representation in writing to the Enquiry Officer,
within a span of five days. The Employer stated
that inspite of this, the Workman did not respond.
The Employer submitted that the Workman
accepted his gratuity by duly signing the
settlement before the Labour Commissioner. The
Employer stated that the Workman never shown
his insistence for his reinstatement during the said
proceedings and in fact has willingly accepted
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1070
gratuity payment. The Employer submitted that
reinstatement is nothing but a mere afterthought
with malafide intention especially since after
settlement before the Labour Commissioner, the
Workman has accepted gratuity as a full and final
settlement of his dues. The Employer submitted
that the Workman was accordingly served with a
dismissal letter dated 09-09-2002 dismissing him
from service. The Employer submitted that its action
in dismissing the Workman from service is legal,
just and proper and therefore the Workman is not
entitled to any relief as claimed.
6. The Employer stated that they have conducted
the enquiry against the Workman in fair and proper
manner. The Employer submitted that in the event,
this Hon’ble Court set aside the enquiry on any of
the ground, they may be permitted to lead a fresh
evidence before this court to prove the charges.
The Employer stated that in view of escalating and
continuing losses, they closed the manufacturing
operations of their unit located at plot No. 2, Corlim
Industrial Estate on 16-06-2012 by informing G.I.D.C.,
Patto, Panaji-Goa, vide their letter dated 10-07-2012.
The Employer stated that in view of closure, they
have withdrawn their application for registration
with Director of Industries, Trade and Commerce
and as such there will be no registration certificate.
The Employer stated that vide memorandum of
settlement dated 14-06-2012, signed in the office of
Commissioner of Labour, they retrenched all their
sixty-three workmen on their roll. The Employer
denied the overall case of the Workman as pleaded
in his statement of claim and prayed for dismissal
of the present reference issued by the Government
of Goa.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
on 20-09-2011 at Exb.-10. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him. The Workman stated that he was appointed
by the Employer as ‘Asstt. Operator’/‘Helper’ w.e.f.
01-01-1983. He stated that he was promoted to
the post of Operator/Sr. Helper with effect
from 01-05-1986 vide letter dated 17-05-1986.
He submitted that neither he was issued any
show-cause notice nor issued any memo by the
Employer before issuance of charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002. He submitted that he is a ‘Workman’
as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act, and this Hon’ble
Court is having the jurisdiction to entertain and
dispose off the present dispute. He submitted that
when the factory of the Employer was set up and
running in Goa and that when the Workman was
employed in Goa, fixing of the enquiry at Mumbai
itself proves the malafideness on the part of the
Employer. The Workman stated that he did not
settle the dispute after accepting the gratuity. He
stated that the gratuity was accepted because he
was under huge financial crises.
8. Based on the pleadings of the respective
Parties filed in the present proceedings, this
Hon’ble Court framed following issues on
03-10-2011 at Exhibit-7.
1. Whether a free, fair & impartial inquiry has
been conducted against the Workman/
/Party-I?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Workman/Party I vide charge-
-sheet dated 10-07-2002 have been proved
to the satisfaction of this Court by
acceptable evidence?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that
the action of the Employer/Party II
in refusing employment to him w.e.f.
22-09-2002 is illegal and unjustified?
4. Whether the Workman/Party II proves that
refusal of employment to him by the
Employer/Party II is an act of unfair labour
practice?
5. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the present order of reference is bad-in-
law in view of the preliminary objections
raised by them in para (i) and para (ii) of
their written statement?
6. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled
to any relief?
7. What Order? What Award?
9. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
: In the Negative.
(b) Issue No. 2
: In the Negative.
(c) Issue No. 3
: In the Affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4
: In the Affirmative.
(e) Issue No. 5
: In the Negative.
(f) Issue Nos. 6 & 7 : As per final order.
REASONS
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv.
Shri P. Chawdikar, appearing for the Employer. Ld.
Adv. Shri H. Shirodkar remained absent at the time
of final arguments.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1071
10.
Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, representing
the Employer during the course of his oral
arguments, submitted that by order dated
21-01-2014, passed on the findings on the
preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, this Hon’ble Court
quashed and set aside the enquiry held against
the Workman in respect of charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002 being unfair and improper. He
submitted that the Employer therefore led
additional evidence oral as well as documentary
by examining its witnesses. He submitted that the
oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
Employer through its second witness Shri Ashok
Patwardhan remained unchallenged for want of
denial by the Workman. He submitted that the
said oral as well as documentary evidence on record
clearly indicates that the Workman had remained
absent unauthorizedly for 85.5 days for the period
from August, 2001 to April, 2002 as spelt out in the
charge-sheet issued to him. He submitted that the
said evidence on record clearly proves the
misconduct of habitual absence without leave etc.
as spelt out in the charge-sheet. He therefore
submitted that the refusal of employment to the
Workman is just, fair and legal and the Workman is
therefore not entitled to any relief. Without
prejudice to his aforesaid submission, he submitted
that the Employer has produced on record oral as
well as documentary evidence pertaining to the
closure of its factory w.e.f. 16-06-2012. He submitted
that the Employer also produced on record a
memorandum of settlement dated 14-06-2012 signed
with its employees union and a compact disc
showing the gainful employment of the Workman.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case. I have also carefully considered
the oral submissions advanced by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar appearing for the Employer.
11. Issue Nos. 1 and 2:
Vide order dated 21-01-2014, passed in my
finding on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I have
come to the conclusion and held that no fair and
proper enquiry has been conducted against the
Workman in respect of the charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002 and that the enquiry conducted against
the Workman is quashed and set aside.
12. Issue No. 3:
As the enquiry was quashed and set aside, the
Employer chose to lead additional evidence on the
floor of this court by examining two witnesses to
prove the charges of misconduct as spelt out in
the charge-sheet dated 10-07-2002, issued to the
Workman.
The first witness of the Workman, Shri Anant G.
Devlekar in his affidavit in evidence on record,
deposed that he is working with the Employer as
Administrative Manager, handling day to day
working of administrative department such as
salary, leave records, attendance etc. of workmen
of the Employer Company. The said witness in para
9 of his affidavit-in-evidence deposed that the
Workman remained absent from August, 2001 to
April, 2002 for total 85.5 days (being August,
2001–11 days, September, 2001-9.5 days, October,
2001-7 days, November, 2001–10 days, December,
2001-8.5 days, January, 2002-5.5 days, March,
2002–15 days and April, 2002-19 days) and also
produced on record copies of extract of muster roll
for the period starting from August, 2001 to April,
2002 (Exb. 29-colly). He deposed that in spite of
repeated warnings, caution etc., the Workman did
not improve in his attendance and deliberately
remained absent from work. He deposed that
the Workman frequently remained absent
unauthorizedly
without
any
satisfactory
explanation and without any proper justification.
13. He was cross-examined by Ld. Adv. Shri H.
Shirodkar appearing for the Workman. In his
cross-examination, Shri Devlekar admitted that in
his earlier affidavit-in-evidence filed in the present
proceedings, he has deposed that he is presently
designated as consultant. He deposed that in the
present affidavit in evidence, he deposed that he
is working with the Employer as Administrative
Manager. The witness further deposed that he was
Administrative Manager prior to the year 2013. The
witness finally admitted that presently, he is not
working as Administrative Manager with the
Employer Company and that his statement made
in para 1 of his affidavit in evidence is incorrect
statement. He admitted that in the year 2001, he
was not posted in any of the branch of the Employer
in Goa and that one Mr. Desai was posted at Goa
branch of the Employer as its Manager in the year
2001 and 2002, however, he do not remember his
first name. He deposed that he do not remember
the name of the person as well as his designation,
who had entrusted with the work of maintaining
the muster roll in the year 2001 and 2002 by the
Employer at its Corlim branch. He deposed that he
do not identify the hand-writing appearing on the
muster roll at Exb. 29-colly. He deposed that apart
from the muster roll, the Employer do not have any
other records pertaining to the attendance of the
Workman. He deposed that he do not recollect as
to whether the Employer used to obtain the
signature of its workers or maintaining punching
card system to mark the attendance of its workers.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1072
He admitted that the contents of para 9 of his
affidavit in evidence do not match with the muster
roll at Exb. 29-colly. He deposed that the aforesaid
mistake has been made by the clerk appointed by
the Employer, however, he do not know his name.
He deposed that at the time of preparing the charge-
-sheet, he had not seen the muster roll maintained
by the Employer, wherein the attendance of the
Workman has been marked. He deposed that he do
not remember as to who had prepared the said
charge-sheet against the Workman. He admitted
that in his earlier cross-examination in the present
matter, he has deposed that sometimes the
Workman used to remain absent on medical
grounds and subsequently, he used to submit the
medical certificate. He admitted that there was
delay in payment of wages to the workers of the
Employer at the relevant time i.e. from August,
2001 to April, 2002. He deposed that the Workman
used to travel from his native place to the factory
of the Employer to report for his duties, which is
around 10 kms. away from the factory of the
Employer. He deposed that he do not know as to
whether due to delay in payment of wages of the
Workman, he used to find difficult to travel by bus
from his place of residence to the factory of the
Employer. He admitted that because of delay in
payment of wages of the workers, there was
consequential delay in payment of ESI contribution
of the workers. He deposed that he do not know as
to whether because of unavailability of ESI facility,
the Workman was compelled to approach the
private doctor for medical treatment of himself as
well as of his family members at the relevant time.
He deposed that delay in payment of wages affected
the attendance of the Workman. He deposed that
he is not aware as to whether whenever the
Workman used to remain absent, he used to
intimate to the management of the Employer about
his absenteeism either by telephonically or
otherwise. He deposed that he do not know as to
whether the Workman used to remain absent hardly
for one or two days in a month and that contents
of para 9 of his affidavit in evidence is false.
14. Thus, the aforesaid oral as well as
documentary evidence led by the Employer through
its witness Shri Anant Devlekar is full of
contradictions. The testimony of the said first
witness of the Employer Shri Devlekar has been
shaken and as such could not be believed.
15.
After completion of the cross-examination
of
the
first
witness
of
the
Employer
Shri Anant Devlekar, the Employer closed its
evidence. Thereafter, the Workman filed his
affidavit in evidence in rebuttal. However, after
filing of the said affidavit in evidence, neither the
Workman, nor Adv. H. Shirodkar appearing for the
Workman, remained present on the scheduled date
of hearings and as such this court was constraint
to close the evidence of the Workman, after giving
him ample opportunities and case was adjourned
for final arguments. Thereafter, the Employer filed
an application for production of additional
documents, which was allowed by order of this
court dated 08-11-2016.
16. The Employer examined it’s another witness
namely Shri Ashok Patwardhan by filing his
affidavit in evidence and also produced on record
certain documents. The said oral as documentary
evidence adduced by the Employer through its
witness Shri Ashok Patwardhan remained
unchallenged for its want of denial. The said
affidavit in evidence of the Employer’s witness,
Shri Ashok Patwardhan has been filed after closure
of its evidence and without seeking any prior
permission, in the garb of production of documents,
namely compact disc (Exb. 38), copy of letter of the
Employer dated 10-07-2012 (Exb. 39) and copy of
memorandum of settlement dated 14-06-2012
(Exb. 40). The contents of affidavit-in-evidence of
both the witnesses of the Employer are more or
less same. Moresoever, Shri Patwardhan, in para 6
of his affidavit-in-evidence deposed 85.5 days of
unauthorized absence of the Workman by giving
month wise absenteeism, similar to the deposition
of para 9 of the first witness of the Employer, Shri
Devlekar. The said para 6 of affidavit-in-evidence of
the said witness of the Employer do not match
with the copies of extract of muster roll on record
at Exb. 29-colly and as such differs from each other.
Hence, I am not inclined to give any weightage to
the oral evidence of the second witness of the
Employer, Shri Ashok Patwardhan.
17. On the contrary, the evidence on record
indicates that the Workman was in the employment
of the Employer continuously from the year 1982
till he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 22-09-2002.
The Workman was also given promotion to
the post of Operator from the post of ‘Asstt.
Operator’/‘Helper’. The Employer also failed to
produce on record any memo, show-cause notices,
warning letters, charge-sheets etc. issued to the
Workman in the past in his long term service with
them. The first witness of the Employer Shri
Patwardhan admitted that at the relevant time,
there was delay in payment of wages to the
workers. The said witness of the Employer also
admitted that the Workman used to remain absent
on medical ground and subsequently, he used to
submit the medical certificate. In view of above, it
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1073
is held that the Employer also failed to prove any
of the charges of misconduct as spelt out in the
charge-sheet dated 10-07-2002, issued to the
Workman, either by holding a fair and proper
enquiry in accordance with principles of natural
justice or also on the floor of this court. In the
absence of any proved misconduct on the part of
the Workman, it is held that the action of the
Employer in refusing employment to the Workman
w.e.f. 22-09-2002 is illegal and unjustified. The issue
No. 3 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
18. Issue No. 4:
The Workman, in his statement of claim filed in
the present proceedings, alleged that his
termination of service is an act of unfair labour
practice on the part of the Employer. The term
‘unfair labour practice’ has been stated in fifth
schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
it means:
1. On the part of employers and trade union of
employer’s.
1 …………………………………
2 …………………………………
3 …………………………………
4 …………………………………
5. To discharge or dismiss workmen-
(a) By way of victimization;
(b) Not in good faith, but in the colourable
exercise of the employers right;
(c) By falsely implicating a workman in a
criminal case on false evidence or on
concocted evidence;
(d) For patently false reasons;
(e) On untrue or trumped up allegation of
absence without leave;
(f) In utter disregard of the principles of
natural justice in the conduct of domestic
enquiry or with undue haste.
19.
In the instant case, admittedly, the
Workman was in the employment of the Employer
continuously from the year 1982 till he was
dismissed from service w.e.f. 22-09-2002. The factory
of the Employer is located at Corlim, Goa and the
Workman is native of and residing at Kunkoliem,
Mardol, Goa. However, a domestic enquiry was
conducted at its corporate office located at
Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai, which is
at around 600 km. away from the factory of the
Employer. The evidence on record indicates that
the Workman was only conveyed that he would be
reimbursed to and fro second class railway fare
from Goa to the venue of the enquiry as per his
grade on the scheduled date of hearing. The
evidence on record indicates that no provision/
/arrangements were made to bear the additional
travelling and miscellaneous expenses towards food
and accommodation and to take his Defense
Representative to the venue of the enquiry at
Mumbai, though the Workman informed the
Employer about his inability to attend the enquiry
at Mumbai along with his Defense Representative
as he was not paid his salaries for the last several
months and requested to fix the enquiry in Goa.
The evidence on record indicates that the enquiry
was conducted against the Workman in utter
violation of the principles of natural justice.
20.
The aforesaid evidence on record clearly
proves that the Workman was dismissed from
service on false allegation of absence without leave
and in colourable exercise of the right of the
employer in utter disregard of the principles of
natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry.
It is therefore held that the Workman proved that
the refusal of employment to the Workman by the
Employer amounts to an unfair labour practice as
stated in the fifth schedule of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. The issue No. 4 is therefore answered in
the affirmative.
21. Issue No. 5:
The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections, filed in the written statement, submitted
that the reference is null and void as there is no
industrial dispute exists as defined u/s 2 (k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 and that the reference has been made
by the Government of Goa, without any material
on record, in haste and without application of mind.
The burden to prove the aforesaid issue is therefore
on the Employer. The Employer has however, failed
to bring on record any material evidence in support
of the aforesaid issue. Even otherwise, in the case
in hand, it is not in dispute that the Party I is a
‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the I. D. Act, 1947. It is also not in dispute that the
Party II Company is an ‘Employer’ within the
meaning of Section 2(j) of the I. D. Act, 1947. Hence,
the present dispute raised by the workman against
the Employer pertaining to his non-employment is
an ‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of
Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as such this
court has every jurisdiction to adjudicate the
present reference. Consequently, the Employer
failed to prove its allegations that the reference is
bad-in-law for any reasons as there is no industrial
dispute exists as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I. D. Act,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1074
1947 and that the reference has been made by the
Government of Goa without any material on record,
in haste and without application of mind. The issue
No. 5 is therefore answered in the negative.
22. Issue No. 6:
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I
have discussed and came to the conclusion that
the action of the Employer in refusing employment
to the Workman w.e.f. 22-09-2002 is illegal and
unjustified. The evidence on record indicates that
the Workman was initially appointed as Trainee
w.e.f. 01-05-1982. After successful completion of
training period, he was appointed as Asstt.
Operator/Helper w.e.f. 01-01-1983 by the Employer,
vide its order dated 01-01-1983 (Exb. 15). The
Workman was subsequently promoted to the post
of ‘Operator’. The evidence on record indicates that
the Workman was in continuous employment with
the Employer from its initial appointment w.e.f.
01-05-1982 till he was dismissed from service w.e.f.
22-09-2002. The evidence on record indicates that
the age of the Workman under reference as on
15-11-2011 was 44 years. The evidence on record
indicates that the Employer has permanently
closed its Corlim unit w.e.f. 16-06-2012 due to
unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances and
withdrawn its application for registration with the
Director of Industries, Trade and Commerce, vide
its letter dated 10-07-2012 (Exb. 39). The Workman
is therefore not entitled for any reinstatement in
service of the Employer.
23. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. ED.)
and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the order of
termination is void ab initio, the Workman is
entitled to full back wages. The relevant para of
the decision is extracted hereunder:
“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to
the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury
suffered by a person, who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service
cannot easily be measured in terms of money.
With the passing of an order which has the
effect of severing the employer–employee
relationship, the latter’s source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee,
but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance.
The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to
borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The
reinstatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent
judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the
action taken by the employer is ultra vires the
relevant statutory provisions or the principles
of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim
full back wages. If the employer wants to deny
back wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back wages including
the emoluments.”
24. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is well recognized and is also applicable to
the case in hand. In the case in hand, the Workman
was in the employment of the Employer
continuously w.e.f. 01-05-1982 till he was illegally
dismissed from service w.e.f. 22-09-2002. The
Workman pleaded that he is the only earning hand
in his family, having dependent on him, his wife
and three children and that he is unemployed from
the date of his termination till date. The evidence
on record indicates that the Employer failed to
state on oath that the Workman is gainfully
employed from the date of his dismissal till date,
though pleaded in its written statement. The
Employer has however, produced on record
a compact disc (Exb. 38), to prove gainful
employment of the Workman. Upon careful perusal
of the said compact disc at Exb. 38, it is noticed a
small house adjacent to the aracanut garden.
However, the Employer has failed to produce on
record any corroborative evidence or any other
details pertaining to the gainful employment of
the Workman, since the date of his illegal
termination. Hence, it is held that the Employer
failed to prove that the Workman is gainfully
employed from the date of his termination till date.
The Workman is therefore entitled for full back
wages from the date of his termination of services
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1075
till the permanent closure of the unit of the
Employer w.e.f. 16-06-2012. The Workman is also
entitled to the benefits of the memorandum of
settlement dated 14-06-2012 signed between the
management of the Employer and their workmen
represented by Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’
Union before the Commissioner, Labour and
Employment, Panaji-Goa, u/s 12 (3) of the I. D. Act,
1947 (Exb. 40).
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1.
It is held that the action M/s. Garware Goa
Nets Limited, Corlim Industrial Estate,
Corlim, Goa in refusing employment to Shri
Shashikant Kunkoliekar, Operator with effect
from 22-09-2002, is illegal and unjustified.
2.
The workman, Shri Shashikant Kunkoliekar
is therefore entitled for full back wages from
the date of his termination of services w.e.f.
22-09-2002 till the permanent closure of the
unit of the Employer w.e.f. 16-06-2012. The
Workman is also entitled to the benefits
of the memorandum of settlement dated
14-06-2012 signed between the management
of the Employer and their workmen
represented by Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers’ Union before the Commissioner,
Labour and Employment, Panaji-Goa, u/s
12 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
3.
No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/387
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
27-04-2017 in reference No. IT/38/01 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.
Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 24th May, 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/38/01
Workmen,
Rep. by the President,
Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers’ Union,
Velho’s Building, 2nd Floor,
Panaji-Goa.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
Shri Lawrence Fernandes,
M/s. Trinity Enterprises,
Aradi, Guirim, Bardez-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv.
Shri Suhaas Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.
S. Bandodkar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 27th day of the month
of April of the year 2017)
By Order dated 6-6-2001 bearing No. IRM/CON/
/(122)/2000/2451, 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. Trinity Enterprises, Aradi, Guirim,
Bardez, Goa, Contractor of M/s. Okasa Ltd.,
in terminating the services of the following
workmen working as packers, is legal and
justified?
1. Leena Naik.
2. Milan Naik.
3. Parvati Naik.
4. Sunanda S. Verekar.
5. Manisha Naik.
6. Rajani Gaude.
7. Jyotsna Marcelkar.
8. Milan T. Naik.
9. Manda Naik.
10. Hema Naik.
11. Pramila Gaunkar.
12. Ashok Gaonkar.
13. Gokuldas Naik.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1076
14. Anthony Vales.
15. Sushma Naik.
16. Beshaj Naik.
17. Shamal Naik.
18. Lalita Naik.
19. Nilima Gaude.
20. Nilima Naik.
21. Sumati Naik.
22. Nalu Gaunkar.
23. Supriya Gaonkar.
24. Shakuntala Gaonkar.
25. Rajendra Palkar.
26. Sunil Naik.
27. Vaishali Mangueshkar.
28. Ajita Parab.
(2) If not, to what relief the above workmen are
entitled?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/38/01 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exbt. 4 and Party
II filed a written statement at Exbt. 5.
3. In short, the case of Party I is that about 79
workers were recruited by the management of
M/s. Osaka Limited, Medispray Pvt. Ltd. and
M/s. Meditab Specialties Pvt. Ltd. and all the said
workers were inter-rotated on the rolls of three
companies and subsequently they were transferred
on the rolls of contractor, namely Shri Lawrence
Fernandes who is running the contract in the name
of M/s. Sheryl & Company, M/s. Trevor Enterprises
and M/s. Trinity Enterprises. The Party I workmen
were put on the rolls of M/s. Trinity Enterprises
and were employed at M/s. Osaka Ltd. The
Principal Employer and the Contractor were paying
the workers less salary; however they were made
to work in most inhumane working conditions. The
said workers thereafter unionized themselves under
the banner of Goa Trade & Commercial Workers’
Union and requested to treat the workmen as
‘Protected Workmen’. However, the Party II started
harassing and victimizing the workers and forced
them to leave the Union and since they refused to
resign from the Union, all the workmen refused
employment w.e.f. 23-11-1998. The refusal of
employment is illegal and bad-in-law as no enquiry
of whatsoever nature has been conducted. The
Party I had worked efficiently and diligently with
clean and unblemished past service record. Hence,
the dispute.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II has
claimed that their activities have been closed after
the strike resorted to by the workers engaged for
services and all the workmen were offered their
legal dues arising out of the closure. The services
of the workmen were terminated since the factory
is already closed and all the workers were paid
their dues.
5. In the rejoinder at Exbt. 6, the Party I denied
the case put forth by Party II in Written statement.
6. Issues came to be framed at Exbt. 7. They are:
1) Whether the Workmen/Party I proves that
the Employer/Party II refused employment
to them from 23-11-1998?
2) Whether the Workmen/Party I proves that
refusal of employment to them by the
Employer/Party II w.e.f. 23-11-98 is illegal
and unjustified?
3) Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the reference made by the Government is
bad in law and not maintainable?
4) Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
its establishment is permanently closed
from 25-11-98 and the services of the
Workmen/Party I were terminated?
5) Whether the Workmen/Party I entitled to
any relief?
6) What Order?
7. In the course of further proceedings, the
parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed
consent terms along with Annexure ‘A’ at Exhibit
31 colly, and prayed to dispose of reference in terms
of the settlement.
8. The consent terms read as follows:
a) It is agreed between the parties that each
workmen concerned in the reference as per
Annexure A to the settlement shall be paid
a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty
five thousand only) in full and final
settlement of their dispute arising out of
their employment and reference which
includes earned wages, retrenchment
compensation, unpaid salary, gratuity,
bonus, ex-gratia, if any etc.
b) It is agreed specifically by workmen and the
union that the amount of money mentioned
in Clause No. 1 in full and final settlement of
claim of each workmen arising out of their
employment and reference and the amount
mentioned in Clause No. 1 includes earned
wages, retrenchment compensation, unpaid
salary, gratuity, bonus, ex-gratia, if any etc.
and it shall also include any benefit which
can be computed in terms of money and this
settlement is in full and final satisfaction of
all claims of workmen including any claims
of re-instatement or re-employment.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1077
c) It is agreed by each individual workman that
out of Rs. 25,000.00 paid/payable to them
as per the settlement, a sum of
Rs. 2500.00 shall be paid to the Goa Trade &
Commercial Workers Union by cheque from
the said amount from each individual
workman.
d) It is agreed by the Party I that Party II shall
draw a cheque in the name of the workman
concerned in the reference for a sum of
Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty five thousand
only) each and will be handed over to
the representative of Goa Trade and
Commercial Workers Union along with the
receipt and Annexure A and it would be
responsibility of the representative of Union
to disburse the said cheque to said workman
concerned in the reference and give receipt
to the management within period of 15 days
from acceptance of cheque.
9. The above Consent terms are signed by Shri
Lawrence Fernandes and Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar of Party II, so also Shri Christopher
Fonseca-President of Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers Union and Ld. Adv. Shri Suhaas Naik,
representing the Party I Workmen. 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 31 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. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/382
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 19-04-2017 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/6/10 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.
Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 24th May, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/6/10
Shri Anand Kunkolienkar,
Kunkolim, Godkirwada,
Mardol, Ponda-Goa.
… Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s Garware Goa Nets Ltd.,
Corlim Industrial Estate,
Corlim-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri H.
Shirodkar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar.
Panaji, Dated: 19-04-2017
AWARD
1. 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, by Order dated 29-06-2010,
bearing No. 28/28/2010-LAB, referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal
of Goa. The Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in turn assigned the
present dispute to this Labour Court-II, vide his
order dated 16-08-2010.
“(1) Whether the action of M/s Garware Goa
Nets Limited, Corlim Industrial Estate,
Corlim, Goa in refusing employment to
Shri Anand Kunkoliekar, Operator with effect
from 21-09-2002, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/06/10 and registered A/D
notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to
the said notice, the Parties put in their appearance.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1078
The Workman/Party-I (for short ‘Workman’), filed
his Statement of Claim on 28-02-2011 at Exb-5. The
facts of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workman
are that he was employed as an “Operator” at the
factory of the Employer/Party-II (for short
“Employer”) since the year 1982. He stated that he
was initially appointed as temporary worker on
01-08-1982. He stated that thereafter his service
was confirmed and he was working as Operator.
He stated that initially the Employer Company was
functioning under the name and style as ‘Sainet
Private Limited’ and now changed as “Garware
Goa Nets Limited”. He stated that on 21-09-2002,
he reported on duty as usual, but the security
personal posted on the gate of the Employer factory
did not allow him to enter the factory premises.
He stated that upon enquiry with the Employer, he
was informed that his services are terminated with
effect from 21-09-2002 and that he should not report
for work hence forth. He stated that he was not
given any letter of termination by the Employer.
He submitted that he had sought an intervention
of the Labour Commissioner, Government of Goa,
in the matter of his alleged illegal refusal of
employment, which ended in failure, due to
adamant attitude of the Employer.
3. He contended that at the time of termination
of his service, he was not given any reasons for
refusal of work. He contended that the Employer
has violated the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25-F,
25-G and 25H of the I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted
that neither he was given nor offered any notice of
termination or one month notice pay in lieu of
notice before termination of his service. He
submitted that neither seniority list was prepared
nor the principles of last come first go was followed
at the time of termination of his service. He
submitted that the termination of his service by
the Employer is an act of unfair labour practice.
He submitted that the Employer Company
deliberately fixed the enquiry at Mumbai knowing
that the Workman was not financially sound to
appear before the Enquiry Officer at Mumbai. He
submitted that the aforesaid act on the part of the
Employer amounts to violation of principles of
natural justice. He submitted that the enquiry
conducted against him by the Enquiry Officer is
bad-in-law. He submitted that the findings of the
Enquiry Officer are perverse and illegal and as
such termination of his service is illegal. He
submitted that the Employer is in the habit of
harassing the workers on one pretext or another.
He submitted that his co-workers were also
terminated from service on the same ground. He
submitted that some of the workers settled the
dispute and some of the workers have expired. He
submitted that the action of the Employer in
terminating his service without offering him any
opportunity of being heard is against the principles
of natural justice, biased and vindictive. He
submitted that he is the only earning member in
his family and his wife and three children are fully
depending on him. He submitted that he is
unemployed since the termination of his service.
He therefore prayed that the Employer be directed
to reinstate him back in their services with full
back wages and other consequential reliefs.
4. The Employer disputed the claim of the
Workman by filing its Written Statement on
27-06-2011 at Exhibit-7. The Employer, by way of
preliminary objection, submitted that the reference
is null and void as there does not exists an
“Industrial Dispute” as defined u/s 2(k) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 and that the reference has been made by
the Government of Goa, without any material on
record, in haste and without application of mind.
The Employer admitted that the Workman was
employed with them as an ‘Operator’ since the
year 1982. The Employer also stated that the charge-
-sheet dated 10-07-2002 was issued to the Workman
and he was informed that they have decided to
hold an enquiry against him in respect of the said
charges. The Employer stated that it was also
informed to the Workman that the enquiry would
be conducted at Mumbai. The Employer stated that
the Workman was informed in the charge-sheet
issued to him that he would be reimbursed to and
fro second class railway fare from Goa to the venue
of the enquiry as per his grade on the scheduled
date of enquiry. The Employer stated that the
Workman did not bother to respond the charge-
-sheet, nor did he bother to attend the enquiry.
The Employer stated that thereafter another
opportunity was given to him by adjourning the
hearing. The Employer stated that the Workman
still did not bother to attend the hearing. The
Employer stated that an independent Enquiry
Officer, Mr. K. Parmeshwaran was appointed as an
Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry with respect
to the said charge-sheet. The Employer stated that
the enquiry was conducted in an impartial manner
and every opportunity was given to the Workman
to defend the charges leveled against him. The
Employer stated that the Enquiry Officer conducted
the enquiry ex-parte in the absence of the
Workman, after giving him sufficient opportunities.
The Employer stated that the Enquiry Officer
submitted his findings dated 28-08-2002, after
appreciating the facts of the case and held that
the Workman is guilty of the charges leveled
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1079
against him. The Employer stated that they have
considered the proceedings of the enquiry, the
findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 28-08-2002
and concurred with the same.
5. The Employer stated that all other workers
duly settled their dispute before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner by duly signing the settlement. The
Employer stated that the Workman was adamant
and as such his dispute could not be settled. The
Employer stated that they considered the past
record of the Workman. The Employer stated that
they did not find any extenuating circumstances.
The Employer stated that considering the gravity
of the proved misconduct, they decided to dismiss
the Workman from the service. The Employer stated
that prior to dismissal of service of the Workman,
he was given an opportunity to submit his
representation in writing to the Enquiry Officer
within a span of five days. The Employer stated
that inspite of this, the Workman did not respond.
The Employer submitted that the Workman
accepted his gratuity by duly signing the
settlement before the Labour Commissioner. The
Employer stated that the Workman never shown
his insistence for his reinstatement during the said
proceedings and in fact, has willingly accepted
gratuity payment. The Employer submitted that
reinstatement is nothing but a mere afterthought,
with malafide intention, especially since after
settlement before the Labour Commissioner, the
Workman has accepted gratuity as a full and final
settlement of his dues. The Employer submitted
that the Workman was accordingly served with a
dismissal letter dated 6-9-2002 dismissing him from
service. The Employer submitted that its action in
dismissing the Workman from service is legal, just
and proper and therefore the Workman is not
entitled to any relief as claimed.
6. The Employer submitted that they have
conducted the enquiry against the Workman in
fair and proper manner. The Employer submitted
that in the event, this Hon’ble Court set aside the
enquiry on any of the ground, they may be
permitted to lead a fresh evidence before this court
to prove the charges. The Employer stated that in
view of escalating and continuing losses, they
closed the manufacturing operations of their unit
located at plot No. 2, Corlim Industrial Estate on
16-06-2012 by informing G.I.D.C., Patto, Panaji-Goa,
vide their letter dated 10-07-2012. The Employer
stated that in view of closure, they have withdrawn
their application for registration with Director of
Industries, Trade and Commerce and as such there
will be no registration certificate. The Employer
stated that vide memorandum of settlement dated
14-06-2012, signed in the office of Commissioner of
Labour, they retrenched all their sixty-three
workmen on their roll. The Employer denied the
overall case of the Party-I as pleaded in his
statement of claim and prayed for dismissal of the
present reference issued by the Government of Goa.
7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder
on 20-09-2011 at Exb.- 10. The Workman, by way of
his Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him. The Workman stated that he was appointed
as ‘Asstt. Operator’/‘Helper’ with effect from
01-08-1983 in its factory located at Corlim Industrial
Estate, Corlim-Goa, after successful completion of
his training on 30-09-1982. He stated that he was
promoted to the post of Operator/Sr. Helper with
effect from 01-05-1986 vide letter dated 17-05-1986.
He submitted that neither he was issued any
show-cause notice nor issued any memo by the
Employer before issuance of charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002. He submitted that he is a ‘Workman’
as defined u/s 2(s) of the I.D. Act, and this Hon’ble
Court is having the jurisdiction to entertain and
dispose off the present dispute. He submitted that
when the factory of the Employer is set up and
running in Goa and the Workman was employed in
Goa, the fixing of the enquiry at Mumbai itself
proves the malafideness on the part of the
Employer. The Workman stated that he did not
settle the dispute after accepting the gratuity. He
stated that the gratuity was accepted because he
was under huge financial crises.
8. Based on the pleadings of the respective
Parties filed in the present proceedings, this
Hon’ble Court framed following issues on
03-10-2011 at Exhibit-7.
1. Whether a free, fair & impartial inquiry
has been conducted against the Workman/
/Party-I?
2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled
against the Workman/Party I vide charge-
-sheet dated 10-07-2002 have been proved to
the satisfaction of this Court by acceptable
evidence?
3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that the
action of the Employer/Party II in refusing
employment to him w.e.f. 21-09-2002 is illegal
and unjustified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1080
4. Whether the Workman/Party II proves that
refusal of employment to him by the
Employer/Party II is an act of unfair labour
practice?
5. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the present order of reference is bad-in-law
in view of the preliminary objections raised
by them in para (i) and para (ii) of their writ-
ten statement?
6. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to
any relief?
7. What Order? What Award?
9. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
: In the Negative.
(b) Issue No. 2
: In the Negative.
(c) Issue No. 3
: In the Affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4
: In the Affirmative.
(e) Issue No. 5
: In the Negative.
(f) Issue Nos. 6 & 7 : As per final order.
REASONS:
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv.
Shri P. Chawdikar, appearing for the Employer.
Ld. Adv. Shri H. Shirodkar remained absent at the
time of final arguments.
10. Ld. Adv. Shri P. Chawdikar, representing the
Employer, during the course of his oral arguments,
submitted that by order dated 21-01-2014, passed
on the findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 and
2, this Hon’ble Court quashed and set aside the
enquiry held against the Workman in respect of
charge-sheet dated 10-07-2002 being unfair and
improper. He submitted that the Employer
therefore led additional evidence oral as well as
documentary by examining its witnesses. He
submitted that the oral as well as documentary
evidence led by the Employer through its second
witness Shri Ashok Patwardhan remained
unchallenged for want of denial by the Workman.
He submitted that the said oral as well as
documentary evidence on record clearly indicates
that the Workman had remained absent
unauthorizedly for 35 days for the period from
August, 2001 to March, 2002 as spelt out in the
charge-sheet issued to him. He submitted that the
said evidence on record clearly proves the
misconduct of habitual absence without leave etc.
as spelt out in the charge-sheet. He therefore
submitted that the refusal of employment to the
Workman is just, fair and legal and the Workman is
therefore not entitled to any relief. Without
prejudice to his aforesaid submission, he submitted
that the Employer has produced on record oral as
well as documentary evidence pertaining to the
closure of its factory w.e.f. 16-06-2012. He submitted
that the Employer also produced on record a
memorandum of settlement dated 14-06-2012 signed
with its employees union and a compact disc
showing the gainful employment of the Workman.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case. I have also carefully considered
the oral submissions advanced by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Chawdikar appearing for the Employer.
11. Issue Nos. 1 and 2:
Vide order dated 21-01-2014, passed in my
finding on the preliminary issue Nos. 1 and 2, I
have come to the conclusion and held that no fair
and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workman in respect of the charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002 and that the enquiry conducted against
the Workman is quashed and set aside.
12. Issue No. 3:
As the enquiry was quashed and set aside, the
Employer chose to lead additional evidence on the
floor of this court by examining two witnesses to
prove the charges of misconduct as spelt out in
the charge-sheet dated 10-07-2002, issued to the
Workman.
The first witness of the Workman, Shri Anant G.
Devlekar in his affidavit in evidence on record,
deposed that he is working with the Employer as
Administrative Manager, handling day today
working of administrative department such as
salary, leave records, attendance etc. of workmen
of the Employer Company. The said witness in para
9 of his affidavit-in-evidence deposed that the
Workman remained absent from August, 2001 to
March, 2002 for total 35 days (being August,
2001–5days, September, 2001-8 days, October,
2001-7 days, November, 2001–8 days and March,
2002–7 days) and also produced on record copies
of extract of muster roll for the period starting from
August, 2001 to March, 2002 (Exb. 21-colly). He
deposed that in spite of repeated warnings, caution
etc., the Workman did not improve in his
attendance and deliberately remained absent from
work. He deposed that the Workman frequently
remained absent unauthorizedly without any
satisfactory explanation and without any proper
justification.
13. He was cross-examined by Ld. Adv. Shri H.
Shirodkar appearing for the Workman. In his
cross-examination, Shri Devlekar admitted that in
his earlier affidavit-in-evidence filed in the present
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1081
proceedings, he has deposed that he is presently
designated as consultant. He deposed that in the
present affidavit in evidence, he deposed that he
is working with the Employer as Administrative
Manager. The witness further deposed that he was
Administrative Manager prior to the year 2013. The
witness finally admitted that presently, he is not
working as Administrative Manager with the
Employer Company and that his statement made
in para 1 of his affidavit in evidence is incorrect
statement. He admitted that in the year 2001, he
was not posted in any of the branch of the Employer
in Goa and that one Mr. Desai was posted at Goa
branch of the Employer as its Manager in the year
2001 and 2002, however, he do not remember his
first name. He deposed that he do not remember
the name of the person as well as his designation,
who was entrusted with the work of maintaining
the muster roll in the year 2001 and 2002 by the
Employer at its Corlim branch. He deposed that he
do not identify the hand-writing appearing on the
muster roll at Exb. 21-colly. He deposed that apart
from the muster roll, the Employer do not have any
other records pertaining to the attendance of the
Workman. He deposed that he do not recollect as
to whether the Employer used to obtain the
signature of its workers or maintaining punching
card system to mark the attendance of its workers.
He admitted that the contents of para 9 of his
affidavit in evidence do not match with the muster
roll at Exb. 21-colly. He deposed that the aforesaid
mistake has been made by the clerk appointed by
the Employer, however, he do not know his name.
He deposed that at the time of preparing the
charge-sheet, he had not seen the muster roll
maintained by the Employer, wherein the
attendance of the Workman has been marked. He
deposed that he do not remember as to who had
prepared the said charge-sheet against the
Workman. He admitted that in his earlier
cross-examination in the present matter, he has
deposed that sometimes the Workman used to
remain absent on medical grounds and
subsequently, he used to submit the medical
certificate. He admitted that there was delay in
payment of wages to the workers of the Employer
at the relevant time i.e. from August, 2001 to March,
2002. He deposed that the Workman used to travel
from his native place to the factory of the Employer
to report for his duties, which is around 10 kms.
away from the factory of the Employer. He deposed
that he do not know as to whether due to delay in
payment of wages of the Workman, he used to find
difficult to travel by bus from his place of residence
to the factory of the Employer. He admitted that
because of delay in payment of wages of the
workers, there was consequential delay in payment
of ESI contribution of the workers. He deposed that
he do not know as to whether because of
unavailability of ESI facility, the Workman was
compelled to approach the private doctor for
medical treatment of himself as well as of his family
members at the relevant time. He deposed that
delay in payment of wages affected the attendance
of the Workman. He deposed that he is not aware
as to whether whenever the Workman used to
remain absent, he used to intimate to the
management of the Employer about his absenteeism
either by telephonically or otherwise. He deposed
that he do know as to whether the Workman used
to remain absent hardly for one or two days in a
month and that contents of para 9 of his affidavit
in evidence is false.
14.
Thus, the aforesaid oral as well as
documentary evidence led by the Employer through
its witness Shri Anant Devlekar is full of
contradictions. The testimony of the said first
witness of the Employer Shri Devlekar has been
shaken and as such could not be believed.
15. After completion of the cross-examination
of
the
first
witness
of
the
Employer
Shri Anant Devlekar, the Employer closed its
evidence. Thereafter, the Workman filed his
affidavit in evidence in rebuttal. However, after
filing of the said affidavit in evidence, neither the
Workman nor Adv. H. Shirodkar appearing for the
Workman, remained present on the scheduled date
of hearings and as such this court was constraint
to close the evidence of the Workman, after giving
him ample opportunities and case was adjourned
for final arguments. Thereafter, the Employer filed
an application for production of additional
documents, which was allowed by order of this
court dated 08-11-2016.
16. The Employer examined it’s another witness
namely Shri Ashok Patwardhan by filing his
affidavit in evidence and also produced on record
certain documents. The said oral as documentary
evidence adduced by the Employer through its
witness Shri Ashok Patwardhan remained
unchallenged for its want of denial. The said
affidavit in evidence of the Employer’s witness,
Shri Ashok Patwardhan has been filed after closure
of its evidence and without seeking any prior
permission, in the garb of production of documents,
namely compact disc (Exb. 29), copy of letter of the
Employer dated 10-07-2012 (Exb. 30) and copy of
memorandum of settlement dated 14-06-2012
(Exb. 31). The contents of affidavit-in-evidence of
both the witnesses of the Employer are more or
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1082
less same. More so ever, Shri Patwardhan, in para
6 of his affidavit in evidence deposed 35 days of
unauthorized absence of the Workman, similar to
the deposition of para 9 of the first witness of the
Employer Shri Devlekar. The said para 6 of affidavit
in evidence of the said witness of the Employer do
not match with the copies of extract of muster roll
on record at Exb. 21-colly and as such differs from
each other. Hence, I am not inclined to give any
weightage to the said oral evidence of Shri Ashok
Patwardhan.
17. On the contrary, the evidence on record
indicates that the Workman was in the employment
of the Employer continuously from the year 1982
till he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 21-09-2002.
The Workman was also given promotion on
17-05-1986 (Exb. W/2) to the post of Operator/
/Sr. Helper from Asstt. Operator/Helper. The
Employer also failed to produce on record any
memo, show-cause notices, warning letters,
charge-sheets etc. issued to the Workman in the
past in his long term service with them. The first
witness of the Employer Shri Patwardhan admitted
that at the relevant time, there was delay in
payment of wages to the workers. The said witness
of the Employer also admitted that the Workman
used to remain absent on medical ground and
subsequently, he used to submit the medical
certificate. In view of above, it is held that the
Employer also failed to prove any of the charges of
misconduct as spelt out in the charge-sheet dated
10-07-2002 (Exb. W/3), issued to the Workman,
either by holding a fair and proper enquiry in
accordance with principles of natural justice or
also on the floor of this court. In the absence of any
proved misconduct on the part of the Workman, it
is held that the action of the Employer in refusing
employment to the Workman w.e.f. 21-09-2002 is
illegal and unjustified. The issue No. 3 is therefore
answered in the affirmative.
18. Issue No. 4:
The Workman, in his statement of claim filed in
the present proceedings, alleged that his
termination of service is an act of unfair labour
practice on the part of the Employer. The term
‘unfair labour practice’ has been stated in fifth
schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
it means:
1. On the part of employers and trade union of
employer’s.
1 …………………………………
2 …………………………………
3 …………………………………
4 …………………………………
5. To discharge or dismiss workmen-
(a) By way of victimization;
(b) Not in good faith, but in the colourable
exercise of the employers right;
(c) By falsely implicating a workman in a
criminal case on false evidence or on
concocted evidence;
(d) For patently false reasons;
(e) On untrue or trumped up allegation of
absence without leave;
(f) In utter disregard of the principles of
natural justice in the conduct of domestic
enquiry or with undue haste;
19. In the instant case, admittedly, the Workman
was in the employment of the Employer
continuously from the year 1982 till he was
dismissed from service w.e.f. 21-09-2002. The factory
of the Employer is located at Corlim, Goa and the
Workman is native of and residing at Kunkoliem,
Mardol, Goa. However, a domestic enquiry was
conducted at its corporate office located at
Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai, which is
at around 600 km. away from the factory of the
Employer. The evidence on record indicates that
the Workman was only conveyed that he would be
reimbursed to and fro second class railway fare
from Goa to the venue of the enquiry as per his
grade on the scheduled date of hearing. The
evidence on record indicates that no provision/
/arrangements were made to bear the additional
travelling and miscellaneous expenses towards food
and accommodation and to take his defense
representative to the venue of the enquiry at
Mumbai, though the Workman informed the
Employer about his inability to attend the enquiry
at Mumbai along with his defense representative
as he was not paid his salaries for the last several
months and requested to fix the enquiry in Goa.
The evidence on record indicates that the enquiry
was conducted against the Workman in utter
violation of the principles of natural justice.
20. The aforesaid evidence on record clearly
proves that the Workman was dismissed from
service on false allegation of absence without leave
and in colourable exercise of the right of the
employer in utter disregard of the principles of
natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry.
It is therefore held that the Workman proved that
the refusal of employment to the Workman by the
Employer amounts to an unfair labour practice as
stated in the Vth schedule of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. The issue No. 4 is therefore answered in
the affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1083
21. Issue No. 5:
The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections, filed in the written statement, submitted
that the reference is null and void as there is no
industrial dispute exists as defined u/s 2 (k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947 and that the reference has been made
by the Government of Goa, without any material
on record, in haste and without application of mind.
The burden to prove the aforesaid issue is therefore
on the Employer. The Employer has however, failed
to bring on record any material evidence in support
of the aforesaid issue. Even otherwise, in the case
in hand, it is not in dispute that the Party I is a
‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the I.D. Act, 1947. It is also not in dispute that the
Party II Company is an ‘Employer’ within the
meaning of Section 2(j) of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence,
the present dispute raised by the workman against
the Employer pertaining to his non-employment is
an ‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of
Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as such this
court has every jurisdiction to adjudicate the
present reference. Consequently, the Employer
failed to prove its allegations that the reference is
bad-in-law for any reasons as there is no industrial
dispute exists as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I. D. Act,
1947 and that the reference has been made by the
Government of Goa without any material on record,
in haste and without application of mind. The issue
No. 5 is therefore answered in the negative.
22. Issue No. 6:
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I
have discussed and came to the conclusion that
the action of the Employer in refusing employment
to the Workman w.e.f. 21-09-2002 is illegal and
unjustified. The evidence on record indicates that
the Workman was initially appointed as Trainee
w.e.f. 30-09-1982. After successful completion of
training period, he was appointed as Asstt.
Operator/Helper w.e.f. 01-08-1983 by the Employer,
vide its order dated 01-08-1983. The Workman was
subsequently promoted to the post of ‘Operator/
/Sr. Helper’ w.e.f. 01-05-1986, vide its letter dated
17-05-1986. The evidence on record indicates that
the Workman was in continuous employment with
the Employer from its initial appointment w.e.f.
30-09-1982 till he was dismissed from service w.e.f.
21-09-2002. The evidence on record indicates that
the age of the Workman under reference as on
15-11-2011 was 39 years. The evidence on record
indicates that the Employer has permanently
closed its Corlim unit w.e.f. 16-06-2012 due to
unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances and
withdrawn its application for registration with the
Director of Industries, Trade and Commerce, vide
its letter dated 10-07-2012 (Exb. 30). The Workman
is therefore not entitled for any reinstatement in
the service of the Employer.
23. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. ED.)
and Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the order of
termination is void ab initio, the Workman is
entitled to full back wages. The relevant para of
the decision is extracted hereunder:
“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to
the position which he held before dismissal or
removal or termination of service implies that
the employee will be put in the same position
in which he would have been but for the illegal
action taken by the employer. The injury
suffered by a person, who is dismissed or
removed or is otherwise terminated from service
cannot easily be measured in terms of money.
With the passing of an order which has the
effect of severing the employer–employee
relationship, the latter’s source of income gets
dried up. Not only the concerned employee,
but his entire family suffers grave adversities.
They are deprived of the source of sustenance.
The children are deprived of nutritious food
and all opportunities of education and
advancement in life. At times, the family has to
borrow from the relatives and other
acquaintance to avoid starvation. These
sufferings continue till the competent
adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of
the action taken by the employer. The
reinstatement of such an employee, which is
preceded by a finding of the competent judicial
/quasi-judicial body or court that the action
taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant
statutory provisions or the principles of natural
justice, entitles the employee to claim full back
wages. If the employer wants to deny back
wages to the employee or contest his
entitlement to get consequential benefits, then
it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove
that during the intervening period the
employee was gainfully employed and was
getting the same emoluments. Denial of back
wages to an employee, who has suffered due
to an illegal act of the employer would amount
to indirectly punishing the concerned employee
and rewarding the employer by relieving him
of the obligation to pay back wages including
the emoluments.”
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1084
24. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is well recognized and is also applicable to
the case in hand. In the case in hand, the Workman
was in the employment of the Employer
continuously w.e.f. 30-09-1982 till he was illegally
dismissed from service w.e.f. 21-09-2002. The
Workman pleaded that he is the only earning hand
in his family, having dependent on him, his wife
and three children and that he is unemployed from
the date of his termination till date. The evidence
on record indicates that the Employer failed to
state on oath that the Workman is gainfully
employed from the date of his dismissal till date,
though pleaded in its written statement. The
compact disc produced by the Employer on record
at Exb. 29, does not show that the Workman is
gainfully employed. There is no corroborative
evidence to support the compact disc. Hence, it is
held that the Employer failed to prove that the
Workman is gainfully employed from the date of
his termination till date. The Workman is therefore
entitled for full back wages from the date of his
termination of services till the permanent closure
of the unit of the Employer w.e.f. 16-06-2012. The
Workman is also entitled to the benefits of the
memorandum of settlement dated 14-06-2012 signed
between the management of the Employer and
their workmen represented by Goa Trade and
Commercial
Workers’
Union
before
the
Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Panaji-Goa,
u/s 12 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 (Exb. 31).
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action M/s Garware Goa
Nets Limited, Corlim Industrial Estate,
Corlim, Goa in refusing employment to
Shri Anand Kunkoliekar, Operator with effect
from 21-09-2002, is illegal and unjustified.
2. The workman, Shri Anand Kunkoliekar is
therefore entitled for full back wages from
the date of his termination of services w.e.f.
21-09-2002 till the permanent closure of the
unit of the Employer w.e.f. 16-06-2012. The
Workman is also entitled to the benefits
of the memorandum of settlement dated
14-06-2012 signed between the management
of the Employer and their workmen
represented by Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers’ Union before the Commissioner,
Labour and Employment, Panaji-Goa, u/s
12 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 6/9/2009-PER/Part IV A
On the recommendations of Goa Services Board
and with the approval of the Government,
Shri Swapnil Naik, IAS, Collector-South, shall hold
charge of the post of Chief Officer, Margao
Municipal Council and Member Secretary, Ravindra
Bhavan, Margao in addition to his own duties, until
further orders, on superannuation of Shri Y. B. Tavde.
Shri Ashutosh Apte, Additional Commissioner
of Excise, shall hold additional charge of the post
of State Registrar & Notary Services, in addition to
his own duties, until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 1st June, 2017.
________
Order
No. 4/4/2015-PER
Read: Order No. 4/4/2015 dated 02-01-2017.
Governor of Goa in public interest is pleased to
give charge to Shri N. Neelakanta Reddy,
Superintendent Engineer (Elect.) and Additional
Chief Engineer-II (ad hoc basis) in the Electricity
Department as Chief Electrical Engineer in addition
to his own duties until further orders, thereby
relieving Shri Laxmikant D. Kolvekar of the post of
Chief Electrical Engineer in Electricity Department
which he was holding on officiating basis.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Yetindra M. Maralkar, Additional Secretary
(Personnel).
Porvorim, 1st June, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1085
Corrigendum
No. 6/16/2013-PER/Part
Read: 1) Order No. 6/16/2013-PER/Part dated
21-04-2017.
The second last para 2 on page 2 of the Order
read in preamble shall be corrected to read as
follows:
“Smt. Smita S. Hede, Shri Shashikant C.
Bhamaikar & Smt. Shaila Bhonsle are promoted
“on Officiating Basis” against the vacancies of three
officers whose recommendation are kept in sealed
cover until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).
Porvorim, 31st May, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
__
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/EES/676
Read: 1) No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/Part/2170 dated
28-08-2012.
2) No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/Part/3099 dated
01-11-2013.
3) No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/EES/206
dated 15-04-2015.
Government is pleased to extend the ad hoc
promotions in respect of following Executive
Engineers (Elect.) for the period mentioned in
column 4 below.
Sr.
Name of the
Designation
Period of
No.
official
extension
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Ramdas N.
Executive
01-04-2016 to
Bhat
Engineer
28-12-2016.
(Elect.)
2. Shri Nizamuddin
Executive
01-04-2016 to
Shaikh
Engineer
28-12-2016.
(Elect.)
2. The above extended ad hoc promotions shall
not bestow on the officers any claim/right for
regular promotion and the services rendered on
ad hoc basis in the grade will not count for the
purpose of seniority in that grade or for eligibility
for promotion to the next higher grade.
3. The above promotions are further subject to
the court decision in the Writ Petition No. 792/2008
filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at
Panaji by Shri Ramdas Y. Salelkar and 7 others.
4. This issues with the approval of Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/16(1)/2015/207 dated 17-05-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Laxmikant D. Kolvekar, Chief Electrical Engineer
& ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 29th May, 2017.
———‹‹‹———
Department of Public Works
Office of the Principal Chief Engineer
__
Order
No. T-27/PWD/MEU/2016-17/05
Ref.: 1. Memorandum No. 14-17-98/PCE-EO/186
dated 22-12-2006.
2. Amendment No. 14-17-98/PCE-EO/222
dated 19-02-2007.
3. Amendment No. 14-17-98/PCE-EO/49 dated
04-06-2007.
4. Amendment No. 14-17-98/PCE-PWD-EO/49
dated 18-04-2012.
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 State Public Information Officers and
Assistant State Public Information Officers for
Public Works Department, for carrying out the
function prescribed under the said Act in addition
to the Orders stated in parable.
Sr.
Name of
Designated
Designated as
No.
office
as SPIO
ASPIO
1. Office of CE
Engineering
Junior Engineer-
(NH, R & B)
Officer
(CE NH, R & B).
for Technical
matters
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex
officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).
Panaji, 31st May, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 10
8TH JUNE, 2017
1086
Department of Sports & Youth Affairs
Directorate of Sports & Youth Affairs
__
Order
No. 8/1/2001/Adhoc-Appt/ADM/D.SPORTS/PF/688
Read: 1) No.
8/1/2001/Adhoc-Appt/ADM/D.
SPORTS/PF/3234 dated 25-11-2016.
2) No.
8/1/2001/Adhoc-Appt/ADM/D.
SPORTS/PF/166 dated 13-04-2017.
In continuation to above referred Order, the
ad hoc promotion of Smt. Jennifer Ferrao e
Gonsalves to the post of Assistant Director
(Physical Education North) Group ‘B’ Gazetted in
the pay scale of PB-2 Rs. 9,300-34,800+Rs. 4,600/- is
hereby continued for the period w.e.f. 01-06-2017
to 30-09-2017.
The pay of the promotee shall be fixed as per
Rules.
The Government reserves the right to cancel at
any time the above ad hoc promotion and revert
the promotee to the post from which she was
promoted.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
V. M. Prabhu Desai, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Sports & Youth Affairs).
Panaji, 1st June, 2017.
Department of Women & Child
Development
Directorate of Women & Child Development
__
Order
No. 2-20-2016-17/Award/AWW/ICDS/969
The Government of Goa is hereby constitutes the
State Level Selection Committee for selection of the
awardees for State Level Awards for Anganwadi
Workers under Scheme of Awards for Anganwadi
Workers under Centrally Sponsored Integrated
Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme of the
GOI consisting of the following:
Sr.
Occupation
Designation
No.
a) Secretary-in-charge of Women — Chairperson.
& Child Development
b) Secretary-in-charge of
— Member.
(Health/Family Welfare)
c) Director (Women & Child
— Member
Development)
Secretary.
The Selection Committee shall meet once a year.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Ruhi Redkar, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary
(WCD).
Panaji, 25th May, 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. 24.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–79/350–6/2017.