Panaji, 30th November, 2017 (Agrahayana 9, 1939)
SERIES II No. 35
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
1863
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
__
Corrigendum
No. 8/15/2017-18/D.Agri(Part)/193
Read: Order No. 8/15/2017-18/D.Agri (Part)/97
dated 28-07-2017.
In the above referred order the date of extension
“w.e.f. 30-05-2016 to 30-09-2017” of the officer at
Sr. No. 1 Shri Vithal Joshi, Asst. Director of
Agriculture/Subject Matter Specialist may be read
as “w.e.f. 01-05-2016 to 30-09-2017”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nelson X. Figueiredo, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 22nd November, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Higher Education
__
Notification
No. 7/32/91-EDN/MISC/535/2620
In exercise of the powers conferred by Statute
95 A of the Goa University Statutes and in
consultation with the Goa University, the
Government of Goa is pleased to constitute the
College Tribunal, State of Goa with Shri Desmond
D’Costa, Retired Judge, District Judge as Presiding
Officer for a period of five years for the whole State
of Goa for the purpose of the said Statute.
The Notification shall come into force with effect
from the date of its publication in the Official
Gazette.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 23rd November, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Forest
__
Order
No. 4-2-2001-02/FOR(Part-II)/1447
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/22(1)/2017/885 dated 28-09-2017, the
Government of Goa is pleased to appoint Shri
Damodar Prakash Salelkar, to the post of Assistant
Conservator of Forests (Group ‘B’ Gazetted) in the
pay scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800+Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600
(pre-revised) in the Forest Department, Panaji-Goa,
under the Government of Goa, on temporary basis
with effect from the date of his joining.
Shri Damodar Prakash Salelkar has been found
medically fit as per the Medical Board fitness
Certificate forwarded by the Medical Superinten-
dent, Goa Medical College, Bambolim vide their
letter No. 4/105/85-H/GMC/2017/654 dated
10-11-2017.
The verification of character and antecedents of
Shri Damodar Prakash Salelkar is not required, since
he is working as Range Forest Officer, Forest
Department, Panaji under Government of Goa.
Shri Damodar Prakash Salelkar shall be on
probation for a period of two years.
Note:-
There are two Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 34 dated 23-11-2017
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 24-11-2017 from pages
1853 to 1854 regarding regarding Order from
Department of Personnel.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 29-11-2017 from
pages 1855 to 1861 regarding Order from
Department of Finance.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1864
Shri Damodar Prakash Salelkar shall report to
the office of Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests, Panaji-
Goa for further posting.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shaila G. Bhosle, Under Secretary (Forest).
Porvorim, 21st November, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of General Administration
__
Order
No. 14/8/2001-GAD-III(Part I)/3478
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa
Public Service Commission vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/42(1)/2014/923 dated 25-10-2017,
Government is pleased to promote the following
Senior Assistants/Stenographer Grade-I to the post
of Section Officer (Group ‘B’ Gazetted) in
Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa, on regular basis, in Level
7 of the Pay Matrix as per C.C.S. (Revised Pay) Rules,
2016, with immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name of the officer
No.
1.
Kum. Kavita Kamlakar Velip (ST).
2.
Smt. Ana C. Marques Fernandes.
3.
Smt. Lidia Gomes E Vaz.
The above Officers shall be on probation for a
period of two years from the date of their joining
the post.
The above Officials shall exercise their option
for fixation of pay in the promotional grade in terms
of F.R. 22(I)(a)(1) within a period of one month. The
option once exercised shall be final.
The expenditure towards pay and allowances of
Officers at Sr. No. 2 & 3 above shall be debited from
the Budget Head from where they are presently
drawing their salary and allowances. The
expenditure towards pay and allowances of Kum.
Kavita Kamlakar Velip, Section Officer shall be
debited to the Budget Head “2052-Secretariat
General Services, 00—; 090—Secretariat (Non-Plan);
01—Department of Personnel & A. R.; 01—Salaries”.
Consequent upon their promotion, they shall
continue to work at place where they are presently
working until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Varsha S. Naik, Under Secretary (GA).
Porvorim, 20th November, 2017.
Order
No. 14/8/2001-GAD-III(Part I)/3479
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa
Public Service Commission vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/42(1)/2014/923 dated 25-10-2017,
Government is pleased to promote the following
Senior Assistants/Stenographer Grade-I to the post
of Section Officer (Group ‘B’ Gazetted) in Secretariat,
Porvorim, Goa, on Officiating Basis, in Level 7 of the
Pay Matrix as per C.C.S. (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016,
with immediate effect:-
Sr.
Name of the officer
No.
1. Smt. Tirthana R. Verlekar.
2. Smt. Meena M. Naik.
3. Smt. Juliet Valdares.
4. Shri Shripad Chandrakant Barve.
5. Shri Ligorio Renato Baptista.
6. Shri Siddesh S. Naik.
7. Smt. Monica Maria Anes Cardozo.
8. Smt. Celina Maria Rodrigues.
The Officer at Sr. No. 1 above is promoted on
“officiating basis” since the recommendation of one
Officer is kept in sealed cover. The Officers at
Sr. Nos. 2 to 8 above are promoted on “officiating
basis” against the 06 Scheduled Tribe and 01
Scheduled Caste vacancy.
The above Officers shall not confer any right for
regular promotion and the services so rendered shall
not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade
and for eligibility for promotion to the next higher
grade.
The above Officials shall exercise their option for
fixation of pay in the promotional grade in terms of
F. R. 22(I) (a) (1) within a period of one month. The
option once exercised shall be final.
The expenditure towards pay and allowances of
the above Officers shall be debited to the following
Budget Heads:-
Sr.
Name of the officers
Budget Head
No.
1
2
3
1. Smt. Tirthana R. Verlekar 2052 —Secretariat
General
2. Smt. Meena M. Naik
Services
00 —
090 —Secretariat
(Non-Plan)
01 —Department
of Personnel
& A.R.
01 —Salaries
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1865
3. Shri Shripad Chandrakant 2052—Secretariat
Barve
General
Services
4. Shri Ligorio Renato
00 —
Baptista
090—Secretariat
(Non-Plan)
04— Law
Department
01 —Salaries.
5. Shri Siddesh S. Naik
2251 —Secretariat
Social
6. Smt. Monica Maria Anes
Services
Cardozo
00 —
090 —Secretariat
(Non-Plan)
01 —Education
Department
01 —Salaries
7. Smt. Celina Maria
3451 —Secretariat
Rodrigues
Economic
Services
00 —
090 —Secretariat
(Non-Plan)
02 —Industries &
Labour
Department
01 —Salaries
The expenditure towards pay and allowances of
Smt. Juliet Valdares, Section Officer shall be debited
from the Budget Head from where she is presently
drawing her salary and allowances.
Consequent upon their promotion, they shall
continue to work at same place where they are
presently working until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Varsha S. Naik, Under Secretary (GA).
Porvorim, 20th November, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 24/6/2013-Lab-ESI/808
Government is pleased to count the past services
rendered by Dr. Deepa N. Kerkar, Sr. Gynaecologist
& Obstetrician in ESI Hospital, Margao, in the grade
of Junior Gynaecologist under Directorate of
Health Services for the period from 24-08-2002 to
30-04-2007, for purpose of pensionary benefits only,
subject to the conditions that the terminal benefits,
if any, obtained by her should be deposited in
Government treasury alongwith interest.
This issues with the concurrence of Finance
(Rev. & Cont.) Department vide their U.O.
No. 1476016 dated 17-11-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 23rd November, 2017.
________
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/795
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 10-10-2017 in reference
No. LC-II/IT/11/2014 is hereby published as
required by Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 20th November, 2017.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/11/2014
Ms. Alita Rebello,
Navelim, Colmorod,
Lucky General Store,
Salcete-Goa.
…
Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Bohemian Crystal
Company (India),
Rich Ville, Shop No. A/GS 3 & 4,
Colmorod, Navelim Road,
Salcete-Goa.
…
Employer/Party II
Party-I/Workman is represented by Adv. Shri T.
Pereira.
Party-II/Employer is represented by Adv. Shri G. B.
Kamat.
Panaji, Dated: 10-10-2017
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1866
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 29-10-2014,
bearing No. 28/27/2014-Lab/617 referred the
following dispute for adjudication by this Labour
Court-II, Panaji, Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Bohemian Crystal Company (India),
Navelim, Goa in terminating the services of
Ms. Alita Rebello, Retail Sales Assistant,
with effect from 15-09-2013, 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. LC-II/IT/11/14 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
03-03-2015 at Exhibit 5. The facts of the case in
brief as pleaded by the Workman are that she was
employed in the employment of the Employer/
/Party-II (for short “Employer”) as ‘Retail Sales
Assistant’ since 20-07-2009. She stated that her
last drawn gross salary was Rs. 10,675/-. She stated
that by an e-mail dated 15-09-2013, the Employer
terminated her services on 15-09-2013 with
immediate effect from close day of 15-09-2013.
3. Being aggrieved by the termination order
issued by the Employer, she raised an industrial
dispute before the conciliation authority by her
letter dated 18-11-2013. She contended that her
service was terminated without giving her any prior
notice and without paying her any legal dues. She
submitted that the Employer has engaged the
services of another person in her place in its
organization, which is still running. She submitted
that she was not the junior most employee in her
category. She submitted that neither any memo
nor show-cause notice or charge-sheet was issued
to her before termination of her services. She
submitted that neither the Employer conducted
any disciplinary enquiry against her nor followed
the rules of natural justice. She submitted that the
Employer also violated the principles of last come
first go. She therefore submitted that the
termination of her services by the Employer is
illegal, arbitrary, null and void and as such liable
to be set aside. She submitted that she has not
succeeded in getting any other employment giving
her the same amount of salary. She therefore prayed
that she be reinstated in service with full back
wages, continuity in service and consequential
benefits thereof.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman, by filing its written statement on
17-04-2015 at Exb. 8. The Employer, as and by way
of preliminary objections, submitted that the entire
reference is illegal, bad-in-law and not
maintainable and as such is liable to be rejected as
admittedly no dispute about the alleged illegal
termination of her services by the Employer and
that a demand for reinstatement was raised by the
Workman on them at any point of time and
therefore there was no industrial dispute exists
within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act,
1947. The Employer submitted that in the course of
conciliation proceedings before the Dy. Labour
Commissioner, Margao, Goa, it has offered the
Workman to reinstate/take back in service as is
clear from its letter dated 17-01-2014 and dated
25-02-2014. The Employer submitted that however,
the Workman agreed to accept the said offer subject
to Employer accepting her terms and conditions in
the first instance as its clear from her letter/reply
dated 31-01-2014, which said action of the Workman
was illegal, thereby clearly showing that she was
not at all interested in rejoining in their services.
The Employer therefore submitted that the
Workman is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for
or to any other relief. The Employer reiterated that
the said offer to reinstate/take back in service the
Workman on the same terms and conditions as
prevailing prior to 16-09-2013.
5. The Employer stated that it is a proprietary
concern of Mr. Oscar Fernandes and is engaged in
the business of trading of chinaware, cutlery,
glassware etc. The Employer stated that it has its
branches at Banglore, Mumbai, New Delhi, Pune
and Ahmadabad, besides at Navelim, Salcete, Goa.
The Employer admitted that the Workman was
employed with them in the capacity of ‘Retail Sales
Assistant’, vide letter of appointment dated
20-07-2009 on certain agreed terms and conditions
mentioned therein. The Employer stated that as a
Retail Sales Assistant, it was the duty of the
Workman to attend the customers, preparing
invoice, sending daily reports, handling customers’
requirements. The Employer stated that the
Workman was assisting the management in doing
the stock count and was in-charge of the Merlin
software installed by them in order to help track/
/ note down the items that were taken in stock and
taken out of stock and causes of excess or short fall
of the items as the case may be.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1867
6. The Employer stated that in the month of
June, 2012 i.e. the period when the Workman was
working as Retail Sales Assistant in the retail show
room, annual stock count was taken and it was
found that there was variance in the physical/
/actual stock and that was maintained in the
computer/book stock. The Employer stated that
however, the said variance was absorbed by them
and not a single rupee was charged to the account
of any of the staff. The Employer stated that further
on 04-09-2012, signatures were taken from the
concerned staff including the Workman informing
them that all the stock variance was written off as
on 18-06-2012 and were further informed that they
would be held responsible for the same and in the
absence of justified explanation for the same, the
amount would be deducted from their salaries. The
Employer stated that thereafter it required the
retail staff to take physical stock count as on
31-03-2013 as the same was required for accounting
purpose as per the practice followed.
7. The Employer stated that however, inspite of
the said instructions, the Workman was found
either playing games on computer or listening to
music or chatting on mobiles, but failed to obey
the instructions regarding stock taking, whereas
other employees namely Mr. Nigel and Ms. Melvita
did not take the said instructions seriously and
continued to disobey the instructions to take the
physical stock count. The Employer stated that
even e-mails were sent to them informing the
seriousness of the stock taking but, the same had
no effect on them at all. The Employer stated that
in the circumstances, it had to inform them that
their salaries would be withheld until they
completed the stock count. The Employer stated
that they finally completed the exercise in August,
2013 and it was found that there was variance in
the physical/actual stock and that was maintained
in the computer/book stock. The Employer stated
that on account of variance in stock as aforesaid,
necessary explanation/clarification was sought
from the Workman, however, she was found
postponing the same on one pretext or the other.
The Employer stated that on account of the
aforesaid conduct on the part of the Workman and
since the value of the missing stock was
substantial, they restrained to withhold the
payment of salary due to the Workman and also to
Mr. Nigel Alcasos, who was working as Asstt. Retail
Manager for the month of June, 2013, July, 2013
and from 01-08-2013 to 16-08-2013, totally
aggregating to Rs. 26,965/- till she submitted her
clarification. The Employer stated that failure of
the Workman to give clarification in respect of the
missing stock has caused substantial monetary loss
to them.
8. The Employer stated that since the Workman
as well as the said Mr. Nigel Alcasos could not
afford any explanation to the said variance, it was
decided to recover the said amount from their
respective salaries by informing them. The
Employer stated that on account of the above, the
Workman tried to get vindictive with them and
started all sorts of negative tactics to disrupt the
retail operations to the extent that the staff that
used to open the shuttle of the show-room were
influenced by the Workman to complain about
opening the shutters of the show-room and at times
the shutters had to be opened by its Senior
Manager. The Employer stated that often the
Workman would come late and other staff had to
wait till they got the keys of the show-room from
the Workman. The Employer stated that the
frequent negative tactics and the reprimand by
the Sr. Manager of her negative tactics resulted in
total indisciplined behaviour from the Workman
and frequently she was heard arguing and back
answering the Sr. Manager. The Employer stated
that thereafter the Workman started remaining
absent from work and would suddenly appear with
her uncle to fight and argue with its Sr. Manager
in the office disregarding the seniority of the said
Manager and that the office was having other staff
on whom such rudebehaviour could have wrong
impression. The Employer stated that the Workman
was also given opportunity to speak to Mr. Oscar
Fernandes, its Proprietor, who even explained that
such behaviour was not expected from her.
9. The Employer stated that the father of the
Workman had also come to discuss the said matter
with Mr. Oscar Fernandes, who explained to him
all the facts of the situation and told him that the
Workman and Mr. Nigel Alcasos could not explain
the variance and therefore her payment was being
adjusted and was further informed that in case if
the Workman can explain the variance, they are
ready to pay her back the amount deducted, but
inspite of the same, the Workman could not explain
the said variance and as a result the Workman and
the said Mr. Nigel Alcasos were held responsible
for the variance and necessary deductions were
made from their respective salaries. The Employer
stated that as the Workman continued with her
rude and aggressive behaviour and started
disturbing office and retail show-room decorum,
its Sr. Manager was constrained to transfer the
Workman from the retail show-room at Navelim to
the stores/warehouse at Dongrim, Navelim,
Salcete-Goa, vide its letter dated 16-08-2013. The
Employer stated that however, neither the
Workman refused to sign or accept the said letter
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1868
nor joined the stores in terms of transfer letter and
on the contrary, started remaining absent on the
ground of alleged sickness from 19-08-2013 and as
such neither attended the office or the stores at
any time. The Employer stated that she was
informed by its Sr. Manager that she was going to
be relieved from her duties. The Employer stated
that considering that the Workman would again
be playing her tantrums and having obtained the
opinion of Mr. Nigel Alcasos, who opined them
that the Workman would not come to stores and
that she would continue to exert her negative
attitude in stores or wherever she is, it has taken
a decision to relieve the Workman from her duties.
10. The Employer stated that though it had
initially quantified the variance of stock/loss of
items to Rs. 59,490/- for the period from 18-06-2012
to 31-03-2013, later on upon conducting detailed
and thorough investigation it was shocked and
surprised when it was revealed that there was
misappropriation of an amount to the tune of
approximately Rs. 25 lakhs under various
categories such by adjustment of M.R.P. price at
the show-room estimated to a tune of Rs. 15 lakhs,
adjustment in quantities sold and loyalty card fraud,
which was to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. The Employer
stated that upon confronting the said evidence,
said Mr. Nigel Alcasos, the Asstt. Retail Manager
in the Retail show-room unequivocally admitted of
his involvement in the said fraud, embezzlement
and misappropriation and approached Mr. Oscar
Fernandes, its Proprietor apologizing for the said
conduct on his part and praying for leniency and
further offered to refund an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs
and further requested him not to take any drastic
action in the matter as the same will jeopardized
his character, his family’s reputations etc. and
signed an agreement dated 22-08-2015 with them
acknowledging his involvement and agreeing to
refund an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs and further
agreeing to co-operate in the investigation. The
Employer stated that thereupon, Mr. Oscar
Fernandes, its Proprietor agreed to the said proposal
without giving up/waiving his right to file
appropriate criminal complaint in respect of fraud,
embezzlement and misappropriation committed by
the said Mr. Nigel Alcasos. The Employer stated
that Mr. Nigel Alcasos also refunded a total sum of
Rs. 8 lakhs misappropriated by him and also offered
to resign from the job and further agreed for
adjustment of the salaries due to him for the months
of January, 2015, February 2015, gratuity and other
dues payable to him in respect of his employment
with them against the losses caused to them.
11. The Employer stated that during the period
when the said fraud, embezzlement took place in
the retail show-room, the Workman was very much
working with the said Mr. Nigel Alcasos and as
such her involvement in the aforesaid offences
cannot be ruled out and therefore participation of
the Workman in the said investigation/enquiry is
very much required. The Employer therefore
submitted that they are ready to take back/
/reinstate the Workman in service on the same
terms and conditions as prevailing prior to
16-09-2013, which could enable them to conduct
the necessary enquiry/investigation as per law and
take appropriate action as deemed fit as per law
including filing of civil suit for recovery of amount
towards losses, damages caused to them as well
as filing criminal complaint for criminal
misappropriation as deemed fit and proper against
the staff involved. The Employer finally denied the
overall case of the Workman as pleaded and prayed
for dismissal of the present reference.
12. Thereafter, the Workman filed her Rejoinder
at Exhibit-9 on 08-06-2015. The Workman, by way
of her Re-joinder denied each and every statement,
averments and submissions made by the Employer
vide their Written Statement filed in the present
proceedings and reiterates and confirms the
statements, averments and submissions made by
her in her statement of claim.
13. Based on the pleadings filed by the
respective Parties, this court has framed the
following issues at Exb.-12.
1. Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that the
reference is illegal, bad-in-law and not
maintainable in view of the reasons stated in
para 2 (a), 2 (b) of the Written Statement?
2. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the
action of the Employer in terminating her
services w.e.f. 15-09-2013, is illegal and
unjustified?
3. Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that
they had transferred the services of the
Workman/Party I vide their letter dated
16-08-2013?
4. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that he
is entitled to any relief?
5. What order? What award?
14. My Findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
: In the affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2
: In the negative.
(c) Issue No. 3
: In the affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4 & 5
: As per final order.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1869
REASONS
Both the parties chose to file their synopsis of
written arguments respectively. I have carefully
considered the written submissions filed by the
respective parties. I have also carefully perused
the entire records of the present case and is of the
considered opinion as under.
15. Issue No. 1:
The Employer, in its written statement filed in
the present proceedings, as and by way of its
preliminary objections, submitted that admittedly
no dispute about alleged illegal termination of her
services by them and demand for reinstatement,
was raised by the Workman on them at any point
of time and therefore there was no industrial
dispute within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the
I.D. Act, 1947, which came into existence as on the
date of making of the reference and therefore the
present reference is liable to be rejected.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in its
judgment in the case of Shambu Nath Goyal v/s
Bank of Baroda, Jullundar, reported in (1978) 2
SCC 353 held that “The definition of industrial
dispute in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 shows that where there is a dispute or
difference between the parties contemplated by the
definition and the dispute or difference is connected
with the employment or non-employment or the terms
of employment or with the conditions of labour of
any person there comes into existence an industrial
dispute. The Act nowhere contemplates that the
dispute would come into existence in any particular,
specific or prescribed manner. For coming into
existence of an industrial dispute a written demand
is not a sine qua non”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in its aforesaid case is applicable to
the present case. Hence, the contention of the
Employer that the reference is not maintainable or
incompetent as no demand notice was served upon
them in regards to the termination of service of the
Workman, is without any merits.
17. Ld. Adv. Shri G. B. Kamat, representing the
Employer, further submitted that in the course of
conciliation proceedings before the Dy. Labour
Commissioner, Margao, Goa, it had offered the
Workman (in this case a women) to reinstate/take
back in service as is clear from the letter dated
17-01-2014 and dated 25-02-2014, however, the
Workman agreed to accept to such offer subject to
the Employer accepting her terms and conditions
in the first instance as its clear from her letter/
/reply dated 31-01-2013, which said action of the
Workman was illegal thereby clearly showing that
the Workman was not at all interested in re-joining
in the services of the Employer. He submitted that
the Employer again reiterated the said offer of
reinstatement/taking back in its service to the
Workman on the same terms and conditions as
prevailing prior to 16-09-2013. However, the
Workman did not accept the same and as such the
Workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
In support of his contention, he relied upon the
following four judgments of Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay.
18. In the case of M/s. Sonal Garments v/s.
Trimbak Shankar Karve, reported in 2003 (96)
FLR 498, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has
held as under:
“….whenever the employer offers to reinstate the
workman at any stage of the dispute or proceeding
and if the workman does not accept the offer even
without prejudice to his rights and contentions he
will not be entitled to continue his claim for
reinstatement in the proceedings and he will also be
not entitled to claim any back wages from the date
of such offer, conditional or unconditional. He must
first accept the offer and get reinstated in
employment and therefore continue to contest for
the relief of back wages, if any. In the present case
there was an unconditional offer of reinstatement
made by the employer in the written statement itself
but it was not accepted by the workman. Therefore,
as stated by me hereinbefore, he is not entitled to
get reinstatement with full back wages at all……….”
19. In the case of M/s. Competition Printing
Press v/s Shriut Jai Prakash Singh, reported in
2001 (1) CLR 948, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
has held as under:
“…….Even the workman had admitted in his oral
evidence that such offers were made to him by the
employer and he did not accept the same as there
was no offer of back wages and that he was not
prepared to join his duty without back wages. This
very fact of adamant and obstinate attitude on the
part of the workman clearly indicates that he himself
had abandoned the employment by remaining
absent from 10-11-1989 for the reasons best known
to him and under wrong advice, he approached the
Government machinery with ulterior motives to
extract some money if possible. In my opinion no
genuine and bona fide workman who was aggrieved
by an illegal order of termination would deny the
offer of reinstatement and would not readily give up
the valuable job for the sake of few days back wages.
Alternatively the workman could have accepted
reinstatement before the Government Labour Officer
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1870
and even before the Conciliation Officer praying to
refer the dispute restricting to the entitlement of
the backwages as he was already reinstated during
the proceedings before the Government Labour
Officer or the Conciliation Officer as the case may
be. Lastly he could have accepted the offer of
reinstatement made by the petitioner employer in
the written statement even before the Labour court
reserving his right to get back wages and joining
the employment without prejudice to the aforesaid
right…..
“…According to me, the conduct of the workman
was totally unreasonable in refusing to accept the
reinstatement without backwages on the first date
of hearing before the Government Officer. The Labour
Court has failed to consider all these aspects and
has mechanically recorded its finding that the
petitioner employer having terminated the
employment of the workman was liable to reinstate
the workman with full back wages and continuity
of service….”
20. In the case of M/s. VFC Industries v/s. Balu
Ganpat Sakpal, reported in 2006 (6) MhLJ 535,
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held as
under:
“……12. In the present case, it has come on record
that the petitioner made an offer of employment to
the respondent on 10th May, 2001. The letter was
replied by him on 29th May, 2001. He declined the
offer and did not join the employment. In the
circumstances, the respondent would not be entitled
to claim reinstatement nor would he be entitled to
claim back wages from the date of receipt of the
letter which should be around 15th May, 2001. The
Industrial Court therefore erred in confirming the
order for reinstatement and further erred in
allowing back wages after 15th May, 2001. In the
circumstances the orders passed by the courts below
need to be set aside and modified. Accordingly, the
writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set
aside and in its place the following order is
substituted.
“….13. It is declared that the petitioner-company
indulged in unfair labour practice by orally
terminating the services of the respondent on 1st
September, 1998. However, in view of the offer made
by the petitioner-company to the respondent to
employ him and declining of the said offer by the
respondent, he is not entitled to an order of
reinstatement nor entitled to any back wages from
the date of offer.
21. In the case of M/s. Madhuri Chandulal
Lakhani v/s. Prashant Shripad Satpute, reported
in 2015 LLR 239, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
reiterated the aforesaid position and has held in
para 11 as under:
“….11…………..Once the offer of reinstatement
was made by the employer before the Labour
Commissioner, there was no good or valid reason for
Prashant to resume the duties. The issue of back
wages could always have been sorted out later on.
Nothing prevented Prashant from initiating
appropriate proceedings for securing back wages of
hardly six to seven months, once the employment
was secured by the offer of reinstatement made by
the employer before the Labour Commissioner. There
was no justification for Prashant to decline the offer
of reinstatement upon the spacious plea that the
same was not accompanied by back wages for a
period of about six to seven months. Normally, a
workers who is out of employment, would not,
in such circumstances decline the offer of
reinstatement…”
22. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in its aforesaid cases is well
established and also applies to the case in hand.
Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay, in the case in hand, the Employer,
in para 2 (b) of its written statement, pleaded that
in the course of conciliation proceedings before
the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Margao, Goa, it
offered to reinstate/take back in service the
Workman, vide its letter dated 17-01-2014 and dated
25-02-2014, however, the Workman agreed to accept
the said offer subject to the Employer accepting
her terms and conditions in the first instance as is
clear from her letter/reply dated 31-01-2014, which
said action of the Workman was illegal, thereby
clearly showing that she was not at all interested
in re-joining the Employer and that it has reiterated
the said offer of reinstatement/taking back in
service the Workman on the same terms and
conditions as prevailing prior to 16-09-2013. The
aforesaid pleadings of the Employer appearing in
para 2 (b) of its written statement has been vaguely
denied by the attorney of the Workman in his re-
joinder filed in the present proceedings. Further,
the offer of reinstatement reiterated by the
Employer to the Workman in para 2 (b) of its written
statement has not been accepted by her either by
joining the duties or by making any suitable
application before this court showing her
willingness to join the duties. Failure to do so, the
Workman also failed to accept the said offer of
reinstatement unconditionally and consequently,
resumed her duties. In the circumstances, the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1871
Workman is not entitled to any relief of
reinstatement as well as back wages and the
reference is therefore liable to be rejected. Hence,
it is held that the Employer proved that the
reference is not maintainable in law. The issue
No. 1 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
23. Issue No. 2:
The burden to prove the issue No. 2 is on the
Workman. In order to prove the said issue No. 2,
the Workman examined her special power of
attorney holder and uncle, Mr. Roberto Dos Reis
Falcao, r/o. Alto-Dabolim-Goa as her sole witness.
Ld. Adv. Shri. G.B. Kamat, representing the
Employer submitted that the evidence of the said
power of attorney holder is inadmissible in law as
the said power of attorney holder has not rendered
any ‘acts’ in pursuance to the said instrument of
special power of attorney dated 28-04-2015
executed in his favour nor he has any personal
knowledge of the facts of the present case and
relied upon the following two judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
24. In the case of Vidyadhar v/s. Manikrao
reported in AIR 1991 SC 1441, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held that “where a party to the suit
does not appear in the witness box and state his
own case on oath and does not offer himself to be
cross-examined by the other side, a presumption
would arise that a case setup by him is not correct
and further that it would give rise to an inference
adverse against him…”
25. In the case of Janaki Vashdeo Bhojwani
v/s. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors., reported in
AIR 2005 SC 439, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India held that “…the word “acts” employed in Order
III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, confines only in respect of
“acts” done by the power of attorney holder in
exercise of power granted by the instrument. The
term “acts” would not include deposing in place
and instead of the principal. In other words, if the
power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts”
in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose
for the principal in respect of such acts, but he
cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by
the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot
depose for the principal in respect of the matter
which only the principal can have a personal
knowledge and in respect of which the principal is
entitled to be cross-examined.”
26. The principal laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
court in its aforesaid case is well recognized.
Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid case, in the case in hand, the
Workman raised the dispute pertaining to her
alleged illegal dismissal from service by the
Employer w.e.f. 15-09-2013. Per contra, it is the case
of the Employer as per their pleadings that they
have not terminated the services of the Workman,
but transferred her services at its store at
Dongrim,
Navelim,
Goa
on
account
of
her involvement in fraud, embezzlement,
misappropriation resulting in monetary loss of
around 25 lakhs. The Employer has however, in
para 2 (b) of its written statement submitted that
it has offered reinstatement to the Workman as
is clear from its letter dated 17-01-2014 and
25-02-2014 and that it reiterate the said offer to
reinstate/take back in service the Workman on the
same terms and conditions as prevailing prior to
16-09-2013. The term ‘reinstate’ implies taking back
in service after termination of service. Thus, from
the pleadings made in para 2 (b) of the written
statement of the Employer, it implies that the
Workman was offered for the reinstatement in
services after termination of her services. It was
therefore incumbent upon the Workman to prove
that the termination of her services is illegal and
unjustified. The sole witness and attorney of the
Workmanin his oral evidence on record deposed
that the Workman was consulting him for
discussing and also for drafting her various replies
and other correspondence as well as her letters of
dispute to the conciliation authorities and as such
he is aware of the facts of the present case.
However, in his cross-examination, the said
attorney of the Workman deposed that he came to
know about the facts of the present case after the
alleged termination of service of the Workman. The
aforesaid evidence on record indicates that the
said attorney of the Workman was not having the
personal knowledge of the facts of the present case
nor has he rendered any ‘acts’ in pursuance to the
instrument of special power of attorney issued in
favour of him and as such the evidence of the said
attorney of the Workman is inadmissible in law. In
the circumstances, there is no evidence on record
to prove that the action of the Employer in allegedly
terminating the service of the Workman w.e.f.
15-09-2013 is illegal and unjustified. In the absence
of evidence on record, it is held that the Workman
failed to prove that the action of the Employer in
terminating her service w.e.f. 15-09-2013 is illegal
and unjustified. The issue No. 2 is therefore
answered in the negative.
27. Issue No. 4:
While deciding issue No. 1 hereinabove, I have
already discussed and came to the conclusion that
the Workman is not entitled to any relief of
reinstatement as well as back wages. Similarly,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1872
while deciding the issue No. 2 hereinabove, I have
discussed and came to the conclusion that the
Workman failed to prove that the action of the
Employer in terminating her services w.e.f.
15-09-2013 is illegal and unjustified. The Workman
is therefore not entitled to any relief. The issue
No. 4 is therefore answered in the negative.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the reference as to whether
the action of the management of
M/s. Bohemian Crystal Company (India),
Navelim, Goa in terminating the services of
Ms. Alita Rebello, Retail Sales Assistant,
with effect from 15-09-2013, is legal and
justified, is not maintainable.
2. The workman Ms. Alita Rebello, is not
entitled to any relief.
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/797
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 23-10-2017 in reference
No. IT/12/05 is hereby published as required by
Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 20th November, 2017.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/12/05
Miss. Vijayshree N. Naik Tari,
H. No.42, Taripanta,
Sanguem-Goa.
… Workperson/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Sanguem Municipal
Council,
Sanguem-Goa.
… Employer/Party-II
Workperson/Party-I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri A.V.
Nigalye.
Panaji, Dated: 23-10-2017
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 19-04-2005,
bearing No. 28/08/2005-LAB/167/3 referred the
following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa. Thereafter, the
Appropriate Government transferred the present
reference for its adjudication to this Labour
Court II, vide its order dated 09-02-2016.
“(1) Whether the action of the Sanguem
Municipal Council, Sanguem, in terminating
the services of Miss. Vijayshree N. Naik Tari,
Library Attendant, with effect from
22-4-2003, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief, the Workperson is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/12/05 and registered A/D
notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to
the said notice, the Parties put in their appearance.
The Workperson/Party-I (for short ‘Workperson’),
filed her Statement of Claim on 09-06-2005 at
Exb-3. The facts of the case in brief, as pleaded by
the Workperson are that she was working with the
Employer/Party II (for short ‘Employer’) as ‘Library
Attendant’ with effect from 31-10-2000. She stated
that her duty timing were 8.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.
and 4.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. She stated that she used
to sign the attendance register maintained by the
Employer. She stated that her duties were to collect
newspapers and magazines daily, to issue the
magazine and books to the public, who come to
read in the library, to collect and pay the bills of
newspapers and magazines, to maintain the records
of books and magazine, to issue and keep the books
and magazines in proper place and any other
clerical work allotted by the Employer. She stated
that the work of library attendant is a permanent
nature of job. She stated that she has continuously
worked up to 21-04-2003. She stated that she was
drawing a salary of Rs. 56/- per working day. She
stated that when she went to resume her duties on
22-04-2003, she was told that her services have
been terminated and she was not allowed to
resume the duty.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1873
3. Being aggrieved by the termination of her
services, the Workperson raised an industrial
dispute before the Dy. Labour Commissioner,
Margao, Goa, vide her representation dated
22-05-2003, which ended in failure. She submitted
that at the time of termination of her services,
neither the Employer has conducted any enquiry
nor issued any memo or charge-sheet for any
misconduct. She submitted that at the time of
termination of her services, no legal dues such as
retrenchment compensation, notice pay, gratuity
etc. was paid to her, thus, violated Sec. 25-F of the
I.D. Act. She submitted that the Employer has
employed a new person to carry out the work
performed by her. She therefore submitted that the
action of the Employer in terminating her services
is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. She submitted
that since the termination of her services, she is
unemployed and could not succeed in getting any
employment. The Workperson therefore prayed that
the termination of her services be declared as
illegal, improper and unjustified and direct the
Employer to reinstate her in service with full back
wages and continuity in service.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workperson by filing its written statement on
10-05-2006 at Exb. 6. The Employer, as and by way
of its preliminary objections, submitted that the
reference is not maintainable as it has been made
without application of mind and that the matter
referred to the tribunal is not an ‘industrial dispute’
within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act,
1947. The Employer submitted that it is not an
‘employer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (j) and
the Party I is not a ‘workman’ within the meaning
of Section 2 (s) of the said Act. The Employer
submitted that the Workperson was not employed
on the sanctioned post and that she was working
purely on daily wages and on casual basis. The
Employer submitted that the Party I has/had no
lien on any post in their employment and that she
has no claim for employment with them. The
Employer submitted that there is/was no employer-
-employee relationship between themselves and
the Workperson.
5. The Employer stated that it is a municipal
council constituted under the Goa Municipal Act,
1968 and is governed by the provisions of said Act
and the Rules made thereunder. The Employer
stated that it is constituted in C class municipal
area. The Employer stated that its sources of funds
are from Government grants, taxes and other
meagre revenues. The Employer stated that the
Workperson was not employed on any sanctioned
post nor there is/was any post of Library Assistant
or Assistant Librarian in its organization. The
Employer submitted that the Workperson has
therefore no right, claim or lien to the said post.
The Employer stated that it is operating a small
library in Sanguem town for the benefit of the
residents. The Employer stated that a few
magazines, daily newspapers and some books are
kept in library. The Employer stated that the
number of persons visiting the library are very
limited since Sanguem is small town and the
number of literate persons and that to, having
reading habits is still smaller. The Employer stated
that however in public interest, it is continuing
with the operation of the said library, though it
puts heavy strains on its finances. The Employer
stated that the said library does not have a
Librarian or an Assistant Librarian considering the
limited volume of work which can be done by an
Assistant.
6. The Employer stated that the Workperson was
working as a Library Assistant in its library purely
on daily wages of Rs. 56.25 per day. The Employer
stated that she was paid her wages on the days
she worked and her employment was of casual
nature. The Employer stated that her employment
was an interim arrangement for the benefit of the
public. The Employer stated that since the
Workperson was not appointed on a sanctioned
post, she had no lien on the post nor have a right
to continue in its employment. The Employer stated
that her employment was not continuous and she
had not put in any continuous service with the
Employer.
7. The Employer stated that since its resources
are very limited, it decided to discontinue with her
employment as Library Attendant as the work done
by her as Library Attendant was limited which
could be done by its other employees and the
amount saved thereby could be spent for other
useful purposes. The Employer stated that they
discontinued the employment of the Workperson
from 08-04-2003. The Employer submitted that the
discontinuance of the employment of the
Workperson is perfectly legal, just and proper and
the Workperson had no legal right to complaint
against the same. The Employer stated that after
discontinuation of her services from its service, the
Workperson was employed as remedial para teacher
at Goa Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Block Research
Centre, Sanguem from the year 2006-2010. The
Employer stated that thereafter the Workperson
was transferred in the same organization to Block
Research Centre, Ponda, Goa, from the year 2010,
where she is working in the same capacity till
date. The Employer stated that the monthly salary
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1874
of the Workperson at Goa Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan
was Rs. 3000/- per month in the year 2008. The
Employer stated that the present salary of the
Workperson is Rs. 5000/- per month. The Employer
denied the overall case as pleaded by her and
prayed for dismissal of the present reference.
8. Thereafter, the Workperson filed her Re-joinder
on 06-06-2006 at Exb.7. The Workperson, by way of
her Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by her in her
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 her.
9. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties herein above, this court framed the
following issues on 19-06-2006 at Exb. 8.
1. Whether the Party I proves that she was
employed with the Party II as a “Library
Attendant” w.e.f. 31-10-2000 till 21-04-2003
continuously?
2. Whether the Party I proves that the
termination of her services w.e.f. 22-04-2003
by the Party II is illegal, unjustified and
bad-in-law?
3. Whether the Party II proves that the dispute
referred to this Court is not maintainable on
account of the reasons stated in para 2 clause
(a) (b) (c) and (f) of the written statement?
4. Whether the Party II proves that there is no
post of Library Assistant or Assistant
Librarian in the organization of Party II?
5. Whether the Party II proves that the Party I
was not employed on sanctioned post and
that the Party I was employed purely as daily
wages on casual basis?
6. Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?
7. What Award?
10. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
:
In the Affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2
:
In the Affirmative.
(c) Issue No. 3
:
In the Negative.
(d) Issue No. 4
:
In the Negative.
(e) Issue No. 5
:
In the Affirmative.
(f) Issue No. 6 & 7 :
As per final Award.
REASONS
Both the parties chose to file their synopsis of
written arguments. I have carefully perused the
entire records of the present case including the
synopsis of written arguments filed by both the
parties. I have also carefully considered the synopsis
of written arguments filed by the respective parties.
11. Issue No. 1:
To prove her case, the Workperson has examined
herself and produced on record certain
documentary evidence in support of her oral
evidence. The evidence of the Workperson on
record indicates that she was appointed as ‘Library
Attendant’ w.e.f. 31-10-2000 without making any
application or without going through any
interview either oral or written for the said post.
The evidence on record further indicates that the
Workperson has continuously worked on the said
post from 31-10-2000 till 21-04-2003. It is therefore
held that the Workperson proves that she was
employed with the Employer as a ‘Library
Attendant’ w.e.f. 31-10-2000 till 21-04-2003
continuously. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered
in the affirmative.
12. Issue No. 2:
While deciding the issue No.1 hereinabove, I
have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the Workperson proved that she was employed
with the Employer as a ‘Library Attendant’ w.e.f.
31-10-2000 till 21-04-2003 continuously.
13. Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 lays down
the pre-conditions for a valid retrenchment. The
Workperson challenged the termination of her
services w.e.f. 22-04-2003 by contending to be
illegal and unjust as it is in violation of Section
25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is therefore necessary
to refer to Section 25-F of the I. D. Act, 1947.
25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment
of workmen. – No Workperson employed in
any industry who has been in continuous
service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer
until-
(a)
the Workperson has been given one month’s
notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has
expired, or the Workperson has been paid in
lieu of such notice, wages for the period of
the notice;
(b)
the Workperson has been paid, at the time
of retrenchment, compensation which shall
be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay
for every completed year of continuous
service or any part thereof in excess of six
months; and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1875
(c)
notice in the prescribed manner is served
on the appropriate Government (or such
authority as may be specified by the
appropriate Government by notification in
the Official Gazette.
14. In the instant case, the evidence on record
indicates that when the Workperson went to
resume for her duties on 22-04-2003, she was told
that her services were terminated and she was not
allowed to resume the duties. The evidence on
record indicates that neither any show-cause
notice, charge-sheet or enquiry was conducted at
the time of termination of her services nor she was
paid her terminal benefits, such as retrenchment
compensation, notice pay, gratuity etc. The said
action of the Employer Municipality in terminating
the services of the Workperson w.e.f. 22-04-2003 is
in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and
as such it is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law.
Hence, it is held that the Workperson proved that
action of the Employer Municipality in terminating
the services of the Workperson w.e.f. 22-04-2003 is
illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. The issue No. 2
is therefore answered in the affirmative.
15. Issue No. 3:
The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary
objections, submitted that the entire reference is
not maintainable as it has been made without any
application of mind, that the matter referred to the
Hon’ble Tribunal is not an ‘industrial dispute’
within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act,
1947 nor the Party II is an Employer within the
meaning of Section 2 (j) and the Party I is not a
Workperson within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of
the said Act, and that there is/was no employer-
-employee relationship between themselves and
the Workperson.
16. While deciding the issue No. 1, I have
discussed and come to the conclusion that the
Workperson proved that she was employed with
the Employer as a ‘Library Attendant’ w.e.f.
31-10-2000 till 21-04-2003 continuously. The
evidence on record indicates that as a ‘Library
Attendant’ of the Employer, she used to collect the
newspapers and magazines daily from papers stall,
to issue magazines and books to the public who
came to read in the library, to collect and pay the
bills of newspaper and magazines, to maintain the
records of books and magazines, to issue and keep
them in proper place and any other clerical work
allotted to her by the Employer. The aforesaid
predominant nature of duties and responsibilities
performed by the Workperson indicates that she
was performing the clerical nature of duties and as
such she is a ‘Workman’ within the meaning of
Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and the Party II is an
‘employer’ within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of
the I. D. Act, 1947. The aforesaid facts on record
clearly proves that there is/was employer-employee
relationship between the Employer and the
Workperson. As the dispute raised by the
Workperson pertaining to her non-employment, it
is an ‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of
Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. In view of
above, I do not find any reasons as to the non-
-maintainability of the present order of reference.
It is therefore held that the Employer failed to prove
that reference issued to this court is not
maintainable on any of the reasons stated in para
2 of its written statement. The issue No. 3 is
therefore answered in the negative.
17. Issue No. 4:
The burden to prove the present issue No. 4 was
on the Employer to prove that there is no post of
Library Assistant or Assistant Librarian in its
organization. The Employer has however, failed to
produce on record any material evidence in support
of the present issue No. 4 either by way of cross-
examination or by leading any material evidence.
In the circumstances, it is held that the Employer
failed to prove that there is no post of ‘Library
Assistant’ or ‘Assistant Librarian’ in its organization.
The issue No. 4 is therefore answered in the
negative.
18. Issue No. 5:
The evidence on record indicates that neither
the Workperson attended any interview either
written or oral to the post of Library Attendant nor
could she possess the necessary required
educational qualification in terms of GDD
Municipalities C & D Posts Recruitment Rules, 1986.
The evidence on record indicates that the
Workperson was not issued any written
appointment order. The evidence on record
indicates that the Workperson was paid on daily
rate basis and that she was not paid wages
whenever she remained absent. The evidence on
record indicates that she was not entitled for any
leave, bonus, HRA, DA or any other allowances.
The aforesaid facts on record clearly proves that
the Workperson was not employed on any
sanctioned post and that she was employed purely
on daily wages and on casual basis. Hence, it is
held that the Employer proved that the Workperson
was not employed on any sanctioned post and that
she was employed purely on daily wages and on
casual basis. The issue No. 5 is therefore answered
in the affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1876
19. Issue No. 6:
In the case of Sr. Superintendent Telegraph
(Traffic), Bhopal v/s. Santosh Kumar Seal & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 6 SCC 772, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has held that “in the last few years
it has been consistently held by the Supreme Court
that relief by way of reinstatement with back wages
is not automatic even if termination of an employee
is found to be illegal or is in contravention of the
prescribed procedure and that monetary
compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back
wages in cases of such nature may be appropriate.
In view of the aforesaid legal position and the fact
that the workmen were engaged as daily wagers
about 25 years back and they worked hardly for 2
or 3 years, relief of reinstatement and back wages to
them cannot be said to be justified and instead
monetary compensation would subserve the ends of
justice. The compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to each of
the workmen (Respondents 1 to 14) shall meet the
ends of justice. Such payment shall be made within
6 weeks from today failing which the same shall
carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid judgment binds a precedent
upon me.
20. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment, in the case
in hand, while deciding the issue No. 2, I have
discussed and come to the conclusion that the
action of the Employer in terminating the services
of the Workperson w.e.f. 22-04-2003 is illegal,
unjustified and bad-in-law. Similarly, while deciding
the issue No. 5, I have discussed and come to the
conclusion that the Workperson was not employed
on any sanctioned post and that she was employed
purely on daily wages and on casual basis. The
evidence on record indicates that the Workperson
does not possess the necessary required
educational qualification to the post of ‘Library
Assistant’ or ‘Assistant Librarian’ in terms of GDD
Municipalities C & D Posts Recruitment Rules, 1986.
21. The Workperson in her pleadings as well as
her oral evidence on record deposed that since the
termination of her services, she is unemployed and
could not succeed in getting any employment. To
the contrary, it is the case of the Employer that
after discontinuation of the services of the
Workperson, she was employed as a remedial para
teacher at Goa Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Block
Research Centre, Sanguem from the year 2006-2010
and that thereafter she was transferred in the same
organization to Block Research Centre, Ponda, Goa,
from the year 2010 where she is working in the
same capacity till date. The Workperson, in her
cross-examination deposed that she is working
on contract basis under the scheme Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan for the period from 2006 till 2010 and
earning Rs. 3000/- p.m. to the contrary as the Library
Attendant
of
the
Employer
she
was
paid daily wages of Rs. 56/- per day. In the
circumstances, the Workperson is not entitled to
relief of reinstatement in service. In my considered
opinion, a monetary compensation of Rs. 40,000/-
(Rupees forty thousand only) shall meet the ends
of justice.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of the Sanguem
Municipal Council, Sanguem, in terminating
the services of Miss. Vijayshree N. Naik Tari,
Library Attendant, with effect from
22-4-2003, is illegal and unjustified.
2. It is held that the Sanguem Municipal
Council, Sanguem, is therefore directed to
pay to the Workperson Miss. Vijayshree
N. Tari, a monetary compensation of
Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only).
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/798
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
28-09-2017 in reference No. IT/36/12 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the
Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 20th November, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1877
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/36/12
Smt. Fakirawa Odra,
Honour Camp, Birla,
Zaurinagar, Sancoale,
Goa (403 726) … Workman/Party I
V/s
M/s. Majorda Beach Resort,
Majorda, Goa (403 713).
… Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri M. S.
Bandodkar.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 28th day of the month
of September of the year 2017)
By Order dated 28-05-2012, bearing No. 28/58/
/2011-LAB/278, 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. Majorda Beach Resorts, Majorda, Goa, in
dismissing from service its workperson
Smt. Fakirawa Odra, Garden Labourer, with
effect from 01-02-2011, is legal and
justified?
(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/36/12 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim Statement at Exhibit 5. Party
II filed a Written Statement at Exhibit 7. Party I
then filed the rejoinder at Exhibit 8.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party I was deputed to work at M/s. Ramesh Hotels
Resort Ltd. at Utorda, Goa in the year 1997 which
belonged to one of the Directors of Party II. There
she worked as ‘Garden Labourer’ till April 2003
and that in April 2005, she received summons
dated 06-04-2005 from Vasco Police Station asking
her to remain present at the Police Station.
Accordingly, she visited the Vasco Police Station
at Vasco on 11-04-2005 where her statement was
recorded by the Police regarding an alleged
incident of sexual exploitation of her colleague by
Director of Party II Company, in which she was a
witness. It is stated that on 12-04-2005 when Party
I reported for work as usual at around 9.00 a. m. at
the hotel, she was stopped by the Security Guard
at the gate and not allowed to enter the hotel
premises.
4. It is also the case of Party I that she again
reported for work at the hotel on 13-04-2005 and
14-04-2005 at around 9.00 a.m. and on both those
days also, she was not allowed to report for work
by the security stating that the General Manager
had told them not to allow her to report for duty.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Party II in refusing
employment to her, she raised an industrial dispute
before Party II vide letter dated 19-05-2005
regarding illegal and unjustified refusal of
employment w.e.f. 12-04-2005. However, after
re-instatement Party II started harassing Party I
with a view to pressurize her to leave the job. She
was given dirty jobs like cleaning garbage and
was not allowed to mix with other employees. The
Party II thereafter suspended her from service vide
suspension order dated 30-08-2007. She continued
to be under suspension till the enquiry was
instituted and after enquiry was conducted, she
was dismissed from service. The enquiry was
conducted in violation of principles of natural
justice. The Enquiry Officer did not allow her to
examine the witnesses. The Party I, therefore be
reinstated in service with full back wages and
continuity of service with costs.
5. In the Written statement, the Party II claimed
that since Party I committed serious acts of
misconducts, the management conducted fair and
proper enquiry by following the principles of
natural justice, as per the Service Rules applicable
to the Party I. The said termination is fully legal
and justified and therefore no relief could be
granted to the Party I and the Hon’ble Tribunal
should not interfere with the said disciplinary
action of the Party II and on this ground alone, the
entire reference ought to be rejected. The decision
of the Party II is based on fair and proper reasoning,
therefore the question of re-instating Party I in
service with full back wages and continuity of
service with costs does not arise. The Party I has
not made out any case and therefore no reliefs be
granted as claimed by the Party I in the claim
statement.
6. In the rejoinder at Exhibit 7, Party I denied the
contention of the Party II as stated in the written
statement.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1878
7. In the course of proceedings, the parties
arrived at an amicable settlement and filed the
Consent terms dated 28-09-2017 at Exhibit 18 colly
along with a copy of payment receipt.
8. The consent terms are reproduced herein
below:-
1) It is agreed by the management that
Smt. Fakirawa Odra shall be paid a sum of
Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) in full
and final settlement of all claims arising out
of her employment.
2) Smt. Fakirawa Odra shall accept the amount
of money mentioned in clause No. 1 in full and
final settlement of her all claims arising out of
her employment. The amount mentioned in
clause No. 1 includes all the claims of Party I
including Gratuity, Bonus, Leave Encashment,
LTA, Medical, Salary, Ex-gratia etc. and Smt.
Fakirawa Odra further confirms that she shall
have no further claims of whatsoever nature
against the Party II, including any claims
which can be computed in terms of money
including any claim of re-instatement or
re-employment with the company/Hotel.
9. The above consent terms are signed by the
workman, Smt. Fakirawa Odra along with her
representative, Shri Subhash Naik Jorge on behalf
of Party I and the representative of Party II along
with his Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar on behalf of
Party II. I have gone through the consent terms
filed as above, which in my view, are just and fair
and in the interest of both the Workman/Party I as
well as Employer/Party II and hence, the same are
accepted.
10. In view of above, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The reference at the instance of Workman/
Party I stands disposed of in view of the
consent terms filed by both the parties at
Exhibit 18 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/794
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
23-10-2017 in reference No. IT/31/08 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 20th November, 2017.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
AND LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/31/08
Shri R. G. Furtado,
F3/A1, Virgincar Residency,
1st Floor, Ambaji,
Fatorda, Goa.
…
Workman/Party I
V/s
Mr. Zuari Industries Ltd.,
Jaikissan Bhawan,
Zuarinagar, Goa.
…
Employer/Party II
Workman/Party I present in person.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G.
K. Sardessai.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month
of October of the year 2017)
By order dated 02-09-2008, bearing No. 28/71/
/2002-LAB (Part)/1303, 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 the
Tribunal for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s Zuari Industries Limited, Jaikissan
Bhawan, Zuarinagar, Goa in terminating the
services of Shri R. G. Furtado, Senior
Accounts Assistant, with effect from
2-11-2007, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1879
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/31/08 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 6 and
Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 9.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party I joined Zuari Industries Ltd. as a Government
Apprentice on 1-6-1982 and was absorbed on the
rolls of the company on 1-6-1983. He worked in
Taxation department for more than 10 years and
handled the job independently for approximately
for 3 years and thereafter was asked to report to a
Chartered Accountant and then he was transferred
and was asked to handle the accounts of Provident
Fund, Gratuity Fund and the Pension Fund and
was subsequently transferred to Works account,
where he worked till 2-11-2007, the date he was
discharged. The Party I joined the Zuari Agro
Chemicals Ltd. Workers’ Union as an ordinary
member as soon as he was confirmed as a
permanent employee on 01-12-1983 and later
became an executive member in 1989 and was
involved in the negotiations and signed
settlements dated 12-02-1991 and 22-06-1994 for
the settlements periods 01-01-1990 to 31-12-1992
and 01-01-1993 to 31-12-1995 respectively and that
he was elected as General Secretary of the Union
in January 1999 and continues to be the General
Secretary of the said Union.
4. The Party I was given the task of the filing of
the cases Nos. LCC/44/98, IT/61/99, IT/62/99,
IT/45/03, etc. on behalf of ZACLWU in the Industrial
Tribunal and is the main witness in the said cases
and also handled various cases of unfair labour
practices filed by the Union against the
management of ZIL and represented the Union
before the Dy. Labour Commissioner and Labour
Commissioner and interacted with the advocates
of the Union and briefed and prepared all the
information required by them. The Party I along
with the President, Vice President and Treasurer
attended the cases in the Industrial Tribunal/High
Court/Labour Department. The management
refused to give the objection in writing and since
the Party I was familiar with the cases, he
suggested that he would attend courts by himself
and never denied permission by the supervisors to
attend the cases in the Tribunal/High Court or to
meet the advocate.
5. During the stint in Taxation Department, the
Party I was informed that the management wanted
to promote him and it could not be done due to
pressures from the Union and at that time,
promotions for unionized staff was generally on
seniority basis. During the last few years, the offers
for promotions were regularly made during the
meetings with the Vice President-Personnel and
Vice President-Finance. The Managing Director
made offers for promotions on two occasions and
that he, during a separate meeting, requested the
Party I to accept a promotion stating that he
deserved to be in the management cadre, however,
as he was the General Secretary of the Union and
the main witness in all the cases, he could consider
a promotion only after all the issues pertaining to
the Union were resolved. The Party I as an active
member and General Secretary of the Union
received numerous complaints from the members
of the Union and raised the issues, on the
instructions of the members, with the management.
The Party I has been a long serving employee of
Zuari Industries Limited and has discharged duties
and work obligations diligently and dutifully
throughout his stint with Zuari Industries Limited,
in fact, he has been commended on numerous
occasions with regard to the diligence in work
duties.
6. However, on 2-11-2007, Party I was shocked
to receive a letter terminating his services and
discharging him from service for loss of confidence
with immediate effect. The purported termination
of the Party I is on false, frivolous and concocted
grounds and in keeping with the illegal and
malicious approach of ZIL towards members of
Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited Workers’ Union of
which the Party I is a member and has been
targeted and singled out in an attempt to compel
the members of ZACLWU to succumb to the
arbitrary demands of ZIL. The termination of
Party I is ex-facie patently bad-in-law and smacks
of malafides and that he has been discharged from
services without holding any inquiry as
contemplated under the law. The said dismissal/
/discharge from service is in utter violation of
principles of natural justice in as much as the
Party I has been condemned unheard. No
opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the
Party I to answer/defend the charges leveled, which
is contrary to the principles of Labour Law and
spirit of industrial relations. On this count itself,
the purported discharge of services as against the
Party I stands vitiated and is liable to be set aside.
7. The Party I has been an active member of
ZACLWU, which is a Trade Union, registered under
the Trade Unions Act. It is the Minority Union,
which represents the workers in the Administrative
Offices, whilst Zuari Agro Chemicals Limited
Employees’ Union represented the Workers in the
technical categories. ZIL has practiced unfair
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1880
labour practices to wipe out the existence of the
said Trade Union and members have been
substantially reduced. The members of ZACLWU,
including the Party I has been subjected to
discrimination and ill-treatment by ZIL. On account
of the same, ZACLWU has raised various disputes
before the Authority and before the Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Courts which are pending
adjudication and has always stood up against the
atrocities of ZIL and has made best efforts to secure
the interest of ZACLWU and exercised its rights as
a Trade Union. The Party I has been exercising
rights, as a member of the said Trade Union and
ZIL has treated such exercise of rights, as being
against the interest of ZIL.
8. It is also his case that ZIL in its letter of
termination dated 2-11-2007 has alleged that the
Party I left the work place during office hours and
attended the Office of Inspectorate of Factories on
16-3-2007, 9-4-2007, 30-5-2007, 7-6-2007, 5-7-2007,
10-7-2007, 10-8-2007, 22-8-2007, 4-9-2007, 10-9-2007
and sought information under Right to Information
Act against the interest of ZIL. It is further alleged
by ZIL that the Party I has willfully colluded with
Pratap Mardolkar and solicited information under
Right to Information Act against the interest of the
Company vide letters dated 15-6-2007, 19-6-2007
and 10-7-2007. It is further alleged that the
Party I’s action of conniving with Mr. Pratap
Mardolkar and making allegations against the
Company for alleged breach of the Factories Act is
by way of retaliation against the company for
furnishing information to Registrar that led to
de-registration of the Union. It is further alleged in
the said letter that the conduct of the Party I of
being a party to false, vicious and malicious
allegations is against the interest of the company
and that the Party I left the workplace during
working hours to engage in conspiracy against the
company to project the company as a bad corporate
citizen, however, the said allegations are baseless,
false and concocted as whenever he left the office
for Union work, he always took permission from his
immediate seniors, even otherwise the same is the
subject matter of inquiry and ZIL is not permitted
in law to act in such a harsh, unilateral and
arbitrary manner.
9. The Party I has also filed application dated
10-7-2007 which he is entitled to under Right to
Information Act and does not in any way amount
to bringing the company in disrepute. The Party I
who is the General Secretary of ZACLWU had
sought information at the request and/or at the
behest of the members of the said Union. The charge
of collusion of Party I with Mr. Pratap Mardolkar as
to bring the company in disrepute is completely
baseless. The allegations of collusion and anti
management activities have to be inquired into by
way of a properly instituted inquiry and Party II
cannot unilaterally draw inferences and assume
facts to discharge the Party I from service which is
in complete contravention to the laws in force. The
discharge of Party I from service by Party II is
therefore bad-in-law and illegal and is based on
frivolous considerations and inferences. The
Party II has been practicing unfair labour practices
on ZACLWU of which Party I is a member. The
Party II cannot terminate employment of long
standing employee by leveling unsubstantiated
allegations and tarnishing his image. The discharge
of Party I from service is therefore vitiated and bad
in law. The act of discharging Party I is out of
personal vindication and vengeance against him.
The termination of Party I by Party II vide letter
dated 2-11-2007 is illegal and unjustified. Hence,
the reference.
10. In the Written statement, the Party II has
stated that the Party II is a company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 manufacturing
fertilizers at its unit at Zuarinagar in Goa and that
the Party I was employed with the Company as
Senior Accounts Assistant in the Works account
which deals with payments of various works
undertaken in the factory and elsewhere and that
the services of the Party I was discharged by a
letter dated 02-11-2007 for loss of confidence. It
has been reported that the Party I left the work
place during the working hours and attended the
office of the Inspectorate of Factories and on further
investigation found that one Mr. Pratap Mardolkar
had made an application dated 15-06-2007 under
Right to Information Act seeking information in
respect of the compliances of the Factories Act.
Said Mr. Pratap Mardolkar by another letter dated
09-06-2007 alleged that the restrictive practices
have been adopted in the company in violation of
Factories Act and called upon the Factories
Inspectorate to conduct enquiry into the issues
mentioned above and also asked for a list of all the
accidents that had occurred in the factory and
called upon to invoke the provisions of the
Factories Act.
11. The said letter was followed by another letter
dated 10-07-2007 from Party I addressed to Public
Information Officer, Inspectorate of Factories
seeking the particulars of information that was
requested by Pratap Mardolkar in the letters dated
15-06-2007, 19-06-2007, 28-06-2007 and 28-06-2007.
Subsequently, Party I filed an appeal dated
26-09-2007 under RTI claiming therein information
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1881
furnished by Inspectorate of Factories in their
response dated 12-07-2007, 06-08-2007 and
30-08-2007 is incomplete, misleading and vague.
The Inspectorate of Factories by letter dated
10-07-2007 sought information pertaining to
reportable accidents in the factory of the company.
The Inspectorate of Factories by their letter dated
27-09-2007 sought the comments of the company
regarding the number of workrooms, latrines,
washrooms, etc. and vide letter dated 27-09-2007
sought the comments of the company regarding
the incident of fire on 28-07-2007 and also by
letter dated 05-10-2007, sought information
regarding maintenance of register for recording
the temperature in the workrooms.
12. Mr. Pratap Mardolkar is not the employee of
the company. The Party I who is the employee of
the company was an office bearer of ZACLWU,
which now stands deregistered. The Party I as an
employee could seek such information directly from
the company, however the Party I chose not to do
so and with a view to bring the company into
disrepute mischievously and willfully colluded
with Pratap Mardolkar and in such nefarious
activities supplied him the information including
the copy of internal notice/memo of 26-5-2000
signed by Vice President-Technical, Mr. Deelip
Deshpande. The conduct of Party I of being a party
to making false, vicious and malicious allegations
against the company is against the interest of the
company. The Party I left his place of work during
working hours to engage in conspiracy against the
company to project it as a bad corporate citizen.
The management lost confidence in Party I and
arrived at the conclusion that to retain the Party I
in service is prejudicial to the interest of the
company and therefore, the Party I was discharged
from service for loss of confidence.
13. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 10
denying the case put forth by Party II in the Written
statement. It is stated that the Party II did not
furnish to Party I any of the documents relied upon
that led to the termination of Party I. The Party I
was discharged from service without notice and
without holding any inquiry which is a pre-
requisite under clause 24 of Certified Standing
Order of the company and the discharge of a
workman must be in accordance with procedure
prescribed in the relevant Standing Orders. The
Party I has been attending to Union’s matter since
1994 by taking permission of the supervisors. The
Party I was never issued any warning or notice
orally or in writing. The Party I was condemned
unheard and the conclusion arrived at by the
company is against principles of nature justice.
14. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 11 are
as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that the action
of the Party II in termination his services
w.e.f. 2-11-2007 is illegal and unjustified?”
(2) What Relief?
(3) What Award?
15. In the course of evidence, the Party I, Shri R.
G. Furtado examined himself and produced on
record his affidavit in evidence at Exb. 13, a copy
of letter of discharge dated 2-11-07 at Exb. 14, a
letter dated 28-6-07 along with other letters
addressed to the Chief Inspectorate of Factories &
Boilers by Pratap Mardolkar at Exb. 15 colly, a copy
of notice dated 22-1-03 under Section 41-H of
Factories Act at Exb. 16, a copy of complaint dated
19-06-2007 along with enclosures at Exb. 17 colly,
a copy of Leave record card of Party I as on 30.09.07
at Exb. 18, a copy of letter dated 16.3.2007
representing Shri Pratap Mardolkar before PIO, the
Chief Inspectorate of Factories & Boilers at Exb. 22,
a copy of letter dated 21-2-2007 at Exb. 23, a copy
of letter dated 21-2-2007 regarding information
sought by Shri Pratap Mardolkar from PIO at
Exb. 24, a copy of Proceeding sheets dated
30-5-2007 & 15-6-2007 at Exb. 25, a copy of letter
dated 10-5-2007 issued to the Chief Inspectorate of
Factories & Boilers at Exb. 26, a copy of Proceeding
sheet of PIO dated 10-8-2007 at Exb. 27, a copy of
letter dated 28-6-2007 at Exb. 28 and copies of
various correspondences at Exb. 32 colly.
16. On the other hand, Party II examined its
Manager-HR and IR, Shri Nikesh Doure as witness
and he produced on record affidavit in evidence
at Exb. 34, copies of 15 letters addressed to
PIO/received by Shri Pratap Mardolkar at Exb. 35
colly, copies of proceedings before Inspectorate of
Factories & Boilers at Exb. 36 colly, copies of letters
dated 10-7-2007 and 26-9-2007 addressed to PIO at
Exb. 37 colly, copies of authorization letters dated
21-2-2007 and 5-7-2007 at Exb. 38 colly, copies of
attendance record along with leave card at Exb. 39
colly, copies of letters dated 22-10-97, 24-10-97,
20-10-97 & 20-10-97 at Exb. 40 colly, copy of
authority letter along with resolution of the Board
of Zuari Global Ltd., at Exb. 41 colly, a copy of
Resolution passed at the meeting of the Board of
Directors of the company held on dated 19-05-2017
at Exb. 43, a copy of Certified Standing Orders at
Exb. 46 and the copies of RTI Applications at Exb.
48 colly.
17. Heard arguments. Notes of written
arguments came to be placed on record by the
parties.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1882
18. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers to the issues along with their findings
and reasons thereof are as follows.
1. Issue No. 1
… In the Affirmative.
2. Issue Nos. 2 & 3
… As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
19. The Party I, Shri R. G. Furtado has submitted
that Clause 24 (1)(e) of Certified Standing Orders
refers to discharge from service or payment in lieu
of notice and clause 24(iv) pertains to holding of
an enquiry. No domestic enquiry was made by
Party II before proceeding to dismiss the Party I.
The discharge of Party I was not only illegal but
not in compliant with provisions of Section 33 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which attracts the
penal provisions of Section 31(1) of the Act. The
action of the company is illegal and the company
knowing that it was breaking the law went ahead
with the discharge of Party I, which establishes
victimization and unfair labour practices. The
ground of loss of confidence given by Party II for
discharge of Party I workman was only as a reason
to get over the difficulty of not being able to prove
the guilt of the Party I, if departmental enquiry
was held. He further submitted that when an
enquiry has not been held and the procedural
safeguards have not been followed in cases of
workmen who are governed by industrial laws, it
is settled that the order cannot be justified even in
the course of adjudication before the appropriate
Tribunal and in support thereof, he relied upon the
case of Ramprasad Ambaram Verma vs President,
Industrial Court, (1991) II LLJ 488 MP.
20. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for
Party II relying upon the case of Workmen of
Motipur Sugar Factory (Private), Ltd. vs. Motipur
Sugar Factory (Private) Ltd., 1965 II LLJ 162, has
submitted that it is now well-settled by a number
of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that where
an employer has failed to make an enquiry before
dismissing or discharging a workman, it is open to
him to justify the action before the Tribunal by
leading all relevant evidence before it. In such a
case, the employer would not have the benefit
which he had in cases where domestic inquiries
have been held. The entire matter would be opened
before the Tribunal which will have jurisdiction
not only to go into the limited questions open to
a Tribunal where domestic inquiry has been
properly held, but also to satisfy itself on the facts
adduced before it by the employer whether the
dismissal or discharge was justified. The employer
thus, has got a right to adduce evidence before the
Tribunal justifying its action, even where no
domestic inquiry whatsoever has been held.
21. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for Party II has
further submitted that the charges against the Party
I workman are also misconducts under Certified
Standing Orders of the company. Misconducts are
initially spelt out in the Certified Standing Orders
of the company; however the misconducts under
Service regulations or Model Standing Orders or
under the Certified Standing Orders are invariably
not exhaustive but are illustrative. This principle
is reiterated in clause 22 of Certified Standing
Orders which enumerates the various acts of an
employee which can be treated as misconducts.
The acts of the Party I constitute misconducts
including acting prejudicial to the interest of the
company; failure to perform his duties during
working hours; taking leave on false pretext;
leaving office during working hours on false
pretext, for which the Party I has been discharged
from service for loss of confidence.
22. There is no dispute that the Party I was
discharged without holding an enquiry nor Party
I was warned or informed about the allegations
made in the letter of discharge. No explanation
whatsoever was sought by Party II from Party I on
the allegations made in the said letter of discharge.
A little peep into clause 24(III) of the Certified
Standing Orders at Exb. 46 reveals that no order of
withholding increments or suspension under sub-
clause (c) and (d) respectively of clause (I) and of
discharge/dismissal under sub-clause (e) and (f) of
clause (I) shall be made except after holding an
enquiry against the workman concerned in respect
of the alleged misconduct in the manner set forth
in sub-clause (IV). The Certified Standing Orders
applicable to the parties implies a contract between
the company and the workmen. Clause 22 of the
Certified Standing Orders pertains to acts of
misconduct. There is no provision in the Certified
Standing Orders of the company to terminate the
services of the workmen by way of discharge
without holding an enquiry. The charges
mentioned in the chargesheet are acts of
misconduct under clause 22 of Certified Standing
Orders, which establishes that the discharge of
Party I was not due to loss of confidence as claimed
by the company but due to misconducts spelt out
in clause 22 of the Certified Standing Orders and
therefore, as rightly submitted by Party I, an enquiry
was mandatory. The discharge order is therefore
contrary to the Certified Standing Orders
applicable to the parties.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1883
23. It is also well settled that an employer has
to conduct an enquiry as per Standing Orders. No
domestic enquiry was made before proceeding to
discharge Party I. It requires no mention that when
the enquiry has not been held and procedural
safeguards have not been followed, no order of
termination could be justified and therefore the
decision of the employer to discharge Party I
without the enquiry cannot be countenanced. The
Party II was also not in a position to satisfy the
Court that holding the enquiry will be either
counterproductive or may cause such irreparable
and irreversible damage before inflicting the
punishment as denial of livelihood and casting of
stigma without giving opportunity to the employee
to controvert the allegations and without letting
him to know what is his misconduct is against the
principles of natural justice and fair play. The
employer has therefore not justified its action
before the Court overlooking the mandatory
provision of holding an enquiry. It is therefore on
the above count alone, the discharge deserves to
be set aside.
24. There is no dispute that the management
has a right to adduce evidence before the Tribunal
justifying its action, even when no domestic enquiry
whatsoever has been held, however the question
is whether Party II has proved the allegations before
the Tribunal for discharge of the workman for
alleged loss of confidence and one cannot find any
reasonable answer to it. Shri R. G. Furtado, Party I
has submitted that his discharge by letter dated
2-11-2007 for loss of confidence was without any
enquiry as required under the clauses of Certified
Standing Orders applicable to the company and
therefore was deprived of his right of being heard
which was available to him under the Certified
Standing Orders, so also that he was not warned
or informed about the allegations made in the letter
of discharge. No explanation of whatsoever nature
was sought by Party II. The burden of proof to
show the misconduct is always on the management
and the burden cannot be shifted upon the worker
to prove that there is no misconduct. The
termination order is contrary to Certified Standing
Orders of the company.
25. On the converse, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai
for Party II has submitted that the Party I has been
terminated for loss of confidence as stated so at
para 13 of letter of termination. He further submitted
relying upon the case of The Binny Ltd. vs. Their
Workmen, 1973 LAB. I. C. 1119, that the Party I
was doing the work against the interest of the
company by filing RTI applications and attending
the Factory Inspectorate. The conduct of Party I of
being a party to making false, mischievous and
malicious allegations against the company is
against the interest of the company as it is a
primary obligation of Party I to protect the interest
of the company. The Party I has admitted that he
was attending various cases of unfair labour
practices filed by the Union against the
management. The Party I sought information from
Inspectorate of Factories regarding notice by
occupier, notice under Section 41-H, reportable
accidents and safety in factory by way of various
RTI applications. He further submitted relying upon
the case of Mohd. Shakeel Saifi vs. PIO Bhai
Paramanand Institute of Business Studies, Delhi,
CIC/SA/A/2015/002028, that if the frivolous RTI
applications from its own employees targeting the
superior officers or the management are only meant
for harassing other employees or public authority
as a whole, then the disciplinary action should be
initiated for such alleged misconduct leading to
appropriate action for irresponsible misuse of the
right under RTI Act.
26. The undisputed facts are that Party I was the
General Secretary of the registered Union operating
in the company and that he was discharged by
letter dated 2-11-2007 for alleged loss of confidence
without any enquiry being held as required under
the clauses of Certified Standing Orders applicable
to the company. The charges against the Party I as
per the chargesheet in short were (a) that he left
the work place during working hours and attended
the office of Inspectorate of Factories on 16-3-2007,
9-4-2007, 30-5-2007, 7-6-2007, 5-7-2007, 10-7-2007,
10-8-2007, 22-8-2007, 4-9-2007, 10-9-2007; (b) that
one Mr. Pratap Mardolkar has made an application
dated June 15, 2007 under Right to Information
Act seeking information in respect of the
compliances of the Factories Act, 1948; (c) that the
Party I was conniving with Mr. Mardolkar in making
false allegations against the company for alleged
breach of Factories Act; and (d) making false,
mischievous allegations against the company and
was divulging information to the outsiders, thus
working against the interest of the company.
27. It is well settled that in the cases involving
loss of confidence what must be pleaded and
proved is that (i) the workman is holding a position
of trust and confidence (ii) by abusing such a
position, he commits acts which results in forfeiting
the same; and (iii) to continue him in service would
be embarrassing and inconvenient to the employer
or would be detrimental to the discipline or security
of the establishment. All these three aspects must
be present to refuse re-instatement on ground of
loss of confidence. Loss of confidence cannot be
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1884
subjective based upon the mind of the management.
Objective facts which would lead to a definite
inference of apprehension in the mind of the
management regarding trustworthiness or
reliability of the employee must be alleged and
proved. Else, the right of reinstatement ordinarily
available to the employee will be lost as held by
the Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Agrawal
& Ors. vs The Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar
Company Limited, in Appeal (Civil) 6878-6880 of
1999 passed on 13-09-2001.
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
L. Michael & Anr. vs. M/s. Johnston Pumps India
Ltd, 1975 SCR(3)489, also held that an employer
who believes or suspects that his employee,
particularly an one holding a position of
confidence, has betrayed that confidence, can, if
the conditions and terms of employment permit,
terminate his employment and discharge him
without any stigma attaching to the discharge.
The Apex Court added that such belief or suspicion
of the employer should not be a mere whim or
fancy. The Tribunal has the power and indeed, the
duty to X-ray the order and discover its true nature,
if the object and effect, if the attendant
circumstances and the ulterior purpose be to
dismiss the employee because he is an evil to be
eliminated. But, if the management, to cover up
the inability to establish by an inquiry,
illegitimately but ingeniously passes an innocent
looking order of termination simpliciter, such action
is bad and is liable to be set aside.
29. From the above citations, it is manifestly
clear that loss of confidence cannot be merely
subjective based upon the state of mind of the
management, but objective facts, which would
induce a reasonable apprehension in the mind of
the management regarding the trustworthy of the
employee which must be alleged and proved,
otherwise the right of reinstatement to which an
employee is ordinarily entitled to on a finding that
he is not guilty of any misconduct will be
irretrievably lost to the employees. The
management therefore must plead and prove in
order to invoke the principle of loss of confidence
in the employee that (i) the workmen is holding a
position of trust and confidence; (ii) by abusing
such position, he commits acts which results in
forfeiting the same; and (iii) to continue him in
service would be embarrassing and inconvenient
to the employer or would be detrimental to the
discipline or security of the establishment. The
question is whether the management can lose
confidence in one of its employees merely on the
basis of filing RTI applications before appropriate
forum under Factories Act for betterment of their
service conditions and the answer cannot be in
the affirmative.
30. The Party I has examined himself and has
stated that he handled various cases of unfair
labour practices filed by the Union against the
Party II and that he attended the cases before
various authorities after taking permission from
immediate supervisors. He also claimed that he
was never denied any permission to attend the
Tribunal, etc. He claimed that as an active member
and General Secretary of the Union, he received
numerous complaints of the union members
ranging from financial irregularities by the
management to discrimination in salaries and safety
matters. There cannot be any dispute that
deregistration of the Union was set aside and the
company is in appeal before Hon’ble High Court.
The management signed separate settlements with
each of the Unions but refused to negotiate with
them. He stated that he always stood up against
the atrocities of ZIL and had made best efforts to
secure the interest of the Union, however on
2-11-2007, he was shocked to receive letter
terminating his services for alleged loss of
confidence. The said dismissal is in violation of
principles of natural justice and not in accordance
with procedure prescribed in Certified Standing
Orders nor was he afforded any opportunity to
answer/defend the charges levelled against him.
The termination letter smacks of malafides and
unfair labour practices.
31. The Party I in the cross examination has
admitted that he attended the office of
Inspectorate of Factories on various dates which
according to Party II was without permission,
however he claimed that he obtained permission
from his supervisors. No warning or show cause
notice was issued to him, to the contrary. Shri
Nikesh Doure who has been examined on behalf of
Party II has admitted that the Party II did not warn
or inform Party I about attending personal work
without permission. The Party II could have
examined their officials to prove that Party I never
took their permission. The Party II has also not
examined the official who has filed the written
statement viz. Shri R. Y. Patil, General Manager,
Legal Affairs and Company Secretary who denied
that the Party I had taken permission of immediate
supervisor and therefore an adverse inference has
to be drawn that the absence of Party I was with
the permission of the immediate supervisors as
stated in the rejoinder to the written statement
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1885
where he claimed that he followed the procedure
of informing his supervisors while leaving office to
attend the courts since the year 1994 and that he
was never issued a warning or notice either orally
or in writing.
32. Mr. Nikesh Doure, in the cross examination
had volunteered to produce the written
correspondence by Union members to attend court
proceedings or conciliation proceedings prior to
2007, if available, which he ultimately not
produced. He, however has admitted that there is
nothing in writing available with the company that
Party I was out of office without any authorised
approval. The Party II is therefore unable to show
that the explanation offered by Party I was not true
on the basis of documents in their possession. He
also admitted that he did not meet Mr. R. Y. Patil on
the subject matter of the case, however thereafter
he deposed that Shri R. Y. Patil informed him that
Party I did not take permission from supervisor,
which statement is clearly an improvement to the
previous statement and therefore the credibility of
the witness is a suspect, moreover he was not
present at the time when the alleged incident
occurred as admittedly Shri Nikesh Doure who was
working as Manager–HR and IR joined the company
on 7-1-2014, more than six years after Party I was
discharged and therefore, he had no personal
knowledge of the case. The Party II therefore failed
to prove the above allegation of absence without
permission.
33. Shri Nikesh Doure has also admitted that
Mr. Pratap Mardolkar is a leader of Union operating
in Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. Exhibit 32 colly are
the list of RTI applications which were admittedly
filed after termination of Party I. Exhibit 35 colly.
are the letters to Public Information Officer by
Pratap Mardolkar, Exb. 36 colly are the proceedings
before the Inspectorate of Factories, Exhibit 37 colly
are the letters addressed to PIO, by Party I and
Exb. 48 colly are the proceedings before the
Inspectorate of Factories, however none of the
documents mentioned above show that Party I
made false, vicious and malicious allegations
against the Party II or that Party I was working
against the interest of the company by filing RTI
applications. There is nothing on record that the
Party I was holding a responsible post or position
of confidence or that he betrayed the confidence
reposed in him by the company. The Party II has
not produced any evidence to that effect and that
he made false allegations against the company.
The reliance placed on the case of The Binny Ltd.
(supra) is not applicable as the management has
not shown that Party I was confronted with any
allegation of wrong doing or that he had disobeyed
any order of management, unlike the said case and
therefore, it cannot come to the aid of Party II.
34. Mr. Nikesh Doure had admitted that the
letters at Exb. 35 colly. are not complaints and that
they are RTI applications only. There cannot be
any dispute that the RTI Act, 2005 mandates timely
response to citizen’s request for Government
information. The basic object of the Right to
Information Act is to empower the citizens, promote
transparency and accountability in the working of
the Government, contain corruption and make the
democracy work for the people in the real sense.
There is nothing on record that the Party I misused
the RTI Act by making false, vicious and malicious
allegations. There is also no dispute that the Party
I is the General Secretary of the Union and was
taking up issues relating to unfair labour practices
with the appropriate authorities including
Inspectorate of Factories. The Factories Act, 1948
was enacted with the object of protecting workers
employed in factories against industrial and
occupational hazards and the Party I being General
Secretary of the Union has every right to seek
information with regard to the implementation of
the Factories Act for the benefit of the workmen.
35. The Party II has referred to a letter dated
19-6-2007 at Exb. 35 colly. written by Mr. Mardolkar
to the Chief Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers
in which an enquiry was sought by him on some
issues particularly on restricted practices adopted
by the company in violation of the Factories Act,
1948 and whether the company did not willfully
report accidents as required under Section 88A of
the Factories Act to show that both Mr. Mardolkar
and Party I in collusion with each other conspired
against the interest of the company. However, a
little peep into the said letter dated 19-6-2007
shows that Mr. Mardolkar had referred to letter
dated 1-4-2003 addressed by Zuari Industries Ltd.
to Chief Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers, in
response to the notice dated 22-1-2003 by Zuari
Agro Chemical Ltd. Workers’ Union which was
obtained under RTI. The letter written by Mr.
Mardolkar was on the basis of information that he
received under RTI Act and that Mr. Mardolkar got
access to the letter dated 22-1-2003 which
contained memo dated 26-5-2000 at Exb. 16. All
the documents referred in the letter of discharge
and the affidavit of Mr. Nikesh Doure was in
possession of Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers
which information was accessible to any person
being public document. It therefore shows that
Party II made false allegations against Party I to
target him being General Secretary of the Union.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1886
36. The Party II produced complaints/letters at
Exb. 35 colly. written by General Secretary, Zuari
Agro Chemicals Ltd. Employees Union addressed
to Gen. Manager-Manufacturing of the company
and the copies were marked to the Inspectorate of
Factories and Boilers and Dy. Labour Commissioner,
Margao. The said complaints related to inadequate
manpower in the plants, non working of the
dehumidifier, unsafe working of NPK Plant, working
in excess of the statutory rules under the Factories
Act, 1948 and bypass of the safety trip systems
valves in the ammonia and bypassing safely trip
system which are serious violations which can
result in accidents and cause casualties among
the workmen. The said complaints were not
addressed by Party I Union or by Party I. The above
documents suggest that the General Secretary of
the other majority Union made serious allegations
against the functioning of the company with the
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers and the Labour
Commissioner.
37. Admittedly, the company has not taken any
action against the said Union for leveling serious
allegations against them, on the contrary it has
been falsely alleged by Party II that the Party I
provided information to Mr. Mardolkar which
information was within the reach of the authorities
and the company. There is no dispute that the said
information was requested by Party I under RTI
Act. No opportunity was granted to Party I to show
that the documents at Exb. 35 colly. which the
company alleged was provided to Mr. Mardolkar
was in the possession of the Inspectorate of
Factories and Boilers and that Mr. Mardolkar had
obtained it under the RTI Act. Mr. Mardolkar may
not be the employee of the company, but was the
leader of Contract Labour Union and therefore
involved with the contract labour operating in the
company and exercised his right to seek
information under the RTI Act and was interested
in the working of the company and its compliance
with the Factories Act. No information pertaining
to the working of the company has been sought for
by the Party I. The information sought by Party I
and Mr. Mardolkar was also under the control of
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers.
38. There is also no dispute that the Party I on
behalf of the Union issued a notice to Party II under
Section 41-H of the Factories Act dated 22-1-2003
warning of imminent danger in the factory as per
Exb. 16 and copy of which was addressed to
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers and other
authorities in terms of law. The Party I in the said
letter at Exb. 16 alleged that the members of the
other Union adopted pressure tactics and sabotage
to deter the company from implementing normal
work practices and referred to and attached a
notice dated 26-5-2000 signed by Vice President-
-Technical alleging acts of sabotage in the plant. It
is the case of Party II that Party I supplied to Mr.
Mardolkar the information including the internal
notice/memo dated 26-5-2000 signed by the Vice
President-Technical at Exh. 17 colly(3). However,
the fact that the memo dated 26-5-2000 was
attached to the notice under Section 41-H dated
22-1-2003 at Exb. 16, copy of which was sent to
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers establishes
that the said memo was in possession of
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers since
22-1-2003 and being a public document, could be
obtained by any person.
39. Shri Nikesh Doure has admitted that the
company received the letter dated 22-1-2003 at
Exb. 16 addressed by Party I on behalf of the Union.
The Vice President–Technical in the said memo
clearly stated that the plant is complex chemical
factory with many sensitive equipments working
under temperature, pressure and corrosive
conditions and that subversive acts mentioned in
the notice at Exb. 16 were detected in time and
damage to plant and equipment could be
prevented. The said issue should be mandatorily
reported to the Inspectorate of Factories and
Boilers, which company did not do. No action was
initiated by Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers
against the company when they came in the
possession of the said information. The incident
could have caused a blast in the factory and harmed
the employees. The company instead of taking
action against the said persons for the acts of
sabotage, unilaterally discharged the Party I
without any enquiry on the specious plea of giving
the memo to the outsider. The company did not
bother to reply to the notice of Party I dated
22-1-2003 at Exb. 16, which shows that the company
does not share the information in its custody to its
employees, contrary to the claim made by the
company that no information was sought by
Party I from them.
40. The Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers also
did not reply to the Union, although the company
replied to the notice to the Inspectorate vide letter
dated 1-4-2003. Mr. Mardolkar not only obtained
notice under Section 41-H dated 22-1-2003 under
RTI Act but also obtained a reply of the company
dated 1-4-2003 sent to the Inspectorate of Factories
and Boilers, which shows that the Party I has not
provided any information to Mr. Mardolkar and that
Mr. Mardolkar had obtained the documents from
the Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1887
Importantly, the company did not refer to the notice
under Section 41-H of the Factories Act at Exb. 16
in the letter of discharge or in the affidavit of the
witness, Mr. Doure along with the reply of the
company dated 1-4-2003, though copy of
documents were produced at Exb. 35 colly. and the
said documents along with the letter of
Mr. Mardolkar dated 19-6-2007 clearly establish that
all the information were obtained by Mr. Mardolkar
under RTI Act and that Party I was not responsible
for supplying the said information to the alleged
outsider, Shri Mardolkar, who is the Contract union
leader in the company. Shri Nikesh Doure has also
admitted that he knows Mr. Mardolkar since 2014
based on the settlements, he signed on behalf of
the contract labour being leader of contract labour
union. It is thus clear that the Party II has failed to
prove any collusion of Party I with said
Mr. Mardolkar or that both have acted against the
interest of the company.
41. The allegation of collusion and anti-
-management activities were required to be proved
by setting up a properly instituted enquiry, which
has not been done by the management. The
termination is therefore illegal and unjustified. The
charges mentioned in the letter of discharge
therefore cannot stand. The allegations by the
management in the chargesheet stating that he
colluded with Pratap Mardolkar of seeking
information under RTI Act and making allegations
against the company are baseless. In any event,
the said RTI applications cannot be termed as
complaints or cannot be said that the Party I was
working against the interest of the company. The
documents at Exb. 35 colly. were made as basis for
discharge of Party I on alleged loss of confidence
without any evidence or enquiry into the matter,
which clearly discloses that the company took a
conscious decision to remove Party I from the
service without following principles of natural
justice and fair play and was ready to face legal
consequences arising out of the discharge.
42. There is no dispute that the past conduct of
the Party I was blemishless, unsoiled and clean as
there was no enquiry or charges against him. The
management has not shown any bad conduct on
the part of Party I during the period of service of
25 years rendered by him with Party II. The
documents at Exb. 35 colly. are all RTI applications
and they are not the complaints against the
company. Shri Doure has also admitted that the
documents at Exh. 35 colly which are made basis
for discharge of the Party I from service are RTI
applications only. It is not explained as to how
seeking information under Right to Information Act
can bring the company into disrepute. The reliance
placed by Ld. Adv. Shri Sardessai for Party II on the
case of Mohd. Shakeel Saifi (supra) is not at all
applicable to the case at hand as in that case it
was alleged that the applicant was seeking wide
range of information about colleagues, principal
and officers who were supposed to inquire into the
complaint filed against him and that he also
videographed the lectures of the teacher in the
classroom without permission and put it on social
media, unlike the present case.
43. The Party II is therefore guilty of unfairness
and victimization in discharging the Party I under
colourable exercise of employers’ right by falsely
implicating the Party I on patently concocted
reasons in utter disregard of the principles of
natural justice and fair play for a misconduct which
has not been proved and punished him without
having any regard to the past record or service of
Party I who worked diligently with the Party II
from 1-6-82 till date of discharge on 2-11-2007 for
nearly 25 years and hence, the termination of the
Party I who was the General Secretary of the Union
for alleged loss of confidence without holding an
enquiry and affording him reasonable opportunity
to defend himself is required to be set aside as the
Party II was unable to show that the Party I was
holding a position of trust and confidence and by
abusing such a position, he committed acts of
misconduct and to continue him in service would
be embarrassing and inconvenient or would be
detrimental to the discipline or security of the
establishment.
44. The discharge of Party I is punitive and casts
a stigma on Party I which cannot be sustained in
the absence of full scale departmental enquiry
which has not been conducted by Party II and the
Party I was discharged without affording an
opportunity of being heard of the allegations of
misconducts leveled against him in the
chargesheet. The Party I was only exercising his
rights as General Secretary of the Union, albeit
minority, with regard to safety and other issues
and therefore discharging him from service
on the ground of alleged loss of confidence is
unwarranted. The allegation of Party II that Party
I was conniving with Mr. Mardolkar and making
false, vicious and malicious allegations against the
company and divulged information to the outsiders
and thus was working against the interest of the
company remained unproved. The Party I having
established that the action of Party II in terminating
his service w.e.f. 2-11-2007 is illegal and unjustified,
the above issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1888
Issues Nos. 2 & 3:
45. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardesai for Party II has
submitted that Party I neither in the claim
statement nor in the affidavit in evidence
contended that he is not gainfully employed or
that he made efforts to secure gainful employment.
The Party I has thus neither pleaded nor deposed
on the aspect of gainful employment nor led any
evidence in support thereof and therefore did not
discharge the initial burden cast on him. He further
submitted that it is well settled that direction to
pay back wages in its entirety is not automatic
consequent upon declaration of dismissal order bad
in law. Ld. Adv. Shri Sardessai relying upon the
case of U. P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. and
Another vs Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC
479, has submitted that a person is not entitled to
get something only because it would be lawful to
do so. The concept of discretion is inbuilt in such
exercise. The Court is required to exercise
discretion reasonably and judiciously keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the case and
applying the said principle, the Party I is not
entitled to back wages as he has not shown that
he has not been gainfully employed as the initial
burden was on him, which he has not discharged
nor entitled for re-instatement as he has crossed
the age of superannuation.
46. Per contra, the Party I has submitted that
there is a gross delay in disposing the matter mainly
due to frequent adjournments requested by the
company and frivolous and unnecessary
applications filed on behalf of the company while
adjudicating the matter which resulted in loss of
time, money and inconvenience to Party I and also
giving up the services of the Advocate as he could
not afford the cost. The management has thus seen
to have been taking steps periodically to see that
the dispute is not disposed at an early date on one
ground or other as the management was fully well
aware that the dice is always loaded in their favour,
since even if they lose the frivolous applications,
the time gain is the real gain as the witness of the
management was examined after almost ten years.
He further submitted that he was discharged at
the age of 50 years and he reached the age of
superannuation two years ago during the course
of proceedings. He further submitted that the
Party I has sought full back wages in the statement
of claim as well as in the affidavit in evidence,
which would imply that he was not gainfully
employed and therefore, the above contention of
Adv. for Party II be discarded.
47. It is an admitted fact that the claim
statement has been filed by Party I on 11-12-08 and
affidavit in evidence was filed on 8-7-2009. The
Party I in the claim statement sought re-instatement
with full back wages. There also cannot be any
dispute that full back wages can be sought only if
the workman is not gainfully employed. The
Party II has also not rebutted the claim of Party I
that he is not gainfully employed nor it is claimed
by them in the written statement that after he was
discharged on the ground of loss of confidence, he
was gainfully employed. No doubt, Party I has not
stated in the claim statement that he was not
gainfully employed or that he made efforts to
secure gainful employment, however, the Industrial
Disputes Act being a beneficial legislation and
that the Party I has clearly sought re-instatement
along with full back wages, it has to be presumed
that the Party I was not gainfully employed. In any
event, there is no evidence to the contrary. It is
therefore the above contention of Ld. Adv. Shri G.
K. Sardesai that Party I is not entitled for full back
wages cannot be accepted.
48. The Party I has alleged and sufficiently shown
that the management has delayed the proceedings
on one ground or another with frivolous defences
and has eventually failed to justify its action of
discharge of the workman and had taken shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of
facts for achieving their goals. In the case of
Padmavati and Ors. Vs. Harijan Sewak Sangh,
154 (2008) DLT 411, it is observed by the Hon’ble
Apex Court as follows:
That the case at hand shows that frivolous
defences and frivolous litigation is a calculated
venture involving no risks situation. You have
only to engage professionals to prolong the
litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person
and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider
that in such cases where Court finds that using
the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated
illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal
possession, the Court must impose costs on
such litigants which should be equal to the
benefits derived by the litigant and harm and
deprivation suffered by the rightful person so
as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent
the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal
acts through the Courts. One of the aims of
every judicial system has to be discourage
unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The
costs imposed by the Courts must in all cases
should be the real costs equal to deprivation
suffered by the rightful person and that one of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1889
the reasons for over-flowing of Court dockets
is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts
are engaged by the litigants and which is
dragged as long as possible. Even, if these
litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become
the real victors and have the last laugh. This
class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by
obtaining stays and injunctions from the
Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not
only the entire illegal gains made by them as
costs to the person deprived of his right and
also must be burdened with exemplary costs.
Faith of people in judiciary can only be
sustained if the persons on the right side of
the law do not feel that even if they keep
fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately
win, they would turn out to be a fool since
winning a case after 20 or 30 years would
make wrong doer as real gainer, who had
reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it
becomes the duty of the Courts to see that
such wrong doers are discouraged at every
step and even if they succeed in prolonging
the litigation due to their money power,
ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these
years long litigation. Despite settled legal
positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one
after another tier of judicial review mechanism
as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is
always loaded in their favour, since even if
they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This
situation must be redeemed by the Courts……..
49. It is also well settled by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED)
& Ors., 2014 II CLR 813, that in a case of wrongful
termination of service, re-instatement with
continuity of service and back wages is the normal
rule. The Apex Court in Para 17 has observed thus:
17. 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
re-instatement 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.
50. Needless to mention, the Party I was 50 years
old when he was discharged from service and that
he has attained the age of superannuation of 58
years on 31-12-2015. The Party I has been
prosecuting the dispute since last 9 years. There is
no question of re-instatement as he has already
crossed the age of superannuation in 2015. It is
also difficult to Party I to find a suitable job at this
age, more so because of the stigma attached to the
discharge. It is also a matter of record that the
delay in proceedings the matter is mainly due to
unnecessary applications and frequent adjournment
sought by the company. The affidavit of witness of
Party II was filed only on 25-1-2017. The
management has seen that the dispute was not
disposed of at an early date, one way or the other.
The delay is primarily on account of Party II. The
Party II has inflicted a grossly monstrous and illegal
punishment without following the terms and
conditions of the employment. The Party I has
suffered great mental agony and financial loss due
to the illegal discharge from service by Party II.
51. There is no dispute that the Party I was
working with Party II for 25 years before his
discharge with clean record. The Party I has been
prosecuting his claim before the Tribunal since
2008 after his discharge by Party II and has been
fighting the litigation since last 9 years and
therefore is entitled for reasonable amount of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1890
Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) towards cost
of litigation so also towards pain and agony which
he suffered for no fault of his. It is well settled law
that in cases of wrongful discharge reinstatement
with continuity in service and back wages is normal
rule, however, the Party I is not entitled for
re-instatement as he has already completed 58 years
of age in the year 2015. Nonetheless, he is entitled
for full back wages for the period from the date of
discharge till superannuation alongwith interest
@ 18% p.a. on account of inflation from 2007
onwards and benefits of all the settlements
considering the facts and circumstances of above.
There is nothing on record that the Party II is
running into losses, on the contrary the Party II is
a dividend paying company in the business of
trading pesticides and compact fertilizers and that
the company is cash rich and has the capacity to
pay. Hence, the above the issues are answered
accordingly.
52. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The dispute referred by the appropriate
Government by way of above reference under
Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes
Act is answered in favour of Party I.
ii. It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s Zuari Industries
Limited, Jaikissan Bhawan, Zuarinagar, Goa
in terminating the services of Shri R. G.
Furtado, Senior Accounts Assistant,
with effect from 2-11-2007, is illegal and
unjustified.
iii. The Party II is directed to pay to Party I,
Shri R. G. Furtado, full back wages for the
period from the date of discharge till
superannuation along with interest
@ 18% p. a. and consequential benefits
attached to the post, as well as benefits of
all the settlements with costs of Rs. 2,00,000/-
(Rupees two lakhs only).
iv. The Party II is directed to deposit back
wages before the Tribunal as stated above
within 60 days of the publication of the
Award, failing which the Party II shall pay
an interest @ 9% per annum.
v. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
Notification
No. 28/9/2017-LAB/Part-I/796
The following award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
12-10-2017 in reference No. IT/08/02 is hereby
published as required by Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 20th November, 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/08/02
Workmen,
Rep. by the President,
Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers’ Union,
Velhos’ Building, 2nd Floor,
Panaji, Goa.
…
Workmen/Party I
V/s
The Managing Director,
M/s. Jaybee Laminations Ltd.,
Kundaim Industrial Estate,
Kundaim-Ponda, Goa.
…
Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv.
Shri Suhaas Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv.
Mrs. Harsha Naik.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 12th day of the month
of October of the year 2017)
By Order dated 07-02-2002, bearing No. 28/22/
/2001-LAB, 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 the Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1)
Whether the action of the management of
M/s Jaybee Laminations Ltd., Kundaim, in
terminating the services of 77 workmen, as
listed in the Annexure hereto, with effect
from 26-3-2001, is legal and justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1891
ANNEXURE
Sr.
Name of the worker
Date of joining
Designation
No.
1
2
3
4
1.
Anil Singh
09-06-1995
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
2.
Ashok Kumar Prasad
08-03-1994
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
3.
Dilip Kumar Gupta
05-07-1992
Operator (Press-opr.)
4.
Govind Kumar Roy
02-02-1992
Operator (Press-opr.)
5.
Jagdish Prasad
17-06-1994
Operator (Shearing M/c)
6.
Jayprakash Yadav
01-08-1994
Operator (Slitting Opr.)
7.
Mastaram
10-05-1995
Jr. Operator (Shearing Opr.)
8.
Ram Sunder Yadav
01-12-1991
Operator (Press-Opr.)
9.
Ranveer Singh
10-05-1995
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
10.
Suryanarayan Yadav
20-08-1995
Helper
11.
Sushil Kumar
01-07-1994
Welder (All Rounder)
12.
Wahab Ahmed
07-04-1995
Jr. Operator (Stilting M/c)
13.
Kedarnath Roy
01-12-1992
Supervisor
14.
Rabindranath Tiwari
01-04-1995
Helper
15.
Upender Yadav
01-04-1995
Packing Sup.
16.
Upender Prasad
17-06-1994
Operator (Shearing M/c)
17.
Navin Paswan
17-06-1994
Operator (Shearing M/c)
18.
Dinesh Kumar
17-05-1994
Operator (Shearing M/c)
19.
Ramsevak Yadav
05-02-1992
Operator (Stilting M/c)
20.
Kashikant Jha
10-10-1996
Operator (Core)
21.
Sunil Thakur
01-07-1994
Jr. Operator (Stilting M/c)
22.
Diwan Kohli
01-10-1991
Operator (Press-Opr.)
23.
Harendar Singh
01-04-1995
Operator (Shearing M/c)
24.
Tejveer Singh
01-10-1992
Electrician
25.
Vinod Kumar
01-07-1994
Operator (Shearing M/c)
26.
Shambhu Gupta
01-04-1995
Helper
27.
Mayaram
01-04-1995
Helper
28.
Upendar Yadav
15-06-1994
Operator (Press-Opr.)
29.
Narendar Singh
01-07-1995
Jr. Operator (Press-Opr.)
30.
Sunil Singh
01-10-1991
Operator (Press-Opr.)
31.
Ravindar Prasad
01-07-1994
Jr. Operator (Press-Opr.)
32.
Ravinkumar Roy
21-04-1994
Jr. Operator (Press-Opr.)
33.
Anil Kumar Roy
24-05-1993
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
34.
Mangaldas Gaude
01-08-1996
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
35.
Ramesh Gaunekar
01-08-1996
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
36.
Bharat Volvoikar
01-08-1996
Helper
37.
Nandkishor Kari
01-08-1996
Jr. Operator (Tool Room)
38.
Cholu Gaude
23-08-1996
Helper
39.
Martand Parab
02-09-1996
Helper (Tool Room)
40.
Sunil Shirgaonkar
02-09-1996
Electrician
41.
Jayesh Bhomkar
03-09-1996
Packing Sup.
42.
Shrikant Salgaonkar
01-11-1996
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
43.
Uday Parab
22-01-1997
Carpenter (Packing)
44.
Rajesh Satarkar
01-01-1997
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
45.
Santosh Gaude
02-05-1997
Helper
46.
Sunil Naik
02-05-1997
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
47.
Suresh Sawant
02-05-1997
Furnace Sup.
48.
Yoganand Naik
13-05-1997
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
49.
Lala Satarkar
21-05-1997
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
50.
Narayan Jalmi
24-05-1997
Helper
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1892
51.
Sushen Chodankar
27-05-1997
Helper
52.
Devidas Gaude
05-06-1997
Helper
53.
Tinesh Khedekar
05-06-1997
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
54.
Ravindra Sawant
16-06-1997
Helper
55.
Anand Shirodkar
17-06-1997
Helper
56.
Lelendra Phadte
01-07-1997
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
57.
Shailesh Phadte
18-07-1997
Helper
58.
Vimal Kumar Yadav
01-08-1998
Helper
59.
Mahesh Naik
01-08-1997
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
60.
Pusha Naik
01-11-1996
Sweeper
61.
Geeta Naik
01-11-1996
Sweeper
62.
Suman Naik
—
Sweeper
63.
Manoj Singh
—
Helper
64.
Premanand Gaude
28-07-1997
Helper
65.
Ladu Madkaikar
22-08-1997
Furnace Sup.
66.
Anand Naik
28-07-1997
Attendant
67.
Umesh Jalmi
24-09-1997
Welder
68.
Rajendra Shet
01-10-1997
Welder
69.
Anand Gaude
01-10-1997
Helper
70.
Shrikant Naik
03-10-1997
Helper
71.
Uttam Kerkar
06-10-1997
Helper
72.
Pradip Naik
08-10-1997
Carpenter
73.
Anand Narvekar
10-10-1997
Carpenter
74.
Sandip Gaude
14-10-1997
Carpenter
75.
Dilip Gaude
14-10-1997
Carpenter
76.
Ganesh Jalmi
01-11-1997
Carpenter
77.
Suryakant Gawade
01-10-1997
Carpenter
78.
Robin Roy
—
Jr. Operator (Shearing M/c)
1
2
3
4
(2)
If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/08/02 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,
Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 5 and
Party II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 6.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party I were employed with Party II at their factory
at Kundaim Industrial Estate. The factory was
running in full swing and was making huge profit
every year. The manufacturing activities in Goa
Unit was started in the year 1996 and suddenly on
26-3-2001, the services of all the 77 workmen
including 33 workers of Noida Unit who were
brought to Goa were terminated on false and
fabricated ground of retrenchment. The employer
has flouted the mandatory provision as laid down
in Section 25-F (a) and (b). The action of the
management in terminating their services is illegal
and bad in law.
4. In the Written statement, the Party II has
stated that the Party II faced financial losses and
the financial condition of the factory became from
bad to worse. The Party II even could not pay the
installments regularly against the loan taken from
EDC and in view of the financial position; it was
neither feasible nor viable to run the production in
the factory. The management could not bear further
monetary losses and had no money to invest for
running the factory. The management has no option
but to decide not to continue the production and
related activities in the factory as a result of which
the workmen became surplus and therefore was
constrained to effect retrenchment of the
employees. All the workers have received their dues
and have settled the matter and as such there
exists no dispute much less an industrial dispute
in the matter.
5. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 7
denying the case put forth by Party II in the Written
statement.
6. Issues framed at Exhibit 11 are as follows:
(1) Whether the Party I/Union proves that it
has the locus standi and authority to
espouse the dispute of the workmen?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1893
(2) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the
Party II terminated the services of the
workmen Shri Anil Kumar Roy, Ladu
Madkaikar, Anand Gaude and Robin Kumar
from 26-6-01?
(3) Whether the Party I/Union proves that
termination of services of the workmen is
in violation of the provisions of Sec. 25-F
and 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947?
(4) Whether the Party I/Union proves that the
termination of services of the workmen by
the Party II w.e.f. 26-3-2001 is illegal and
unjustified?
(5) Whether the Party II proves that the
reference made by the Government is
illegal, invalid and bad in law?
(6) Whether the workmen are entitled to any
relief?
(7) What Award?
7. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined
Shri R. D. Mangueshkar as witness No. 1 and
produced on record his affidavit in evidence at
Exb. 21, a copy of letter to the Managing Director
dated 11-4-01 at Exb. 31, a copy of industrial dispute
raised with Deputy Labour Commissioner dated
27-3-01 at Exb. 32, a copy of failure report dated
4-10-01 at Exb. 33, copies of Provident Fund slips
of 33 workmen at Exb. 34 colly., a copy of letter
from Party II dated 20-2-2001 along with the drafts
of minutes of meeting dated 15-2-01 at Exb. 35. The
Party I also examined Mrs. Meera Patil and
produced on record a copy of Form No. 9 obtained
under R.T.I. along with enclosures at Exb. 39 colly.
8. On the other hand, Party II examined Shri
Munish Kumar Aggarwal and produced on record
his affidavit in evidence at Exb. 56, copies of
Acknowledgement receipts No. 2601, 3201, 2602,
2603, 2604 at Exb. 57 colly., a copy of (Form P) form
of notice of Retrenchment dated 26-03-2001 at Exb.
58, a copy of statement of reasons from Jaybee
Lamination Ltd. at Exb. 59, copies of
acknowledgement receipts Nos. 3199 & 1688 at
Exb. 60 colly., a copy of application to the Asst.
Labour Commissioner dated 26-3-2001 at Exb. 61, a
copy of notice dated 26-3-2001 of retrenchment
from Jaybee Laminations Ltd. at Exb. 62, a copy of
list of retrenchment workers at Exb. 63, a copy of
application dated 26-3-2001 to the Regional
Director, ESIC, Margao from Party II at Exb. 64, a
copy of application dated 26-3-2001 to the Director,
ESIC, Local Officer, Margao, Goa at Exb. 65, a copy
of application to the Director, Inspector of Factories
& Boilers, Altinho, Panaji from Party II at Exb. 66, a
copy of application to the District Magistrate, North,
Panaji-Goa, from Party II at Exb. 67, a copy of
statement of reasons from Party II at Exb. 68, a copy
of application to the SHO, Ponda from Party II dated
26-3-2001 at Exb. 69, a copy of acknowledg-ment
receipt No. 3031 of Managing Director, Economic
Dev. Corpn. of Goa along with application from
Party II at Exb. 70 colly., a copy of letter of Seniority
list from Party II at Exb. 71, a copy of statement
from Oriental Bank, Panaji along with record slips
at Exb. 72 colly., a copy of acknowledgement from
Govt. of India, Ministry of Industry for Industrial
Approvals Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit, New
Delhi at Exb. 73, a copy of application dated 26-3-
2001 to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Panaji
from Party II along with acknowledgement receipt
at Exb. 74 colly.
9. The witness of Party II Shri M. Aggarwal also
produced on record a copy of application dated
26-3-01 to the Managing Director, Economic Dev.
Corpn. of Goa along with application from Party II
at Exb. 75, a copy of letter dated 27-3-01 from EDC
to Party II at Exb. 76, a copy of Annual Report of
financial year from 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002
at Exb. 77 to Exb. 79, a copy of notice from Party II
at Exb. 80, a copy of seniority list from Party II
dated 17-3-01 at Exb. 81, a copy of retrenchment
notices, order of retrenchment/termination of
service of Diwan Kohli, Sunil Singh, Ram Sundar
Yadav, Govind Kumar Roy, Ram Sevak Yadav, Deelip
Kumar Gupta, Tejbeer Singh, Kedar Nath, Ashok
Prasad, Ravin Kumar Roy, Dinesh Kumar, Birendra
Yadav, Jagdish Prasad, Upendra Prasad, Naveen
Paswan, Ravinder Prasad, Vinod Kumar, Sushil
Kumar, Sunil Thakur, Jay Prakash Yadav, Harender
Singh, Upender Yadav, Maya Ram, R. M. Tewari,
Shambu Gupta, Wahad Ahmed, Ranveer Singh,
Mast Ram, Anil Singh, Narendra Singh, Surya
Narayan Yadav, Vijaya Rao, Mangaldas Gawade,
Bharat Volvoikar, Nanda Kishor, Ramesh G., Umesh
Naik, Suresh, Cholu Gawade, Martand Parab, Sunil
Shirgaonkar, Jayesh Bhomkar, Srikant Holkar, Kashi
Kant Jha, Srikant Salgaonkar, Pushpa Naik, Rajesh
Satarkar, Uday Parab, Suresh Sawant, Sunil Naik,
Santosh Gawade, Yoganand Naik, Lala Satarkar,
Narayan Jalmi, Sushen Chodankar, Tinesh Kederkar,
Devidas Gawade, Ravindra Sawant, Anand
Shirodkar, Lalendra Phadte, Shailesh Phadte,
Sudarshan Singh, Vimal Kumar Yadav, Anand Naik,
Premanand Gaude, Mahesh Naik, Umesh Jalmi,
Suryankant Gaude, Rajendra Shet, Uttam Kerkar,
Srikant Naik, Pradip Naik, Anand Narvekar, Sandeep
Gaude, Dilip Gaude, Ganesh Jalmi, Digambar Naik,
Sanjay Singh, Manoj Singh, Kamlakant Gaude,
Suman Naik, Gracy John and Sandip Prabhu along
with acknowledgement receipts with copy of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1894
cheques at Exb. 82 to Exb. 164, a copy of statement
for period from 1-3-01 to 7-4-01 at Exb. 165, a copy
of application dated 23-3-01 to the Managing
Director, Economic Dev. Corpn. of Goa from Party II
at Exb. 166
10. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by the
Party II.
11. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers with their findings and reasons thereof
are as follows.
1.
Issue No. 1
… In the Affirmative.
2.
Issue No. 2
… In the Negative.
3.
Issue No. 3
… In the Negative.
4.
Issue No. 4
… In the Negative.
5.
Issue No. 5
… In the Negative.
6.
Issues Nos. 6 & 7
… As per Final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:
12. Admittedly, the Party I has examined Shri R.
D. Mangueshkar, General Secretary of Goa Trade &
Commercial Workers’ Union (AITUC) who has signed
and verified the statement of claim. The fact that
the Party I has raised the dispute before
Appropriate authority and espoused the cause on
behalf of the workmen is not disputed by the
Party II. The document viz. letter dated 11-4-2001
at Exb. 31 was addressed to Party II by Goa Trade
& Commercial Workers’ Union on behalf of the
workmen. The letter dated 27-3-2001 at Exb. 32
was also issued by Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers’ Union. The present dispute was raised
before the office of the Commissioner, Labour by
the said Union which resulted in the failure report
dated 4-10-2001 at Exb. 33. The Party II has also
addressed to the President/Secretary of Goa Trade
& Commercial Workers’ Union, a letter dated
20-2-2002 along with a draft of minutes of meeting
held on 15-2-2001 in the matter of gradation. The
witness of Party II, Shri Munish Kumar Aggarwal
has admitted in the cross examination that Wage
settlement was signed by the management,
representative of the workmen and the
representative of the Union, which clearly shows
that Union has represented the workmen during
the conciliation proceedings and in the matter of
gradation and therefore, Ld. Adv. Shri Suhaas Naik
for Party I has submitted and rightly so that the
existence of the Union is proved. The contention of
the Party II that Party I has no locus standi to
espouse the dispute of the workmen therefore
cannot be accepted and hence, the issue No. 1 is
answered in the affirmative.
Issue Nos. 2:
13. The Party II in para 4 (c) of the Written
statement has claimed that the services of the
workmen viz. Anil Kumar Roy, Ladu Madkaikar,
Anand Gaude and Robin Roy were not terminated
on 26-3-2001 while effecting retrenchment by the
management as they were not in the employment
of Party II at that time and as such there is no
question of termination of their services as has
been reflected in the order of reference. The
Party I in para 8 of the rejoinder has denied that
the services of the above persons were not
terminated. The Party I however has not produced
any document to prove the said fact nor have the
above referred persons been examined. The names
of the aforesaid persons do not reflect in the
documents produced by Party II including copy of
retrenchment notice, order of retrenchment/
/termination of service, acknowledgement receipt
along with copy of cheques produced on record by
Party II of 83 workmen employed in the said factory,
whose services have been terminated after payment
of legal dues towards the retrenchment. The Party
I having failed to prove the above issue, the same
is answered in the negative.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4:
14. Issue No. 3 and 4 are taken up for discussion
as they are interrelated.
Ld. Adv. Shri Suhaas Naik for Party I has
submitted that the Party II has given no good reason
for termination of services of 77 workmen in the
factory at Goa. The reasons given for illegal
termination/retrenchment of these workers are not
real, true and genuine. The management has
flouted the mandatory provisions of Section
25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, which lays
down that when the undertaking is closed down
for any reason whatsoever, every workmen who
has been in continuous service for not less than
one year in that undertaking, immediately before
such closure, shall be entitled to a notice and
compensation in accordance with the provisions
of Section 25-F. He further submitted that the
employer had failed to follow the procedure ‘last
come, first go’ and also failed to give employment
to the permanent employees at Noida factory. The
workmen had accepted their dues under protest
and therefore, the above issues deserve to be
answered in affirmative.
15. Per contra Ld. Adv. Mrs. Harsha Naik for
Party II has submitted that it was not possible for
the Party II to manage the required finance to run
the production and was not able to improve the
situation which had adversely affected the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1895
production activities resulting in monetary losses
and accordingly in the interest of organization, the
retrenchment was effected for valid and proper
reasons as was submitted in the notice of
retrenchment dated 26-6-2001 in accordance with
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The seniority
list was published on 17-3-2001 and the
retrenchment notice was posted on the notice board
on 26-3-2001. The retrenchment orders were sent
to all the workers on last known addresses with
cheques for an amount towards one month’s notice
pay and retrenchment compensation. All the
workers have encashed the cheques sent to them
towards the amount for one month notice pay,
retracement compensation and earned wages
without lodging any kind of protest and therefore,
the retrenchment of the workers is absolutely legal
and as per the provisions of the Act.
16. It is well settled in the case of M/s. Hatisingh
Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others,
1960 SCR (3) 528 and the Hon’ble Apex Court had
observed thus:
Normally, if the business is capable of meeting
the obligation to pay the wages of the workmen
and to meet the other expenses necessary for
its continuance, it would not be closed down.
Capacity to pay has therefore to be taken into
account in the case of a running business in
assessing liability to fix wages or gratuity or
dearness allowance. Once the undertaking is
closed and liability to pay compensation under
the impugned section is not made a condition
precedent, the amount which the workmen may
be able to recover must depend upon the assets
of the employer which may be available to meet
the obligation. The workmen would be entitled
to recover compensation only if the employer is
able to meet the obligation; otherwise they
would have to rank pro-rata with the other
ordinary creditors of the employer. The
legislature has imposed restricted liability in
cases where closure is due to circumstances
beyond the control of the employer. By the
proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 25 FFF,
where the undertaking is closed down on
account of circumstances beyond the control
of the employer, the compensation to be paid
to the workmen is not to exceed his average
pay for three months. If the principal provision
is not unconstitutional as imposing an
unreasonable restriction, it is not suggested
that the proviso is on any independent ground
unconstitutional.
However, the explanation to Section 25 FFF
proviso is, it is submitted, unreasonable. The
explanation provides: “An undertaking which
is closed down by reason merely of financial
difficulties (including financial losses) or
accumulation of undisposed of stocks shall
not be deemed to have been closed down on
account of unavoidable circumstances beyond
the control of the employer within the meaning
of the proviso to this sub-section”. The effect
of the impugned section along with the proviso
is to classify the undertakings into two classes,
viz., (1) those which are closed down on
account of unavoidable circumstances beyond
the control of the employer and (2) the
remaining, when the closure of an undertaking
is due to circumstances beyond the control of
the employer, the maximum limit of
compensation is average pay for three months,
irrespective of the length of service of the
workmen; in the residuary class, the liability is
unrestricted. The explanation is in substance
a definition clause which sets out what shall
not be deemed to be closures on account of
circumstances beyond the control of the
employer. By this explanation, employers who
had to close down their industrial
undertakings merely because of financial
difficulties including financial losses or
accumulation of undisposed of stocks are
excluded from the benefit of the proviso to
Section 25 FFF(1).
The proviso restricts the liability of employers
who are compelled to close down their undertakings
on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond
their control, but in the view of the Parliament, in
that category are not to be included employers
compelled to close down their undertakings merely
because of financial difficulties or accumulation of
undisposed of stocks. Closure of an undertaking
attributable merely to financial difficulties or
accumulation of undisposed of stocks, is by the
explanation, excluded from the benefit of restricted
liability; but coupled with other circumstances,
financial difficulties or accumulation of undisposed
of stocks may justify the view that the closure is due
to unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of
the employer, and attract the application of the
proviso notwithstanding the explanation. Where an
undertaking is closed down on account of persistent
losses due to no fault of the employer or due to
accumulation of stocks having regard to persistent
unfavourable market conditions, the closure may
normally be regarded as due to unavoidable
circumstances beyond the control of the employer.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1896
By the explanation, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
which may be called upon to ascertain whether in
a given case, the closure was on account of
circumstances beyond the control of the employer
and whether OD that account the employer was
entitled to the benefit of the proviso may be
restricted. But it is not provided that in no case of
financial difficulty or accumulation of stocks coupled
with other circumstances, the closure is to be
regarded as due to unavoidable circumstances
beyond the control of the employer….
17. The Party I has examined Shri R. D.
Mangueshkar who has reiterated the contents of
the claim statement. He has stated that no notice
of retrenchment was given to the workmen and
that no retrenchment compensation was paid to
the workmen along with notice of retrenchment of
the services. He also claimed that no seniority list
was displayed on the notice board and that the
reasons given by the management of the Goa
factory for retrenching the services of the workmen
are false and misleading. In the cross examination,
he admitted that the notice of retrenchment dated
26-3-2001 was displayed on the notice board. The
Party II has examined Shri Munish Kumar Aggarwal
who claimed that there has been continuing
remarkable downfall and heavy recession in the
trade and business of the factory owing to lack of
orders from the customers. The raw material was
costing very high. There was acute shortage of
raw material used in the factory and the position
never improved which has adversely affected the
production activities resulting into monetary losses.
The Party II therefore faced financial losses and
financial condition became bad to worse and
accordingly the workmen were retrenched,
seniority list was published, retrenchment notice
stating the reasons for retrenchment was posted
and retrenchment orders were sent to all the
workers along with cheques.
18. The materials on record clearly show that
the establishment was closed on account of
circumstances beyond the control of the employer.
The management issued notices of retrenchment
dated 26-3-2001 giving reasons thereof and
thereafter retrenched the employees on 26-3-2001
in accordance with the provisions of the law. The
retrenchment orders were also sent to all the
workers with cheques for an amount towards one
month’s notice pay and the retrenchment
compensation with copies to all the Government
authorities. There is also no dispute that the
workers have encashed the cheques sent to them
and have received the amount without any protest
and thus have accepted the action on the part of
the management and the reasons for retrenchment.
In fact, they have settled the matter with the
management by accepting the compensation and
therefore, no dispute arises. The documents
produced on record by Party II from Exb. 82 to
Exb. 164 clearly show that the management have
complied with the provisions of Industrial Disputes
Act. The Party I was unable to prove its case and
in fact admitted that the Party II was not operating
their Unit for the reasons mentioned in the notice.
The services of workmen were terminated by
adhering to the provisions of law and therefore,
the action taken by the management in retrenching
the workmen was bonafide, justified and proper
and same cannot be interfered in the reference. It
is therefore, the above issues No. 3 and 4 are
answered in negative.
Issue No. 5:
19. It is the case of the Party II that the reference
made by the Government is illegal, invalid and
bad in law. The witness of Party II, Shri Munish
Kumar Aggarwal although stated in para 41 of the
affidavit in evidence that the reference is illegal,
invalid and legally incompetent in as much as
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not
attracted and that the reference was made by the
Government in a mechanical manner, there are no
materials on record in support of the said
contention. There is nothing on record that the
reference made by the Government is illegal or
invalid and therefore, the above issue No. 5 is also
answered in negative.
20. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s Jaybee Laminations
Ltd., Kundaim, in terminating the services
of 77 workmen, with effect from 26-3-2001 as
listed in the order of reference is legal and
justified.
ii. The Party I/Workmen are therefore not
entitled to any relief.
iii. No order as to costs.
iv. Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva),
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1897
Department of Law and Judiciary
Law (Establishment Division)
__
Order
No. 8/3/2017-LD(Estt)/1640
Government of Goa is pleased to constitute a
following committee to carry out the work of
translation of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 in
English Language, so as to comply the directions
of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in
Public Interest Litigation (Suo Motu) No. 1 of 2017
and also to carry out the work of official translation
of the parts of the Portuguese Civil Code, 1939,
which still continue to be in force:-
1. Shri Fernando Elgar Noronha
— Head of the
Committee.
2. Shri Alexander J. P. Fernandes — Member.
3. Shri Rui Aleixo Edmundo
— Member.
Ferreira
4. State Registrar-cum-Head of
— Member
Notary Services
Secretary.
The rate for translation of Portuguese Civil Code,
1867 and the Portuguese Civil Code, 1939 from
Portuguese Language to English Language has
been fixed as Rs. 1000/- per page.
Expenditure shall be debited to the Budget Head
“2030—Stamps and Registration; 03—Registra-
tion; 001—Direction and Administration;
01—Superintendence; 28—Professional Services”
under Demand No. 10.
This issues with the concurrence of Finance
(Exp.) Department, vide their U.O. No. 1400035116
dated 12-09-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Estt.).
Porvorim, 20th November, 2017.
________
Order
No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt)/1678
The Government of Goa is pleased to order the
transfer of Shri V. T. Hadkonkar, District Registrar,
North Goa as District Registrar, South Goa, with
immediate effect and Shri Arjun Shetye, Civil
Registrar-cum-sub-Registrar, Tiswadi, Panaji shall
hold the additional charge of District Registrar,
North Goa till further orders.
The above Officers shall complete the process of
handing over/taking over of charge with immediate
effect and submit compliance.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 24th November, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Order
No. 4/14/2003-II/PHD/Vol. XVIII/1491
On the recommendation of Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/12/30(5)/2006/925 dated 25-10-2017, the
Government is pleased to declare satisfactorily
completion of probation period as well as
confirmation of Dr. Rohini Varadraj Pai, Assistant
Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Goa
Medical College as having satisfactorily completed
her probation period of two years from 22-07-2013
to 21-07-2015, and to confirm her in the post of
Assistant Professor in Anaesthesiology in Goa
Medical College, Bambolim, with effect from the
date of her completion of probation period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 22nd November, 2017.
________
Order
No. 5/24/86-I/PHD/2349
Government is pleased to accept the notice
of voluntary retirement dated 01-9-2017 tendered
by Dr. Celina Barbosa Noronha, Health Officer
under Directorate of Health Services under
Rule 48 (1) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to
relieve her from the post of Health Officer under
Directorate of Health Services with effect from
01-12-2017 (f.n.).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 21st November, 2017.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1898
Order
No. 35/49/2002-I/PHD/2355
Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded
for enhancement of the monetary limit of diets of
patients admitted in the Hospitals/Community
Health Centres/Primary Health Centres/Urban
Health Centres/other Health Centres under
Directorate of Health Services from Rs. 50/- to 100/-
for normal diet and Rs. 120/- for a high protein diet.
The revised rates shall be made applicable with
immediate effect.
This issues with the concurrence of Finance
(Exp.) Department vide their U.O. No. 1421127 dated
16-11-2017.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 22nd November, 2017.
________
Order
No. 8/55/94-II/PHD/1497
Read: 1) Government Order No. 8/55/94-II/PHD
dated 28-09-2016.
2) Joining report dated 01-11-2017 from Dr.
Jai Prakash Tiwari.
Consequent upon his joining back as Professor of
Nephrology in Goa Medical College & Hospital
Bambolim by curtailing his period of lien, Dr. Jai
Prakash Tiwari is hereby appointed as Professor &
Head of Department in the Department of
Nephrology to be set up at Goa Medical College &
Hospital, Bambolim.
Dr. Jai Prakash Tiwari has joined his duties in
Goa Medical College & Hospital, Bambolim on
01-11-2017 (f.n.).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 23rd November, 2017.
________
Order
No. 44/19/2017-I/PHD/Part/2346
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/12/24(7)/2016/954 dated 08-11-2017,
Government is pleased to declare satisfactory
completion of probation period of two years of
Dr. Krupa Vaman Jog, Senior Pathologist under
Directorate of Health Services and also to confirm
her against the said post with effect from
25-06-2016 i.e. the date of her completion of
probation period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary
(Health-II).
Porvorim, 23rd November, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Revenue
__
Notification
No. 24/2/87-RD(Part)/2317
Read: 1. Notification No. 24/2/87-RD dated
05-12-1997 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 48 dated 26-12-1998.
2. Notification No. 24/2/87-RD dated
31-03-2004 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 3 dated 15-04-2004.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
3 of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988 (Goa Act 22 of
1988) (hereinafter called the said Act) and in partial
modification of the Government Notification
No. 24/2/87-RD dated 05-12-1997, the Government
of Goa hereby appoints the Additional Collector,
North Goa District, Panaji as Estate Officer for the
purpose of the said Act within the local limits of
its jurisdiction in respect of Municipal properties
controlled by the City Corporation of Panaji, in
addition to his own duties.
This is issued in suppression of Notification
No. 24/2/87-RD dated 31-03-2004 published in the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 3 dated 15-4-2004.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Sudin A. Natu, Under Secretary (Revenue-II).
Porvorim, 24th November, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Sports and Youth Affairs
Directorate of Sports and Youth Affairs
__
Order
No. 8/10/Promotion/GPSC/DSYA/2879
On the recommendations of Goa Public Service
Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/
/II/11/45(1)/07/905 dated 13-10-2017 Government is
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1899
pleased to promote Smt. Jennifer Ferrao e
Gonsalves, Asstt. Physical Education Officer to the
post of Asstt. Director (Physical Education North)
Group ‘B’ Gazetted in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300-
-34,800+Grade Pay Rs. 4,600/- (Level 7 of the
7th Pay Commission) on regular basis with
immediate effect in the Directorate of Sports &
Youth Affairs. The pay of the promotee shall be
fixed as per Rules.
Smt. Jennifer Ferrao e Gonsalves, Asst. Director
(Physical Education North) shall be on probation
for a period of two years.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
V. M. Prabhu Desai, Director & ex officio Joint
Secretary (Sports & Youth Affairs).
Panaji, 23rd November, 2017.
———uuu———
Department of Transport
Directorate of Transport
__
Notification
No. D.Tpt/5/25/89-TPT/PF/2017/5174
In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 68 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), and in
suppression of the Government Notification
No. 5/25/89-TPT/PF/3277 dated 05-09-2012,
published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 24
dated 13-09-2012 and Notification No. 5/25/89-TPT/
/3054 dated 17-08-2012 published in the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 22 dated 30-08-2012, the
Government of Goa hereby constitutes The State
Transport Authority for Goa, and the Regional
Transport Authorities for Panaji, Mapusa, Bicholim,
Pernem, Margao, Vasco, Quepem, Canacona,
Dharbandora and Ponda as follows, namely:-
(I) State Transport Authority for Goa
I. Secretary, Transport
— Chairman.
II. Shri Krishnanath Sitaram
— Member.
Divkar, Marcel, Ponda-Goa
III. Shri Jayant Jadhav, r/o Sasmole,— Member
Baina, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa
IV. Shri Sukhaji Naik, r/o Mini
— Member.
Satellite Township, Colvale,
Bardez, Goa
V. Director of Transport
— Member
Secretary.
(II) (A) Regional Transport Authority for Panaji
I. Dy. Collector & SDM, Panaji
— Chairman.
II. Shri Sanjeev Naik, r/o Gharse — Member.
Tower, M. G. Road, Panaji, Goa
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Enforcement-North
Secretary.
(II) (B) Regional Transport Authority for
Mapusa
I. Dy. Collector & SDM, Mapusa — Chairman.
II. Shri Sushant Ramnath
— Member.
Harmalkar, r/o Karaswada,
Mapusa, Goa
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Mapusa
Secretary.
(II) (C) Regional Transport Authority for
Bicholim
I. Dy. Collector & SDM, Bicholim — Chairman.
Il. Shri Mangaldas Gawas,
— Member.
r/o Navelim, Bicholim-Goa
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Bicholim
Secretary.
(II) (D) Regional Transport Authority for
Pernem
I. Dy. Collector & SDM, Pernem — Chairman.
II. Shri Pandurang Parab,
— Member.
r/o Warkhande, Pernem, Goa
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Pernem
Secretary.
(II) (E) Regional Transport Authority for
Margao
I. Dy. Collector & SDM, Margao — Chairman.
II. Shri Chandan Nayak,
— Member.
r/o Comba, Margao, Goa
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Margao (Enforcement-South)
Secretary.
(II) (F) Regional Transport Authority for Vasco
I. Dy. Collector & SDM, Vasco
— Chairman.
II. Shri Digamber Sakharam
— Member.
Kaskar, r/o Sada-Vasco, Goa
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Vasco
Secretary.
(II) (G) Regional Transport Authority for
Quepem
I. Dy. Collector & SDM, Quepem — Chairman.
II. Shri Sanjay Velip,
— Member.
r/o Adnem, Quepem-Goa
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 35
30TH NOVEMBER, 2017
1900
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Quepem
Secretary.
(II) (H) Regional Transport Authority for
Canacona
I. Dy. Collector & SDM, Canacona — Chairman.
II. Shri Umesh Onwat Naik,
— Member.
r/o Palolem, Canacona-Goa
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Canacona
Secretary.
(II) (I) Regional Transport Authority for
Dharbandora
I. Dy. Collector & SDM,
— Chairman.
Dharbandora
II. Shri Jitendra Naik, r/o Sancorda, — Member.
Dharbandora-Goa
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Dharbandora
Secretary.
(II)(J) Regional Transport Authority for Ponda
I. Dy. Collector & SDM, Ponda
— Chairman.
II. Shri Milind Dessai, Mardol,
— Member.
Ponda-Goa
III. Asstt. Director of Transport,
— Member
Ponda
Secretary.
The area of jurisdiction of the Regional Transport
Authority for Panaji shall be the present area of
jurisdiction of Panaji Office (Tiswadi Taluka), the
area of jurisdiction of the Regional Transport
Authority for Ponda shall be the present area of
jurisdiction of Ponda Office (Ponda Taluka), the area
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 38.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–320/200–11/2017.
of jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority for
Mapusa shall be the present area of jurisdiction of
Mapusa Office (Bardez Taluka), the area of
jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority for
Bicholim shall be the present area of jurisdiction of
Bicholim Office (Bicholim and Satari Taluka), the
area of jurisdiction of the Regional Transport
Authority for Margao shall be the present area of
jurisdiction of Margao Office (Salcete Taluka), the
area of jurisdiction of the Regional Transport
Authority for Vasco shall be the present area of
jurisdiction of Mormugao Taluka, the area of
jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority for
Quepem shall be the present area of jurisdiction of
Quepem Office (Quepem and Sanguem Taluka), the
area of the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport
Authority for Pernem shall be the present area of
jurisdiction of Pernem Office (Pernem Taluka), the
area of jurisdiction of the Regional Transport
Authority for Canacona shall be the present area
of Jurisdiction of Canacona (Canacona Taluka) and
the area of jurisdiction of the Regional Transport
Authority for Dharbandora shall be the present
area of jurisdiction of Dharbandora (Dharbandora
Taluka).
This Notification shall come into force with
immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nikhil Desai, Director & ex officio Additional
Secretary (Transport).
Panaji, 23rd October, 2017.