Panaji, 8th February, 2018 (Magha 19, 1939)

SERIES II No. 45

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Higher Education

Order

No. 3/92/2018/DHE/Deputation/3456

On recommendation of the Selection Committee

constituted by Government and with the approval

of Government, Shri Shankar B. Naik, Assistant

Professor of Sant Sohirobanath Ambiye,

Government College of Arts & Commerce, Pernem

is hereby appointed as Assistant Director

(Academic), Group ‘A’ Gazetted by transfer on

deputation in Directorate of Higher Education

against the post created vide Order No. 3/63/DHE/

/Creation of Posts/2017-18/2416 dated 10-11-2017.

The official shall draw his pay as per UGC norms

& guidelines and he shall also be entitled for

deputation allowance.

The period of deputation shall be initially for a

period of three years extendable for a further period

of 2 years as per the exigencies and shall be

regulated as per the terms of deputation as

contained in O.M. issued by Department of

Personnel vide No. 13/4/74-PER dated 20-11-2013

and as amended from time to time.

The above official shall join his duties within 7

days from the date of issue of this Order. The above

official shall be relieved by within the stipulated

period.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Higher

Education).

Porvorim, 30th January, 2018.

Order

No. 3/92/2018/DHE/Deputation/3457

On recommendation of the Selection Committee

constituted by Government and with the approval

of the Government, the below mentioned officials

are appointed to the post mentioned against their

names in column No. 3 by transfer on deputation

in Directorate of Higher Education against the posts

created vide Order No. 3/63/DHE/Creation of Posts/

/2017-18/2416 dated 10-11-2017.

Sr.

Name of the

Designation of

Pay level as

No.

Officials

the post

per VIIth pay

matrix

1. Smt. Meeta V.

Assistant Director

Level-7.

Kerkar, Senior

(SHEC) (Group ‘B’

Assistant,

Gazetted)

Secretariat,

Porvorim

2. Smt. Trupti K.

Assistant Director

Level-7.

Bhangle,

(Adm./Est.) (Group ‘B’

Head Clerk,

Gazetted)

Directorate of

Official Language

3. Shri Ashank

Assistant

Level-7.

Desai, Head Clerk, Director

Directorate of

(Trg./Dev.)

Art and Culture

(Group ‘B’

Gazetted)

The period of deputation shall be initially for a

period of three years extendable for a further period

of 2 years as per the exigencies and shall be

regulated as per the terms of deputation as

contained in O.M. issued by Department of

Personnel vide No. 13/4/74-PER dated 20-11-2013

and as amended from time to time.

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

2111

Note:-

There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official

Gazette, Series II No. 44 dated 01-02-2018 namely,

Extraordinary dated 02-02-2018 from pages

2075 to 2110 regarding Orders from Department

of Urban Development.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2112

The above officials shall join their duties by

01-02-2018 (B.N.) and shall exercise their option for

fixation of pay in the pay of deputation post or

deputation allowance in terms of provision of

FR. 22 (1) (a)(i) within a period of one month from

the date of their joining the post.

Heads of the department of above officials shall

relieve the above officials within the stipulated

period.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Diwan N. Rane, Under Secretary (Higher

Education).

Porvorim, 30th January, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Order

No. 28/32/2017-LAB/77

Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Zephyr Biomedicals, Division

of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Limited, Verna Industrial

Estate, Verna, Goa, and it’s workmen represented

by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, in respect of the

matter specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter

referred to as the “said dispute”);

And whereas the Government of Goa considers

it expedient to refer the said dispute for

adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of' sub-section (1) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act

14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said

Act”), the Government of Goa hereby referes the

said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under

Section 7-A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Zephyr Biomedicals, Division of Tulip

Diagnostics (P) Limited, Verna Industrial

Estate, Verna, Goa, in not conceding the

following Charter of demands raised by the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vide their letter

dated 28-11-2016, is legal and justified?

Charter of Demands

Demand No. 1: Pay Scales:

Grades:

I :

3575-160-4375-180-5275-200-6275-220-

-7375-240-8575-260-9875-280-11275.

II-3:

4050-185-4975-205-6000-225-7125-245-

-8350-265-9675-285-11100-305-12625.

III-2:

4500-200-5500-220-6600-240-7800-260-

-9100-280-10500-300-12000-320-13600.

IV-1:

5075-235-6250-260-7550-285-8975-310-

-10525-335-12200-360-14000-385-15925.

Demand No. 2: Flat Rise:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

given the flat rise of Rs. 4000/- in the Basic.

Fitment: The above amounts should be added to

the existing basic and thereafter fitted in the

revised pay scale in the higher stage.

Demand No. 3: Seniority Increments:

Union demands that the workmen should be

given Seniority increments as mentioned below:

Service up to 3 years

: One Increment.

Service from 3 years to

: Two Increments.

7 years

Service from 7 years to

: Three Increments.

10 years

Service from 10 years to

: Four Increments.

15 years

Service from 15 years to

: Five Increments.

20 years

Service above 20 years

: Six Increments.

Demand No. 4: Variable Dearness Allowance

(VDA):

Union demands that the VDA shall be paid at

the revised rate or Rs. 3/- per point rise beyond

4500 points or AICPI (1960) the computation of

VDA shall be made quarterly based as per existing

system.

Demand No. 5: House Rent Allowance (HRA):

Union demands that HRA should be paid at the

revised rate of 30% of Basic, as the cost of

accommodation is very high in Goa due to Tourist

State.

Demand No. 6: Education Allowance:

The Union demands that Education Allowance

shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 2500/- per

month.

Demand No. 7: Conveyance Allowance:

Union demands that all workmen shall be paid

conveyance allowance @ revised rate of Rs. 2500/-

per month.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2113

Demand No. 8: Paid Holidays:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

granted paid holidays at rate 12 days per year.

Demand No. 9: Leave:

Union demands that all the workers shall be

given leave on following basis:-

(a) Earned Leave: Union demands that all the

workmen shall be given earned leave at the

rate 35 days E. L. per year with accumulation

up to 120 days and leave shall be allowed

to take 10 times in a year.

(b) Casual Leave: Union demands that all the

workmen shall be given casual leave at the

rate of 15 days per year with encashment

facility.

workmen covered under ESIC shall be given

sick leave at the rate of 15 days per year.

And those workmen outside the purview of

ESIC shall be given 15 days sick leave per

year with accumulation upto 75 days.

Demand No. 10: Leave Travel Assistance (LTA):

Union demands that LTA shall be paid at the

revised by adding Rs. 5000/- per annum to the

existing LTA, with minimum of four days earned

leave. The amount shall be paid one week before

the commencement of leave.

Demand No. 11: Medical Reimbursement:

Union demands that those workman who are

outside the purview of the ESIC, shall be

reimbursed full medical expenses incurred by him

for self and his family including dependent father

and mother.

Demand No. 12: Loan:

Union demands that existing loan shall be

increased to Rs. 3,00,000 towards house repair and

construction of house and towards the purchase of

household articles or marriage of self or his/her

family member, purchase of vehicle etc.

Demand No. 13: Bonus/Ex-gratia:

Union demands that all the workers shall be

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

wages (Basic, FDA and VDA) every year, before

Diwali every year.

Demand No. 14: Shift Allowance:

Union demands that those workmen work in the

shifts shall be paid shift allowance as under:

Second shift: Rs. 50/- per second shift. And third

shift Rs. 75/- per third shift.

Demand No. 15: Fixed Dearness Allowance (FDA):

Union demands that the all the workers shall be

paid FDA @ revised rate of Rs. 1500/- per month.

Demand No. 16: Accident benefits while on duty

and while coming for duty and while going from

the duty:

Union demands that those workmen who met

with accident while coming for duty and going

back from the duty shall be treated as accident

while on duty and they shall be given all the

benefits such as full wages and full medical

reimbursement to the concerned workmen.

Demand No. 17: City Compensation Allowance

(CCA):

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

paid CCA at the revised rate of Rs. 1000/- per month.

Demand No. 18: Meal Reimbursement:

Union demands that the workmen who will

continue from the First/General shift to Second

shift or Second shift to General/First shift shall be

paid Rs. 150/- per day per shift work.

Demand No. 19: Transport facility:

Union demands that management shall provide

free transport facility in all shifts from the following

routes:

(a) Verna to Panaji and back.

(b) Verna to Margao and back.

(d) Verna to Ponda and back.

Demand No. 20: Canteen Facility:

Union demands that the management shall

provide the subsidies rate canteen facility in all

the shifts.

Demand No. 21: Emergency Gate Pass:

Union demands that in case of emergency

management should give the gate pass to the

worker to go out of the factory.

(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the

negative, then, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 29th January, 2018.

________

Order

No. 28/31/2017-LAB/82

Whereas the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2114

management of M/s. Qualpro Diagnostics System,

Division of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Limited, Verna

Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa and their workmen

represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, in

respect of the matter specified in the Schedule

hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said

dispute”);

And whereas the Government of Goa considers

it expedient to refer the said dispute for

adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act

14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said

Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the

said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under

Section 7-A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Qualpro Diagnostics System, Division of

Tulip Diagnostics (P) Limited, Verna Industrial

Estate, Verna, Goa in not conceding the

following demands raised by the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh, vide their letter dated

28-11-2016, is legal and justified?

Charter of Demands

Demand No. 1: Pay Scales:

Grades:

3575-160-4375-180-5275-200-6275-220-

-7375-240-8575-260-9875-280-11275.

II-3:

4050-185-4975-205-6000-225-7125-245-

-8350-265-9675-285-11100-305-12625.

III-2:

4500-200-5500-220-6600-240-7800-260-

9100-280-10500-300-12000-320-13600.

IV-1:

5075-235-6250-260-7550-285-8975-310-

-10525-335-12200-360-14000-385-15925.

Demand No. 2: Flat Rise:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

given the flat rise of Rs. 4000/- in the Basic.

Fitment: The above amounts should be added

to the existing basic and thereafter fitted in the

revised pay scale in the higher stage.

Demand No. 3: Seniority Increments:

Union demands that the workmen should be

given Seniority increments as mentioned below:

Service up to 3 years

: One Increments.

Service from 3 years to

: Two Increments.

7 years

Service from 7 years to

: Three Increments.

10 years

Service from 10 years to

: Four Increments.

15 years

Service from 15 years to

: Five Increments.

20 years

Service above 20 years

: Six Increments.

Demand No. 4: Variable Dearness Allowance

(VDA):

Union demands that the VDA shall be paid at

the revised rate of Rs. 3/- per point rise. Beyond

4500 points of AICPI (1960) the computation of VDA

shall be made quarterly based as per existing

system.

Demand No. 5: House Rent Allowance (HRA):

Union demands that HRA should be paid at the

revised rate of 30% of Basic, as the cost of

accommodation is very high in Goa due to Tourist

State.

Demand No. 6: Education Allowance:

The Union demands that Education Allowance

shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 2500/- per

month.

Demand No. 7: Conveyance Allowance:

Union demands that all workmen shall be paid

conveyance allowance @ revised rate of Rs. 2500/-

per month.

Demand No. 8: Paid Holidays:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

granted paid holidays at rate 12 days per year.

Demand No. 9: Leave:

Union demands that all the workers should be

given leave on following basis:

(a) Earned Leave: Union demands that all the

workmen should be given earned leave

at the rate 35 days E.L. per year with

accumulation up to 120 days and leave shall

be allowed to take 10 times in a year.

(b) Casual Leave: Union demands that all the

workmen should be given casual leave at

the rate of 15 days per year with

encashment facility.

workmen covered under ESIC should be

given sick leave at the rate of 15 days per

year. And those workmen outside the

purview of ESIC shall be given 15 days sick

leave per year with accumulation upto 75

days.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2115

Demand No. 10: Leave Travel Assistance (LTA):

Union demands that LTA should be paid at the

revised by adding Rs. 5000/- per annum to the

existing LTA, with minimum of four days earned

leave. The amount shall be paid one week before

the commencement of leave.

Demand No. 11: Medical Reimbursement:

Union demands that those workman who are

outside the purview of the ESIC, shall be

reimbursed full medical expenses incurred by him

for self and his family including dependent father

and mother.

Demand No. 12: Loan:

Union demands that existing loan shall be

increased to Rs. 300000/- towards house repair and

construction of house and towards the purchase of

household articles or marriage of self or his/her

family member, purchase of vehicle etc.

Demand No. 13: Bonus/Ex-gratia:

Union demands that all the workers shall be

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

wages (Basic, FDA and VDA) every year, before

Diwali every year.

Demand No. 14: Shift Allowance:

Union demands that those workmen work in the

shifts shall be paid shift allowance as under:-

Second Shift: Rs. 50/- per second shift. And third

shift: Rs. 75/- per third shift.

Demand No. 15: Fixed Dearness Allowance (FDA):

Union demands that all the workers shall be

paid FDA @ revised rate of Rs. 1500/- per month.

Demand No. 16: Accident benefits while on duty

and while coming for duty and while going from

the duty:

Union demands that those workmen who met

with accident while coming for duty and going

back from the duty shall be treated as accident

while on duty and they shall be given all the

benefits such as full wages and full medical

reimbursement to the concerned workmen.

Demand No. 17: City Compensatory Allowance

(CCA):

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

paid CCA at the revised rate of Rs. 1000/- per month.

Demand No. 18: Meal reimbursement:

Union demands that the workmen who will

continue from the First/General shift to Second

shift or Second shift to General/First shift shall be

paid Rs. 150/- per day per shift work.

Demand No. 19: Transport facility:

Union demands that management shall provide

free transport facility in all shifts from the following

routes:

(a) Verna to Panaji and back.

(b) Verna to Margao and back.

(d) Verna to Ponda and back.

Demand No. 20: Canteen facility:

Union demands that the management shall

provide the subsidies rate canteen facility in all

the shifts.

Demand No. 21: Emergency gate pass:

Union demands that in case of emergency

management should give the gate pass to the

worker to go out of the factory.

(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in the

negative, then, what relief the workmen are

entitled to?”.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 29th January, 2018.

________

Notification

No. 28/9/2017-LAB/41

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

22-12-2017 in reference No. IT/33/97 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.

A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 15th January, 2018.

________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’silva, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/33/97

The Goa MRF Employees Union,

a registered Trade Union having

its registered office at

“Saidham”, Dhavlimol,

P. O. Kaulem, Ponda,

Goa-403 401.

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2116

1. M/s. MRF Ltd.,

A Company incorporated

under the Companies Act

having its factory

at P. B. No. 1, Ponda,

Goa-403 401.

… Employer/Party II (1)

2. The Goa MRF Employees

Union, Rep. by its President,

Savio Furtado, Sikerkar Building,

Upper Bazar, Nr. Vithoba Temple,

Ponda-Goa

… Workmen/Party II (2)

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri V.

Menezes.

Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv.

Shri G. K. Sardessai.

Workmen/Party II(2) represented by Ld. Adv.

Shri M. S. Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 22nd day of the month of

December of the year 2017)

By Order dated 05-06-1997, bearing No. ALC/

PONDA/C.H of Demands/MRF/2488, 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 demands served by the Goa

M.R.F. Employees Union on the management

of M/s. M.R.F. Ltd., on behalf of the workers

employed in the industrial establishment

vide Union’s letter dated 29-8-1996 are legal

and justified?

(2) If so, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?”

2. It is matter of record that vide Corrigendum

No. ALC/PONDA/- CH. of Demands/MRF/2979

dated 8-7-1997, the appropriate Government

corrected the date of Union’s letter appearing in

Schedule from 29-8-1996 to 15-2-1996. It is also a

matter of record that by Order No. ALC/PONDA/CH.

of Demands/MRF/6097 dated 26-11-1997, the

appropriate Government amended the schedule of

reference, as follows:

“(2) Whether the following demands of the

management of M/s M.R.F. Limited are legal

and justified?

(i) Part of present FDA+VDA to be merged

with service

Weightage/Personal

Pay–VDA will be fixed for maximum level

for each year and directly linked to

individual performance and will be paid

as per the percentage of the performance.

(ii) 7 day running for Full Plant–to increase

production and to generate more

employment, the full plant will run on all

7 days of the week, following a staggered

weekly off system for the workmen,

whenever required. 8 hours running of

department machinery, whenever

possible, will be implemented.

(3) If so, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?”

3. The demands raised by the Party I are as

follows:

Demand No. 1: Classification and Gradation

(a) Effective from October 1, 1995 the existing

classification of jobs into seven groups (viz.

Grade I to VII) shall be reclassified into four

grades as per the old practice prior to the

Settlement dated November 20, 1991 (viz.

Time scale D workmen, Grade C, Grade B

and Grade A) as shown in Annexure ‘A’

hereto.

(b) Effective from October 1, 1995 every

Engineering workman should be delinked

from the existing piece rate system and

should be fitted into a fixed rate system. For

purpose of fitment the basic wage rate of the

workman as on 30-09-95 should be taken and

should be fixed at 30% additional wages

above 100% wage of ‘A’ Grade workmen.

AND

That the Company should pay to every

Engineering workmen Rs. 400/- (Rupees Four

hundred only) per month as additional basic

wage as the nature of job is that of highly

skilled workmen and the same should be

considered as basic wages for all purposes.

Demand No. 2: Wage Structure Piece Rate

Effective from October 1, 1995 basic wages of

the workmen reclassified should be revised as

under:

Category

Piece rate @ 100% Production

From 1-10-95

From 1-10-96

From 1-10-97

to 1-9-96

to 1-9-97

onwards

Grade A

Rs. 75/-

Rs. 85/-

Rs. 95/-

shift

Grade B

Rs. 65/-

Rs. 75/-

Rs. 85/-

shift

Grade C

Rs. 55/-

Rs. 65/-

Rs. 75/-

shift

Grade D

Rs. 45/-

Rs. 55/-

Rs. 65/-

shift

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2117

In case any workman is not able to achieve 100%

production for any reason beyond workman’s

control such as power failure, non supply of raw

materials in time, machine breakdown, due to any

natural calamity, the workman should be paid full

wages/salaries. The same should also be paid for

weekly off.

Demand No. 3: Service Increment/Increments

Effective from January 1, 1995 and every year

thereafter the Company should give service

increment at fixed rate per month as mentioned

here-in-below:

Grades

Year

From 1-1-1996

From 1-1-1997

From 1-1-1998

to 31-12-1996

to 31-12-1997

onwards

30 +

40 +

25 +

35 +

20 +

30 +

15 +

25 +

Demand No. 4: Service Benefits

The Company should give to every permanent

workman Service Benefits who are in service as on

October 1, 1995 and who have completed as on

30-09-1995 number of years of service as mentioned

hereunder:

Length of service

Amount payable per month

(counted from the date

(26th days)

of joining the company to

Rs.

30-9-1995)

20 to 21 years

1,150/-

19 to 20 years

1,100/-

18 to 19 years

1,050/-

17 to 18 years

1,000/-

16 to 17 years

950/-

15 to 16 years

900/-

14 to 15 years

850/-

13 to 14 years

800/-

12 to 13 years

750/-

11 to 12 years

700/-

10 to 11 years

650/-

9 to 10 years

600/-

8 to 9 years

550/-

7 to 8 years

500/-

6 to 7 years

450/-

5 to 6 years

400/-

4 to 5 years

350/-

3 to 4 years

300/-

2 to 3 years

250/-

1 to 2 years

200/-

0 to 1 years

150/-

AND

The service benefits should be considered as

wages for all purposes.

Demand No. 5: Dearness Allowance

Fixed Dearness Allowance

Effective from October, 1, 1995 the Company should

give Fixed Dearness Allowance of Rs. 2,510/-

(Rupees Two thousand five hundred ten only) per

month at the AAICPI point 1000 (1960-100).

AND

The daily rated workmen should be paid Fixed

Dearness Allowance at the rate of Rs. 96.50 per day

of work.

Demand No. 6: Variable Dearness Allowance

Effective from October, 1, 1995 the existing

scheme of Variable Dearness Allowance should be

revised.

The Variable Dearness Allowance in addition to

Fixed Dearness Allowance should be paid to every

permanent workmen, Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees Three

thousand five hundred only) per month, due to

merger of 1000 points AAICPI figure (1960-100)

base.

The above mentioned Variable Dearness

Allowance should be paid upto AAICPI points 1300

(1960-100) base. In addition to the above for every

point rise over and above 1300 points (1960-100)

base increase per point rise should be paid as

mentioned here-in-below:

Basic salary slab

Rate per point over

1300 points

Up to Rs. 1200/-

Rs. 5.00

Rs. 1201/- to Rs. 1450/-

Rs. 5.25

Rs. 1451/- to Rs. 1700/-

Rs. 5.50

Rs. 1701/- to Rs. 1950/-

Rs. 5.75

Rs. 1951/- to Rs. 2200/-

Rs. 6.00

Rs. 2201/- to Rs. 2450/-

Rs. 6.25

Rs. 2451/- to Rs. 2700/-

Rs. 6.50

Rs. 2701/- to Rs. 3000/-

Rs. 6.75

Rs. 3001/- to Rs. 3300/-

Rs. 7.00

Rs. 3301/- to Rs. 3600/-

Rs. 7.25

Rs. 3601/- to Rs. 3900/-

Rs. 7.50

Rs. 3901/- and above

Rs. 7.75

Demand No. 7: Provident Fund

Effective from October, 1995 both the Company’s

and Employees contribution to the Provident Fund

should be 12.5% of the total wages/salaries.

Demand No. 8: Allowance

The Company should pay to every permanent

workman effective from October 1, 1995 following

allowances

AND

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2118

The same should be paid along with monthly

salaries unless otherwise specified.

(A) Acting Allowance.

Any permanent workmen if required to work in

any higher post or position he should be paid

Acting Allowance equivalent to 35% (thirty five

percent) of his own wages/salaries for such

day/days he is required to officiate.

(B) Conveyance allowance

The Company should pay to every workman Rs.

350/- (Rupees Three hundred fifty only) per month

as Conveyance allowance.

The Company should pay to every workman

Education Allowance of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two

hundred fifty only) per month.

AND

The Company should give annual assistance of

Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in the month

of May every year to meet the expenses incurred

at the start of the schools/colleges academic year.

(D) Hill station allowance

Effective from the year 1995 every workman

should be given Hill Station Allowance of

Rs. 600/- (Rupees Six hundred only) per annum and

the same should be paid along with Leave Travel

Allowance and on same terms and conditions.

(E) House rent allowance

The Company should pay to every workman

either Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two hundred fifty only)

per month or 35% of his total monthly wages/

/salaries

whichever

higher

towards

reimbursement of House Rent Allowance.

(F) Leave Travel Allowance

(i) The Company should give to every workman

with effect from the year 1995, Leave Travel

Allowance as under:

Years of service

Amount per annum

For service upto 5 years

Rs. 4,000/- from the

year 1995

For service of 5 years

Rs. 5,000/- from the

and more but less than

year 1995

10 years

For service of 10 years

Rs. 6,000/- from the

and more but less than

year 1995

15 years

For service of 15 years

Rs. 7,000/- from the

and more

year 1995

(ii) Leave travel allowance should be paid to

every workman as reimbursement towards

travelling expenses.

(iii) Leave travel allowance should be paid once

in a year only to such of the workmen who

proceed on privilege leave of atleast 5 days.

(iv) Leave travel allowance should be allowed

accumulation for two years.

(v) For purpose of computing years of service,

date of joining should be taken.

(vi) Leave travel allowance should be given 10

days before employee proceeding on privilege

leave.

(G) Holiday Home Hire Allowance

Effective from the year 1995, every workman

should be given Rs. 600/- (Rupees Six hundred only)

every year towards Holiday Home Hire Allowance

and should be paid along with leave travel

allowance and on same terms and conditions.

(H) Lunch allowance

Any workman who is required to go out on the

Company’s work and cannot return during the

normal lunch time, should be paid Rs. 40/- (Rupees

forty only) for that day as lunch allowance.

(I) Newspaper Purchase Allowance

Every workman should be given Newspaper

Purchase allowance of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One

hundred only) per month.

(J) Social security allowance

Every workman should be given Social

Security Allowance of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One

hundred only) per month.

(K) Petrol and maintenance allowance

The Company should pay to every workman

having

motorcycle/Scooter/Moped

petrol

allowance of Rs. 1,200/- (Rupees one thousand

two hundred only) per month effective from

October 1, 1995.

(L) Entertainment Allowance

The Company should give to every workman

Entertainment allowance on the following basis as

under:

Basic wages/salary

Entertainment allowance

(Rs. per month)

Upto Rs. 1,200/-

Rs. 300/-

Rs. 1201/- to Rs. 1800/-

Rs. 400/-

Rs. 1801/- to Rs. 2400/-

Rs. 600/-

Rs. 2401/- to Rs. 3000/-

Rs. 700/-

Rs. 3001/- to Rs. 3600/-

Rs. 800/-

Rs. 3601/- and above

Rs. 900/-

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2119

(M) House Maintenance Allowance

The Company should pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/-

(Rupees Seven thousand only) or an amount

equivalent to two-thirds total salary of a workman

computed on basis of Basic salary, Dearness

allowance, Fixed Dearness allowance and H.R.A.

for the month of April, every year and whichever

is higher subject to maximum amount of House

Maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand

only) should be paid to workmen with service of 5

years and more as on December 31, 1995 or on 31st

December in any year hereinafter.

(N) Monsoon Allowance

The Company should pay to every workmen Rs.

1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) per annum to

be paid in the month of May every year for purchase

of monsoon shoes, gumboots, raincoat, umbrella,

etc. for himself and his family.

(O) Shift Working Allowance

An employee who is required to work in General/

/First shift should be paid 10% of Basic+D.A.+

H.R.A. per shift, for second shift 15% of Basic+D.A.

+ H.R.A. per shift and 20% of Basic + D.A. + H.R.A.

per shift for third shift working.

(P) Washing allowance

The Company should pay to every workman

washing allowance of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two

hundred only) per month.

(Q) Weekly off/paid holiday working allowance

For working on a weekly off day or on a paid

holiday, the Company should pay weekly off/paid

holidays working allowance on the following basis.

For weekly off day

: 3 days wages/salaries,

working

if no substitute off is

given or 2 days wages/

/salaries if substitute off

is given.

For paid holidays

: 4 days wage/salaries.

(R) Picnic Allowance

Effective from year 1995 the Company should

pay to every workman picnic allowance of Rs. 1,500/-

(Rupees One thousand five hundred only) per

annum.

(S) Milk allowance

The Company should pay to every workman milk

allowance of Rs. 15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) per day

of work.

(T) Hazard allowance

The Company should pay to every workman

hazard allowance of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One hundred

only) per month.

(U) Factory allowance

The Company should pay all permanent

workmen working in the factory, Factory allowance

of Rs. 200/- (Rupees Two hundred only) per month.

(V) Special allowance

The Company should pay all confirmed workmen

working in the following departments a special

allowance per shift as per table given below:

Department

Amount

Banner (oil)

Rs. 30/-

Banbury

”

Dip Sol Preparation (Polymer lab)

”

Mech. Engg. (Banbury)

”

MRC Lab

”

Mech. Engg. PREP I

”

Chemical Compounding

”

R. M. Stores

”

Cement house

”

T.C.D. (Radiation allowance)

”

Utility

Rs. 20/-

Planning

“

Tyre building

Rs. 30/-

Boiler house Mech

Rs. 25/-

Tyre curing

“

Post inflation

Rs. 30/-

Mech. Engg. Curing

“

Bladder fixing

“

Bladder curing

“

Tyre trimming

“

Tyre repair/repair

“

All Millmen and Banbury main

“

operator

Flap curing

“

Tread rubber

“

Band building

“

Welders, Electricians, machine shop mechanics

should be paid allowance of the department they

work in or attend to breakdown, electrical,

instrumentation workmen, welders, mobile

mechanics, machine shop mechanics, engineering

helpers, sweepers, working part of the shift in

Banbury or Tyre curing departments will also be

eligible for special allowance as per notification in

work sheets at the following rates.

Electrical/Instrumentation/

… Rs. 30/- per shift

machine shop mechanics

including mobile mechanics

Engineering helpers, welders, … Rs. 20/- per shift

sweepers

(W) Weight lifting allowance

The Company shall pay all Curing Operators

Weight Lifting allowance of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten

only) per shift.

AND

The load should not be more than 50 kgs.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2120

Demand No. 9: Staggering Allowance

Effective from October, 1, 1995 the workmen who

are required to work on a staggering weekly off

should be paid staggering allowance of Rs. 250/-

(Rupees Two hundred fifty only) per month.

Demand No. 10: Bonus

The Company should pay bonus to every

workman for the year 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 at

the rate of 25% of the gross wages/salaries without

any ceiling.

Demand No. 11: Christmas/Ganesh Chaturti/Id-ul-

fitr Festival Allowance

The Company should pay to every workman

Christmas/Ganesh Chaturthi/Id-Ul-Fitr festival

allowance of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only)

to be paid ten days before Christmas/Ganesh

Chaturthi/Id-Ul-Fitr festival.

AND

The Company should give festival advance of

Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to all

permanent workmen to be recovered in 12 monthly

installments interest free.

Demand No. 12: Funeral Expenses

The Company should give to every workman

funeral expenses of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two

thousand only) incurred by him at the time of death

of his parents/his wife/husband/child.

Demand No. 13: Tubectomy/Vasectomy Allowance

In case any female/male workman should get

herself/himself operated for Tubectomy/Vasectomy

after birth of first/second child, she/he should be

given one month’s additional salary and 15 days

special leave.

Demand No. 14: Gratuity

The present gratuity scheme for the workmen

should be revised and the revised scheme should

be as here-in-under:

(A) In case of death or perma-

Three months total

nent disability (mental

wages/salaries per

or physical or both)

each year of service

or part thereof in

excess of six

months.

(B) In case of retirement

Forty-five days total

from the Company on

salaries/wages for

attaining age of supera- each year of

nnuation, resignation

completed year of

or termination from the service or part

Company after 15 years thereof in excess

of service

of six months.

paid as per Payment of Gratuity Act.

(D) Gratuity should be calculated and paid on total

wage/salaries drawn by the workmen on the eve of

his separation from the Company.

(E) For purpose of calculating and paying gratuity

following formulae should be adopted by the

Company in all eventualities.

Wages/salaries for 30 days = Wages/salaries

of one day for

purpose of

calculating and

paying gratuity.

(F) Gratuity should be paid without any ceiling.

Demand No. 15: Long Service Award

Effective from January 1, 1995 Long Service Award

should be as here-in-under:

On completion of 10 years

… 100 gms. of silver

of service with the Company

plus Rs. 1,000/-.

On completion of 15 years

… 200 gms. of silver

of service with the Company

plus Rs. 2,000/-.

On completion of 20 years

… 300 gms. of silver

of service with the Company

plus Rs. 3,000/-.

On completion of 25 years

… 500 gms. of silver

of service with the Company

plus Rs. 5,000/-.

Demand No. 16: Superannuation Scheme

Effective from the year 1995, the Company

should incorporate Life Insurance Corporation

Superannuation Scheme by depositing two total

wages/salaries per annum per workman every year

to the Superannuation Scheme.

Demand No. 17: Insurance

Effective from the year 1995, the Company

should cover every workman in the Group

Insurance Scheme for Rs. 5.00 lakhs.

Demand No. 18: Employment of Employee’s Sons

& Daughters

In case the company wants to recruit fresh hands

for filling up vacancies caused in permanent posts

or new posts are created the company should give

preference in employment to workmens’ sons and

daughters provided they are vocationally fit for

the job. In furtherance to this object, the Company

should maintain for purpose of recruitment in future

a list showing therein names of workmen’s sons

and daughters in order of seniority of their father’s

service in the Company for purpose of recruitment

in future.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2121

Demand No. 19: Attendence bonus

Any workman attending work on all working

days in a month should be eligible to receive from

the Company along with his monthly wages/

/salaries three days wages/salaries, days on which

the workman is on privilege leave and/or casual

leave of two days duly sanctioned should be treated

as days of attendance for payment of attendance

bonus. However, in case a workman remains absent

on account of casual leave of more than three days

and/or sick leave in any month including sickness

benefit under the E.S.I. Scheme, he should not be

eligible to receive from the Company attendance

bonus for that month. In case the workman has

earned attendance bonus for first eleven or twelve

months in any year, the additional attendance

bonus should be paid on following basis:

For earning attendance …

premium of 11 days.

bonus for 12 months

For earning attendance …

premium of 9 days.

bonus for 11 months

The premium should be paid over and above normal

attendance bonus.

AND

The same should be paid to him alongwith

monthly wages/salaries of January of following

year.

Demand No. 20: Relief in case of death and

Disability

In case any workman dies during the course of

his employment while at work or otherwise except

in case when death is on account of habitual

drinking or in case of any workman becomes

physically or mentally incapacitated for any reason/

reasons except on account of excessive drinks

during the course of his employment and cannot

therefore continue himself in employment his legal

heir/heirs shall in addition to all legal dues be

entitled to receive from the Company and the

workmen of the Plant to which the deceased or

disabled belongs Rs. 100/- (Rupees One hundred

only).

AND

Everyone of the workmen of the Plant on the

muster roll of the Company should be required to

contribute at above rate.

And Further

That in case of death there should be no

stoppage of work in any manner by any workman/

/workmen on account of demise of any workman.

However, all workmen of the Company including

managerial and technical staff should observe two

minutes silence at the place of work before closing

hours.

Demand No. 21: Medical Benefits

The Company should pay effective from October

1, 1995 every permanent workman for himself and

his family members for domiciliary treatment on

production of necessary bills upto Rs. 6,000/-

(Rupees Six thousand only) per annum.

Demand No. 22: Hospitalisation allowance

(i)

During the course of employment if any

workman or his family member is hospitalized

the Company should directly reimburse

hospital expenses to the maximum amount of

Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)

provided such a workman has put in service

of atleast three years and more as on December

31, 1995 or on December 31 of any subsequent

year. However, under special and extraordinary

circumstances the condition regarding three

years of service may be waived in concurrence

with the Union.

AND

The total reimbursement of hospitalization

expenses during full service of any workman should

be to the extent of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh

only).

(ii) The family referred to under (i) here-in-above

should mean and include spouse, dependent

children and dependent parents and no other

person.

(iii) The reimbursement of expenses referred to

under (i) should be for surgery, hospital

charges and expenses for other treatment

during period of hospitalization.

(iv) During the period of hospitalization of

workman himself the Company should pay him

100% wages.

Demand No. 23: Canteen meal subsidy

(a) The Company should provide to every

workmen working in shifts free tea/coffee,

snacks and milk/juice twice in a shift.

(b) The workman’s contribution to one meal

should be 10% of the total cost of meal

(excluding overheads, labour charges, etc.) and

the Company’s contribution should be 90%.

shift subsidized meal should be paid Rs. 35/-

per shift.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2122

(d)

Canteen facility should be only for the

employees and no outsider other than the

employees should be permitted to use the

canteen.

(e) Menu for the food should be done in joint

consultation with the Unions representative

and there should be review every three

months.

Breakfast Subsidy

The Company should pay to every workman

working in 1st shift breakfast subsidy of Rs. 15/-

per day of work.

Demand No. 24: Vehicle and Furniture Loan

Effective from the year 1995 Company should

provide loan for purchase of vehicle and furniture

to Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) at 4%

interest to be repaid in 48 monthly installments.

Demand No. 25: Housing loan

Effective from the year 1995 the Company should

give to permanent workmen housing loan upto 3.00

lakhs (Rupees Three lakhs only) or 100 months total

salary whichever is higher at 4% interest to be

deducted in the monthly installments, for purchase

of flat and house repairs.

Demand No. 26: Car loan

Effective from the year 1995 the Company should

give to every permanent workman who has put in

service of 5 years and more car loan of Rs. One lakh

at 4% interest and to be deducted in 120 equal

installments.

Demand No. 27: Retirement Benefit

The existing system of Retirement Benefit with

Life Insurance Corporation of India should continue

with modification in monthly contribution from the

Company and the workmen.

Year of confirmed

Percentage of wages/salaries

service

Company

Workmen

Upto 5 years of Service

1.5%

For service of 5 years and

1.5%

more but less than 10 years

For service of 10 years and

2.5%

more but less than 15 years

For service of 15 years and

Demand No. 28: Leave

The following provisions for leave should become

effective from the year 1995.

(A) Accident Leave

Employees covered under the State Insurance

Scheme if meets with an accident during the

course of his employment and while in employment

he should give accident leave on full wages/

/salaries for a maximum period of six months.

However, such workmen if already covered or

subsequently covered under E.S.I. Scheme should

be entitled to get benefits of accident leave on full

wages/salaries minus whatever is payable by the

E.S.I. to such workman.

(B) Casual Leave

Every workman should be given 15 days casual

leave in a year with a right to encash full or balance

of the leave at the end of the year. However, in case

anyone of the workmen does not avail of anyone

day’s casual leave in a year, such a workman should

be eligible to receive premium of ten days

additional wages/salaries over and above payment

for unused full casual leave.

(i) Every workmen covered under the Employees

State Insurance Scheme should be given 15 days

(fifteen days) sick leave on full wages/salaries each

year with a right to encash either full or balance

of it at the end of the year.

(ii) Every workman covered under the Employees

State Insurance Scheme or who shall not be covered

under the said scheme hereafter should be given

21 (twenty one) days sick leave in a year. Leave

should be allowed accumulation for 90 days.

AND

Sick leave standing to the credit of the workmen

should be encashable at the time of retirement/

termination/resignation from the service.

(D) Privilege Leave

The Company should give to every permanent

workman who has completed eleven months of

service 35 days privilege leave per year of service

with a right to accumulate the same for a period

of 180 days.

AND

The workman should be allowed to encash leave

to the extent of 75% of leave standing to his credit

provided he proceeds on minimum 5 days privilege

leave at the time of encashment.

AND

All public holidays, weekly offs should be excluded

from privilege leave.

AND

The workman should be allowed to take privilege

leave five times in a year.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2123

(E) Paternity Leave

Every workman should be given paternity leave

of six days on full wages/salaries twice in his

service at the time of his wife’s delivery provided

that he takes the same within fifteen days of the

child’s birth.

(F) Special Leave for Unforseen Circumstances

Every workman should be given six days special

leave on full wages/salaries on occasion of death

of father, mother or wife/husband or a child, twice

during his service.

(G) Honeymoon Leave

Every workman should be given once in his

service honeymoon leave of fifteen days on full pay

at the time of his first legal marriage.

(H) Service Leave

All confirmed workmen should be given service

leave of two days per year of service and the same

should be merged with casual leave.

(I) Special Leave For Natural Calamities, Bandh,

Etc.

Special leave should be given for bandhs and

civil commotions.

(J) It is demanded that if the Central Government

or State Government declares any National Holiday

or under the Negotiable Instrument Act or any

Industrial holiday, the same to be made applicable

to MRF employees.

Demand No. 29: Paid Holidays

The workmen should be given 18 days paid

holidays in a year.

AND

The holidays should be fixed by the Company in

consultation with the Union Committee members.

Demand No. 30: Transport

Company should extend bus service in all three

shifts on the following routes:

Sanvordem, Cortalim, Chandor and Bicholim.

Sanvordem bus to be extended upto Sanguem.

AND

Chandor bus to be extended upto Tilamol.

Mapusa bus route to be extended upto Siolim.

Bus service to be introduced on the following new

routes.

Valpoi, Cumbarjua, Usgao to Ganjem

Demand No. 31: Marriage Gift

A workman with service of 5 years and more in

the Company of December 31, 1995 or on December

31 of any subsequent year should be eligible to

receive from the Company a gift of Rs. 7000/-

(Rupees Seven thousand only) at the time of his

own marriage or marriage of his son/daughter.

AND

The said cash gift should be given only twice in

the Company’s service.

Demand No. 32: Overtime

Any workman required to work on paid holidays

should be paid overtime at the rate of two times

the wages and compensatory off. Any workman

required to work for a full day on a paid holiday

which falls on his first weekly off as per his duty

roaster should be paid double the wages for the

hours worked plus additional wages for 16 hours

being a paid holiday for the Company, in all 32

hours wages/salaries should be paid.

Demand No. 33: Promotion policy and up-gradation

The Company should follow the policy of

internal promotion up-gradation on basis of

seniority-cum-merits in consultation with the

Union as and when vacancies are caused or new

vacancies are created.

Demand No. 34: Working hours

The working hours of permanent workmen should

be revised as given here-in-below:

1st shift at 8.00 hours to 16.00 hours

Bus arrival at 7.45 hrs. Bus departure at 16.20 hrs.

IInd shift 16.00 hrs. to 00.00 hrs.

Bus arrival at 15.45 hrs. Bus departure at 00.20 hrs.

IIIrd shift 00.00 hrs. to 8.00 hrs.

Bus arrival at 23.45 hrs. Bus departure at 08.20 hrs.

The above shift timings include break for lunch/

dinner/breakfast/two sessions of tea/rest interval

and time for washing.

AND

The working hours of all permanent workmen

should be reduced to forty hours per week.

AND FURTHER

All permanent workmen should be given two days

off in a week.

Demand No. 35: Permanency

Workmen who have worked 120 days in aggregate

in any one of the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 should

be made permanent with effect from the date on

which they have completed the required period of

120 days and further they should be given

compensation for the loss caused to them by the

Company’s act of keeping them temporary.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2124

Demand No. 36: Accident on duty

In case of any kind of accident or injury caused

to the workmen in any grade in the factory

during duty hours such as sprains, muscle

pull, blunt injuries, he should be given 100%

wages/salaries for the month.

ii)

In case a workman meets with an accident

while performing their duty, he should be

given special leave for duration of treatment

and the Company should pay full cost for such

a treatment.

AND

In case of proper medical facilities are not

available in the State of Goa, medical treatment at

hospital outside the State should be given and full

reimbursement of expenses of the workmen should

be given and the Company should also pay for

transportation of the workman and his family

members accompanying him.

iii)

The company should provide well equipped

ambulance in the factory for

emergency,

preferably “TATA TRAVELLER”

iv)

In case of accident on duty workman’s family

members should be informed immediately and

transport facilities should be provided to

bring them to the hospital or to the factory.

In case of minor accidents when a workman

is under discomfort, transport should be

provided to reach him home.

vi)

Light job should be provided when advised

by the Doctor and he should continue to get

his normal wages/salaries.

vii)

In case of permanent disability and workmen

is not able to carry out

his normal duties

he should be given such job in the factory

where he can work.

AND

The company should continue to pay him his

normal wages/ salaries.

Demand No. 37: Accident Outside Factory Premises

In case a workman meets with an accident while

not on duty outside the factory premises he should

be given 100% wages for such time he is fully

recovered to resume duty, in any case not

exceeding six months and the Company should

reimburse full medical expenses.

Demand No. 38: Safety/protective wear

Effective from the year 1995, confirmed

workmen other than to whom safety shoes

are not provided should be given a sum of

Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards

payment of safety shoes to be paid in the

month of June every year.

RAINWEAR:

Every confirmed workman should be given Rs.

250/- every year towards purchase of umbrella in

the month of May.

AND

Workmen mentioned below will be eligible for

the above umbrella subsidy once in two years only.

Every alternate year they should be issued with a

raincoat and a pair of gumboots i.e. one year they

should get Rs. 250/- as umbrella subsidy and the

next year they should be issued with a raincoat

and a pair of gumboots.

1) Power house

2) Stores workmen

3) Cement house operator

4) Watchman/Drivers

5) Scrap removal man

6) Engineering helper

7) General Utility workmen

8) Electricians

9) Prop I Mechanics

10) Diesel Mechanics

11) Banbury Mechanics and Helpers

Demand No. 39: Sweaters

The Company should pay to every permanent

workmen Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only)

towards purchase of sweater every year.

Demand No. 40: Uniforms

Effective from the year 1996 the existing system of

providing uniforms should continue with

modifications as mentioned here-in-below:

i) Banbury/lab should be provided with two extra

sets of uniforms.

ii) Tyre building/curing should be provided with

two extra pants

iii) Band building/banner should be provided with

two extra shirts.

iv) Every permanent workman should be provided

with 4 pairs of socks.

Demand No. 41: Soap/towels

A) Effective from the year 1996 the existing practice

to give Lifebuoy soap of 150 gms. should be stopped

and the Company instead should give Lifebuoy

Gold 150 gms. Working in Banbury part of the shift

will be considered as one shift. In addition to the

above, workmen in Dip. Unit/Prop.I mechanics

should be given two extra soaps per month and to

all the other workmen one extra soap should be

given over and above the existing practice.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2125

B) Towels

Effective from the year 1996 the rate of giving

towels to the workmen should be increased to Rs.

350/- (Rupees Three hundred fifty only) per year.

For subsequent year 1997 and 1998 the rate should

be increased by Rs. 30/- every year.

Demand No. 42: Two Wheeler Tyre Tubes

Effective from the year 1995 every workman

should be given free of cost one set of tyres and

tubes for two wheelers and one set on subsidized

rate on seniority as mentioned here-in-below:

Years of service

Subsidy

Upto 5 years of service

25%

For 5 years to 10 years of service

35%

For 10 years to 15 years of service

50%

For 15 years of service and above

75%

The above should be given only once during

settlement period.

Demand No. 43: Subsidy towards credit Co-op.

society loan

Effective from the year 1996 the Company should

give interest free loans to be repaid in 48 equal

monthly installments. The loan is to be given as

per the Rules and Bye-laws of MRF Employees

Credit Co-op. Society.

Length of confirmed service

Interest free loan

as on 30.9.1995

Amount (Rs.)

Upto 5 years of service

10,000/-

5 years to 10 years of service

15,000/-

10 years to 15 years of service

25,000/-

15 years and above

35,000/-

Demand No. 44: Welfare Fund

Effective from the year 1996, every permanent

workman should be given the benefit of Welfare

Fund. Every workman should contribute Rs. 3/- per

month and the Company should contribute

Rs. 10/- per workman.

Demand No. 45: Thrift Scheme

The existing practice of Thrift Scheme to

continue with modifications in the rate of workmen/

management contribution.

Workman contribution

— Rs. 100/-

Management contribution

— Rs. 60/-

All confirmed workmen as of 01-10-1995 will be

covered by the Scheme.

Demand No. 46: Double Building

The existing practice of double building in Tyre

building department should be abolished effective

from 1.1.1996 as the existing practice is dangerous

to workman’s life.

Demand No. 47: Union Office

The Company should provide a well furnished

Union office within factory premises.

Demand No. 48: Continuous Running Departments

Effective from 1-10-1995 workmen who are

required to work during lunch break/dinner/

breakfast should be given allowance of Rs. 300/-

(Rupees Three hundred only) per month.

AND

The same should be considered for wages/

salaries for all purposes.

Demand No. 49: Job specifications

Effective from the year 1996 and every year

thereafter the Company should do job specification

with the Union representatives in the month of

December every year along with Classification and

Gradation.

Demand No. 50: General

In case of any changes in operation are required

from the workmen as a result of new technological

changes, new processes, innovations, installations

of new machinery, the increase in production due

to them, additional production benefit should be

given to the workmen after discussing the norms

with elected representative of the Union within a

period of three months, failing which both the

parties should resolve the same by resorting to

legal machinery provided under the law.

AND

Till such time the dispute is settled, the

Company should not make any changes in the

existing day-to-day working of the workmen.

Demand No. 51:

In order to pave the way for an amicable and

long terms settlement and that good relations and

peace, harmony and tranquility is maintained prior

to negotiations on the Charter of demands, the

Union demands that all suspensions of Union

members be withdrawn.

Demand No. 52: Period of settlement

The period of settlement should be for three

years effective from October 1, 1995 to 30th

September, 1998.

4. The points/issues proposed by the

management of MRF Ltd., Goa dated 7.2.1996 at

Exh. 252 includes at clause 5 - FDA/VDA-Part of

present FDA + VDA to be merged with service

weightage/Personal Pay–VDA will be fixed for

maximum level for each year and directly linked to

the individual’s performance and will be paid as a

percentage of the performance and at clause

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2126

14-7 Day Running for full Plant-To increase

productivity and generate more employment, the

full Plant will run on all 7 days of the week

following a staggered weekly off system for the

workman whenever required. 8 hours running of

department machinery possible will be

implemented.

5. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/33/97 and registered AD notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed the Claim Statement at Exh. 4 and

Party II(1) filed the Written statement at Exh. 8 and

Party II(2) filed the Written statement at Exh. 44.

Party I then filed the Rejoinder at Exh. 10.

6. In short, the case of Party I is that it is an

Union functioning within the establishment of

M/s. MRF Limited, Goa and represents practically

all the employees of the M/s. MRF Ltd., Goa. It is

also a sole collective bargaining agent on behalf of

the said workmen. M/s. MRF Limited is a Company

incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956.

The present dispute is in respect of workmen

employed in its factory at Usgao, Ponda, Goa. The

Company is engaged, inter-alia, in the business of

manufacture of tyres for all types of automobiles.

The Company is one of the pioneers in this field

and enjoys exquisite reputation in the said line of

business. The Company has several factories and

branches all over India and employs a very large

workforce. The Company has been making huge

profits. The Company employs approximately 950

permanent workmen, about 350 purported trainees

and nearly 300 odd contract labour. The Company

never had a fixed production norms/schedule for

the production of tyres and the officials of the

Company change the schedule as per their whims

and fancies.

7. It is also the case of Party I that ever since the

formation of the Union; the Company has been

attempting to disrupt unity of the workmen. Of

late, however, there has been a large scale

harassment and victimization of the Union office

bearers and its other members due to their

legitimate trade union activities. The harassment

includes, inter-alia, illegal changes in service

conditions, unjustified and unwarranted

suspensions, charge sheets on false and fabricated

charges of misconduct, refusal to negotiate in good

faith and imposition of unfair labour practices in

the guise of following management policy, illegal

termination after conducting sham and stage

managed enquiries with the help of professional

enquiry officers, illegal and unjustified demotions

by way of punishment, reduction in grades, illegal

and unjustified deductions in salaries, etc. There

are various instances of illegal termination being

resorted to by the Company on flimsy, false and

fabricated grounds. The said enquiry officers had

conducted the enquiries in an arbitrary manner

and in a blatant violation of principles of natural

justice.

8. It is also claimed that the last settlement

between the Union and the Company was entered

in or about 1991 and the same expired on

30.09.1995. The Union, thereafter served the

termination notice as per the provisions of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by its letter dated

29.07.1995 wherein it had stated that the aforesaid

settlement was expiring on 30.09.1995 and the

Union expressed its desire to raise a fresh Charter

of demands on the expiry of the said settlement

and that set of demands incorporating revision in

existing service conditions was given to the

Company by the Union under the cover of its letter

dated 15.02.1996. The Union, through its aforesaid

letter called upon the Company to come for

negotiation in order to settle the issue of Charter

of demands submitted by the Union on behalf of

the workmen.

9. The Company had also submitted its demand

by letter dated 7-2-1996 stating therein that it was

agreeable to discuss the Charter of demands

submitted on behalf of the workmen provided the

Union agreed to discuss the demands of the

Company also during discussions. The Union, in

order to facilitate smooth discussions and to create

cordial atmosphere for the discussions, agreed to

do so. Consequently, the first round of talks was

held on 23.5.1996 and the final rounds of talks were

held on 13.8.1996. However, as expected, no

concrete results could be obtained from the seven

meetings held during the period mentioned here-

in-above. The management had no intention of the

settling the demands of the workmen and therefore

the farce of negotiations were created by the

management just to bid time. All throughout the

meetings held, the management never discussed

the real issue pending before it, i.e. Charter of

demands submitted by the workmen and after

seeing the adamant attitude and the dilatory tactics

being adopted by the Company, the Union decided

to approach the Labour Commissioner by raising

the industrial dispute and in furtherance thereto,

the Union submitted its set of demands along with

the Justification statement to the Commissioner of

Labour under cover of its letter dated 29.8.1996

and requested the Commissioner to admit the said

demands in the conciliation.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2127

10. It is further claimed that thereafter the joint

discussions were held before the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour on 14.10.1996, 24.10.1996

and 28.10.1996. All throughout the conciliation

proceedings, the management adopted an adamant

stand to the reasonable and justified demands of

the workmen and refused to accept the said

demands as such, the meetings before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner ended in failure

on 28.10.1996 and the said Assistant Commissioner

of Labour forwarded the failure report to the State

Government. The existing conditions of service are

mostly fixed by the settlement dated 1.10.1991. The

said settlement was reached between the company

and the Goa MRF Employees Union. The said

settlement gave to the workmen small economic

benefits in wages and allowances. The Union by

its present Charter of demands wants to have

radical changes in existing conditions of service

commensurate with sound financial position of the

Company. The conditions of service have remained

unchanged for the past 2 years ever since the

settlement expired even though there has been a

drastic rise in the inflation rate and the prices of

all the essential commodities have sky-rocketed

making it impossible for the workmen to make both

ends meet. The workmen are living in a very poor

condition and above that the company keeps on

devising new means of depriving them of their

rightful share and new tactics for causing

harassment to them.

11. It is also claimed by Party I that the Company

has authorised capital of 10,00,000 equity shares of

Rs. 100/- each and its reserve and surplus position

as on 31st March, 1996 show the amount of Rs.

202,65,48 as against Rs. 1,60,39,54 as on 31st March,

1995. The Reserve and Surplus consists of

Debenture Redemption Reserve of Rs. 20,64,39

Investment Allowance Reserve of Rs. 1,30,99 and

General Reserve of Rs. 171,28,40. Its income in 1993

was Rs. 1010.52 crores; in 1994, Rs. 1139.71 crores;

in 1995, Rs 1564.52 crores and in 1996, Rs. 2029.21

crores and in view of huge profits made by the

company in the last four years and in view of the

facts that the company made large profits from its

inception and in view of the fact that its profits in

future would be much larger keeping in view the

present market scenario in respect of automobiles,

its profits are expected to rise further as the advent

of foreign automobile giants in the Indian market

continues unhindered, and also in view of the facts

that the Company has succeeded in having huge

reserves as surplus at the end of the financial year

1995-96, the company’s financial position can be

said to be excellent and can easily bear financial

burden that may be imposed upon the company in

case the demands referred to this Hon’ble Tribunal

are conceded. Hence, the reference.

12. In the Written statement, Party II(1) claimed

that there exists another Union which has its

membership a large segment of the work force

employed with the company and that the said

Union has been representing the interest of the

workmen employed by the company and the said

company and the said Union in fact have entered

into various settlements dealing with the condition

of service of the workmen employed by the company

at their factory. The settlement was arrived at with

the said Union in the respect of its Charter of

demands and that the said settlement was arrived

at on 4.3.1997 and in the course of and as a part of

the settlement, it was also agreed that in respect

of those demands in relation to which no

understanding could be arrived at, the said

demands shall be jointly referred to the

adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal and that

apart from the above settlement, settlements dated

9.9.97 and 14.10.97 were arrived at with the said

Union with respect to conditions of service of the

workmen.

13. The Party II(1) further claimed that Goa MRF

Employee’s Union came into existence in year 1987

and the Party II(1) has time and again arrived at

major as well as minor settlements with the said

Union and that the last settlement which has been

a major settlement dealing with the Charter of

demands was on 20.11.1991 and the said settlement

was in operation till 30.9.1995 till it was terminated

by the said Union. The Party II(1) always treated

their workmen with respect and dignity by offering

pay packet and revision of other condition of

service that the workmen are no way prejudiced in

maintaining a good standard of living and that

this desire of the Party II(1) and their practical and

pragmatic approach is reflected in the various

settlements that have been arrived at with the

workmen represented by their Union. The Party

II(1) vide their letter dated 7.2.1996 handed over to

the Party I a list of points/issues proposed by the

management of MRF Ltd., Goa to be taken up/

discussed and finalized along with the

negotiations on the forthcoming Charter of

demands of the workmen and that the management

proposed to settle all the issues detailed in

the above letter along with the Charter of

demands of the workmen in good faith and to

maintain the harmonious relations between the

two parties.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2128

14. The Party II(1) also claimed that in order to

create an atmosphere congenial for fruitful

discussions on the Charter of demands arranged

for the meetings and the first meeting took place

on 23.5.1996 where the modalities for the

discussions on the charter were worked out; that

subsequently meetings between the two parties

were held on 1.6.1996, 8.6.1996, 29.6.1996, 24.7.1996,

31.7.1996, 5.8.1996, 7.8.1996 and 13.8.1996; that the

Union refused to come to the negotiation table and

arrive at a fair settlement; that the Union refused

to even reconsider their demands which worked

out to about a whopping of Rs. 42,000/- per

workmen per month on a weighted average as

additional liability for the company to each

workmen; that the Party I had no intention of

arriving at a negotiated and a fair settlement and

instead of coming to the negotiating table opted

to raise the issues before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner who called for discussions on

29.8.1996, 7.10.1996, 14.10.1996, 24.10.1996 and

28.10.1996 and that inspite of the efforts made by

the Assistant Labour Commissioner, the Union

refused to reconsider their demands for the

weighted average increase of Rs. 42,000/- per month

per employee and under the above circumstances,

the Assistant Labour Commissioner had no option

but to close the discussions.

15. It is also claimed that the workmen are paid

on their performance on the job as classified by the

Industrial Engineering Department of the factory

and that no workman is classified into grades

according to their pay and that there is no such

thing as basic pay as the workmen are paid by the

piece rate system and are paid the piece rate

applicable to the job done by the individual

workmen and that any increase in wage structure

can be considered in the light of a total increase

in the wage packet and to the total increase in

liability of the company that may be incurred when

such wage increase is granted and that payment

of wages/salary if any for weekly off or loss in

production due to power failure, or supply of raw

material, machine breakdown, natural calamity, etc.

are covered by various legislations like Factories

Act, Payment of Wages Act and settlements and

that no further revision is called for as the

compensation given to the workmen in the event

of such unforeseen circumstance is far more than

the legal submissions and need not be dealt with

in this reference.

16. The wages paid to its workmen takes care of

any increase in the consumer price index number

and any rise in the prices of commodities and that

total wages paid to workmen are much higher than

what is paid to the workmen as compared to other

industrial units in the region. There is absolutely

no justification for the revision of wages as the

workmen are earning much higher wage than those

prevailing in the region; that dearness allowance

and other monthly allowances are paid in

accordance with the settlements arrived at

between the management and the Union and that

they are appreciably high; that the annual

increments are paid according to the settlements

arrived at each negotiation between the Union and

the management and they form a part of the total

wage packet which is arrived at a negotiated

settlement; that the delay in arriving at a

negotiated settlement lies purely on the Union for

adopting an adamant attitude and refusal to

negotiate in good faith; that neutralization has

taken care of by the fixed dearness allowance and

variable dearness allowance paid to the workmen

and hence, no further revision is called for.

17. The rise in Consumer Price Index has been

taken care of by neutralization of the fixed dearness

allowance and variable dearness allowance paid

to the workmen which is at a very high rate and

that in wage increase, it is a total wage package

and the total liability impact on the company that

should be considered when arriving at a wage

revision if any; that the profits of the company are

comparatively low when compared to its total

turnover; that in the present industrial scenario,

and given industrial policy and decline of the

automobile industry and entry of multinational tyre

companies, the future of the company cannot be

guaranteed nor can profits be ensured as alleged.

There has been a substantial revision of Fixed

Dearness Allowance and Variable Dearness

Allowance with effect from 1.10.1991, and while

revising consumer price index, the necessary facts

have been considered. There has been no material

change for revising or altering the existing

arrangement. The demands raised by Party I are

not fair and proper as the existing wages and other

terms and conditions of service are reasonable, fair

and adequate.

18. The Party II(1) by way of amendment also

claimed that the management has signed the

settlement dated 14.4.2001, 27.11.2006 and 6.4.2011

which have been accepted by majority of the

workmen and arrived at in a conciliation. The

settlement dated 14.4.2001 has been accepted by

468 workmen of the total of 892 workmen in

employment and hence binding in view of Section

18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore

all the workers of Party II(1) are bound by the terms

of the settlements. The Settlement dated 14.4.2001

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2129

and other settlements cover all the demands of the

Party I which are subject matter of the present

Charter of demands under adjudication and

therefore the said settlements are fair, legal and

proper and binding on rest of the workmen and

therefore award may be passed in terms of the said

settlements.

19. The Party II(2) in its written statement has

stated that vide their letter dated 29.7.1995

terminated the settlement dated 20.11.1991 and

submitted a Charter of demands dated 15.2.1996

through its General Secretary. The subject matter

of Charter of demands was thereafter raised by the

Union before the Conciliation Officer and the

conciliation deemed failed and the matter was

referred to Industrial Tribunal. The GMU signed its

settlement from 1.10.1987 to 30.9.1991 based on

past practices followed in previous settlements. It

is also claimed that in Aug. 1996, a section of the

workforce unhappy with the functioning of GMEU

organized themselves into a new Union named

GMU and submitted a Charter of demands dated

11.9.1996 which finally culminated into a

settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section

18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act which was signed

by GMU and the said settlement was operative

from 1.10.1995 to 30.09.1998 and from 1.10.1998 to

30.09.2002 and the benefits of the said settlement

were open to be extended to all the workmen

irrespective of affiliation to the Union subject to

specified terms and the same were accepted by

the majority of workmen. Thereafter, the Co-

ordination committee executed other settlements

dated 13.11.2002, 27.11.2006 and 6.4.2011 covering

all the demands which are subject matter of the

present Charter of demands under adjudication and

therefore no dispute award may be passed.

20. In the rejoinder, the Party I denied the case

put forth by Party II(1) in written statement at

Exh. 10. The Party I also filed a rejoinder to the

written statement of Party II(2) at Exh. 47 denying

its case.

21. Issues framed at Exh. 12 are as follows:

Whether the Party I proves that the demands

served on the Party II are legal and justified?

Whether the Party I proves that the demands

are liable to be allowed w.e.f. 1.10.95?

Whether the Party II proves that its demands

are legal and justified?

Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?

Whether the Party II is entitled to any relief?

What Award?

22. It is a matter of record that an additional

issue was framed on 5.7.1999 at Exh. 18. It is as

follows:

3A) Whether the Party I proves that the

reference of the dispute pertaining to the

Charter of demands raised by the Party II is

illegal and untenable at law?

23. It is also a matter of record that an additional

issue was framed on 18.7.2013 at Exh. 57. It is as

follows:

3B) Whether the Party II(1) proves that the

Settlements dated 14.4.01, 30.11.02, 27.11.06

and 6.4.2011 having been accepted by the

majority are binding on rest of the workmen

and as they cover all the demands which

are subject matter of the present Charter of

demands under adjudication, the dispute

does not survive?

24. It is also a matter of record that the

additional issue No. 3B which was framed on

18.7.2013 at Exh. 57 was re-cast on 25.7.13 at

Exh. 60. It is as follows:

3B) Whether the Party II(1) proves that the

Settlements dated 14.4.01, 30.11.02, 27.11.06

and 6.4.2011 having been accepted by the

majority are binding on rest of the workmen

and as they cover all the demands which

are subject matter of the present Charter of

demands under adjudication, the dispute

does not survive?

25. It is a matter of record that in the Civil

Appeal No. 1007 of 2004, the Hon’ble Apex Court

by Order dated 7.3.2013 issued directions to the

Tribunal to hear and decide Ref. No. 33/97 and

C-IT No. 4/98 as early as possible, but not later

than six months. It is also a matter of record that

the C-IT/4/98 was disposed of by Award dated

15.03.2017. The Hon’ble Apex Court however,

extended time till 31st December, 2017 to comply

with the order dated 7.3.2013.

26. The Party I examined Shri Rohidas Naik as

their first witness and produced on record his

affidavit-in-evidence along with a copy of letter

dated 15.2.96 with COD at Exh. 112 colly, a copy of

Settlement dated 28.7.81 at Exh. 113, a copy of

Settlement dated 18.01.88 at Exh. 114, a copy of

Settlement dated 2.5.84 at Exh. 115, a copy of

Settlement dated 20.11.91 at Exh. 116, a copy of

notice dated 4.8.98 by General Manager of Party

II(1) at Exh. 117, a copy of Standing Orders of Party

II(1) at Exh. 118, a copy of Settlement dated 4.3.97

at Exh. 119, a copy of Settlement dated 9.9.97 at

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2130

Exh. 120, a copy of Settlement dated 14.10.1997 at

Exh. 121, copies of Notices dated 30.3.96, 1.10.97

and 27.7.98 at Exh. 122 colly, copies of Annual

Reports for the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98

at Exh. 123 colly, copies of letter of extension of

training period dated 1.11.95, 1.2.96, 1.5.96, 1.8.96

and 30.10.97 at 124 colly, a copy of letter dated

20.9.98 by Shri Savio Furtado at Exh. 125, a copy of

letter dated 10.2.01 by GMEU alongwith a list of

Protected workmen and AD cards at Exh. 126 colly,

a copy of letter dated 15.2.2002 alongwith list of

Protected workmen and AD card at Exh. 127 colly,

a copy of letter dated 12.11.02 by MRF at Exh. 128,

a copy of Reply dated 15.11.02 by MRF at Exh. 129

and a copy of letter dated 28.12.02 at Exh. 130.

27. Shri Rohidas Naik also produced on record

a copy of letter dated 30.12.2002 at Exh. 131, a copy

of letter dated 3.10.2002 of GMEU alongwith

Annexure at Exh. 132 colly., a copy of letter dated

13.1.2003 at Exh. 133, a copy of letter dated 3.2.2007

alongwith copy of resolution dated 26.1.03 and copy

of AD card at Exh. 134 colly, a copy of notice dated

31.11.02 at Exh. 135, a copy of the Minutes of

proceedings before ALC, Ponda dated 8.11.02 at

Exh. 136, a copy of minutes of proceedings before

ALC, Ponda, dated 15.11.2002 at Exh. 137, a copy of

Failure Report dated 18.12.02 at Exh. 138, a copy of

letter dated 26.4.2011 addressed to MRF along with

the copy of the postal slip at Exh. 139 colly, a copy

of letter dated 25.4.2011 to the Labour

Commissioner at Exh. 140, a copy of letter dated

17.2.2003 to MRF alongwith copy of resolution

dated 20.1.2003 alongwith AD card at Exh. 141

colly, a copy of letter dated 18.2.2005 alongwith

copy of AD card at Exh. 142 colly, a copy of notice

dated 31.11.2002 at Exh. 143, a copy of notice dated

16.6.2003 in IT/18/03 at Exh. 144 and a copy of

Order dated 31.3.03 referring dispute of absorption

and regularization of canteen workmen at Exh. 145.

28. Shri Rohidas Naik also produced a copy of

the Order dated 20.10.05 of Hon’ble High Court in

W.P. No. 237/05 at Exh. 146, a copy of Oral Judgment

dated 23.2.2004 of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.

No. 283/99 at Exh. 147, a copy of letter dated

16.4.2004 alongwith the copy of the postal slip at

Exh. 148 colly, a copy of letter dated 5.5.2004 to

ALC, Ponda, along with copy of justification

statement at Exh. 149 colly, a copy of letter dated

4.6.2004 by ALC, Ponda to MRF at Exh. 150, a copy

of letter dated 12.6.2004 by MRF to ALC, Ponda at

Exh. 151, a copy of letter dated 16.6.2004 by ALC,

Ponda at Exh. 152, a copy of letter dated 22.6.2004

alongwith the attendance list of the members to

ALC, Ponda at Exh. 153 colly, a copy of letter dated

5.7.2004 by ALC, Ponda to MRF at Exh. 154, a copy

of letter dated 30.7.2004 by MRF to ALC, Ponda at

Exh. 155, a copy of letter dated 19.8.2004 to ALC,

Ponda at Exh. 156, a copy of Failure Report dated

18.3.2005 at Exh. 157, a copy of Minutes of

conciliation proceedings dated 19.8.2004 at Exh.

158, a copy of Order of Reference dated 22.4.2006

by Government of Goa at Exh. 159, and a copy of

Notice in IT/6/07 at Exh. 160.

29. Shri Rohidas Naik also produced on record a

copy of letter dated 11.8.2003 to MRF at Exh. 161,

a copy of letter dated 20.8.2003 to ALC, Ponda at

Exh. 162, a copy of letter dated 3.10.2003 by ALC,

Ponda to MRF at Exh. 163, a copy of letter dated

10.10.2003 by ALC, Ponda to MRF at Exh. 164, a

copy of Minutes of conciliation proceedings dated

21.10.2003 at Exh. 165, a copy of letter dated

5.9.2003 by ALC, Ponda to MRF at Exh. 166, a copy

of Reference Order dated 25.5.2004 by Government

of Goa at Exh. 167, a copy of notice in IT/17/04 at

Exh.168, a copy of order dated 9.2.2004 of Hon’ble

Apex Court in SLP No. 853/2004 at Exh.169, a copy

of letter dated 2.3.2003 by ALC to MRF at Exh.170,

a copy of letter dated 11.3.2003 by MRF to ALC at

Exh.171, a copy of letter dated 11.4.2003 by ALC to

GMEU at Exh.172, a copy of letter dated 29.4.2003

by GMEU to ALC at Exh. 173, a copy of notice

dated 28.9.1998 by GMEU at Exh.174, a copy of

attendance register of General Body Meeting held

on 2.10.1998 at Exh. 175, a copy of letter dated

8.10.1998 by GMEU at Exh. 176, a copy of notice

dated 19.1.1999 by GMEU at Exh.177, a copy of

letter dated 21.1.1999 by Savio Furtado to GMEU at

Exh.178, a copy of Attendance register of General

Body Meeting held on 26.1.1999 at Exh.179 and a

copy of letter dated 28.1.1999 by GMEU at Exh.180.

30. Shri Rohidas Naik also produced on record

a copy of notice dated 13.12.1999 by GMEU at

Exh.181, a copy of Attendance register of Extra-

Ordinary General Body Meeting held on 19.12.1999

at Exh.182, a copy of letter dated 19.6.2013 by GMEU

at Exh.183 colly, a copy of covering letter dated

26.8.2013 by GMEU at Exh.184, a copy of resignation

letter dated 17.12.1999 by Agnelo Andrade to

GMEU at Exh.185, a copy of letter dated 28.1.1999

by GMEU at Exh.186, a copy of letter dated 6.2.2001

at Exh.187, a copy of letter dated 29.1.2003 by GMEU

at Exh. 188, a copy of letter dated 31.1.2005 along

with copy of AD card by GMEU at Exh.189 colly, a

copy of letter dated 29.1.2007 by GMEU at Exh.190

colly, a copy of letter dated 30.1.2009 by GMEU at

Exh.191 colly, a copy of letter dated 29.1.2011 by

GMEU at Exh.192 colly, a copy of letter dated

2.2.2013 by GMEU at Exh.193 colly, a copy of letter

dated 14.2.2009 by GMEU to MRF at Exh. 194 colly,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2131

a copy of letter dated 7.11.2000 by GMEU to MRF

at Exh.195 colly, a copy of letter dated 2.12.2000 by

GMEU to MRF along with AD card at Exh.196 colly,

a copy of letter dated 11.11.2000 by GMEU to MRF

at Exh.197, a copy of letter dated 16.11.2000 by

MRF along with copy of AD card and postal slip at

Exh. 204 colly, and a copy of letter dated 18.5.2000

to MRF along with copy of AD card and postal slip

at Exh. 205 colly.

31. Shri Rohidas Naik also produced on record a

copy of salary slip of Shri Shantaram Gaude and

Shri Namdev Shetye for the month of September,

2013 at Exh. 206 colly, a copy of settlement of

Syngenta India Ltd. dated 11.4.2013 at Exh.207, a

copy of salary certificate of Shri Rohidas Naik dated

7.3.1998 at Exh.208, copies of settlements of Zuari

Agro Chemicals Ltd. dated 25.4.1994 at Exh.209,

dated 5.11.1997 at Exh. 210, dated 19.5.2000 at

Exh.211, dated 16.1.2003 at Exh.212, dated 24.3.2006

at Exh.213, dated 30.11.2009 at Exh.214, copies of

three settlements of Merck Ltd. dated 26.7.2006,

3.11.2009 and 3.5.2013 respectively at Exh. 215 colly,

copies of three settlements of MRF dated 31.8.2006,

15.10.2009 and 24.8.2013 respectively at Exh.216

colly, a copy of notice dated 1.8.1998 displayed on

the notice board by MRF at Exh.218, a copy of

letter dated 3.9.1998 by workmen to MRF along

with copy of AD card at Exh.219 colly, a copy of

letter dated 3.8.1998 to MRF at Exh. 220, a copy of

letter dated 27.5.1998 by MRF to GMEU along with

the copy of letter dated 12.5.1998 to MRF at Exh.221

colly, a copy of letter dated 28.4.1998 to MRF at

Exh.222, a copy of letter dated 13.2.1998 by the

workers to MRF at Exh.223, a copy of letter dated

18.7.1998 at Exh.224, a copy of letter dated

11.2.1998 to MRF at Exh.225, a copy of letter dated

19.1.1998 to MRF at Exh.226 and a copy of floor

plan of MRF showing the machinery in the year

1997 at Exh.227.

32. Shri Rohidas Naik also produced on record

a copy of floor plan of MRF showing the machinery

in the year 2013 at Exh.228, a copy of application

along with order dated 7.8.2002 at Exh.229, a copy

of letter dated 20.9.1997 to MRF at Exh.230, a copy

of letter dated 20.8.1997 by Savio Furtado to MRF

at Exh.231, a copy of warning letter dated 8.10.1997

at Exh.232, a copy of letter dated 11.12.1997 to

MRF at Exh.233, a copy of letter dated 27.7.1997 to

MRF at Exh.234, a copy of letter dated 4.7.1997 to

MRF at Exh.235, a copy of reply dated 19.8.1997 to

MRF at Exh.236, a copy of letter dated 28.4.1997 to

MRF at Exh.237, a copy of shift notice dated

28.11.1988 of MRF at Exh.238, a copy of letter dated

30.12.2008 to MRF at Exh.239, a copy of letter dated

4.2.2009 to MRF at Exh.240, a copy of letter dated

29.8.1996 at Exh.241, a copy of letter dated 20.1.1997

at Exh.242, a copy of notice dated 3.9.1997 by MRF

at Exh.243, a copy of notice dated 19.8.1997 by

MRF at Exh.244, a copy of notice dated 7.10.1997

by MRF and reply dated 11.10.1997 at Exh.245 colly,

a copy of letter dated 28.4.1997 to MRF at Exh.246,

a copy of order dated 3.2.1986 along with

enclosures at Exh.247 colly, a copy of letter dated

17.10.1997 to MRF at Exh. 248, a copy of letter

dated 6.6.1997 to MRF at Exh. 249, a copy of Official

Gazette dated 25.9.2003 at Exh.250, a copy of notice

dated 29.7.1995 of termination of settlement dated

20.11.1991 to MRF at Exh.251, a copy of letter dated

7.2.1996 by MRF to GMEU at Exh.252, a copy of

letter dated 29.8.1996 to Labour Commissioner

along with the copy of justification statement at

Exh.253 colly, a copy of letter dated 15.11.1996 by

Labour Commissioner to GMEU at Exh. 254 and a

copy of oral order dated 9.6.1997 by Hon’ble High

Court in Writ Petition No.135/97 at Exh. 255.

33. Shri Rohidas Naik also produced on record a

copy of letter dated 8.1.2000 to MMS at Exh.257, a

copy of letter dated 23.12.1999 by MMS to MRF at

Exh.258, a copy of letter dated 30.12.1999 by MMS

to MRF at Exh.259, a copy of order dated 8.3.2006

in Civil Appeal No.(8) 1007/2004 at Exh.260, a copy

of order dated 2.5.2003 in W.P. No.106/99 at Exh.261,

a copy of order dated 12.8.2003 in LPA No.5/03 at

Exh.262, a copy of W.P. No. 283/99 at Exh.263, a

copy of order dated 21.2.2004 in RCS No.8/99/D at

Exh.264, a copy of Annual Returns filed by GMEU

for the years from 1999 to 2012 at Exh.265 colly, a

copy of Resolution/authorization of General Body

at Exh.266, Copies of attendance register of Annual

General Meetings of GMEU from 1999 to 26.1.2011

at Exh.267 colly, a copy of order dated 11.10.2002

in RCS No. 8/99/D at Exh.268, a copy of order dated

7.3.2013 by Hon’ble Apex Court at Exh.269, a copy

of letter dated 19.9.1996 by MRF to ALC Exh.270,

a copy of letter dated 7.10.1996 by ALC to MRF and

GMEU at Exh.271, a copy of letter dated 10.10.1996

by MRF to ALC at Exh.272, a copy of Minutes of

conciliation proceedings dated 14.10.1996 at

Exh.273, a copy of letter dated 17.10.1996 at Exh.274,

a copy of Minutes of conciliation proceedings dated

24.10.1996 at Exh.275, a copy of Minutes of

conciliation dated 28.10.1996 at Exh.276, a copy of

letter dated 29.10.1996 at Exh.277, a copy of letter

dated 15.11.1996 by Labour Commissioner at

Exh.278, a copy of letter dated 14.1.1997 to GMEU

at Exh.279, a copy of letter dated 11.2.1997 by

Labour Commissioner to MRF and GMEU at Exh.280,

a copy of letter dated 21.2.1997 by Labour

Commissioner to MRF and GMEU at Exh.281.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2132

34. Shri Rohidas Naik also produced on record a

copy of application dated 30.7.2007 under RTI at

Exh. 282, a copy of letter dated 13.8.2007 at Exh.283,

a copy of letter dated 21.8.2007 at Exh.284, a copy

of letter dated 29.10.1996 at Exh. 285, a copy of

letter dated 6.9.2007 by PIO along with copy of

outward register at Exh. 286 colly, a copy of

application dated 7.1.2008 at Exh.287, a copy of

Award dated 28.1.2005 at Exh. 288, a copy of

Notification at Exh. 289, a copy of Order dated

25.2.2013 at Exh. 290, a copy of W.P. No. 208/2013 at

Exh.291, a copy of Order dated 26.3.2013 in W.P. No.

208/13 at Exh. 292, a copy of Settlement dated

12.5.2004 of Tiruvottiyur Unit at Exh. 293, a copy of

letter dated 5.8.2009 at Exh.294, a copy of letter

dated 10.10.2009 by GMU at Exh. 295, a copy of

letter dated 27.10.2009 at Exh.296, a copy of letter

dated 15.11.2010 at Exh.297, a copy of Complaint

filed against MRF at Exh.298, a copy of letter dated

23.1.2003 at Exh. 299, a copy of letter dated 18.2.03

by GMEU at Exh. 300, a copy of the list/names of

workers at Exh. 301, a copy of letter dated 26.4.2011

to MRF alongwith the annexures at Exh.302 colly,

a copy of letter dated 18.6.11 of GMEU at Exh.303,

Copies of salary slips at Exh.304-colly, Copies of

salary slips at Exh. 305 colly, Copies of bonus slips

of Merck Ltd. for the year 1996 to 2000 at Exh.306

colly, Copies of Bye-laws of GMEU alongwith the

amendment at Exh. 307 colly, Copies of AICPI from

1991 to 1998 and 1997 to 2014 at Exh.308 colly, a

copy of revised list of tyre sizes from the year 1995

to 2013 at Exh.309 and a copy of letter dated 10/

12.9.96 by ALC at Exh. 313.

35. In view of Order dated 1.12.2014 granting

amendment to the additional rejoinder, Shri

Rohidas Naik produced on record an additional

affidavit along with a copy of the statement from

the accounts of Party II(1)/FA transactions Disp. at

Exh.326, a copy of the form of an application for

advance payment at Exh.327, a copy of the payment

advice dated 31.05.2011 to Devendra Naik at

Exh.328, a copy of pay slip of Devendra Naik for the

month of May, 2011 at Exh.329, a copy of the pass

book entries of Mukund Gawde at Exh.330, a copy

of pay slip of Mukund Gawde for the month of May,

2011 at Exh.331, a copy of letter dated 5.9.1996 by

GMEU at Exh.332, a copy of letter dated 9.9.1996

by MRF at Exh.333, a copy of minutes of meeting

dated 25.03.94 at Exh.334, a copy of judgment dated

12.08.14 at Exh.335, a copy of judgment and decree

in R.C.S. No.8/99/C at Exh.336, a copy of list of

omitted/dismissed workmen at Exh.338, a copy of

list of retired workmen of MRF Ltd. at Exh.339, a

copy of Order of Reference dated 3.1.2001 at Exh.

342, a copy of letter dated 30.12.1999 at Exh. 343,

a copy of minutes of General Body Meeting dated

26.1.2013 at Exh.345, a copy of resolution dated

26.1.2013 at Exh.346, a copy of another resolution

dated 26.1.2013 at Exh. 347, a copy of list of

members at Exh. 348 and a copy of the Settlement

dated 14.4.2001 at Exh.349.

36. The Party I also examined Shri Vijay B. Saxena

as second witness and produced on record his

affidavit-in-evidence alongwith the copies of AICPI

at Exh. 385 colly. Party I also examined Shri Vaibhav

Korgaokar as third witness and produced on record

an affidavit-in-evidence alongwith a copy of

Audited Balance Sheet including Profit and Loss

Account from the years 1990 to 2000 at Exh.389

colly, a copy of Settlement dated 16.03.1991 at Exh.

390, a copy of Settlement signed on 6.10.1994 at

Exh. 391, a copy of Settlement signed on 7.5.1998

at Exh. 392 and a copy of the salary structure from

1991 to 1998 at Exh. 393. The Party I also examined

Shri Vaman Krishna Naik as fourth witness and

produced on record an affidavit-in-evidence

alongwith the copies of Settlements dated

30.11.2009, 24.3.2006, 16.1.2003, 19.5.2000, 5.11.1997

and 22.6.1994 of Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. at Exh.

396 to Exh. 401 and copies of Annual Reports for

the year 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-

94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-

2000 at Exh. 402 to 412, a copy of Memorandum of

Settlement dated 25.4.1994 between M/s. Zuari

Agro Chemicals Ltd. and its workmen represented

by Zuari Agro Chemicals Employees’ Union at Exh.

419. Party I also examined Shri Arvind Nair as fifth

witness who filed affidavit-in-evidence along with

Annexures.

37. On the other hand, the Party II(1) examined

Shri T. M. Kurian as first witness and produced on

record his affidavit-in-evidence along with a copy

of list of 468 workmen who have accepted the

settlement dated 14.04.2001 at Exh. 436, copies of

individual undertakings of 468 workmen at Exh.

437 colly., a copy of list of 890 confirmed workmen

at Exh. 438, a copy of letter dated 24.9.2013 along

with Annexure I by Dy. Labour Commissioner and

PIO to MRF Ltd., at Exh. 439 colly, a copy of Power

of Attorney given by Company Secretary to Shri

Kurian in his favour at Exh.440, a copy of letter

dated 29.6.1999 addressed to Labour Commissioner,

Panaji at Exh.441, copies of Muster rolls for the

month of March, 2001, April, 2001 and May 2001 at

Exh. 442 colly, copies of pay slips for the month of

March 2001, April, 2001 and May, 2001 of the

workmen at Exh.443 colly, a copy of Resolution

dated 4.3.1997 at Exh.444, a copy of letter dated

7.1.2000 at Exh.445, a copy of letter dated 20.3.2000

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2133

at Exh.446, a copy of letter dated 11.5.2000 at

Exh.447, a copy of letter dated 22.5.2000 at Exh.448,

a copy of list of workmen prepared by the HR-

Department of the Company at Exh.449, a copy of

letter dated 25.4.2001 registering settlement dated

14.4.2001 at Exh.450.

38. Shri T. M. Kurian for Party II(1) also produced

on record a copy of notice dated 16.04.2001 at

Exh.451, a copy of Constitution, Rules of Union and

the Registration Certificate at Exh.452 colly, a

printed booklet of settlement dated 14.4.2001 at

Exh.453, a copy of list of Party I Union as on 1.9.2016

prepared by the HR-Department of the Company at

Exh.454, a copy of letter dated 11.9.1996 along with

Charter of demands at Exh.455 colly, a copy of Trust

Deed dated 29.1.1993 at Exh. 459, a copy of the

Award dated 15.3.2017 passed in C-IT/4/98 at Exh.

461, a copy of deposition of the witness in C-IT/4/

98 at Exh. 474, a copy of list of workmen who are

still covered by the Pension Scheme at Exh. 478, a

copy of All India Consumer Price Index (AICPI)

showing the dearness allowance to be paid based

upon rise in points in the said index (DA Points) at

Exh. 479, copies of month-wise index from Jan.,

1995 to Dec. 1998 at Exh. 485, copies of notices

dated 18.6.1993, 21.12.1994 and 28.7.1994

respectively signed by Claudio Fernandes, HR-

Manager and Jorge Ninan, Plant HR-Manager at

Exh. 486 colly, a copy of transaction check list for

the month ending 30.9.99 at Exh. 487.

39. Party II(1) also examined Shri Michael Gracias

as second witness and produced on record his

affidavit-in-evidence alongwith the copies of

(1) Details of arrears calculation of Mr. Savio

Furtado, Mr. John Fernandes and Mr. Pedro

Fernandes; (2) Details of arrears paid to GMU;

(3) Payment voucher dated 21.9.1999 made to Mr.

Savio Furtado; (4) Payment advice dated 21.9.1999

made to Mr. Savio Furtado; (5) Inter office

Memorandum dated 18.9.1999 from HR Department

to Accounts Department; (6) Payment voucher

dated 28.10.1999 made to Mr. Savio Furtado and

(7) Payment advice dated 28.10.1999 made to

Mr. Savio Furtado at Exh. 495 colly. The Party II(1)

also examined Shri Govind Mapari as their third

witness and produced on record his affidavit-in-

-evidence alongwith a copy of chart showing

comparative benefits under settlements dated

18.1.98, 20.11.91 and 14.4.2001 respectively at

Exh. 499.

40. The Party II(2) has not led any evidence in

support of its case, although they have cross

examined the witnesses of Party I and Party II(1).

41. Heard arguments. Notes of Written

arguments came to be placed on record by the

Party I, Party II(1) and Party II(2).

42. My answers to the above issues are as follows:

1. Issue No. 1

… In the Affirmative.

2. Issue No. 2

… Partly in the Affirmative.

3. Issue No. 3

… In the Negative.

4. Issue No. 4

… As per Final order.

5. Issue No. 5

… As per Final order.

6. Issue No. 6

… As per Final order.

Additional issues

1) Issue No. 3A … In the Affirmative.

2) Issue No. 3B

… In the Negative.

REASONS

Issues No. 1 and 2:

Issues No. 1 and 2 are taken up for discussion

together as they are inter-related pertaining to

demands raised by Party I.

43. Ld. Adv. Shri V. Menezes for Party I has

submitted that the present reference is concerned

with the demands of the workmen of Usgao Plant

at Ponda and ever since formation of the Union, the

company has been attempting to disrupt the unity

of the workmen, the harassment includes illegal

changes in service conditions, unjustified and

unwarranted suspensions refusal to negotiate in

good faith and imposition of unfair labour practices,

illegal demotions, reduction of grades, etc. The last

settlement between the union and the company

was entered on 20.11.1991 which expired on

30.9.1995. The Party I raised a set of demands

incorporating revision in existing service

conditions; however no concrete result could be

obtained from the meetings. The Party I wants to

have radical changes in existing conditions of

service commensurate with sound financial

position of the company and in support thereof, he

relied upon the cases of (i) Kamani Metals and

Alloys, vs. Their workmen, 1967 (II) LLJ-55; (ii)

Remington Rand of India, vs Their workmen,

1968 (I) LLJ-542; (iii) Bridge and Roof Co.(India),

Ltd., vs. Union of India, 1962 (II) LLJ 490; (iv) S.

& A. S. Mills’ Asscn. vs Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR

1972 SC 2273; (v) Jaihind Roadways vs. Mah.

Rajya Mathadi Transport & G. K. Union & Ors.,

2005 (III) CLR-858; (vi) Workmen of I.H.P.C.L. vs.

I.H.P.C.L., 1986 (I)LLJ-520, (vii) Unichem

Laboratories Ltd. vs. The Workmen, 1972 (I)

LLJ-576, (viii) A. M. Assocn. Etc. vs. Textile Labour

Assocn. 1966 SC 497 and (ix) Mukand Ltd. vs.

Mukand Kamgar Union, 2000 (I) CLR 694.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2134

44. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for

Party II(1) has submitted that all the demands raised

by Party I in the Charter of demands dated 15.2.1996

are covered and addressed by Settlement dated

14.4.2001 and has also given additional benefits

which were accepted by large majority of workers.

The Charter of demands raised by Party I have not

been justified by producing wage structure of the

units which are in the same line of business like JK

Tyres, Apollo Tyres, etc. as burden of proving the

Charter of demands is on them. The companies

like, Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. and Merck Ltd. are

not comparable concerns with MRF for the purpose

of adjudication nor Party I brought on record the

extent of business carried on by the concerns, the

capital invested by them, the profits made by them,

etc. for the purpose of comparison and therefore

the Charter of demands raised by Party I are

unjustified and cannot be granted. In support of

his contention, he relied upon the cases of (i) Sarva

Shramik Sangh vs. V.V.F. Limited and Anr., 2002

(II) LLJ 434; (ii) National Engineering Industries

Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 1 SCC 371;

(iii) Herbertsons Ltd. vs. The Workmen of

Herbertsons Ltd., 1977 LAB. I.C. 162;

(iv) Workmen of Jasob and Co. vs. Jacob & Co.,

1964 (I) LLJ 451; (v) Novex Dry Cleaners vs. its

Workmen, 1962 (I) LLJ 271; (vi) French Motor

Car Company vs. Their Workmen, 1962 (II) LLJ

744 and (vii) Workmen of Balmer Lawrie & Co.

vs. Balmer Lawrie Co. Ltd., 1964 (I) LLJ 380.

45. There also cannot be any dispute that for the

applicability of the principles of industry-cum-

region, the revision of wage structure cannot be

done without considering the company’s capacity

to bear the financial burden resulting from such

revision of wages as held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Novex Dry Cleaners, supra. It is a very

relevant and important factor to be considered

before deciding about the revision of wage

structure pursuant to the demand for increase in

wages by the employees of a company. The Tribunal

has to assess the additional liability which will be

imposed upon the employer by the new wage

structure and try to anticipate whether the

employer would be able to bear the same for a

reasonably sufficient period in future, otherwise

the whole exercise by the Tribunal could result in

futility. In Greaves Cotton & Co. & Ors. vs. Their

Workmen, AIR 1964 SC 689, it was clarified that

while applying the industry-cum-region formula,

the stress should be on the industry part if there

are large number of concerns in the same region

carrying on the same industry, as in such cases the

production costs being equal, likewise would be

the competition and therefore the wages should

be fixed on the basis of the comparable industry,

viz. the industry of same kind. For that purpose,

the wage scale prevalent in the comparable

concerns carrying on the same industry in the

region is to be considered. However, where the

number of industries of the same kind in a

particular region is small, it is the region part of

the industry-cum-region formula which assumes

importance.

46. The Apex Court in the case of A. M. Assocn.

etc, supra has held that the Tribunal dealing with

the problem of wage fixation or wage revision must

carefully examine the financial position of the

employer and in that regard try to ascertain the

progress of the industry in question, its prospects

in future, whether the industry is making profit,

and if so, the extent of profits, the nature of demand

which the industry expects to secure and the

financial burden that the industry will have to

bear consequent to wage revision, including its

gradual increase which the employer may have to

face; these and similar other considerations are to

be carefully weighed before the proper wage

structure is reasonably considered in an industrial

adjudication. It therefore reveals from the decisions,

referred to above, that two principal factors which

must weigh while fixing or revising wage scales

and grades are: (1) Now the wages prevailing in

the establishment in question compare with those

given to the workmen of similar grade and scale by

similar establishments in the same industry or in

their absence in similar establishments in other

industries in the region and (2) what wage scales

the establishment in question can pay without any

undue strain on its financial resources. The same

principles substantially apply when fixing or

revising the dearness allowance as reiterated in

the case of M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd, supra.

47. In Kamani Metals and Alloys, Ltd. supra, it

was held that the fixation or revision of scales of

wages, pay, dearness allowance must not be out of

tune with the wages, etc. prevalent in the industry

or region, and that is always desirable so that unfair

competition may not result between an

establishment and another and diversity in wages

may lead to industrial unrest. In attempting to

compare one unit with another, care must be taken

that units differently placed or circumstanced are

not considered as guides, without making adequate

allowance for the differences and the same is true

when the regional levels of wages are considered

and compared. In general words, comparable units

may be compared but not units which are

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2135

dissimilar. While disparity in wages in industrial

concerns similarly placed leads to discontent,

attempting to level up wages without making

sufficient allowances for differences, leads to

hardships.

48. It deserves to be noted that the present

Charter of demands were raised by letter dated

15.2.1996 by Party I. The Goa MRF Union has also

raised a Charter of demands by virtue of letter

dated 11.9.1996. It is also to be noted that the

company has served on Party I a list of demands/

/issues proposed by the management of MRF, Goa

to be taken up/discussed and finalized along with

the negotiation on proposed Charter of demands

vide letter dated 7.2.1996 which was for the period

from 1.10.1995 to 30.09.1998. The settlement prior

to settlement of which the Charter of demands

were furnished was dated 20.11.1991 at Exh. 116

for the period from 1.10.1991 to 30.09.1995. In terms

of order of reference, the Party I has raised 52

demands which includes 23 allowances in demand

No. 8. Needless to mention, the burden to justify

the demands and to prove the same by facts and

figures primarily lies upon the Party I who has put

forth the said demands and only on discharge of

such burden, the onus thereupon shifts to the

employer to disprove the claim of employee and

not otherwise. There is no dispute that the

principle of industry cum region has to be applied

by an Industrial Court when it proceeds to consider

questions like wage structure, dearness allowance

and similar conditions of service and in applying

these principles, the Industrial Court have to

compare wage scale prevailing in similar concerns

in the region which it is dealing.

49. It is well settled as stated above that while

granting the demands including wage revision,

the Tribunal has to be satisfied positively that the

financial condition of the employer is such as will

enable it to bear additional burden imposed on the

company. There also cannot be any dispute that

increase in AICPI justifies an upward revision so

also that the higher wages can be granted, if

financial position of the company permits the

burden but at the same time merely because the

company is financially sound and in a position to

absorb the additional burden is no ground to revise

the emoluments upward as held in the case of

Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. B. N. Dongre & Ors.,

1994 II CLR 673. It is therefore relevant to scan

what is the total capital invested by the concern,

what is the extent of its business, what is the

profits made by the concern, what are the dividends

paid, how many employees are employed, what is

the standing in the industry to which it belongs,

while adjudicating or determining the question as

to whether one concern is comparable with another

in the matter of fixing wages and other benefits as

held in the case of Workmen of Balmer Lawrie

and Co. Ltd. supra.

50. Shri Rohidas Naik of Party I has stated that

the income of Party II(1) in the last six years

preceding the year 1997 is very huge and in view

of very huge profits made by the company from its

inception, its profit in future would be much larger

keeping in view the present market scenario. The

company has also succeeded in having huge

reserves as surplus at the end of the financial year

1995-96. The financial position of Party II(1) is

excellent and can easily bear the financial burden

that may be imposed upon the company in case

the demands are granted. Shri Kurian has denied

that the financial position of the company is sound

as stated in the written statement, however in the

cross examination it is admitted that as per the

Annual Report of Party II(1) for the Year 1997-98

at Exh. 123 colly, the annual sales of Party II(1)

have increased from Rs. 741.91 Crores in 1991 to

Rs. 2,194.24 Crores in 1998.

51. Shri Kurian, however clarified that said

figures pertain to entire company which includes

the Goa Plant. The profit after tax from 1991

increased from 19.00 Crores to Rs.102.28 Crores and

that the said figures pertain to entire company

which includes the Goa Plant. Party II(1) has nine

Plants and the Goa Plant in terms of quantum of

production stands second amongst the nine Plants

and the largest is at Medak (A.P.) and in terms of

contribution in terms of production value, the Goa

Plant stands second or third. The Goa Plant has

plans for further expansion and it has obtained

permission from the Investment Promotion Board

for starting a new Plant and that the Plant is next

door/contiguous to the present Plant. Shri Michael

Gracias has admitted that in 1995, Usgao Plant

was producing about 800 tyres per shift which

rose to 1000 tyres by the year 2001 and the cost of

each tyre was approximately Rs. 10,000/- in the

year 1995 and Rs. 14,000/- in the year 2001, which

would indicate that on an average, the company

produces around 300 tyres per day which was at

the cost of Rs. 10,000/- and therefore, the turnover

of the company would be Rs. 3 crores per day or Rs.

90 crores a month or Rs. 1080 crores in a year. The

above evidence therefore clearly shows that the

financial position of Party II(1) is very sound.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2136

52. Having considered the above law on the

subject, it is now to be seen whether the demands

raised by Party I are fair, proper and justified.

Demand No. 1: Classification and gradation

53. It is demanded by the Party I that effective

from October 1, 1995 the existing classification of

jobs into seven groups viz. Grade I to VII shall be

reclassified into four grades as per the old practice

prior to the Settlement dated November 20, 1991

as stated in the claim statement. In defence, the

Party II(1) has claimed that classification of seven

grades was done at the last settlement dated

20.11.1991 after due consideration and detailed

discussion between the management and the Goa

MRF Employees Union. There is no justification

that the engineering workmen to be delinked from

the existing piece rate system and be fitted into

fixed rate system. There is also no system of grading

as each job in the tyre making process is graded

after scientific study conducted by the Industrial

Engineering Department and jobs are classified

accordingly.

54. Shri Rohidas has stated that the workmen

are classified presently in seven grades and that

they should be reclassified in four grades as that

existed prior to settlement of 20.11.1991 as the

present system of classification has become

outdated. Moreover, the earlier system was based

on consideration like degree of skill, strain of work,

responsibility involved, etc. The question of

classification is of paramount importance as new

scales and grades cannot do justice to the workmen

unless classification is done on scientific basis.

The company has included the engineering staff

in the grades applicable to the workmen of lower

grades and who are working on piece rated basis

and the said action of the company acts as a

deterrent to the up-gradation of highly qualified

and skilled workmen like electrician, etc. thereby

causing heavy financial losses to them.

55. Shri T. M. Kurian has denied the case of

Party I regarding re-classification of the workmen,

however in the cross examination admitted that

prior to the 1991 settlement the workmen were

graded in four grades from I to IV and under the

1991 settlement the grades were raised to seven

i.e. I to VII including sanitation and watch and

ward. The gradation system is not based upon Time

Scale, but is based purely upon the job done by the

workman that is to say upon his skill, responsibility

and accountability. The watchmen under the 1991

settlement are placed in Grade II and are paid on

a Time Scale according to their shift attended by

them. The production workmen and Engineering

workmen under the 1991 settlement are paid

according to grades which are categorized as

Grade III to Grade VII according to their jobs. He

also stated that the engineering workmen i.e.

electrical, mechanical, engineering helpers were

being paid on the basis of Plant average attained

by the remaining production workmen who were

in Grade III to VII.

56. Shri Kurian has also stated that under the

1988 settlement, the engineering workmen and

workers from the engineering stores were paid on

the basis of Plant average of the other workmen in

the highest grade and then their piece rate was

calculated on the basis of a factor multiplication of

1.08 over the Plant average of the highest grade

and that under the above system under settlement

of 1988 and 1991, the engineering workmens’ wage

would fluctuate from month to month on 26 days

attendance depending upon the Plant average

attained by other production workmen and that

the Plant average may drop if there is absenteeism

amongst

the

production

workmen

and

consequently though the engineering workmen

had worked for full 26 days in the month, he may

get less wage. He further stated that the

specification of the workmen into seven grades

was done based upon degree of skill, strain of work,

responsibility involved, training, qualification

required and experience involved but not upon

mental and physical involvement, etc.

57. Discernibly, the Party I demanded reclassifi-

cation of four grades from the existing classification

of jobs of seven grades and delinking the

engineering workmen from the existing piece rate

system, so also the payment of Rs. 400/- to

engineering workmen on the ground that the

present system has become outdated. However,

there is no evidence adduced on record by Party I

in support of the said fact. The classification of

seven grades was done at the last settlement dated

20.11.1991 after due consideration and discussion

between the management and Party I, itself. There

is therefore no reason or justification for

reclassification of jobs from the existing seven

grades to four grades. There is also no justification

for the engineering workmen to be delinked from

existing piece rate system and be fitted into fixed

rate system. It is seen that right from inception of

the factory, engineering workmen were only ITI

qualified and have been paid piece rate equivalent

to highest graded job done by production workmen.

There is also no reason to pay fixed wage to the

engineering workmen over and above 100% wage

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2137

of the job done by production workmen in A grade.

The demand of payment of fixed wage is also

preposterous in that production workmen would

be paid piece rate on his individual performance,

while an engineering workman would be paid 30%

more fixed salary on the wage of a production

workmen performing at 100%.

58. Needless to mention, no workman in the

factory is graded as each job in the tyre making

process is graded after scientific study conducted

by Industrial Engineering Department of the

factory and then the jobs are classified accordingly

and the workmen doing a particular job in a

particular grade will be eligible for earning the

piece rate in that particular grade of the job. There

is no evidence on record that the classification

and gradation of jobs are not done by modern

scientific industrial engineering study. Admittedly,

the workmen at Kottayam Plant were categorized

into four grades as per settlement at Exh. 216 colly,

but that was after negotiations with the union.

There were seven grades for the workers of TVT

Plant as per their settlement at Exh. 293 colly. There

is no delinking of engineering workmen in those

units.

59. The Party I has not adduced any evidence to

show that classification and gradation of workmen

from seven grade to four grade is based on scientific

basis and that the present system is outdated.

There is no such thing as basic pay as the workmen

are paid by the piece rated system and the piece

rate is applicable to the job done by the individual

workmen. There is no dispute that the engineering

workmen who are merely ITI qualified are being

paid piece rate equivalent to the highest and

second highest graded jobs as per the settlement

dated 20.11.1991. The classification of seven grades

was done at the last settlement dated 20.11.1991

after due consideration and discussion between

the management and Party I, itself. The demand

No. 1 of Party I for classification and gradation is

therefore not just and proper.

Demand No. 2: Wage Structure Piece Rate

60. It is demanded by the Party I that effective

from October 1, 1995 basic wages of the workmen

reclassified should be revised as stated in the claim

statement. It is also claimed that in case, any

workman is not above to achieve 100% production

for any reason beyond workman’s control such as

power failure, non supply of raw materials in time,

machine breakdown, due to any natural calamity,

the workman should be paid full wages/salaries. In

defence, the Party II(1) has stated that any increase

in wage structure can be considered in the light

of a total increase in the wage package and total

increase in liability of the company. There is no

gap between wage required for subsistence and

wage paid to its workmen as the wage paid to its

workmen are not only fair but the wages are

appreciably high and more than sufficient for

subsistence of the workmen and his family.

61. Shri Rohidas in support of his case of wage

revision has stated that the present wage is much

lower than the fair wage or even wage required for

bare subsistence of the family and the same gap

can be filled by giving wage increase demanded

by the Union. The All India Consumer Price Index

at the time of fixation of existing scale of pay in

1991 was 1090 for the month of Dec. 1991 and for

the month of Jan, 1997, it was 1725. The existing

wages have become highly inadequate and

completely outdated because of steep rise in prices

of commodities. The wages paid to the workmen in

industrial units in the region are much higher than

what is being paid to the workmen and that the

point to point rate of inflation in AICPI from 1995-

98 show upward trend keeping an average of 10%

rate of inflation and since signing of the last wage

settlement which prescribed the present wage

rates, there has been very steep rise in AICPI as

nearly 100%. He also stated that the financial

burden that may be imposed on the company in

case the demand is fully considered would not be

much and therefore the said demand be granted.

62. Shri Kurian has reiterated the version of the

management and denied that the piece rate

demanded @ 100% production per shift under

demand No. 2 for re-classified categories is fair and

proper. He stated that if the production in a shift

is stopped due to power failure, non supply of raw

material, machine breakdown or natural calamity,

the company pays to the workmen 60% of the last

two month’s average wage i.e. the average wage is

converted into per hour wage and paid for the

period the workmen was not able to produce. He

denied the suggestion that payment of full wage

for the period that the workmen was not able to

achieve 100% production due to the above factors

is fair and proper.

63. The Party I is demanding piece rate of 100%

production per shift for four grades of workmen

viz. Grade A, B, C & D along with the rates therein

and has claimed that there has been vide gap

between wages actually received and required for

subsistence of family. However, there was no system

of four categories of workers in previous settlement

nor it has been proved that the wages claimed in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2138

the demand are fair and proper. Admittedly, the

minimum wages as per Official Gazette Notification

dated 10.3.1995 for skilled worker is Rs. 41/- per

day for 26 days, which comes to Rs. 1066/- p.m.,

while as per the chart produced by Shri Michael

Gracias, the average increment is Rs. 1240/- p.m. in

1995, which is more than minimum wages paid at

that particular time. It is also an admitted fact that

the minimum wages as per Official Gazette

Notification dated 28.10.1998, for skilled worker was

Rs. 59/- per day for 26 days, which comes to Rs.

1534/- p.m., which shows that the average

increment is Rs. 1240/- p.m. which is 80% of

minimum wages paid at that time. Moreover, as

per chart produced by Shri Gracias, wages as on

September 1995 was Rs. 5819/- p.m. and in October

1995, it was Rs. 7057/- p.m. after the increase which

is more than minimum wages at the relevant point

of time.

64. It is also to be noted that the capacity of the

company in itself is not sufficient to grant revision

in wages as it was incumbent on Party I to produce

evidence for comparing wage structure within the

units in the company and wage structure outside

the company engaged in the same trade in the

region in respect of the standing, extent of labour

force employed by them, capital invested by them,

the profits made by them, the nature of business

carried on by them, the presence or absence and

the extent of reserves, the dividends declared by

them and the prospects about the future of their

business, etc. The Tribunal cannot fix the wage

scale on the assumption that the establishment in

question was comparable with other two

establishments in the same region without

considering the aspects mentioned above as

adumbrated in the case of Novex Dry Cleaners,

supra. The Balance Sheets of the company viz. Zuari

Agro Chemicals Ltd. and Merck Ltd. are not of the

companies which are in the same line of business

as Merck Ltd. is in pharmaceuticals business and

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. is in fertilizers, which

are not comparable with Party II(1).

65. There is no evidence either oral or

documentary dealing with comparable character

of the industries in the region. Both the witnesses

viz. Vaibhav Korgaokar and Shri Vaman Krishna

Naik who have produced on record the settlements

of Merck Ltd. and Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. have

not supported the case of Party I. Shri Vaibhav of

Merck Ltd. has admitted that he is not the signatory

to the settlements produced at Exhs. 390, 391, 392

and 393 and was not part of negotiation and was

not aware that while signing the settlements with

the workers of the company, whether entire balance

sheet of the company was taken into consideration

or whether at the time of settlements, the company

had taken into account the line of business in

similar industries situated in Goa and that Merck

Ltd. does not pay piece rate to its workers nor he

knows the profit margin of the company. Shri Vaman

Krishna Naik of Zuari Agro Chemical Ltd. also

admitted that he cannot analyze the various

aspects in preparing the balance sheets; he is not

signatory to the settlements and not part of

negotiation; and was not aware whether entire

balance sheet of the company was taken into

consideration or line of business in similar

industries situated in Goa or the profit margin of

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. so also it does not pay

piece rate to its employees. Moreover, Zuari Agro

Chemicals Ltd. is granted subsidy by the Central

Government unlike Party II(1). It is therefore both

the industries cannot be compared with Party II(1)

nor there are any comparable concerns within the

region.

66. Admittedly, Shri Kurian in the cross

examination has admitted that there are nine units

in various parts of the country under the same

company and the company has common balance

sheet. The Union has produced three settlements

of Kottayam Plant dated 31.8.2006, 15.10.2009 and

24.8.2013 at Exh. 216 colly. The said settlements do

not cover the period of Charter of demands of Party

I. The Party I also produced the settlement dated

12.5.2004 of TVT Plant at Tamil Nadu at Exh. 293

for the period from 2004-2008, however said

settlement also does not cover the present Charter

of demands of Party I as they are not of the relevant

period and cannot be relied at all. No settlements

of the relevant period have been produced of the

other units to know the comparable wage structure

in the said units. There is therefore no material for

the purpose of comparing the wage structure in

the region as well as in the other units of Party II(1)

and the burden of proving such facts rest entirely

on Party I as rightly submitted by Ld. Adv. Sardessai

for Party II(1).

67. There also cannot be any dispute that the

company being an all India concern, the wage

structure and service conditions of the workmen

employed in the same line of business in other

parts of the country ought to have been placed

before the Tribunal including those of JK Tyres,

Apollo tyres, etc. which are the competitors of Party

II(1). The Party I therefore has failed to discharge

its burden of producing the wage structure of the

units in the same line of business which are also

all India concerns, so also of the units of Party II(1)

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2139

elsewhere in India of the relevant period of 1995-

1998 to prove comparable wage structure instead

of relying upon the settlements of the

establishments in the region, which are not in the

same line of business.

68. The evidence of Shri Arvind Nair also do not

come to the assistance of the Party I as he does not

know the total number of employees/permanent

employees employed by Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd.

nor had gone through the Charter of demands

which culminated into settlement dated 22.2.2006

of Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. or how many

permanent workers of Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd.

have accepted the settlement, so also had not seen

the manufacturing process of Zuari Agro Chemicals

Ltd. as well as Merck Ltd. and has admitted that

he has not shown in the charts monthly

productivity bonus, daily production bonus, service

increments and canteen subsidy as provided in

the settlement dated 20.11.1991. He has not

supported the charts produced by him in the form

of Annexures and failed to compare the settlements

of Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. and Merck Ltd. with

MRF Ltd in terms of the guidelines laid down by

the Apex Courts, supra and has not compared the

settlements of Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. and Merck

Ltd. with wage slips.

69. Needless to mention, Shri Arvind Nair has

also failed to bring on record the extent of business

carried on by the said concerns namely Zuari Agro

Chemicals Ltd. and Merck Ltd. the capital invested

by them, the profits made by them, the nature of

business carried on by them, their standings, the

strength of labour force, extent of reserve, etc. and

therefore the comparison shown by Shri Nair in his

evidence/charts cannot be considered. The Zuari

Agro Chemicals Ltd. and Merck Ltd. are therefore

not comparable with Party II(1) for the purpose of

wage adjudication. Merely because there is rise in

ACIPI, it cannot be ground for wage revision in the

absence of evidence to show that the rate of

inflation was not neutralized effectively on the

wage structure contained in 1991 settlement or

that there is also rise in wage structure in

comparable industries in the region, their own units

and other similar industries outside the region.

The Party II(1) having failed to prove and justify

the demand No. 2, the same is answered in the

negative.

70. However, a little peep into the settlement

dated 14.4.2001 reveals that the wage structure of

the workers of Party II(1) under clause III has been

increased to a considerable extent than the wage

structure of the workers of Party II in terms of

settlement dated 20.11.1991. The Party I would be

at a disadvantage, if they are denied the benefits

of the higher wage structure arrived at in terms of

settlement dated 14.4.2001 for the period from

1.10.1995 to 30.9.1998 as there would be discontent

amongst the workers with respect to payment of

wages to the workers of Party I. It is therefore, in

order to have parity in wages between the workers

of various Unions and to avoid the discontent

amongst them, it would be advisable in the interest

of workers of Party I and the management that

they also extend the benefit of rise in wages in

settlement dated 14.4.2001, so also other benefits/

/allowances if at all not in consonance with the

award passed while disposing the present

reference referred by the Government.

Demand No. 3: Service Increment/Increments

71. It is demanded by the Party I that effective

from January 1, 1995 and every year thereafter the

Company should give service increment at fixed

rate per month as mentioned in the claim statement.

In the written statement, the Party II(1) has claimed

that the service increment should be viewed as

total wage package and the system of paying

general increment to its workmen already existed

in the company. The service increments provided

at the earlier settlements are more than adequate

and are appreciably high and therefore the demand

for service increment on the basis of service put in

by the workmen in the company is unjustified. Shri

Rohidas has stated that the service increment

provided under earlier settlement were inadequate

and that the workmen are justified to claim service

increment because of poor total take home pay

with service of 15 years and more and in the absence

of service increments, the senior workmen in the

company would be at considerable disadvantage

and suffer the most and sometimes get the same

basic salary rates as the junior workman.

72. Shri Kurian denied the claim of Party I but in

his cross examination has averred that the service

increment given to the workmen is known as

‘Service weightage’ under the 1988 settlement. The

Service Weightage was paid @ Rs.3/- per year prior

to 1980 settlement which was raised to Rs. 6/- per

year under the 1980 settlement and then raised to

Rs.10/- per month under 1991 settlement for

workmen confirmed as on or after 1.10.1991. The

workman confirmed on or after 1.1.1991 was eligible

for one increment of Rs. 6/- per month (26 days).

The 1991 settlement also provided for service

increment of Rs.5/- per year as an increment for

workmen confirmed prior to 30.9.1991. The service

increment is given for a single time in the month

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2140

of January. The demand of the Party I is based on

grade wise at fixed rate per month with effective

from 1.1.1995. He also stated that the 1991

settlement granted service increment @ Rs.10/-,

Rs. 15/-, Rs. 20/-, Rs. 25/- per month of 26 days for

the month from 1992-1995.

73. There is no doubt that 1991 settlement

provided for service increment of Rs. 10/-, Rs. 15/-,

Rs. 20/- and Rs. 25/- per month of 26 days for the

year from 1992 to 1995 to the workmen confirmed

on or after 1.10.1991 and in 2001 settlement, the

service increments for the years 1996 to 1998 was

revised from Rs. 10/-, Rs. 15/- and Rs.20/- per month

respectively for 26 days for the workmen confirmed

on or after 1.10.1995. The service increments as

provided in 1991 and 2001 settlement are more

than adequate and are appreciably high and

therefore the demand of Party I for service

increments on the basis of service put in by the

workmen in the company is unjustified. There

cannot be any dispute that the senior workman is

given due weightage at each of the settlements

signed between the management and the union. It

is also to be noted that the yearly increments are

part and parcel of the total wage settlement

between the management and the workmen and

the annual increment is paid to the workmen by

virtue of settlement signed by mutual negotiations

and therefore an amount of Rs. 10/- per month for

26 days for the year 1996, Rs. 15/- per month for 26

days for the year 1997 and Rs. 20/- per month for

26 days for the year 1998 would be fair and proper.

Hence, the demand No. 3 is answered accordingly.

Demand No. 4: Service Benefits.

74. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should give to every permanent workman

service benefits who are in service as on October

1, 1995 and who have completed as on 31.09.1995

number of years of service as mentioned in the

claim statement and the service benefits should

be considered as wages for all purposes. In the

written statement, the Party II(1) has claimed that

the payment of service benefits, if any should be

part of the total wage package that may be revised

for its workmen and cannot be considered as a

single item. The service benefits were paid to the

workmen in accordance with various settlements

signed between the management and the Union.

Shri Rohidas has stated that most of the workmen

employed in the company have put in service of

more than 15–20 years, however they are being

paid at par with the workmen who joined the

company much later which invokes discontent

among senior workmen resulting in low morale

and therefore, the demand will lead in high

efficiency and maintain complete industrial peace.

75. Admittedly, the service benefits is included

in clause 5 at page 4 of 1991 settlement and the

service benefits is paid in slabs according to the

length of service of the workman counted from the

date of his confirmation. The service benefits under

the 1988 settlement were paid under clause 8 at

page 5 thereon. The service benefits for workmen

confirmed for one year of service under 1988

settlement were paid at Rs.6/- per month and the

same was raised to Rs.13/- per month under 1991

settlement, while workman with 13 years of service

and above under 1988 settlement were paid

Rs. 260/- per month as service benefits which was

raised to Rs. 262/- per month for the same category.

A workman working with 16 years confirmed

service was paid Rs.360/- per month under the 1991

settlement and that there is only Rs.2/- difference

rise in payment of service benefits for a workman

having 14 years of confirmed service under 1988

settlement as compared to a workman with similar

service under 1991 settlement. The highest

category under 1991 settlement was 15 to 16 years

of confirmed service to whom Rs.360/- per month

was paid as service benefits as stated by Shri

Kurian.

76. Needless to mention, the service benefits

were paid to the workmen in accordance with the

settlements signed between the management and

the Union. The Party I has been claiming service

benefits for the workmen who are in service from

1.10.1995 and who have completed number of years

as on 31.1.1995 as stipulated in claim statement

with the amounts against the number of years,

however there is no evidence on record that the

workers who have completed more than 15 years

are being paid at par with the workmen who had

joined the company much later or that the workmen

who had joined 4-5 years prior to the reference are

drawing salary which is much higher than the

senior employees and that there is a discontent

amongst senior workmen as none of the senior

workmen has been examined. In fact, the payment

of service benefits, if any should be part of total

wage package that may be revised for its workmen

and cannot be considered as a single item. The

service benefits were being paid to the workmen

in accordance with various settlements signed by

them. There is also no dispute that the jobs in the

factory are graded according to nature of work and

the workmen doing higher grade jobs will earn

higher piece rate irrespective of years of service.

There cannot be therefore any discontent amongst

the senior workmen. The Party I having failed to

justify the above demand, the same is answered in

the negative.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2141

77. However, a little peep into the settlement

dated 14.4.2001 reveals that the service benefits

for the workers of Party II(1) have been increased

to a considerable extent than the service benefits

of the workers of Party II in terms of settlement

dated 20.11.1991. The Party I would be at a

disadvantage, if they are denied the higher service

benefits arrived at in terms of settlement dated

14.4.2001 for the period from 1.10.1995 to 30.9.1998

as there would be discontent amongst the workers

with respect to payment of service benefits to the

workers of Party I. It is therefore, in order to have

parity in service benefits between the workers of

various unions and to avoid the discontent amongst

them, it would be advisable in the interest of

workers of Party I and the management that they

also be extended the service benefits for the said

period.

Demand No. 5 & 6: Dearness Allowance

Fixed Dearness Allowance & Variable Dearness

Allowance

78. It is demanded by the Party I that effective

from October, 1, 1995 the Company should give

Fixed Dearness Allowance of Rs. 2,510/- per month

at the AICPI point 1000 (1960-100) and the daily

rated workmen should be paid Fixed Dearness

Allowance at the rate of Rs. 96.50 per day of work.

It is also demanded by the Party I that effective

from October, 1, 1995 the existing scheme of

Variable Dearness Allowance should be revised.

The Variable Dearness Allowance in addition to

Fixed Dearness Allowance should be paid to every

permanent workman, Rs. 3,500/- per month due to

merger of 1000 points per figure (1960-100) base.

The above mentioned Variable Dearness Allowance

should be paid upto AICPI points 1300 (1960-100)

base. In addition to the above for every point rise

over and above 1300 points (1960-100) base increase

per point rise should be paid as mentioned in the

claim statement.

79. In the written statement, the Party II(1) has

stated that the neutralization of the Fixed Dearness

Allowance and the payment of Variable Dearness

Allowance as per the last settlement dated

20.11.1991 more than compensates for any increase

in AICPI. The Fixed Dearness Allowance and

Variable Dearness Allowance have been

consistently revised under various agreements and

the last settlement provided the scheme of

dearness allowance and variable dearness

allowance. There has been substantial revision of

FDA w.e.f. 1.10.1991 and the workmen are being

paid flat rate of Rs. 1425/- per month on AICPI 1000

in place of Rs. 850/- at AICPI 700 which indicates

that there has been virtually 100% increase in the

quantum. The neutralisation in the present case

has been so effective that there is no further

requirement of revision of dearness allowance.

80. Shri Rohidas has stated that there has been

steep rise in AICPI number since the last settlement

and the claim for revising FDA and VDA is more

than justified. The existing rate of dearness

allowance payable to the workmen is highly

inadequate as there has been sharp rise in prices

of essential commodities during the last decade

and the dearness allowance paid to the workmen

under the previous settlement does not neutralise

even half of rise in the prices. The company pays

low basic wages and low dearness allowance

compared to basic and dearness allowance payable

to the workmen elsewhere. Shri Kurian has denied

the justification of the above demand but in the

cross examination has stated that under the 1988

settlement, Fixed Dearness Allowance (FDA) was

paid @ Rs.8.50 per month at AICPI points 700

(1960=100) base in substitution of FDA paid under

the 1984 settlement @ Rs. 600/- per month at

AICPI points 548 (1960=100) base. He further

admitted that under the 1991 settlement, the

amount paid as FDA was raised to Rs. 1425/- per

month at AICPI points 1000 (1960=100) base and

the daily rated workmen were paid @ Rs. 54.80 per

day, but denied that the rates at which FDA and

VDA paid to the workmen under the 1988 and 1991

settlements were much lower than the rates at

which the same were to be paid for correct

neutralization of the rise in consumer prices for

that period and that the basic wages and dearness

allowance paid under 1988 and 1991 settlements

were low, so also he denied that upward revision

of DA is necessary since there was steep and

substantial rise in consumer price index numbers

from 1988 to 1995.

81. The Party I is claiming FDA of Rs. 2150/- p.m.

at AICPI point 1000 and VDA of Rs. 3500/- p.m. as

stated in the claim statement. Admittedly, in 1991

settlement, in terms of clause 2, FDA of Rs. 1245/-

p.m. at AICPI point 1000 was paid and VDA was

paid in terms of clause 3. There is no dispute that

the burden to prove the demand of FDA and VDA

by facts and figures primarily lies upon the person

who puts forth the demand and only on discharge

of such burden, the onus thereupon shifts to the

employer to disprove the claim of employee and

not otherwise. Needless to mention, the Party I has

failed to prove that the neutralisation of the FDA

and the payment of VDA as per the last settlement

dated 20.11.1991 does not compensate for increase

in AICPI. There is no dispute that the FDA and

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2142

VDA are consistently revised under various

agreements and the last settlement was 20.11.1991

where the workmen were paid flat rate at

Rs. 1425/- p.m. It has also not been proved that the

quantum of dearness allowance paid to the

workmen is much lower than what is paid to the

workmen elsewhere and that it does not neutralise

the rise. The Party I has not justified its demand of

Rs. 2150/- p.m. as FDA and Rs. 3500/- p.m. as VDA

and that there is a need for such a revision. The

materials on record therefore do not show that the

Party II(1) was paying low dearness allowance in

comparison with other similarly placed workmen

in other industries or that it is less for the demand

to justify. The Party I having failed to prove the

above demand, the same is answered in the

negative.

82. However, a little peep into the settlement

dated 14.4.2001 reveals that the fixed dearness

allowance as well as variable dearness allowance

have been increased to a considerable extent under

clause II than the fixed dearness allowance and

variable dearness allowance agreed by the parties

in terms of settlement dated 20.11.1991. The Party

I would be at a disadvantage, if they are denied

the benefit of the higher fixed dearness allowance

and variable dearness allowance for the period from

1.10.1995 to 30.9.1998 arrived at in terms of

settlement dated 14.4.2001 as there would be

discontent amongst the workers with respect to

payment of fixed dearness allowance and variable

dearness allowance to the workers of Party I. It is

therefore, in order to have parity in fixed dearness

allowance and variable dearness allowance

between the workers of various Unions and to avoid

the discontent amongst them, it would be advisable

in the interest of workers of Party I and the

management that they also be extended the benefit

of rise in fixed dearness allowance and variable

dearness allowance.

Demand No. 7: Provident Fund

83. It is demanded by the Party I that effective

from October, 1995 both the Company’s and

Employees contribution to the Provident Fund

should be 12.5% of the total wages/salaries. In the

written statement, the Party II(1) has denied that

there is any trend in the region for increase in

provident fund contribution or that the rates of

provident fund in several companies have been

increased. Shri Rohidas has claimed that in recent

times, the rate of provident fund contribution is

required to be made at 10% under the Act and the

demand is to increase company’s contribution from

10% to 12.5% of the total wages/salaries and the

increase asked for is very meager. The Provident

Fund is the retirement benefit which would help

the workmen to depend on during his old age and

therefore contribution be raised. Shri Kurian has

repudiated the demand raised by the Party I, but

in the cross examination has claimed that for the

period from 1995 to 1998, the deduction towards

Provident Fund and matching contribution from

the employer was done as the statutory was at 12%

and prior to that it was at 10%.

84. Admittedly, the deduction towards Provident

Fund and matching contribution from the parties

for the period from 1995-98 was 12% and not 10%

as claimed by Shri Rohidas Naik in the affidavit.

There is however no evidence to show that there

is a trend prevailing in the region or in the nearby

region whereby the contribution to the Provident

Fund was at 12.5% of the total wages and therefore,

the contention of Party I that the said demand is

based on the trend prevailing in the region cannot

be accepted. The settlements of ZACL, Merck Ltd.,

TVT Plant or Kottayam Plant produced on record

do not show that they have increased the rate of

contribution towards Provident Fund to 12.5% of

the total wages. There is also no justification for

increase of the said contribution as in the year

1995-98, the statutory deduction towards Provident

Fund and matching contribution from the employer

was at 12% and not 10% of the total wages claimed

by Party I. There is no justification to increase the

contribution towards Provident Fund to 12.5% when

it is statutorily provided that the contribution

should be 12% of the total wages, which the

company is contributing. Merely because the

company is well established and financially sound

or that the additional contribution towards

Provident Fund is only 0.5% of the total wages, it

cannot be imposed on the company. It is therefore

the above demand No. 7 cannot be granted.

Demand No. 8: Allowances

85. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay to every permanent workman

effective from October 1, 1995 following allowances

and the same should be paid along with monthly

salaries unless otherwise specified.

(A) Acting allowance

It is demanded by the Party I that any permanent

workmen if required to work in any higher post or

position he should be paid Acting Allowance

equivalent to 35% of his own wages/salaries

for such day/days he is required to officiate. The

Party II(1) in the written statement has submitted

that no workmen is required or asked to work in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2143

higher position or post and that there is no practice

of asking an employee in any workmen category to

officiate as a clerk or supervisor and that if a

workmen working in a particular grade is asked to

do the work in a higher grade, it is normal practice

of the company to pay the said workmen as per the

particular grade for the job he had worked in. Shri

Kurian has denied the justification of the said

demand. He has however admitted that Party II(1)

in the settlement of 1991 was paying acting

allowance.

86. Shri Kurian also admitted that there is no

specific clause in 1991 settlement under which

the workmen other than the leave reserve workmen

are doing the job of higher grade would be paid at

the higher piece rate. Admittedly, there is no clause

in the agreement for payment of higher piece rate

for the workmen doing job of a higher grade

although he has stated that the operator detailed

to do the higher grade job would be paid a piece

rate of that particular grade for the shift he has

worked. He also admitted that there is no specific

clause in 1991 settlement incorporating the acting

allowance. He admitted that there is a practice for

an operator doing higher grade job on payment of

piece rate of that particular grade and that there

is no such clause in the settlement. Such a practice

ought to be incorporated in the agreement. The

Party I is claiming acting allowances equivalent to

35% of his own wage for such day he is required to

officiate in higher position.

87. There cannot be any dispute that the

permanent workmen working in higher post or

position should be paid acting allowance, as most

of the workmen are required to do work of higher

category including workmen from leave reserve

category, even though they were designated as

Grade IV workmen. There is no proper classification

of payment to the workmen for doing such work of

higher categories. Acting allowance has been part

of service conditions in most of the establishments

for the workmen who are doing the work of higher

category. There cannot be any dispute that the

permanent workmen should be sufficiently

compensated for undertaking responsibility of

higher category and therefore acting allowance of

25% of his own wages/salaries for such day/days

he is required to officiate would be fair and proper.

(B) Conveyance allowance

88. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay to every workman Rs. 350/-

per month as Conveyance allowance. The Party

II(1) in the written statement has claimed that the

total emoluments by way of wage packet always

includes the factum of expenses that are incurred

by an employee while traveling to and fro from the

factory and no separate payment is called for. The

workmen are also provided with a transport by

buses which reach them to the place of work and

back. The transport service is heavily subsidized.

In clause 9 of the settlement dated 20.11.1991

additional routes have been added. The actual

expenses incurred by the workmen are very

negligible. Shri Rohidas Naik for Party I has

reiterated his demand in the affidavit-in-evidence.

89. Shri Kurian for Party II(1) has claimed that

the conveyance allowance is being paid in 1991

settlement under clause III(1) and the workmen

with four years of service is paid Rs. 60/- per month

as conveyance allowance and between 4 years to

6 years-Rs. 100/- per month and between 6 to 10

years-Rs. 150/- per month and above 11 years–Rs.

200/- per month is paid. He, however admitted that

All India Consumer Price Index does not include

cost of conveyance and that when the price of fuel

increases, the VDA paid does not cover the increase

in price of fuel used for conveyance. He also stated

that there was no conveyance paid under 1988

settlement and that the management considered

the demands in the COD in 1991 settlement for

granting conveyance allowance since there was a

rise in cost of fuel price. He claimed that an amount

of Rs. 1,26,750/- per month would be the cost to the

company.

90. The Party I is demanding Rs. 350/- per month

to every workmen as conveyance allowance. The

evidence shows that the management considered

the need for conveyance allowance to be paid to

the workmen. Shri Kurian has not denied that both

the category of workmen would be using the

conveyance other than the transport facility offered

by the company. Needless to mention, the workmen

is required to go from his residence to the points

where vehicles of the company take the workmen

to the factory premises. The said emoluments

including DA do not take into consideration the

local traveling expenses to travel to the points

where vehicles of the company take the workmen

to the factory premises. Admittedly, there is no

housing facility/housing quarter to any of the

workmen with Party II(1) near the factory premises

and as long as housing facilities are not provided

by the employer in the vicinity of the working

place and so long as the workmen are required to

stay at their respective places away from factory

premises, the workmen are required to spend on

conveyance to go to the points where the buses of

the factory are provided. The company can easily

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2144

take the burden of conveyance allowance of around

Rs. 250/- per month per workmen considering the

financial position. It is therefore, the demand for

conveyance allowance @ Rs. 250/- per month per

workman is fair and proper.

91. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay to every workman Education

Allowance of Rs. 250/- per month and the Company

should give annual assistance of Rs. 5000/- in the

month of May every year to meet the expenses

incurred at the start of the schools/colleges

academic year. The Party II(1) has claimed that

education allowance as separate allowance is

unsustainable in as much as AICPI includes and

considers educational requirements of the family

as an unit. The educational allowance has also

been considered by the company while arriving at

the total wage packet and the settlement to that

effect has been made in 1991. Shri Rohidas Naik

has reiterated the said claim in his affidavit. Shri

Kurian has stated that the company has been

paying educational allowance under clause III(2)

of 1991 settlement. He stated that all the confirmed

workmen were paid Rs. 250/- per month as children

education allowance and children education

benefits @ Rs. 300/- per year was paid to workmen

with 6 to 11 years of service, while the workmen

with 11 years of service and above were paid @

400/- per year. He also admitted that the workmen

with less than 6 years of confirmed service as on

30.1.1991 did not receive children education benefit

and that the cost of books, uniform and education

which includes fees has increased in 1991

settlement to the year 1998.

92. Shri Kurian has also admitted that there has

been a trend in the year 1991 to 1998 for students

to take tuition and extra classes and that the

admission fees and term fees have also been

increased from the year 1991-1998. He also admitted

that the benefit of 1991 settlement towards the

education allowance was Rs. 44,500/- and towards

education benefit was Rs. 2,67,000/- per year and

the cost to the company is Rs. 22,500/- per month

and the education benefit under the same demand

is Rs. 44,50,000/-. The Party I is claiming Rs. 350/-

per month as education allowance to every

workmen and Rs. 5000/- as annual assistance to

meet extra expenses required for term fees, books,

uniform, etc. Needless to mention, the company

has felt a need to extend the said benefit to the

workmen and has already accepted the principle

of payment of education allowance to its workmen.

The present education allowance was fixed about

6 years ago and Shri Kurian as well as Shri Michael

Gracias have admitted that there has been steep

rise in the school fees, books and cost of uniform.

The workmen are required to spend considerable

amount

uniform

and

miscellaneous

requirements of school going children. It is

therefore, with such object a claim of Rs. 200/- per

month towards education allowance appears to be

just and proper.

93. No doubt, it is in the month of June the

school reopens and in the month of May the

workmen are required to spend money on

admission in schools and colleges, so also on

uniforms and school fees. The expenses incurred

under the head have not been taken into

consideration while fixing up wage rates or

allowing revision in wage structure. There is a

wide difference with respect to the expenses

incurred towards education allowance and

therefore the claim of revision in education

allowance is just and proper to meet rising

expenses towards education of the children as

helping the children in their studies would create

amongst the workmen a good deal of goodwill for

the employer. There is a trend in the region to give

a substantial amount as education allowance. The

factories in the region including Merck Ltd. and

Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. have been giving amount

of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 110/- per month respectively as

education allowance. The other units of Party II(1)

at Kottayam has been paying a lumpsum of Rs.

2,500/- as education allowance to the children of

the confirmed workmen. It is therefore necessary

that Party II(1) with sound financial position should

pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards education

allowance to take care of the increased cost of

education. Hence, demand No. 8 (C) is answered

accordingly.

(D) Hill station allowance

94. It is demanded by the Party I that effective

from the year 1995 every workman should be given

Hill Station Allowance of Rs. 600/- per annum and

the same should be paid along with Leave Travel

Allowance and on same terms and conditions. The

Party II(1) has claimed that the said demand is

unheard of and that there is no practice in the

company to pay such allowance to any of the staff

or the officers. Shri Rohidas Naik has reiterated his

claim in his affidavit. Shri Kurian has stated that

Party II(1) has a guest house at Ponda and also

guest houses at other places where they have

Plants and besides that they do not have any

holiday home. He also stated that the officers of

the management do not get any allowance towards

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2145

holiday or vacation other than LTA. There is no

evidence that Party II(1) is having any holiday

homes or that the other establishments in the

region have been offering such a benefit. There is

also nothing on record that the demand for hill

station allowance has become a part of service

condition in the companies in the region. The

companies like Merck Ltd. and Zuari Agro

Chemicals Ltd. as well as their own units are not

offering such a facility. The demand No. 8 (D) for

Hill station allowance is therefore not proper or

fair.

(E) House rent allowance

95. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay to every workman either Rs.

250/- per month or 35% of his total monthly

wages/salaries whichever is higher towards

reimbursement of House Rent Allowance. The Party

II(1) has claimed that the house rent is part of total

wage package and does not justify a separate

payment. Nevertheless, the company has been

paying fair and adequate house rent allowance in

terms of settlement including 1991 settlement. Shri

Rohidas Naik has reiterated his claim in his

affidavit. Shri Kurian has also concurred that house

rent allowance has been paid under clause II(6) of

1991 settlement. He also admitted that HRA is paid

to defray the cost of rent paid by the workmen and

that the rent payable for houses from year 1991 to

1998 has shot up. He claimed that during the year

1991 to 1998 a sizeable part of permanent workforce

in Goa Plant comprises of workmen from Karwar,

Belgaum, Coorg and some workmen from Kerala.

The cost to the company considering Rs. 250/- per

month would be Rs. 2,22,500/- per month.

96. The Party I is demanding Rs. 250/- per month

or 35 % of the total monthly wages whichever is

higher towards reimbursement of house rent

allowance. Admittedly, the other units of Party II(1)

viz. Kottayam Plant has been paying HRA of Rs.

500/- p.m. in 2006 settlement and TVT Plant has

been paying and Rs. 1320/- p.m. in 2004 settlement.

The companies like Merck Ltd. and ZACL as well

as their own units are paying HRA. It therefore

shows that there is a trend in the region as well as

in their own units of payment of HRA. Needless to

mention, the scales and the rates paid by Party

II(1) towards HRA has remained unchanged since

1991. The company has accepted the principle of

paying house tax allowance to its workmen and

has been paying on basic salary slabs. There is

tremendous increase in the rents charged for

housing around the State of Goa. The housing for

the workmen has become a necessity as most of

the workmen are from outside the State. The

demand for house rent allowance therefore appears

to be fair and proper. Hence, demand No. 8(E) is

granted.

(F) Leave Travel Allowance

97. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should give to every workman with effect

from the year 1995, Leave Travel Allowance as

mentioned in the claim statement. In defence, the

Party II(1) has claimed that they have accepted in

principle a leave travel allowance which was

introduced in settlement dated 2.5.1985 and

incorporated the same in future settlements, last

being the settlement on 20.11.1991 and to eligible

for LTA, all workmen will be required to put in

minimum 200 days attendance. Shri Rohidas Naik

has reiterated his claim in affidavit. Shri Kurian

has admitted that the workmen who are from other

States annually go back to their native place where

their parents and ancestral are residing. He also

admitted that under clause III(5) at page 8 of the

1991 settlement, the workmen were paid Leave

Travel Allowance in slabs of upto 4 years of

service - Rs. 200/- and above 4 years of service -

Rs. 250/- for workmen in Grade I, while a workman

in Grade II to VII upto 4 years of service were paid

Rs. 450/-, 4 to 6 years Rs. 550/-, 6 to 11 years

Rs. 750/- and 11 years and above Rs. 850/-, once in

two years beginning in April 1992. He has claimed

that an amount of Rs. 53,40,000/- per annum would

be the cost to the company to meet the above

demand. He also claimed that the benefit of 1991

settlement for LTA is Rs. 6,45,000/-.

98. There cannot be any dispute that LTA is

paid not every year but once in every two years i.e.

two times during the period of settlement and

therefore, the claim of the above witness that

amount of Rs. 53,40,000/- is the cost to the company

is incorrect. The witness has admitted that the

cost of travel has increased from 1991 to 1998. The

Party I is claiming the amount as stated above. The

other units of MRF have been paying LTA. The

Merck Ltd. and ZACL have also been paying LTA.

There cannot be any dispute that from 1991-1998

the cost of travel has increased. Leave Travel

Allowance should therefore be paid to the every

workman as reimbursement toward travelling

expenses on production of bills for a workman of

services upto 5 years for maximum amount of

Rs. 2000/- from the year 1995; for a workman for

service of 5 years and more but less than 10 years

Rs. 2500/-; for a workman for service of 10 years and

more but less than 15 years Rs. 3000/- and for

a workman for service of 15 years and more

Rs. 3500/- and the same would be fair and justified.

Hence, the demand No. 8 (F) is partly granted.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2146

(G) Holiday Home Hire Allowance

99. It is demanded by the Party I that effective

from the year 1995 every workman should be given

Rs. 600/- every year towards Holiday Home Hire

Allowance and should be paid along with leave

allowance and on same terms and conditions. In

the written statement, the Party II(1) claimed that

the said concept of the demand is unheard of and

in reality such extension of benefit is not made till

date in as much as there is no merit as such. Shri

Rohidas Naik has reiterated the said demand. Shri

Kurian has stated that they are not paying holiday

home hire allowance. There is nothing on record

that there is a trend prevailing in the region to pay

such an allowance to the workmen nor there is any

evidence that there has been steep rise in charges

at hotels and guest houses. The demand No. 8(G)

of Party I is therefore not just and fair considering

that the workman has been paid enhanced Leave

Travel Allowance.

(H) Lunch allowance

100. It is demanded by the Party I that any

workman who is required to go out on the

Company’s work and cannot return during the

normal lunch time, should be paid Rs. 40/- for that

day as lunch allowance. The Party II(1) in the

written statement has stated that in the settlement

of 1984, workman sent on duty outside the factory

premises would be paid Rs. 7/- as lunch/out duty

allowance and Rs. 15/- in the event of the workmen

having to stay for lunch as well as dinner and in

case, if necessitated the overnight stay, the

workman shall be paid Rs. 30/-. Shri Rohidas has

reiterated the above demand which has been

repudiated by Party II(1). Admittedly, there has been

principle of paying lunch/out duty allowance to

the workmen who are required to go out on the

Company’s work and cannot return during the

normal lunch time. There has been steep rise in

food prices from 1984 to 1995. The workmen who

go out on official duty/out-duty is required to spend

nothing less than Rs. 30/- to Rs. 40/- as lunch

expenses. It is therefore the demand No. 8 (H) of

the Party I for payment of Rs. 40/- to those workmen

who go out on official duty is just fair and

reasonable.

(I) Newspaper Purchase Allowance

101. It is demanded by the Party I that every

workman should be given Newspaper purchase

allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. In the written

statement, the Party II(1) has claimed that the

newspaper and other periodicals are provided in

the canteen to which all the workmen have access.

The demand for newspaper allowance has no basis

whatsoever. The newspaper can be read at public

library in recreation club which has been in

existence in the premises of the credit society and

therefore the demand is unreasonable. Shri Rohidas

Naik has reiterated the said demand. Shri Kurian

has admitted that the company is not paying

newspaper purchase allowance. The Party I has

demanded Rs. 100/- as newspaper allowance. There

is nothing on record that there is a trend in the

region to pay this allowance, however with fast

spread of education the workmen have started

taking interest in reading newspapers and getting

themselves acquainted with latest development in

the world with respect to labour movements and

various facilities being offered to labour force.

There is no library room in the entire factory

premises. The workmen are also interested in

getting more knowledge about their own trade

and industry in general from newspapers and

magazine which may also increase in higher

production. Normally, a workman reads one daily

and one magazine which would come to about Rs.

50/- to Rs. 60/- per month. It cannot be lost sight

of the fact that newspapers and magazines have

become very essential in every workman’s and his

family life and therefore, an amount of Rs. 50/- per

month per workmen is just and proper. Hence,

demand No. 8(I) is partly granted.

(J) Social Security allowance

102. It is demanded by the Party I that every

workman should be given Social Security

Allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. In the written

statement, the Party II(1) has claimed that the

demand is not justified and infact the recent

amendment to the Employees Provident Fund Act

introducing Pensionary benefits and increasing the

contribution of the employer as well as amendment

to the Payment of Gratuity Act eliminating the

ceiling both in respect of eligibility as well as

receipt of the total quantum is itself indication

that legislature has taken care to meet social need.

Shri Rohidas has claimed that every workman shall

be given social security allowance at Rs. 100/- per

month and that there is a trend of giving social

security allowance. Shri Kurian has admitted that

there is no social security allowance being given

to the workmen. He also stated that from the year

1991 to 1995 no social security allowance was paid

to the workmen and that he is unable to tell

whether Party II(1) is a member of and avails of any

Government Social Security Scheme. Shri Kurian

has claimed that the cost to the company would

be Rs. 89,000/- per month.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2147

103. There is nothing on record that there is a

trend in the region to give or to pay social security

allowance to its workmen. Admittedly, in the

settlement of 2003 of TVT Plant at Exh. 293, there

is a fund called ‘Social Welfare Fund’ under clause

12 and the contribution of hourly rated workmen

per month towards welfare fund was agreed to be

increased from Rs. 22 to Rs. 30/- and company would

provide matching contribution every month and

the existing benefit to workmen from out of this

fund would continue as pointed out by Party I. The

Party I however is not seeking to create such a

fund or to contribute towards the fund. On the

contrary, the Party I is demanding Rs. 100/- from

Party II(1) as social security allowance, which is

not a trend in the region or in the other units of the

company.

Moreover,

the

social

security

requirements of workmen have been provided by

various legislations including Employees Provident

Fund Act and Payment of Gratuity Act, so also

Employees State Insurance Act which take care of

medical, health and other benefits for which the

employer substantially contributes. It is therefore

the demand No. 8(J) is not fair and proper.

(K) Petrol and maintenance allowance

104. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay to every workman having

Motorcycle/Scooter/Moped petrol allowance of Rs.

1,200/- per month effective from October 1, 1995. In

the written statement, the Party II(1) has claimed

that there is no justification to raise the demand.

The workmen are already provided with transport

facility along with conveyance allowance and if

workman wants to maintain any vehicle, it is

expected to bear the cost. Shri Rohidas Naik has

reiterated the said demand. Shri Kurian has

admitted that the company is not paying petrol

and maintenance allowance. The Party I is claiming

Rs. 1200/- towards petrol and maintenance

allowance and claimed that at the time of raising

Charter of demands, the price of petrol in Goa was

nearly Rs. 26/- per litre. There is no dispute that

there is no practice in the region to grant petrol

and maintenance allowance to its workmen. The

Party I is claiming Rs. 300/- per month towards

conveyance allowance and it was held that an

amount of Rs. 250/- would be fair and proper. The

management is also providing transport facility to

its workmen and inspite of such facilities, if the

workman wants to use the vehicle and maintain it;

he has to bear the cost considering that he is being

paid conveyance allowance. It is therefore the

demand No. 8(K) for Petrol and maintenance

allowance appears to be unfair and unjustified.

(L) Entertainment Allowance

105. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should give to every workman

Entertainment allowance on the basis as

mentioned in the claim statement. The Party II(1)

in the written statement has stated that the demand

is absolutely preposterous and has no basis and

therefore, the question of paying entertainment

allowance does not arise. Shri Rohidas Naik has

reiterated the said demand. Shri Kurian has

admitted that the company is not paying

entertainment allowance. He also stated that an

amount of Rs. 4,29,420/- would be the cost to the

company. Party I has claimed that clause 18 of the

settlement of TVT Plant at Exh. 293 provides for

the concept like ‘Fine Art Society’ to be formed

with equal contribution from the workmen and the

management and as per the said clause, Rs. 10/-

will be used for programmes and remaining amount

will be used for helping those workmen who suffer

from major illness. However, the Party I has not

raised such a demand to have a Fine Art Society

unlike the case of TVT Plant, where the workmen

and management are contributing towards the

fund and some amount was used for holding

programmes. The concept of entertainment

allowance and forming Fine Art Society for holding

programmes is totally different. The demand of

Party I has no basis nor it is paid by any of the

industries in the region or by their other units. It

is therefore the question of payment of

entertainment allowance does not arise. Hence,

the demand No. 8(L) for entertainment allowance

cannot be granted.

(M) House Maintenance Allowance

106. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay an amount of Rs. 7,000/- or an

amount equivalent to two thirds total salary of a

workman computed on basis of Basic salary,

Dearness allowance, Fixed Dearness allowance and

H.R.A. for the month of April, every year whichever

is higher subject to maximum amount of Rs. 7,000/-

should be paid to workmen with service of 5 years

and more as on December 31, 1995 or on 31st

December in any year hereinafter. In the written

statement, the Party II(1) has claimed that there is

no justification for extension of house maintenance

allowance nor there is a trend in the region as

such. Shri Rohidas Naik has reiterated the said

demand. Shri Kurian has admitted that the

company is not paying house maintenance

allowance as of now and that cost of the company

for making such a demand would be Rs. 62,30,000/-.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2148

107. The Party I is claiming an amount of

Rs. 7,000/- or an amount equivalent to two thirds

total salary of a workmen on the basis of Basic

Salary, Dearness Allowance, Fixed Dearness

Allowance, House Rent Allowance for the month

of April every year, whichever is higher subject to

maximum amount of Rs. 7,000/-. There is no such

trend of paying house maintenance allowance to

its workers in the region, nor it has been shown

that their other units have been paying the said

benefit. The Party I on one hand claims that most

of the workmen have purchased flats by obtaining

loan but on the other hand found complaining that

the wages/salaries of the workmen are too poor to

keep their flats in good condition. It is not shown

as to how many of the confirmed workmen have

purchased flats from Co-operative societies. If the

workmen have purchased the flats or the houses

with the existing wages or from the loan, it is not

expected of them that the company should

maintain such houses as it is the duty of the person

who purchases the house or the flat to maintain

the same. The demand No. 8(M) is therefore not fair

and proper.

(N) Monsoon Allowance

108. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay to every workman Rs. 1,000/-

per annum to be paid in the month of May every

year for purchase of monsoon shoes, gumboots,

raincoat, umbrella, etc. for himself and his family.

The Party II(1) in the written statement has stated

that the company has been providing good quality

of raincoats and a pair of gumboots every two years

and the workman has been reimbursed a sum of

Rs. 150/- per year towards purchase of umbrella in

the month of June every year and every alternate

year they are issued raincoats and a pair of

gumboots to all the workmen in 8 departments.

Shri Rohidas Naik has reiterated the said demand

and claimed that many of the workmen of Party I

remain absent for want of monsoon wear. Shri Kurian

has stated that they are not paying monsoon

allowance and that gumboots, raincoats and

umbrellas are provided only to the workmen who

work in maintenance department and watch and

ward as stated in 1991 settlement but are not

provided to entire workforce. It is a matter of record

that the workmen have been already provided for

raincoats, umbrella, gumboots and safety shoes in

demand No. 38 and therefore the above demand

for monsoon allowance for the workmen and his

family appears to be redundant. Hence, the demand

No. 8(N) for monsoon allowance is answered

accordingly.

(O) Shift Working Allowance

109. It is demanded by the Party I that an

employee who is required to work in General/First

shift should be paid 10% of Basic+D.A.+H.R.A. per

shift, for second shift 15% of Basic + D.A.+ H.R.A.

per shift and 20% of Basic+ D.A.+H.R.A. per shift

for third shift working. The Party II(1) in the written

statement has stated that shift allowance has been

provided for in the settlements from 16.10.76 to

20.11.91 in the event of a workman working in

second and third shifts would be paid Rs. 2/- and

Rs. 4/- per shift respectively. Shri Rohidas Naik has

reiterated the said demand. Shri Kurian has stated

that the shift allowance paid to the workmen for

working in the second shift under 1991 settlement

is Rs. 2/- per shift and for third shift Rs. 4/- per shift

and under 1981 settlement shift allowance for

working in second shift was Rs. 0.80, while for the

third shift it was Rs. 1.60 per shift, while for 1984

settlement, second shift was Rs. 0.40 per shift and

for the third shift it was Rs. 0.80 per shift. He also

admitted that the workmen who has to report for

the first shift at 8.00 a.m. would be required to

leave his residence at Betul at 6.30 a.m. and on

completion of shift at 4.00 p.m. He also stated that

the companies such as Merck Ltd., Finolex and

Nestle which are situated in the vicinity of the

Usgao factory of Party II(1) have a shift system.

110. There is no justification for payment of shift

allowance for the first shift although the

production is continuous and the workman has to

report for duty at 8.00 a.m. The Party I is demanding

shift allowance for working in general shift and

increase in allowance in second and third shift.

The first shift commences from 8.05 a.m. to 16.05 p.m.

during day time. There cannot be any

inconvenience being caused to the workman in

the said main/regular shift. Shift allowance is paid

only for two shifts i.e. second and third shifts. The

second and third shifts are recognised under the

Factories Act to be an inseparable part of the

service condition of a workman and Certified

Standing Orders of the company also provides for

the same as per clause 8. There is nothing

exceptional for working in shifts by the workmen.

There is therefore no justification for shift

allowance during regular shift. The shift allowance

for a workman working in second and third shifts

as provided in 1991 and 2001 settlement is fair and

reasonable. The Party I has also not given any

justification for increase of the shift allowance as

claimed by them in the claim statement and

therefore, the demand No. 8(O) cannot be granted.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2149

(P) Washing allowance

111. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay to every workman washing

allowance of Rs. 200/- per month. The Party II(1) in

the written statement claimed that the washing

allowance has always been paid to the workman

and the last settlement dated 20.11.1991 provides

an increase in washing allowance. Shri Rohidas

Naik has reiterated the said demand. Shri Kurian

has claimed that under the 1988 settlement, the

Washing Allowance was Rs. 1/- per day i.e. Rs. 26/-

per month, while under the 1991 settlement, the

Washing Allowance was raised to Rs. 1.50 per day

i.e. Rs. 39/- per month. Shri Kurian has also stated

that benefit of 1991 settlement towards washing

allowance is Rs. 34,710/- per month and the cost of

demand to the company @ Rs. 200/- per month is

Rs. 1,78,000/- per month. There is no change of

washing allowance from 1991 to 2001. The reason

why washing allowance was given is to wash their

uniforms. There is no dispute that the uniforms of

the workmen get spoiled and that the company

does not have any laundry service within the

factory. The uniforms have to be washed either at

their respective residences or in the laundry. The

ZACL is also providing washing allowance to the

workmen although it is a close system, unlike MRF

Ltd. The Party II(1) therefore shall pay Rs. 5/- per

day as washing allowance i.e. Rs. 130/- per month

which would be fair and reasonable. Hence, the

demand No. 8(P) is answered accordingly.

(Q) Weekly off/paid holiday working allowance

112. It is demanded by the Party I that for

working on a weekly off day or on a paid holiday,

the Company should pay weekly off/paid holidays

working allowance on the following basis i.e. for

weekly off day working 3 days wages/salaries, if no

substitute off is given or 2 days wages/salaries if

substitute off is given and for paid holidays 4 days

wage/salaries. In the written statement, the Party

II(1) has stated that the various settlements

extended the benefits of overtime as well as paid

holidays including settlement dated 2.5.84,

settlement dated 18.1.88 and settlement dated

20.11.91 and therefore does not need any additional

revision. Shri Rohidas Naik has stated that the

company has already accepted the principle of

paying overtime/holiday/working payment to its

workmen at its factory and that the workmen are

required to be compensated specially those

working in essential services coming to work on

holidays, election days or weekly off days

depending upon exigencies of work.

113. Shri Kurian has stated that the paid holidays

under the 1991 settlement are seven days specified

in Annexure IV(A), however a workman would not

be entitled to avail of the paid holiday, if he has

remained absent either a day prior or a day after

the paid holiday and under the above

circumstance, the wage due on the paid holiday of

the workman would be deducted in case of his

absence either one day prior or one day after the

paid holiday and for working on a Sunday or weekly

off or on a paid holiday, the workman is paid extra

wage at the rates specified in clause IV(3) at page

12 of settlement of 1991 according to the grades

specified therein. He also stated that the paid

holiday referred to in 1991 settlement does not

include a holiday declared for elections and that

the company pays the workman his wage for a

Government declared paid election holiday. He also

claimed that the management requires the

electricians and the boiler house workmen who

come under essential services to work on paid

holidays and paid election holidays and on those

days, the workmen are paid at the rates specified

in clause IV(3) of 1991 settlement.

114. Needless to mention, the demand of Party

I is to increase the allowance for the workman

working on weekly off/paid holiday. It is however

noted that there is gradual increase of payment for

working on the weekly off/paid holiday in the

settlements dated 18.1.88, 20.11.91 and 14.4.2001

respectively. The Party I has failed to justify the

amount in respect of the demand raised by them

as the workers are paid on piece rated basis. There

is certainly inflation from 1995-1998 and therefore

the workmen working on Sundays and weekly

off/paid holidays shall be paid extra wages over

the normal daily wages of 100% of piece rate and

efficiency bonus earned for that day and the

workmen working on paid holidays shall be paid

extra 200% of the piece rate and the efficiency

bonus earned for that day over and above normal

wage earned for that day. Hence, the demand No.

8(Q) is granted.

(R) Picnic Allowance

115. It is demanded by the Party I that effective

from year 1995 the Company should pay to every

workman picnic allowance of Rs. 1,500/- per annum.

The Party II(1) in the written statement has claimed

that the picnic allowance cannot form the subject

matter of industrial dispute. Shri Rohidas Naik has

reiterated the said demand, however he has

admitted that the picnic allowance was not being

paid by the company in earlier settlements, but

company has been providing free transport for the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2150

purpose of picnic. Shri Kurian has denied that

picnic allowance is being provided by the company.

There is nothing on record that due to pollution in

the company, the workmen are required to go out

with their families with other workmen for picnics.

There is also no evidence adduced on record that

their other establishments have been providing

picnic allowance to the workmen as demanded by

them in the claim statement. Shri Rohidas having

admitted that the company is providing free

transport for picnics, the above demand cannot be

granted as demand No. 8(R) is neither fair nor

proper.

(S) Milk allowance

116. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

should pay to every workman milk allowance of

Rs. 15/- per day of work. The Party II(1) in the

written statement has claimed that there is no

trend in the region to pay milk allowance. Shri

Rohidas Naik reiterated the said demand. Shri

Kurian has stated that the Party II(1) has not

provided milk allowance in any of the settlements.

The settlements of ZACL and Merck Ltd. produced

on record do not show that the said establishments

are providing milk allowances to its workmen.

Similarly, the settlements of TVT Plant and

Kottayam Plant also do not provide for milk

allowance to its workmen. There is also no trend in

the region or their other establishments to pay

milk allowance to its workmen. It is also not

established that the products are highly toxic or it

leads to dizziness or vomiting or abdominal pains

or irritation in the eye, nose, throat or the workmen

are likely to go in coma as alleged by them. It is

also not explained as to how milk allowance would

cure the above alleged ailments. It is therefore the

demand No. 8(S) stands rejected.

(T) Hazard allowance

117. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay to every workman hazard

allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. In the written

statement, the Party II(1) has denied that the

chemical products required for manufacture of tyres

and other allied products are obnoxious in nature

or that the chemical products are highly

polymerized or fire retardant and that the non

disposable waste material are burnt in the

incinerator under the supervision of Safety Officer

and has in operation a full-fledged affluent Plant

nor any health problem are caused to the workmen

working near press/moulds. Shri Rohidas Naik has

reiterated the said demand. It is claimed by him

that the company has been manufacturing tyres

and other products and leave behind carbon

residue and also emit heavy amount of heat and

steam thereby causing serious health problem to

the workmen as presses/moulds operate at very

high temperature, which require very cautious

handling.

118. Shri Kurian has denied of causing any health

hazard to its workmen. He in the cross examination

has stated that the Party II(1) has not provided

hazard allowance in any of the settlements. He

also stated that the chemicals which they use in

the factory are sulphur, zinc oxide, carbon,

formaldehyde, powdered stearic acid and also uses

rubber solvent and for running the factory, the

Party II(1) requires clearance from the Pollution

Control Board under the Air Act, Water Act and

Environment Protection Act and that the Party II(1)

is required by the Pollution Control Board to

monitor its quality of air and effluents produced by

it for which it maintains stations for such testing.

He also stated that there is an Effluent Treatment

Plant in the factory and that the Effluent Treatment

Plant treats their industrial effluents. He claimed

that the Plant is required to also keep a check on

the ambient noise levels i.e. for the purpose of

sound pollution and that the above requirements

are set by the Pollution Control Board on the basis

of their reports and submission of the process of

manufacture to the Pollution Control Board.

119. There is no evidence contrary to above safety

norms adopted by the company. The settlements of

ZACL and Merck Ltd. produced on record do not

show that the said establishments are providing

hazard allowances to its workmen. Similarly, the

settlements of TVT Plant and Kottayam Plant also

do not provide for hazard allowance to its workmen.

There is also no trend in the region or their other

establishments to pay hazard allowance. It is also

not established that the chemical products

required for manufacture of tyres are obnoxious in

nature or highly polluted. No witness has been

examined to prove that the chemical used to

manufacture the products are classified as

hazardous by Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers

or that non disposable waste material are not

disposed of under safety norms or that the factory

has no full-fledged affluent Plant in operation or

that serious health problems are caused to the

workmen working in the factory and that the

workmen are exposed to high risk or danger due to

high temperature or pollution. The Party II(1) has

not shown any justification for grant of the said

demand and therefore the demand No. 8(T) stands

rejected.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2151

(U) Factory allowance

120. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay all permanent workmen

working in the factory, factory allowance of

Rs. 200/- per month. In the written statement, the

Party II(1) has denied that the company has

accepted the principle of payment of Plant/factory

allowance to various departments or that there is

a trend in the region to pay factory allowances as

alleged. Shri Rohidas in the evidence has stated

that the company has already accepted the

payment of Plant allowance and the nomenclature

has been changed to factory allowance. The

Party I has only demanded an increase in the same.

Shri Kurian has stated that Party II(1) has not

provided for factory allowance in any of the

settlements. There is nothing on record that the

company has accepted the principle of payment of

factory/Plant allowance to its workmen. The

Party I has not shown any justification for granting

the said allowance nor shown that its other

establishments are paying such an allowance to

its workmen. The settlement of ZACL at Exh. 210

pays factory allowance to certain category of

employees but it does not show to which category

of employees such allowance is paid. The Party

II(1) has not shown any justification for grant of the

said demand and therefore the demand No. 8(U)

stands rejected.

(V) Special allowance

121. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should pay all confirmed workmen

working in the departments a special allowance

per shift as per table given in the claim statement.

It is also demanded that the welders, electricians,

machine shop mechanics should be paid allowance

of the department they work in or attend to

breakdown, electrical, instrumentation workmen,

welders, mobile mechanics, machine shop

mechanics, engineering helpers, sweepers, working

part of the shift in Banbury or Tyre curing

departments will also be eligible for special

allowance as per notification in work sheets at the

rates mentioned in the claim statement. The

Party II(1) in the written statement has claimed

that the special allowance has been paid to the

workmen under various settlements and last such

settlement was dated 20.11.1991, and as such the

demand is unjustified.

122. Shri Rohidas Naik has claimed that the

company has already accepted the principle of

paying special allowance to its workmen who are

required to work during lunch/dinner/breakfast

time as per the list mentioned in the claim

statement. Shri Kurian has denied the said claim

but has stated that the Special Allowance has been

paid by Party II(1) under the 1988 and 1991

settlement. In 1988 settlement, it was paid to

workmen from Banbury and Tyre Curing

Department and to the solution man in the Dip

Unit and the rate at which they were paid special

allowance under that settlement was raised from

Rs. 1/- per shift to Rs. 1.50 per shift. He also claimed

that under the 1988 settlement, engineering

workmen assigned to work in the Banbury and

Curing Department only were paid special

allowance of Rs. 1.50 per shift and under 1988

settlement, only welders, cement house operators,

tyre finishing operators, boiler house mechanic and

stock suppliers were paid special allowance @

Rs.1/- per shift. He also admitted that under the

1991 settlement, workmen who works in two

continuous shifts would be paid a special allowance

twice i.e. for both the shifts.

123. Needless to mention, the special allowance

is paid to the workmen for working during lunch/

/breakfast/dinner time. There is no justification for

denying special allowance to all the workmen who

are working during lunch/breakfast/dinner time. It

is admitted fact that in last settlement in 1991,

special allowances were paid to 23 departments

including electrical, instrumentation workmen,

welders, mobile mechanics, machine shop

mechanics, engineering helpers, sweepers etc.

There is therefore concept of payment of Special

allowance to its workmen who are required to work

during lunch/dinner/breakfast time. There is no

denying the fact that the workers mentioned in

the list under the above demand are also required

to pay the Special allowance in case they work

during the lunch/dinner and breakfast time. The

Party I is demanding Rs.20/- to Rs. 35/- to the

different set of workers mentioned therein, however

having regard to the facts of the case, an uniform

amount of Rs. 20/- per shift would be fair and

justified. It is therefore the demand No. 8(V) for

Special allowance is answered accordingly.

(W) Weight lifting allowance

124. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

shall pay all Curing Operators Weight Lifting

allowance of Rs. 10/- per shift and the load should

not be more than 50 kgs. The Party II(1) in the

written statement has stated that the workmen in

the Curing department are specifically engaged in

loading and removal of tyres from the press and

the only job they perform is of such a nature and

that the curing operation involves various jobs done

by a crew and loading and removing of tyres is one

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2152

of the operations of the curing process which is

done in rotation by the crew members with other

jobs of the curing process. Shri Rohidas Naik has

stated that the curing operators are required to

load and remove the tyres from the press/mould

manually weighing nearly about 55 kgs. each and

that in every shift there are about 900-1000 green

tyres and 800-850 final tyres and each operator is

required to lift a tyre weighing 55 kgs.

approximately nearly 4-5 times during the process

of curing and the said work takes a very heavy toll

on the workmen and therefore, the demand of Rs.

50/- per shift be granted.

125. Shri Michael Gracias has admitted that the

weight of a green tyre is in the range of 42 kgs. to

62 kgs. depending on the ply rating. He however

stated that whenever products are heavy and

difficult to carry, adequate provisions of hydraulic

trolleys, chain blocks of motorized mechanisms are

provided. There is no dispute that the Party I is

demanding weight lifting allowance of Rs. 10/-per

shift to all curing operators. There is no such

allowance in any of the settlements. There is no

dispute that the Party II(1) has claimed that aids

like hoist chain blocks, etc. are provided to lift any

heavy item beyond the ability of concerned

workmen. The above fact has not been in dispute.

It is admitted fact that the only workmen in Curing

department are engaged in loading and removal of

tyres from the press/mould and the only job they

perform is of such a nature. There is no dispute

that curing operations involve various jobs done

by a crew and loading and removing of tyres is one

of the operations of curing process and such

operation is done in rotation by the crew members.

The Party II(1) has not shown any justification for

grant of the said demand and therefore, the demand

No. 8(W) stands rejected.

Demand No. 9: Staggering Allowance

126. It is demanded by Party I that effective from

October 1, 1995 the workmen who are required to

work on a staggering weekly off should be paid

staggering allowance of Rs. 250/- per month. In the

written statement, the Party II(1) has stated that

the working on staggered weekly off system is a

well established practice and is accepted by the

industry at large and has been covered by various

legislations specifying the number of hours that

the workmen may be required to work. The wages

for working on weekly off days have been covered

under various settlements including settlement

dated 20.11.91 and does not require any further

reference. Shri Rohidas has stated that many

companies in the region have already accepted

the principle of paying staggering allowance to its

workmen who work on weekly off on staggering

basis. Shri Kurian has repudiated the said claim

but admitted that the hours of work(shifts)

changes/staggered by one week at a time, but the

weekly off of the workman remains the same. He

also stated that there are times where on need

basis, the workman works on his weekly off. He

also stated that the workman starts his next

staggered shift immediately after his weekly off i.e.

to say in each week, he will work in one shift

earlier than that in which he worked in the

previous week and that there is no compensation

offered to the workman for following staggered

weekly shifts with an off during the week between

the shifts.

127. There is no dispute that the company does

not pay staggering allowance to shift employee

who work on staggering weekly off. The other units

of Party II(1) whose settlements have been produced

including TVT Plant and Kottayam Plant do not

pay any staggering allowance to the workmen

working on staggered weekly off. The Settlement

dated 20.11.91 of Party II(1) pays the workmen

required to work on Sunday/weekly off days as

well as company declared paid holiday an extra

wage over and above the normal daily wage. There

is therefore no justification for payment of

staggering allowance as claimed by the Party I.

The Party II(1) having system of paying extra wages

for working on weekly off as per the settlements,

the demand of Party I for payment of staggering

weekly off of Rs. 250/- per month pales into

insignificance. Hence, the demand No. 9 cannot be

granted.

Demand No. 10: Bonus

128. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

should pay bonus to every workman for the year

1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 at the rate of 25% of the

gross wages/salaries without any ceiling. In

defence, the Party II(1) has stated that the company

has been paying bonus to its workmen who are

covered under Payment of Bonus Act. The annual

bonus paid to its workmen is appreciably high and

needs no further consideration, besides the

quantum of payment is covered by the statute.

Shri Rohidas has stated that the company has

augmented huge profits in the periods under

dispute and that the workmen are entitled for the

annual bonus @ 25% of the gross salary without

any ceiling. The demand has been repudiated by

Shri T.M. Kurian. He has stated that the annual

bonus paid to the workmen under the 1991

settlement was bonus payable under the Payment

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2153

of Bonus Act, 1965. The payment of annual bonus

was incorporated under clause V(1)(a) of the 1991

settlement.

129. Shri Kurian has also claimed that all the

workmen in the year 1991 when the settlement at

Exh. 116 was signed, earned wages of more than

Rs. 1600/- or as on 1.4.1993, earned more than

Rs. 2500/- as wage and did not come within the

definition of “employee” under the Payment of

Bonus Act, 1965. He further clarified that if the

workmen under the 1991 settlement was not

covered by the Bonus Act, by virtue of his wage

being higher than the amount prescribed under

the coverage of the Act, he would be paid annual

bonus at the rate specified in the said Act i.e.

minimum at 8.33% and maximum of 20% of the

allocable surplus of Party II(1) i.e. MRF Ltd. He also

admitted that the Party II(1) has been paying

annual bonus @ 20% from 1991 onwards.

130. Discernibly, the demand of Party I for annual

bonus @ 25% of the gross salary is 5% more than

the rate at which the Party (II)1 has been statutorily

paying to all its workers. There is no dispute that

the minimum rate of annual bonus to be paid to

the workers as per the Act is at 8.33% and the

maximum is 20% of the allocable surplus of Party

II(1). There is however no evidence on record of the

allocable surplus year-wise from the year 1991 to

the year 1995. Be that as it may, it is an admitted

fact that the annual bonus paid to the workmen

under 1991 settlement was bonus payable under

Payment of Bonus Act and the said fact is

incorporated under clause V(1)(a) of 1991

settlement and that when the settlement was

signed, the workmen did not come within the

definition of ‘employee’ under the Payment of Bonus

Act, 1965 and the Party I who signed the said

settlement has accepted the said position.

131. There may be no prohibition to pay more

than 20% as bonus on the gross salary of the

workmen as Payment of Bonus Act is not applicable

to the workmen. However, it is an admitted fact

the maximum bonus of 20% on the gross salary is

paid to all the workmen till date. There is no trend

in the region as well as in their own units elsewhere

of payment of annual bonus @ 25% of the gross

salary without any ceiling. The settlement of TVT

Plant at Exh. 293 does not show that payment of

bonus is more than prescribed under the Act. There

is therefore no principle of payment of bonus

exceeding 20% on gross salary to the workers at

the factory, even if they are not covered under the

Act. The annual bonus paid to its workmen is quite

high and needs no reconsideration. It is therefore,

the demand No. 10 is answered in the negative.

Demand No. 11: Christmas/Ganesh Chaturti/Id-

-ul-fitr Festival Allowance

132. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

should pay to every workman Christmas/Ganesh

Chaturthi/Id-Ul-Fitr festival allowance of Rs. 1,000/-

to be paid ten days before Christmas/Ganesh

Chaturthi/Id-Ul-Fitr festival and the Company

should give festival advance of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees

Three thousand only) to all permanent workmen to

be recovered in 12 monthly installments interest

free. In the written statement, the Party II(1) has

stated that the company has been gratuitously

providing recoverable interest free festival advance

and the amount which is unilaterally given as

Rs. 300/- per year and now at Rs. 1000/- per year.

Shri Rohidas in the affidavit has stated that there

is a trend in the region to pay festival irrecoverable

allowance to its workmen so as to celebrate

festivals mentioned in the demand, which help the

workmen to gain better social tolerance towards

each other. Shri Kurian has claimed that the

Party II(1) did not have any system of paying festival

allowance to the workmen in the past but have

concept of giving festival advance, although it is

not incorporated in any of the settlements. He

further claimed that the Party II(1) under the

scheme advances a sum of Rs. 1000/- on the request

of the workmen into his bank account which

amount is deducted in monthly installments from

his salary thereafter. He claimed that currently they

are paying festival advance of Rs. 5,000/-.

133. Be that as it may, there is no provision in

the settlement of the Party II(1) as well settlements

of the industries located in the region to provide

festival allowance to its workmen during

Christmas/Ganesh Chaturthi/Id-Ul-Fitr festivities.

Merely because, the company has a sound financial

background, irrecoverable festival allowance to

celebrate the festivities mentioned in the demand

cannot be granted. Nonetheless, Shri Kurian has

admitted that there is a system of advancing

Rs. 1000/- as festival advance on the request of

workmen which is deducted in monthly

installments from its salary. The settlement of the

Kottayam Plant at Exh. 216 provides festival

advance to all confirmed workmen of Rs. 2000/-

recoverable in 10 equal monthly installments. The

demand of Party I of Rs. 3000/- as festival advance

could be reduced to Rs. 2000/- recoverable in 10

monthly installments from the salary, if the

workman demands for the same. It is therefore the

above demand No. 11 is partly granted.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2154

Demand No. 12: Funeral Expenses

134. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

should give to every workman funeral expenses of

Rs. 2000/- incurred by him at the time of death of

his parents/wife/husband/child. In the written

statement, the Party II(1) has stated that they are

paying fixed amount towards funeral expenses and

hardship allowance to the immediate family

members, in the event of death of a workman. There

is also death relief scheme under settlement dated

20-11-91 in the unforeseen event of death of a

workmen as each confirmed workmen contributes

Rs. 50/- and the company also contributes a

matching amount and the said amount is given to

the immediate heirs of the deceased workmen. Shri

Rohidas has stated that the company is duty bound

to help its workmen in such emergencies as it is a

social and moral responsibility of the company to

help its workmen in case of such a tragedy in

workmen’s family. Shri Kurian has stated that in

case of workmen’s death, the Party II(1) is paying

to workmen’s family one month salary as a

contingency amount as a sum of money towards

his funeral expenses, however, the said provision

is not a part of settlement but is followed since last

many years. He, however clarified that the

company is paying Rs. 1000/- towards funeral

expenses towards death of workmen’s parent/

/child/spouse.

135. Needless to mention, there is a system of

payment of fixed amount towards funeral expenses

on the death of a workmen or his immediate family

members. The demand of Party I is to give every

workman and his family members funeral expenses

of Rs. 2000/-. There is however no such provision in

the settlements of Party II(1), although there is a

system of payment of fixed amount towards funeral

expenses in the event of death of a workmen. The

amount of Rs. 1000/- being paid to the immediate

family members of the workman on the death of

the workman would be sufficient enough to meet

expenses. There is also nothing on record that

many companies in the region give funeral expenses

to its workmen or immediate members of his family.

The company on its own is providing financial

assistance to its workmen in such emergencies as

claimed by Shri Kurian in the cross examination

who has stated that in case of workmen’s death,

the Party II(1) is paying workmen’s family one

month’s salary as contingency amount and sum of

Rs. 1000/- towards his funeral expenses, which

practice they have been following for some years.

The demand of Party I of giving every workmen

funeral expenses of Rs. 2000/- at the time of death

of his parents, his wife or children is therefore not

proper as company has been paying funeral

expenses of Rs. 1000/- to its workers along with

one month’s salary as contingency amount. The

above demand No. 12 for funeral expenses therefore

cannot be granted.

Demand No. 13: Tubectomy/Vasectomy

Allowance

136. It is demanded by the Party I that in case

any female/male workman should get herself/

himself operated for Tubectomy/Vasectomy after

birth of first/second child, she/he should be given

one month’s additional salary and 15 days special

leave. In the written statement, the Party II(1) has

stated that incentives as recommended by family

welfare schemes of the Central/State Government

are extended to its workmen to undergo

tubectomy/vasectomy. Shri Rohidas has stated that

there is a trend prevailing in the region to pay the

said allowance to the workmen as the country has

been facing overpopulation problem and therefore

necessary to encourage family planning amongst

the workmen. Shri Kurian has stated that in the

past, the workmen or his spouse would be given

special leave of 3 days, if they were to undergo

tubectomy or vasectomy operation, but he cannot

say if the workmen were paid any amount, in the

event such operation was undertaken by him or

his spouse. Shri Gracias also admitted that

tubectomy/vasectomy allowance was not included

in any of the settlements, but there was prevailing

practice to pay an amount to the workmen prior to

1988 and grant of 3 days special leave to workmen

for undergoing tubectomy/vasectomy which was a

part of same practice prior to 1988.

137. The Party I is demanding one month’s

additional salary and 15 days special leave for

getting the workman himself or his spouse operated

for tubectomy/vasectomy after birth of first or

second child. Shri Kurian has however admitted

that the workmen or his spouse used to be given

3 days special leave if they undergo tubectomy or

vasectomy operation. The said fact is not denied.

There is also nothing on record that there is a

trend in the region to pay one month additional

salary and 15 days special leave nor it is found

reflected in the settlements of MRF, Merck Ltd. or

ZACL produced on record. Merely because the

financial position of Party II(1) is sound, the

company cannot be burdened with such a demand.

No doubt, as admitted by Shri Kurian the workman

was given 3 days special leave if he or his spouse

underwent such an operation. The demand No. 12

therefore cannot be granted.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2155

Demand No. 14: Gratuity

138. It is demanded by Party I that the present

gratuity scheme for the workmen should be revised

and the revised scheme should be as mentioned in

the claim statement. In defence, the Party II(1) has

stated that the payment of gratuity is covered by

statute under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The

Party I have no right to claim gratuity at a higher

rate than that is provided for under the Payment of

Gratuity Act and amendments therewith and

hence, the demand should be rejected. Besides,

the family of the deceased or disabled workman in

unforeseen circumstances is taken care of by the

provision of Payment of Gratuity Act, Provident

Fund and Family Schemes. Shri Rohidas has claimed

that there is a trend in the region to give the

workmen gratuity at the higher rate than what is

being given to the workmen of the company which

is being paid to meet certain eventualities in many

cases and therefore for the purpose of computing

gratuity, all allowances and all past services must

be taken into consideration and therefore changes

proposed in the existing scheme of gratuity are

fair and proper. Shri Kurian has repudiated the

above claim, however admitted that during the

period from 1991 to 1998, gratuity was paid

according to the provision of Gratuity Act and that

there was no scheme for gratuity to be paid under

the settlements other than the one required to be

paid under the Gratuity Act. He also stated that

the Party II(1) is paying gratuity as per the Payment

of Gratuity Act.

139. Discernibly, the Party I is claiming higher

gratuity for the workmen than what is provided

under the Payment of Gratuity Act. There is

nothing in the Gratuity Act by which, the workmen

have a right to claim the gratuity at the higher

rate than the statutory rate provided under the

Act, as claimed by the Party I nor there can be any

ceiling on gratuity payment. Needless to mention,

the changes proposed by the Party I in the scheme

of the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be considered

as the gratuity is paid to the workmen under

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and amendment

made thereto which is a central law on the subject

enacted to ensure an uniform pattern of payment

of gratuity to the employees throughout the

Country. There is also no trend in the region for

payment of gratuity as claimed by Party I. The

settlements of TVT Plant and Kottayam Plant also

do not speak of payment of gratuity to the workmen

at higher rate than what is being paid to the

workmen by the company. The settlements of ZACL

and Merck Ltd. are not otherwise. The Payment of

Gratuity Act being a statutory Act regulating the

payment of gratuity to industrial workers and in

the absence of any law or settlement paying

gratuity at higher rate, the above demand of Party

I cannot be granted.

Demand No. 15: Long Service Award

140. It is demanded by Party I that effective from

January 1, 1995 Long Service Award should be

given as mentioned in the claim statement. The

Party II(1) has denied that the company has

accepted the principle of giving long service award

to the workmen at the factory. Shri Rohidas has

reiterated the above demand and has claimed that

it has demanded long service award to the

workmen with service of 10 years, 15 years, 20

years and 25 years respectively and that the

company had already accepted the principle of

giving long service award to its workmen at its

factory. Shri Kurian has admitted that they have a

system of giving a service award to the workmen

during the terms of 1991 settlement who completed

25 years and 35 years of service but it is not made

part of terms of 1991 settlement. The Party I have

specified the nature of award to be given to them

on the completion of particular number of years of

service, however the award being discretionary

and there being a system of Party II(1) giving service

award to its workmen who have completed 25 in

the form of silver plate and a gold pin to a workmen

who had completed 35 years of service, it would

not be proper to change the said system.

141. There is no dispute that the award is given

every year in a special function where the awardee

and his spouse remain present and the Chairman

and the Managing Director give the award to the

said workman who completed the above period of

service. The said service award is given in all the

Plants of MRF. Needless to mention, giving a long

time service award is not a term of service and it

is the Party II(1) who on their own volition confers

such an award. Awards cannot be measured in

terms of the weight or the value, but in terms of

the honour and recognition being conferred on the

workmen who put in the number of years of service

and therefore, the demand of Party I to give the

long service award with particular weight of silver

alongwith cash amount cannot be granted. The

Party II(1) cannot be put to terms in respect of

award to be given or restrict them to particular

number of years put in by the workmen viz. 10

years, 15 years, 20 years and 25 years, however it

being the discretion of the management, the call

should be taken by the management itself and the

same cannot be made a part of award. It is therefore

the demand No. 15 cannot be granted.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2156

Demand No. 16: Superannuation Scheme

142. It is demanded by Party I that effective from

the year 1995, the Company would incorporate Life

Insurance Corporation Superannuation Scheme by

depositing two total wages/salaries per annum per

workman every year to the Superannuation Scheme.

In the written statement, the Party II(1) has

stated that the company does not have any

superannuation scheme to the workers at the

factory, however Superannuation scheme named

as Retirement scheme is in operation and has been

described in the settlement dated 20.11.1991. There

is no trend in the region to have superannuation

scheme for the workmen. The workmen will receive

apart from gratuity, a large amount from Provident

Fund and monthly emoluments from Family Pension

Scheme in addition to monthly amount from the

Retirement Benefit Scheme and therefore to have

another scheme is uncalled for.

143. Shri Rohidas has stated that when the

workman retires from the service, he has to fall

back upon his savings of the pasts, if any. The

company should incorporate the superannuation

scheme which will help the workmen and his family

in his retired life. Shri Kurian has claimed that

such a scheme is not necessary, however he has

stated that LIC was offering superannuation

schemes at the time when the 1991 settlement

was signed and the management had discussed

with LIC about their scheme whether LIC had

entered into such superannuation schemes with

workmen of various other companies in Goa around

the year 1991 and thereafter. He denied the

suggestion that demand No. 16 for incorporating a

LIC Superannuation Scheme by deposit of two

wages per annum per workman towards

Superannuation Scheme is fair and justified.

144. Admittedly, the company does not have any

Superannuation Scheme to its workmen at the

factory. There is no dispute that the LIC was offering

superannuation scheme at the time when 1991

settlement was signed and that the management

had discussed with LIC about the said scheme.

There is however, nothing on record that the LIC

had entered into superannuation schemes with

workmen of various other companies in Goa in

around the year 1991 and thereafter, as suggested

to the witness. The settlements of sister concerns

produced on record also do not provide for such a

scheme. There is also nothing on record that the

superannuation scheme with LIC as claimed by

Party I existed in the year 1995. There is also no

such scheme provided for the workmen of ZACL

and Merck Ltd. nor such a scheme is reflected in

their settlements. There is no dispute that apart

from Gratuity, Provident Fund and Family Pension

Scheme, the workmen would receive monthly

amount from Retirement Benefit Scheme which is

in force, on his retirement. It is therefore the

demand No. 16 of Party I to incorporate

Superannuation Scheme by depositing two wages

per annum per workman towards Superannuation

Scheme with LIC cannot be granted.

Demand No. 17: Insurance

145. It is demanded by Party I that effective from

the year 1995, the Company should cover every

workman in the Group Insurance Scheme for

Rs. 5.00 lakhs. In defence, the Party II(1) has stated

that company does not have a practice of covering

these workmen under insurance policy and that

those workmen who statutorily comes under the

purview of Employees State Insurance Scheme are

covered under the said scheme and those who do

not come under the said scheme are covered under

the Group Insurance Scheme as per the settlement

under social security allowance. Shri Rohidas has

stated that the workmen who are required to work

in higher obnoxious pollutants, their life span

become shorter than normal workmen working in

other industries and in order to protect them and

their families from undue hardship in case of death,

it is necessary to have insurance for all workmen.

146. Shri Kurian has denied that Party I is

entitled for such a demand and stated that the

company does not have any Life Insurance Scheme

that assures payment of the sum on death of

workmen. There is no such scheme prevailing in

the region or in other factory units of sister

concerns. Needless to mention, those workmen who

come under the purview of ESI scheme are covered

under the said scheme and those workmen who do

not come under the purview of ESI are covered

under Social Security Allowance of the Settlement

dated 20.11.2001. There is nothing on record that

the factory of Party II(1) is hazardous or highly

obnoxious pollutants nor Inspectorate of Factories

has classified the said factory as hazardous in terms

of the said Act. There is no evidence to attribute

the death of workmen to the raw materials used in

the manufacture of tyres or that life span of the

workers is shortened due to the nature of work

done by them. There is therefore no justification

for grant of the said demand. Hence, the above

demand No. 17 stands rejected.

Demand No. 18: Employment of Employees’ Sons

& Daughters

147. It is demanded by Party I that in case the

company wants to recruit fresh hands for filling up

vacancies caused in permanent posts or new posts

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2157

are created, the company should give preference

in employment to workmens’ sons and daughters

provided they are vocationally fit for the job and in

furtherance to this object, the company should

maintain for purpose of recruitment in future a list

showing therein names of workmens’ sons and

daughters in order of seniority of their father’s

service in the company for purpose of recruitment

in future. In the written statement, the Party II(1)

has stated that it is natural and human ambition

of every workman that the children should be better

qualified and should look for better jobs. The above

demand of Party I is against public policy and hence

no industrial dispute can ever be raised in respect

of such a demand. Shri Rohidas has stated that the

demand is based on humanitarian ground which

would create employment opportunity to the

children of the workmen who have toiled for the

betterment of the company for a very long period

and will also create goodwill amongst the

employees of the company.

148. Shri Kurian has repudiated the said demand

in his affidavit. He has stated that he does not

know if the company had a policy of employing

children of workmen subject to fitness and having

the qualification against the vacancies. He clarified

that there are no vacancies in the factory for female

workmen. Shri Gracias has however admitted in

the cross examination that there has been practice

and policy of the management even prior to 1991

settlement subject to being qualified and going

through necessary criteria that the children of

employees would be considered for employment

by Party II(1). The Party I has claimed that since

there is a policy, it may be included in the

settlement. Shri Gracias has clearly admitted in

the cross examination that prior to 1991 settlement,

there was a practice of employing the children of

the workmen. There is however no stipulation in

any of the settlements prior to 1991 or thereafter

about the said policy of giving employment to the

children of the workmen. There is nothing wrong

to incorporate in the settlement, if there is such a

policy to give preference to children of the workmen

in employment subject to being qualified and going

through necessary criteria, which would create

employment opportunities for the children of the

workmen and goodwill amongst the employees

about the company. Hence, the demand No. 18 is

granted.

Demand No. 19: Attendence bonus

149. It is demanded by Party I that any workman

attending work on all working days in a month

should be eligible to receive from the Company

along with his monthly wages/salaries three days

wages/salaries, so also other benefits as mentioned

in the claim statement. In the written statement,

the Party II(1) has stated that the payment of

attendance bonus based on number of days worked

was done away with as per the settlement dated

20.11.1991. Shri Rohidas has reiterated the said

demand and stated that the company does not pay

attendance bonus to its workmen at its factory,

although there is a trend in the region of Goa to

pay attendance bonus to its workmen. He also

stated that attendance bonus is paid with a view

to cut down unnecessary absenteeism and to

encourage regular attendance which is beneficial

to both the parties as in many collective

settlements, the provision for payment of

attendance bonus has been made. Shri Kurian has

denied the justification of the said demand but in

the cross examination stated that the attendance

bonus under clause II(iv)(9) of the 1991 settlement

was paid @ Rs. 20/- p.m. and the rate has not been

changed from the year 1984 till 1998. The

attendance bonus was paid to the workmen only

if they attended all days of work in a month. He

also stated that under the 1991 settlement, though

the rate has remained the same at Rs. 20/- p.m. the

manner of paying the same to the workmen was

changed and the attendance bonus was paid to

workmen under Grade II to Grade VII as

convenience allowance and for workmen in

Grade I, it was paid as personal pay.

150. Shri Kurian has also admitted that in the

1991 settlement at Exh. 116, and the settlements

prior to that, the attendance bonus was paid to the

workmen as an incentive to reduce absenteeism

and to increase production. Shri Gracias has also

admitted that the attendance bonus which was

paid under 1988 settlement continued to be paid

under the head ‘Personal pay’, but in 2001

settlement, there was no clause for payment of

attendance bonus. It is a matter of record that the

attendance bonus under 1991 settlement was paid

@ 20/- p.m. and that the said rate has not been

changed from the year 1984 till 1998 or till 2001.

The said bonus was paid to the workmen only if

they attended all days in a month. The rate has not

changed, however the manner of paying the

attendance bonus has been unilaterally changed

by the management under different grades as

conveyance allowance or personal pay. The

payment of attendance bonus was therefore

inactive, although it was part of the settlement of

1991 and the explanation given by Shri Kurian for

not granting the said demand is that it would set

a bad precedent.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2158

151. Needless to reiterate, the attendance bonus

is paid to the workmen with a view to cut down

unnecessary absenteeism and encourage regular

attendance which is beneficial to both the company

and the workmen. The settlement of Kottayam

Plant at Exh. 261 colly shows that all the permanent

workmen who have worked on all the scheduled

working days in a calendar month is entitled to

receive attendance bonus and if a workman absents

himself on any day, the attendance bonus is not

paid for that particular month and if a workmen

takes one day eligible leave and is present for all

the other working days, he is paid less attendance

bonus. Similarly, in the case of settlement of Merck

Ltd. at Exh. 215 colly. good attendance bonus is

paid as it was agreed that good attendance bonus

for eligible workmen will continue to be paid as

per earlier settlement dated 27.11.2001 and an

additional sum would be paid who is present for

full month without availing any leave. The Party I

is claiming attendance bonus with conditions as

stipulated in the claim statement under demand

No. 19.

152. Needless to mention, there is a trend in the

region of Goa as well as their unit at Kottayam to

pay attendance bonus with condition that they

remain present for full month without availing any

leave. The Party I has justification to demand for

payment of attendance which Party II(1) has

discontinued abruptly, although reflected in

Settlement dated 20.1.1991. It therefore would be

just and proper that Attendance bonus shall be

paid to the workmen in the form of two extra days

wages/salaries, if the workman works for the

calendar month on all scheduled working days

without availing any leave considering that there

is a trend in the region as well as in their other

units located outside the region. The other demand

of payment of attendance bonus for working for

11/12 months in a year is therefore redundant. The

above demand No. 19 is answered partly in favour

of Party I.

Demand No. 20: Relief in case of Death and

Disability

153. It is demanded by Party I that in case any

workman dies during the course of his employment

while at work or otherwise except in case when

death is on account of habitual drinking or in case

of any workman becomes physically or mentally

incapacitated for any reason/reasons except on

account of excessive drinks during the course of

his employment and cannot therefore continue

himself in employment, his legal heir/heirs shall in

addition to all legal dues be entitled to receive

from the Company as mentioned in the claim

statement. In the written statement, the Party II(1)

has stated that there exists a scheme called Death

Relief Scheme as per settlement dated 20.11.1991.

Shri Rohidas in the affidavit has stated that in case

of death or permanent disability, the workmens’

family is put in a destitute condition and is

required to face economic and physical hardship

and on humanitarian consideration, the company

and the fellow workmen should help the family of

deceased by contributing each one day’s wages.

Shri Kurian has denied the justification of the said

demand of workmen of Party I.

154. Needless to mention, it is stipulated in the

settlement dated 21.10.91 that in case of death of

a workmen while in service, the company and the

workmen should contribute a matching amount of

Rs. 50/- each and pay the total amount to the heirs

of the deceased employee. There is therefore the

company has accepted the principle of payment of

amount to the heirs, in case of death of a workman

while in service or in case of permanent disability.

No doubt, apart from the above scheme, the family

of the deceased workman would get benefit from

Provident Fund Scheme, Gratuity Scheme or

Retirement Benefit Scheme. Be that as it may, there

cannot be any quarrel that in case of death/

/permanent disability, the family of the workman

faces economic and physical hardship and to

mitigate that the company and the fellow workman

contributes Rs. 50/- each. However, the said amount

may not be sufficient to help the family of the

deceased. The Party I is demanding Rs. 100/- each

from the management and the fellow workmen,

however considering the circumstances, the

company so also the co-employee should help the

family of the deceased by contributing Rs. 75/-

each, which would mitigate the economic and

physical hardship of the workmen/family of the

workmen. It is therefore the above demand No. 20

is partly granted.

Demand No. 21: Medical Benefits

155. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

should pay effective from October 1, 1995 every

permanent workman for himself and his family

members for domiciliary treatment on production

of necessary bills upto Rs. 6,000/- per annum. The

Party II(1) in the written statement has denied that

the medical treatment has become a regular item

of expenditure in the family budget because of

pollution and other factors like contaminated water

and has claimed that those workmen who come

under the purview of E.S.I. Act, the medical

treatment is free for themselves and for families

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2159

and hence question on spending money on medical

treatment does not arise. The witness of Party I

Shri Rohidas Naik has reiterated the said demand.

He has stated that the company manufactures

hazardous chemicals which are very harmful to

human life and are required to face a number of

diseases of eyes, nose, throat and chest. The amount

paid by the company towards medical expense is

totally inadequate.

156. Shri Kurian has refused to recognize the

above claim of Party I but stated that he

cannot say in what manner the medical

re-imbursement/medical allowance under clause

III(6)(A) was paid to the workmen under the 2001

settlement after 14.4.2001, for the period from

1.10.95

30.9.98,

which

shows

that

medical reimbursement/medical allowance was

incorporated in 2001 settlement. The medical

allowance is also incorporated in clause 6 of 1991

settlement, however the lowest was Rs. 1400/- and

the highest was Rs. 2300/-. The demand of Party I

is for reimbursement to every workman and his

family members for domiciliary treatment with

effect from 1.10.1995 for bills upto Rs. 6000/-.

Needless to mention, the company has already

accepted the principle of payment for non hospital

medical benefit to its workmen and the medical

treatment has become a regular item of expenditure

because of various reasons. The amount the

company pays towards the medical expense is

totally inadequate on account of rise in prices and

cannot meet requirement of medical treatment. It

is therefore necessary that company should pay

w.e.f. 1.10.95 to every permanent workman and his

family members Rs. 3,000/- per annum on

production of necessary bills. The demand No. 21

is therefore partly granted.

Demand No. 22: Hospitalisation allowance

157. It is demanded by Party I for hospitalization

allowance as mentioned in the claim statement. In

the written statement, the Party II(1) denied that

there is a trend in the region to pay hospitalization

expenses and that the workmen who are covered

under ESIC Scheme do not incur any hospitalization

for themselves and their families and the same are

paid by the ESIC and the workmen who are not

covered under the said scheme are covered under

the various schemes for hospitalization for accident

on duties and outside duties as per the settlement

of 20.11.1991. The witness of Party I Shri Rohidas

Naik has reiterated the said demand. Shri Kurian

in the cross examination has stated that there was

no hospitalization allowance or Group Insurance

Policy covering hospitalization of workmen or his

family members, if any of them were hospitalized

for the period from 1991 to 1998. He also stated

that from 2008 the company has taken a Group

Insurance Scheme with a policy that covers

hospitalization of the workmen, his spouse and his

two children upto the age of 25 years for total sum

of Rs. 2.00 lakhs per year. The said policy is a floater

policy under which any one member of the family

can use the entire cover of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for

hospitalization but cannot be carried forward to

the next year. He also stated that the entire

premium is paid by the Company to the Insurance

Company and the same is deducted from the

workmen with monthly installments.

158. Discernibly, in 1984 settlement, the existing

medical benefit of Rs. 200/- per calendar year for

non ESI workmen was enhanced to Rs. 250/- per

year. In 1991 settlement, the minimum medical

allowance for workmen not covered under ESI was

Rs. 1400/- per year as per the grades and maximum

Rs. 2300/- was paid for workmen of 11 years and

above. Shri Kurian has admitted that there is no

hospitalization allowance or Group Insurance

Allowance covering hospitalization of workmen or

his family members between the period 1991-1998

but from 2008 the company has taken the Group

Insurance Scheme covering hospitalization of the

workmen, spouse and two children upto the age of

25 years for a sum of Rs. 2.00 lakhs per year. The

company therefore felt a need for the first time in

the year 2008 of such a scheme in case of

hospitalization of the workmen or his family

members and two children. The Party I Union is

demanding Rs. 50,000/- per year towards the said

policy for those workmen who are not covered

under ESI. The demand for hospitalization is

therefore just and proper, however the company

should reimburse the workmen or the family

members hospitalization expenses to a maximum

amount of Rs. 25,000/- provided he has put in

service of atleast three years and more as on

31.12.1995. Hence, demand No. 22 is answered

accordingly.

Demand No. 23: Canteen meal subsidy

159. The Party I has demanded for canteen meal

subsidy and breakfast subsidy as mentioned in the

claim statement. In the written statement, the

Party II(1) has stated that the meal and the breakfast

in shifts is served to the workmen as per the various

settlements including settlement dated 20.11.91.

Shri Rohidas has stated that the company has

accepted the principle of providing meal and

breakfast subsidy and the main reason for making

such a demand is that company has been dealing

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2160

in noxious substances and pollutants which are

very harmful to human life. Shri Kurian has admitted

that under the 1991 settlement, the company

provides for breakfast and meal subsidy for the

meals provided in the canteen and all three shifts

have a system for serving tea to the workmen twice

in a shift at the shop floor and the same is not

mentioned in the 1991 settlement. The tea supplied

at the shop floor is free and only tea is served and

no snacks, juice or milk is served.

160. There is no dispute that the management

provides for canteen meal subsidy and breakfast

subsidy in terms of 1991 settlement and that there

is a system for serving tea to the workmen twice

in a shift at the shop floor free of cost, however

there is no system of supplying snacks, milk/juice

to the employees in the company. The meals and

breakfast in shifts are served to the workmen as

per various settlements including the settlement

dated 20.11.1991 and therefore there is no need of

revision of canteen meal subsidy and breakfast

subsidy. There is also no evidence that the company

is dealing in noxious and pollutants which are

harmful to human life, as alleged. It is also not

shown that by providing free tea/coffee, snacks,

milk/juice, etc. would keep the workmen safe from

alleged noxious substance. There is also no trend

in the region or outside the region of providing the

above demands of Party I. There is therefore no

necessity to grant the demands made by Party I

towards canteen meal subsidy and breakfast

subsidy. Hence, the demand No. 23 is rejected.

Demand No. 24: Vehicle and Furniture Loan

161. It is demanded by Party I that effective from

the year 1995 company should provide loan for

purchase of vehicle and furniture to Rs. 30,000/- at

4% interest to be repaid in 48 monthly installments.

In the written statement, the Party II(1) has stated

that the company has not accepted the principle

of providing vehicle and furniture loan to the

workmen at the factory. Shri Rohidas has stated

that the establishments in the region have accepted

the principle of providing vehicle and furniture

loan to its workmen and therefore an amount of Rs.

30,000/- be granted for vehicle and furniture loan.

Shri Kurian has stated that the demand No. 24

towards vehicle and furniture loan of Rs. 30,000/-

is unfair and unjustified. Admittedly, there is no

settlement of Party II(1) or its sister concerns by

which vehicle/furniture loan is granted to the

workmen. Discernibly, clause 24.1 (a) of settlement

of ZACL at Exh. 210 for the year 1996-98 provides

for vehicle loan and clause 24.2(b) of the said

settlement provides for furniture/equipment loan

of Rs. 40,000/- @ 4% interest per annum and that

furniture loan would be granted only on expiry of

installment period of vehicle loan and vice versa.

The demand of Party I is to provide Rs 30,000/- as

loan for purchase of vehicle and furniture like the

settlement of ZACL, which provides loan upto

maximum of Rs. 40,000/-. There is a trend in the

region for providing vehicle/furniture loan and

therefore grant of loan of Rs. 30,000/- for purchase

of vehicle and furniture @ 4% interest p.a. payable

in 48 installments is fair and proper. Hence, the

demand No. 24 is answered in affirmative.

Demand No. 25: Housing loan

162. It is demanded by Party I that effective from

the year 1995 the Company should give to

permanent workmen housing loan upto three lakhs

or 100 month total salary whichever is higher at 4%

interest to be deducted in the monthly installments,

for purchase of flat and house repairs. In the written

statement, the Party II(1) has denied that the

company has accepted the principle of giving

housing loan to the workmen but the company has

been subsidizing the interest on loan taken by its

workmen towards housing as per the settlement

dated 20.11.1991. Shri Rohidas in the affidavit has

stated that the cost of housing has been going up

day after day and considering the poor salary scale,

the housing loan scheme of the company is not

adequate. The loan taken from the financial

institutions is required to be paid with nearly 18%

of interest and the installment slabs are also very

high to be paid every month by the workmen. He

also stated that in many collective agreements/

/settlements the management has been giving

housing loan at a much lower rate of interest and

the repayment slabs are also easier.

163. Shri Kurian however has stated that the

company does not give housing loans to its

workmen but in 1991 settlement, it subsidized the

interest to a maximum of 10% on housing loans

taken by workmen to a maximum loan amount of

Rs. 40,000/- and such loan amount had to be taken

from the recognized financial institutions and only

twelve workmen per year confirmed as on 30.9.1991

would be eligible to this benefit during the

currency of that settlement i.e. a total of 48

workmen from the entire workforce as on 30.9.1991

would be entitled to the said subsidy on interest.

He further stated that the cost borne by the

company towards the housing loan subsidy in

1991-95 settlement is Rs 15,273/- per annum and

that the Demand No. 25 towards purchase of house

or house repair at 4% interest for the period

1995-98 is Rs. 7,05,993/- per month. The company

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2161

has not accepted any principle of granting any

loan through financial institution, but is subsidizing

the interest on loan upto certain limit as per

settlement dated 20.11.1991.

164. Admittedly, the company does not give

housing loan to its workers, but subsidizes the

interest to a maximum of 10% on housing loan taken

by workmen to a maximum loan amount of Rs.

40,000/-. It needs no mention that the cost of

housing has been going up day after day and the

scheme of the company for housing loan is not

adequate. The company has however accepted the

principle of acquiring the house by its workmen. It

is also admitted fact that the loan taken from the

Financial Institutions is paid with substantially

high interest to be paid every month. The

settlements of sister concerns do not show that

they provide for any housing loan, however, the

settlement of Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. at Exh.

210 for the year 1996-98 at clause 24.3 (c) provides

for maximum loan for housing of Rs. 3.00 lakhs and

loans are granted on such terms and conditions

set forth by the company which ensures smooth

recovery. The housing loan demanded by Party I of

Rs. three lakhs is just and reasonable, considering

that the cost of housing has been going up day

after day and it becomes impracticable for the

workman to have a house of his own and therefore

demand No. 25 appears to be fair and justified.

Hence, the same is granted.

Demand No. 26: Car loan

165. It is demanded by Party I that effective from

the year 1995 the Company should give to every

permanent workman who has put in service of 5

years and more car loan of Rs. one lakh at 4%

interest and to be deducted in 120 equal

installments. In the written statement, the Party

II(1) has stated that the workmen travel from his

residence to the place of work by company

arranged transport which is highly subsidized. Shri

Rohidas in the affidavit has stated that the company

has already accepted the principle of giving vehicle

loan for purchasing motorcycle/scooter/moped to

its workmen and that the transport system in Goa

is expensive and the workmen and their families

have to travel long distance from their residence

to the place of work or to the school and colleges

for which the workmen are required to spend a

large amount from the salary.

166. Shri Kurian has repudiated the demand but

in the cross examination has stated that the demand

No. 26 for car loan of Rs. one lakh with 4% interest

is not found reflected in 1991-95 settlement and

that the cost of the demand No. 26 for car loan is

Rs. 2,46,411/- per month for 890 workmen. Needless

to mention, the company has not accepted the

principle of giving car loan to its workmen at its

factory nor there is evidence that there is provision

for a car loan in the settlements of Party II(1) or the

settlements of other sister concerns including TVT

Plant and Kottayam Plant. There is also nothing on

record that the transport system in Goa is expensive

and the workmen and their families have to travel

for long distance from their residence to their place

of work and have to spend large amount towards

transport. There cannot be any dispute that the

workmen travel from the residences to the place of

work by company arranged transport which is

highly subsidized. There is also no trend in the

factories situated in the region to provide loan for

a car nor there is any justification for giving in to

the said demand. It is therefore the demand for car

loan is not fair or proper. Hence, demand No. 26

stands not granted.

Demand No. 27: Retirement Benefit

167. It is demanded by the Party I that the

existing system of Retirement Benefit with Life

Insurance Corporation of India should continue with

modification in monthly contribution from the

Company and the workmen as mentioned in the

claim statement. The Party II(1) in the written

statement has stated that the Retirement Benefit

Scheme is in force as per the Settlement dated

20.11.1991. The scheme will be as per the Group

Superannuation Scheme of L.I.C. of India and that

apart from the said money that the workmen will

receive from the above scheme of retirement, a

substantial amount would be received from the

Family Pension Scheme, Provident Fund and

Gratuity Scheme which is more than enough to

take care of his needs after the retirement. Shri

Rohidas Naik has claimed that the company has

already accepted the principle of giving retirement

benefits to its workmen and the workmen are

seeking only minor modification in the said existing

system. Moreover, since the financial capacity of

the company is extremely sound and shall continue

to remain the same in the future, it can easily bear

the burden that may be imposed on it.

168. Shri T. M. Kurian has stated that for the year

1991-95 the company had a Retirement Benefit

Scheme with Life Insurance Corporation of India

and the company as well as workmen contribute

in a proportion stated in 6(II) of 1991 settlement at

rates of contribution specified in Annexure V. The

company does not have any pension scheme nor

does it pay pension to the workmen after retirement

and that this LIC superannuation scheme was

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2162

discontinued because Provident Fund Pension

Scheme was started in 1995 and the same was

done with the consent of GMU and the

management. He further stated that the LIC

Superannuation Scheme managed by the Trust is

not dissolved and at the moment, they have got

185 members and the amount with the Trust is

Rs. 53,70,711/-. Shri Michael Gracias has also stated

that the above LIC superannuation scheme was

initiated in the year 1993 and closed as per the

settlement dated 14.4.2001 and discontinued on

30.11.2002 and that the people who were the

beneficiaries of 2001 settlement, their deductions

were stopped in 2001 and those who had not

accepted, it went upto November, 2002. He also

admitted that the Trust has not been dissolved

and from the year 1995 to 2001, both Life Insurance

Corporation Pension Scheme and Provident Fund

Pension Scheme were co-existent.

169. Needless to mention, the Retirement Benefit

Scheme with LIC has been discontinued in 2001

settlement in view of statutory Family Pension

Scheme introduced by the Provident Fund

Authorities. It is a matter of record that both

schemes continued in 1995 to 2001 and thereafter

the LIC Scheme was discontinued in the year 2002.

It is also to be noted that the demand of GMU as

per Charter of demands at Exh. 455, was to continue

the said scheme, on the contrary, the demand of

the Party II(1) as per Exh. 252 was to scrap the said

scheme. The Charter of demands of Party I dated

15.2.1996 was also to continue the said scheme

with modification. It is an admitted fact that the

Trust Deed with reference to superannuation

scheme with LIC was executed on 21.9.1993 which

was created and registered under the Indian Trust

Act and that the said Trust has not been wound up

in relation to clause 28(1)(b) of the Trust Deed and

that after discontinuation of the above scheme from

year 2001, the amount in the Trust Fund continued

in possession of LIC in which, both the

management and the workmen contributed to both

the schemes during 1995-98. There is therefore no

justification as to why the scheme was breached

which was successfully running till 1998.

170. There is also no dispute that running the

said scheme with higher contribution from both

the side would have benefited the workmen and

they could have enjoyed the benefits of two

schemes. There is also no dispute that the Trust

Deed was executed on 21.9.1993 for the purpose of

managing the said scheme which was registered

under the Indian Trust Act and same is in force till

date. There is therefore no justification for

abolishing the said scheme. The cost of the demand

is not much if compared with huge benefit the

workers would get. There is also no dispute that

the amount in the Trust Fund continued in

possession of LIC after discontinuation of the above

scheme. The contribution was also done by the

members of Party I. There is nothing on record that

the members of Party I agreed for the above

proposal of discontinuation. It is therefore not

understood why the said scheme was discontinued

when admittedly 2001 settlement covered only the

members of GMU, more so when, the amount under

the scheme is at present with LIC. There is nothing

on record that GMU had asked for its

discontinuation as in their demand at Exh. 455

they had asked for continuation of the said scheme.

171. There is also nothing on record that the

GMU opted for second scheme or that the PF

retirement scheme is more beneficial than the LIC

superannuation scheme. Moreover, the settlement

of 2001 which include the benefit of clause V(6) of

PF retirement scheme was to be extended only to

those workmen who are the members of GMU who

signed the undertakings in terms of Annexure III

of 2001 settlement. The act of abolishing LIC

superannuation scheme is therefore illegal and

without consent of the members of Party I who had

not signed the undertakings nor there was any

cause for abolishing the LIC superannuation

scheme when PF pension scheme was statutory.

The existing system of retirement benefit with LIC

of India cannot be unilaterally discontinued by the

company but should continue with modification in

monthly contribution from the company and the

workmen as stated in demand No. 27 as financial

position of the company is sound and shall

continue to remain the same in the future

considering the documents produced on record

and the company can easily bear the burden that

may be imposed on it as the benefits to the

workmen is huge compared to the financial burden

on the company. The scheme cannot be

discontinued as stated above and should continue

with modification in the existing scheme. It is

therefore the demand No. 27 for modification in

the existing scheme is fair, just and proper.

Demand No. 28: Leave

172. It is demanded by Party I that the following

provisions for leave be granted.

(A) Accident Leave

Employees covered under the State Insurance

Scheme if meet with an accident during the course

of their employment and while in employment

should be given accident leave of full wages/

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2163

salaries for a maximum period of six months.

However, such workmen if already covered or

subsequently covered under E.S.I. Scheme should

be entitled to get benefits of accident leave on full

wages/salaries minus whatever is payable by the

E.S.I. to such workman. The Party II(1) in defense

has claimed that the accident leave while on duty

or outside duty and compensation thereof is

covered under Group Insurance Scheme in

accordance with the Settlement dated 20.11.1991

or ESIC Scheme. Shri Rohidas has reiterated the

said demand. However, as stated by Shri Kurian,

there is no concept of accident leave in the

settlements of Party II(1), so also settlements of

TVT Plant or Kottayam Plants. There is also no

dispute that the accident while on duty or outside

duty and the compensation, if any is covered under

Group Insurance Scheme in terms of settlement

dated 20.11.1991 and therefore, no revision in the

above leave is required and hence, the above

demand cannot be granted.

(B) Casual Leave

173. Every workman should be given 15 days

casual leave in a year with a right to encash full

or balance of the leave at the end of the year and

in case anyone of the workmen does not avail of

anyone day’s casual leave in a year, such a

workman should be eligible to receive a premium

of ten days additional wages over and above

payment for unused full casual leave. In defense,

the Party II(1) has stated that the casual leave has

been provided under the statute and the last

settlement signed on 18.1.88 provides for 12 days

casual leave which is more than sufficient to meet

the emergency needs of the workmen. Shri Rohidas

has reiterated the said demand. Shri Kurian has

stated that they are giving 12 days as casual leave

to the workmen. The settlement of 1988 shows that

the casual leave was increased from 10 days to 12

days per year and the said system continued in

1991 and 2001 settlements. The maximum casual

leave granted by the Kottayam Plant to the

workmen is 9 days and therefore the demand of 15

days casual leave is not justified. The casual leave

of 12 days in a calendar year provided in settlement

dated 18.1.1988 and continued thereafter is more

than sufficient to meet the emergency needs of the

workmen and needs no further consideration. The

claim of encashment of casual leave is also unheard

of. It is therefore the above demand cannot be

granted.

174. Every workmen covered under the

Employees State Insurance Scheme should be given

15 days (fifteen days) sick leave on full wages/

/salaries per year with a right to encash either full

or balance of it at the end of the year, so also other

benefits as mentioned in the claim statement. In

defence, the Party II(1) has stated that they grant

3 days sick leave to the workmen who are covered

under the ESIC scheme and those not covered has

been granted 11 days in a calendar year as per

settlement dated 18.1.88 and the said sick leave is

more than sufficient to meet any eventualities and

needs no further modification. Shri Rohidas has

reiterated the said demand but Shri Kurian has

stated that in 1988 settlement, permanent workmen

who are not covered by ESI, sick leave entitlement

was increased from 10 to 11 days per year. He

further stated that there is no concept of

encashment of sick leave by the workmen but it

can accumulate sick leave upto 30 days i.e. 11 days

per year for a period of 3 years and the same can

be carried forward upto 90 days over a period of 3

years.

175. Admittedly, the settlement of 1988 shows

that the sick leave entitlement was increased from

10 days to 11 days per year for workmen not covered

by ESI and the said system continued in 1991 and

2001 settlement, which is more than sufficient to

meet the emergency needs of the workmen and

needs no further consideration. The Kottayam Plant

grants maximum sick leave of 7 days to the

workmen and therefore, the demand of 15 days

sick leave by Party I is not proper and justified.

There is also no concept of encashment of sick

leave by the workmen as stated by Shri Kurian, so

also there is no evidence that granting of sick leave

maximizes the attendance and results in higher

production. It is therefore the above demand cannot

be granted.

(D) Privilege Leave

176. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

should give to every permanent workman who has

completed eleven months of service 35 days

privilege leave per year of service with a right to

accumulate the same for a period of 180 days and

the workman should be allowed to encash leave to

the extent of 75% of leave standing to his credit

provided he proceeds on minimum 5 days privilege

leave at the time of encashment and all public

holidays, weekly off’s should be excluded from

privilege leave and the workman should be allowed

to take privilege leave five times in a year. In

defense, the Party II(1) has stated that Privilege

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2164

leave or earned leave is granted to the workmen in

accordance to the statute or settlements signed

between the management and the last settlement

dated 18.1.88 provides for earned leave. Shri

Rohidas has reiterated the said demand. Shri

Kurian on the other hand has claimed that the

earned leave is dependent upon the number of

days the workmen had worked in the previous year

which will be availed of in the next year and that

the calculation towards per day of earned leave

sought to be encashed would vary according to

rate at which the workmen had performed.

177. The demand of the Party I is for increase of

privilege leave to 35 days with accumulation upto

180 days and encashment to the extent of 75% of

the leave to his credit, however there is no such a

trend in the region as well as in their own sister

concerns. No evidence has been led by the Party

I that such a trend is available in the region or

outside the region, so also justification of such a

demand. No agreements or settlements have been

produced on record granting 35 days earned leave

in a calendar year with accumulation of the same

upto 180 days and encashment of 75% of the leave

to the credit of the workmen. There is also no

evidence that the nature of work performed by the

workmen at the factory requires longer period of

rest. The demand of 35 days earned leave and other

accompanying demands are therefore not proper

or justified. Hence, the above demand cannot be

granted.

(E) Paternity Leave

178. It is demanded by Party I that every workman

should be given paternity leave of six days on full

wages/salaries twice in his service at the time of

his wife’s delivery provided that he takes the same

within fifteen days of the child’s birth. In the

written statement, the Party II(1) has stated that

there is no trend in the region to grant paternity

leave to its workmen and the workmen have been

granted sufficient leave to meet any exigencies.

Shri Rohidas has stated that the company does not

give paternity leave to its workmen and that the

demand is based on the trend prevailing in the

region. Shri Kurian has denied the said demand.

He has stated that the company does not have the

concept of granting paternity leave with wages

till date. The Party I has claimed that the demand

is based on hardship and torture of women and the

trend is prevailing in the region, however no

evidence has been adduced in support of the said

claim. The Party I has not produced any settlements

or agreements providing for such a leave nor shown

any cause for grant of such a demand. The said

demand is therefore answered in the negative.

(F) Special Leave for unforseen circumstances

179. It is demanded by Party I that every workman

should be given six days special leave on full

wages/salaries on occasion of death of father,

mother or wife/husband or a child, twice during

his service. In defence, the Party II(1) has stated

that there is no trend in the region for providing

special leave for unforeseen circumstances. Shri

Rohidas has stated that the company does not have

provision for giving special leave for unforeseen

circumstances on the occasion of death of

workmen’s parents/wife/child and that the demand

is based on trend prevailing in the region and

number of settlements/agreements where provision

of such a leave has been made. Shri Kurian however

has stated that there is no concept of special leave

covered by 1991 settlement but if a workman

requires leave for cases such as death of a family

member, he will have to avail of earned leave to his

credit and in the event he has no earned leave to

his credit, he would not be paid any wage for such

case of absence and that he can ask for advance

earned leave which is given case by case. There is

no concept of special leave for unforeseen

circumstances in the industries located in the

region as well as in their own Plants elsewhere.

There is nothing on record that the said demand

is based on trend prevailing in the region or by

way of collective settlements where provision of

such a leave is made. It is seen that sufficient leave

has been granted under various settlements to

meet such exigencies and therefore, the said

demand is not fair and proper.

(G) Honeymoon Leave

180. It is demanded by Party I that every workman

should be given once in his service honeymoon

leave of fifteen days on full pay at the time of his

first legal marriage. In defence, the Party II(1) has

stated that there is no trend prevailing in the

region for grant of honeymoon leave. Shri Rohidas

has reiterated the demand and claimed that many

companies have this provision of leave in their

settlements. Shri Kurian has stated that there is no

such trend prevailing in the region for grant of

such a leave. There is nothing on record that the

said demand is based on any trend prevailing in

the region or in the settlements where provision of

such a leave is made. The Party I has failed to

prove that many of the companies in the region

has this provision of leave in their agreements. The

sister concerns of Party II(1) whose settlements have

been produced on record do not provide for such

a leave and therefore, the said demand is not fair

and proper.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2165

(H) Service Leave

181. It is demanded by Party I that all confirmed

workmen should be given service leave of two days

per year of service and the same should be merged

with casual leave. In the written statement, the

Party II has stated that Service leave is granted to

the workmen as per the settlement dated 20.11.91.

Shri Rohidas has reiterated the said demand. Shri

Kurian has claimed that such a leave is provided

in the settlement dated 20.11.1991 which is more

than adequate and does not require any further

consideration. Admittedly, the Service leave under

the 1991 settlement was granted only to the

workmen who had put in more than 6 years of

confirmed service as on 30.9.1991 and the service

leave would be given as per clause IV(1)(d) of the

1991 settlement. The Party I is demanding service

leave of two days per year for all the confirmed

workmen. The settlement dated 20.11.91 as well as

Settlement 14.4.2001 provide for service leave for

the workmen. The present service leave facility

provided to the workmen is more than adequate

and does not need any further revision. It is

therefore no case is made out by Party I for grant

of such a demand.

(I) Special Leave for natural calamities, bandh,

etc.

182. It is demanded by Party I that the special

leave should be given for bandhs and civil

commotions. In the written statement, the

Party II(1) has stated that the workmen have been

granted sufficient number of paid leave and

therefore the demand for special leave for natural

calamities, bandh, etc. is preposterous. Shri Rohidas

has reiterated the said demand. Shri Kurian has

stated that no leave was granted to the workmen

due to absence on account of natural calamities,

bandh or civil commotion. The Party I is claiming

special leave for natural calamities, bandh, etc.,

however said demand cannot be granted as civil

commotions, natural calamities or bandhs cannot

be attributable to the company. There are sufficient

numbers of paid leaves under the settlements being

granted to the workmen to meet such exigencies,

if any and therefore, such a demand is preposterous

and hence, cannot be granted being unfair and

improper.

(J) Holiday declared by Central/State

Government

183. It is demanded that if the Central

Government or State Government declares any

National Holiday or holiday under the Negotiable

Instrument Act or any Industrial holiday, the same

be made applicable to MRF employees. In the

written statement, the Party II(1) has stated that

the holidays under Negotiable Instruments Act or

the holidays declared by the Central/State

Government are covered under various legislations

and need not be dealt with in this reference. Shri

Rohidas has reiterated the said demand and has

stated that the company has a history of refusing

to grant paid holidays for Election Day despite

Central Government Notifications declaring

assembly and parliamentary elections. Shri Kurian

has admitted that the company had imposed a fine

on the workmen for not attending duty on ‘Election

Holiday’ under the Representation of People’s Act

and that Party I had raised a dispute before the

Tribunal. Admittedly, the company had refused to

grant paid holiday for election day despite Central

Government Notification declaring assembly and

parliamentary elections. There is no dispute that

the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 283/

99 filed by Party I declared that the workmen would

be entitled to the entire day as paid holiday. The

Party II(1) cannot impose any fine on the workmen

for not attending duty on election day or

Government declared holidays. The above demand

of Party I is therefore fair and proper and hence,

should be granted.

Demand No. 29: Paid Holidays

184. It is demanded by Party I that the workmen

should be given 18 days paid holidays in a year

and the holidays should be fixed by the Company

in consultation with the Union Committee members.

In defence, the Party II(1) has stated that the paid

holidays are granted in accordance with the

Settlement dated 20.11.1991. The number of

holidays granted to the workmen per year is more

than required under the statute and hence, need

no further consideration. Shri Rohidas in the

affidavit has stated that the employees working at

the registered office or the head office get all the

Bank holidays which are more than eighteen in a

year. The nature of work done in the company

requires the workmen more rest and more

recuperation than the workmen at the head office.

There is also a trend in the region to observe same

number of holidays for all the employees.

185. Shri Kurian has denied the demand raised

by Party I and stated that in the 1991 settlement,

the workmen were granted 7 paid holidays which

are Republic day, Independence Day, Ganesh

Chaturthi, Goa Liberation day, Christmas, Gandhi

Jayanti and Id-Ul-Fitr and three restricted holidays

which could be selected by the workmen from the

list of holidays and that for the festival of Ganesh

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2166

Chaturthi, most families celebrate the festival for

one and half day and would require two days off,

because of one and half day celebration, 1st day is

given as holiday and 2nd day is given as restricted

holiday. He admitted that the work done by the

employees at head office is sedentary in nature

which requires the employee to sit down while

working in clerical job, while the employees at the

factory are mainly doing physical job. The Party I

is demanding 18 days paid holiday in a year to be

fixed by the company in consultation with the local

committee members. There is also no dispute that

under Factories Act, seven paid holidays are

required to be given. There is no trend in the region

as well as outside the region for giving 18 days

paid holidays to the workmen in a year, other than

statutory holidays. The demand of Party I of 18

days paid holidays is therefore unjust. Hence, the

demand No. 29 cannot be granted.

Demand No. 30: Transport

186. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

should extend bus service in all three shifts on the

routes as mentioned in the claim statement. In

defence, it is submitted by Party II(1) that the

company has been plying buses to cover almost all

the employees coming from various parts of Goa

and hence, transport facility is more than sufficient

to transport the said workers to the factory

and back and hence revision is not required.

Shri Rohidas has stated that the company has

already accepted the principle of providing bus

service to its workmen and that the Union has

merely demanded some improvement in respect of

different destination for the convenience of the

staff. Shri Kurian has stated that from the year

1991-95, there was no bus service provided by

Party II(1) from Sanguem to the factory. Similarly,

there was no bus service from Tilamol to the factory

and from Siolim to the factory and that the bus

service did not cover the routes like Valpoi to

factory, Cumbharjua to factory and Ganjem to

factory.

187. Admittedly, there is no bus service from the

factory to Sanguem, Tilamol, Siolim, Cumbharjua,

Ganjem and Valpoi and vice versa at present and

that Demand No. 31 is covered under 2001

settlement. There also cannot be any dispute that

in 1991 settlement, it was agreed that in addition

to present transport system, extension of route was

introduced from Margao-Cortalim, Usgao-Bicholim

and Panjim-Marcel. There is no dispute that bus

service from factory to Sanguem, Tilamol, Siolim,

Cumbharjua, Ganjem and Valpoi are available at

present, however Party I has not produced anything

on record as to the number of workmen employed

with Party II(1) using the said routes mentioned in

demand No. 30. The Party I is also providing

subsidized bus service in all the shifts to the

workmen coming from various parts of Goa and

therefore transport facility is more than sufficient

provided by the company. The demand No. 30

cannot be granted.

Demand No. 31: Marriage gift

188. It is demanded by Party I that a workman

with service of 5 years and more in the Company

as on December 31, 1995 or on December 31 of any

subsequent year should be eligible to receive from

the Company a gift of Rs. 7000/- at the time of his

own marriage or marriage of his son/daughter and

the said cash gift should be given only twice in

the Company’s service. In the written statement,

the Party II(1) has denied that there is a trend

prevailing in the region for granting marriage gift.

Shri Rohidas in the affidavit has stated that the

company does not give any marriage gift to its

workmen working in the factory and their demand

is based on trend prevailing in the region.

Shri Kurian has stated that the company had a

practice of giving the workman or his family member

a gift. He also stated that at present they are giving

a marriage gift in the factory i.e. Rs. 1000/- for his

own marriage and Rs. 500/- for his child’s marriage.

189. Admittedly, there is a practice of giving a

workmen or his family member a marriage gift.

There is no dispute that the Party II is giving

Rs. 1000/- for the marriage of the workman and

Rs. 500/- for marriage of his children. The Party I is

demanding Rs. 7,000/- as marriage gift to its

workmen or his son/daughter twice in the company

service on the ground that the demand is based on

the trend prevailing in the region, however, all the

settlements of MRF including their units at

Kottayam and TVT Plant do not offer any marriage

gift to its workmen. The settlements of Merck Ltd.

as well as Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd., also do not

provide any marriage gifts to its workers or their

children. There is therefore no trend prevailing in

the region or otherwise of providing a marriage

gift to the workmen or their children. The prevailing

practice of giving marriage gift of Rs. 1000/- to its

workmen and Rs. 500/- to their children would

therefore be just and proper. The demand of Party

I of payment of Rs.7000/- as marriage gift to

workman or his son/daughter twice in his service

tenure, therefore would be preposterous. The

demand No. 31 for marriage gift for the workmen

and his children would be as discussed above.

Hence, it is answered accordingly.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2167

Demand No. 32: Overtime

190. It is demanded by Party I that any workman

required to work on paid holidays should be paid

overtime at the rate of two times the wages and

compensatory off. Any workman required to work

for a full day on a paid holiday which falls on his

first weekly off as per his duty roaster should be

paid double the wages for the hours worked plus

additional wages for 16 hours being a paid holiday

for the Company, in all 32 hours wages/salaries

should be paid. In defence, the Party II(1) has stated

that the payment of overtime wages for working

on paid holiday or weekly off days has been defined

in the Settlement dated 20.11.1991. There is no

trend in the region in respect of such demand

being granted. The workmen working for more than

forty eight hours a week are paid overtime wages

in accordance with the statute. Shri Rohidas has

stated that Union demanded overtime at the rate

of two times of normal wages, in case if any

workman is asked to work over and above his

normal duty hours as per statutory provision. The

workmen should be paid wages at a higher rate

than the normal rate and that the company should

also give compensatory off.

191. Shri Kurian has stated that the Party II(1)

has a system of payment for overtime in the factory.

The overtime paid between the period from

1991-95 is as per the Factories Act. If a workmen

does his normal shift and an additional shift after

that, he is paid the overtime. The workman is not

given a compensatory off, if he opts for being paid

overtime. He stated that he does not know if in the

Goa region other factories equivalent to their size

of Party II(1) company gives their workman a

compensatory off, in addition to overtime payment

but admitted that between the period from

1991-95, there might be many workmen who might

have done overtime of 15 hours in a month. He also

stated that the overtime is done by the workmen

on request of the management due to exigencies

of work or due to absenteeism of the workmen.

192. Discernibly, in 1981 settlement overtime

payment has been calculated at double the normal

rate of wages as per provisions of the Factories Act

including the piece rate of wages and the same

continued in 1984, 1988, 1991 and 2001 settlements.

It is also noticed that under Art.6 of the settlement

of Kottayam Plant, overtime wages is paid at double

the actual wages earned for the relevant shift.

There is no dispute that as per settlement of ZACL

at Exh. 210 for the period from 1.1.1996 to

31.12.1998, overtime allowance was paid beyond

normal working hours at double the rate of wages

for extra hours worked. The Party I has demanded

that any workmen who worked on paid holiday

should be paid overtime @ 2 times the wages and

compensatory off and workmen working for full

day on a paid holiday which falls on first weekly

off should be paid double the wages of the hours

worked plus additional wage for 16 hours being a

paid holiday. The Party II(1) as per the settlement

of 1981 and thereafter is paying overtime as per

the provision of Factories Act and includes wages

for working on weekly off days and holidays. The

said system continued till 2001. The settlement of

1981 makes mention of wages for working on weekly

off day and holidays. There is therefore a trend in

the region as well as outside the region of payment

of overtime. It would therefore be proper for the

Party II(1) to pay overtime @ 2 times the wages for

working for a full day on a paid holiday or company

holiday, however, compensatory off need not be

given. The demand No. 32 is therefore partly

granted.

Demand No. 33: Promotion policy and

up-gradation

193. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

should follow the policy of internal promotion and

up-gradation on basis of seniority-cum-merits in

consultation with the Union as and when vacancies

are caused or new vacancies are created. In the

written statement, the Party II(1) has stated that

the promotion policy of the company does not come

under the purview of industrial dispute. The jobs

in the factory are graded as per the nature of work

and the workmen doing the work are paid

accordingly. There is no trend in the region for

promotion and up-gradation in the industry. The

promotions to higher grades are given based on

merits and capability of the workmen. Shri Rohidas

has stated that the Union has demanded policy of

internal promotion and up-gradation on the basis

of seniority cum merit.

194. Shri Kurian has admitted that the company

does not have the promotion policy for promotion

or up-gradation of workmen in the factory. He

stated that the basis for fixing a grade for a

workman is on classification of skill, nature of job

and responsibility. He also stated that there is no

document by which the company classifies the

various grades of jobs by the skill, nature of job and

responsibility and that he does not do the work of

classification of workmen into grades on the above

system, but the Industrial Engineering Department

does the same. He also stated that the Party II(1)

maintains a seniority list of workmen on the basis

of their date of confirmation, but do not maintain

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2168

any seniority list for trainees/temporaries and

probationers. He denied the suggestion that the

workmen are arbitrarily fitted, promoted/up-graded

into grades without following any system of

classification or norms.

195. Admittedly, there is no promotion policy for

the promotion or up-gradation of the workmen in

the factory. There is also no recruitment and

promotion policy in respect of settlement produced

on record of TVT Plant at Exh. 293. The Party I has

however produced on record three settlements of

Kottayam plant at Exh. 216 colly wherein the

recruitment and promotion of workmen and staff

were the sole discretion of the management and

workmen or Unions would not have any right

whatsoever on this right of management and no

workmen or Union could interfere with the

management’s discretion, in any manner

whatsoever. Shri Kurian has admitted that in terms

of the settlement of Kottayam Plant at Exh. 216

colly, eligible workmen from among the ‘Senior

Workmen’ as described in Art. 33 shall be

considered for promotion to management cadre

based on seniority, merit and suitability and to

decide on suitability a test and interview is

conducted by the management from among the

senior workmen and the selection of these

candidates is considered by management for such

vacancies. There is no such recruitment and

promotion policy being followed by Party II(1) like

Kottayam plant. It is therefore in such

circumstances, there should be a policy of internal

promotion and up-gradation of workmen on the

basis of seniority cum merit as in the case of

Kottayam Plant, which will encourage the workmen

to work with efficiency and the senior workmen

will get chance to work in higher posts. It is

therefore, the demand No. 33 of Party I is just, fair

and reasonable.

Demand No. 34: Working hours

196. It is demanded by Party I that the working

hours of permanent workmen should be revised as

stated in the claim statement. In defence, the Party

II(1) has stated that the workmen are required to

work eight hours per shift with 30 minutes lunch

break as prescribed under the Factories Act. The

management staff employed at factory has also the

same hours of work as the workmen. Shri Rohidas

has stated that because of working in such polluted

and hazardous chemical, the Union demanded

reduction of working hours as there is a trend all

over the world to have shorter working hours in a

week which would improve its efficiency.

Shri Kurian has stated that the working hours are

described by the Factories Act and Certified

Standing Orders of the company. It is an admitted

fact that the company at present is having working

hours as stated in para 207 of affidavit of Shri

Rohidas Naik.

197. The Party I has demanded reduction in

timing of three shift by 15 minutes per day and

general shift by 30 minutes and reduction to 40

hours a week as according to Party I, the company

is using hazardous chemicals, so also there is a

trend to reduce working hours. However, till date

the Party I is working as per the working hours

stipulated in the previous settlements including

last settlement dated 20.11.1991. The Party I

however has not shown any justification that their

demand for reduction in working hours is because

of working in alleged polluted and hazardous

chemicals, which saps their energy. No other

settlements have been produced on record of any

industry showing reduction of working hours or

that there is a trend all over the world to reduce

the working hours in a week for the workmen and

to allow them weekends. Admittedly, the workmen

are required to work 8 hours per shift with 30

minutes lunch break and the shifts are from 8.05

hrs. to 16.05 hrs.; 16.05 hrs. to 00.05 hrs. and from

00.05 hrs. to 08.05 hrs. The working hours are

prescribed by legislation under the Factories Act

as also in terms of the Certified Standing Orders of

the Company. The management staff employed at

the factory also has the same hours of work as that

of the workmen. There is therefore no justification

shown by Party I for grant of the said demand.

Hence, demand No. 34 is answered in the negative.

Demand No. 35: Permanency

198. It is demanded by Party I that the workmen

who have worked 120 days in aggregate in any

one of the years 1993, 1994 and 1995 should be

made permanent with effect from the date on which

they have completed the required period of 120

days and further they should be given

compensation for the loss caused to them by the

Company’s act of keeping them temporary. In

defence, the Party II(1) has denied that workmen

have been kept temporary or on probation but

claimed that they are absorbed on the rolls of the

company on satisfactorily completion of training

and probation. Shri Rohidas has stated that the

demand has been raised as the concerned workmen

have been working for nearly three years on

temporary or probation basis thus depriving them

of various benefits. He also stated that it is

obligatory for the company to make the workers

permanent after lapse of six months after

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2169

completing probation period. Shri Kurian has stated

that they have engaged the services of temporary

workmen and probationers between 1991 and 1995

and that they maintain attendance register and

muster roll for such temporary workmen. He also

stated that the company does not recruit workmen

directly as probationers but recruit them first as

temporary or trainees and after about two years

training, they are appointed as probationers.

199. There is no evidence on record that the

workmen are being kept on temporary or probation

without absorbing them on the rolls of the company

on satisfactorily completion of training and

probation. The terms and conditions of the

employment are covered by the Factories Act and

the Certified Standing Orders of the company and

it is not within the jurisdiction of the Union to

make such a demand. There is no evidence on

record that the members of Party I have been denied

permanency although they have satisfactorily

completed the training and probation. There is

nothing on record that the workmen have been

working for nearly three years on temporary/

/probation basis without making them permanent.

Be that as it may, it is well settled by the

Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the matter

of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors.

vs. Umadevi & Ors., 2006 (II) CLR 261 that when

appointments are temporary, casual or contractual

in nature, such a person cannot invoke the theory

of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in

the post when the appointment to the post can

only be made by following a proper procedure for

selection. The Party I has therefore no authority to

raise the said demand as permanency of the

workmen is done on individual basis in terms of

Certified Standing Order of the company and not

on completion of number of days as claimed by the

Party I. The above demand No. 35 is therefore, does

not survive.

Demand No. 36: Accident on duty

200. It is demanded by Party I that they be given

wages/salaries and other benefits in case of any

kind of accident or injury caused to the workmen

in any grade in the factory during duty hours. In

the written statement, the Party II(1) has stated

that the benefit of workmen meeting with an

accident while on duty are covered under the

various settlements and needs no further

consideration. Shri Rohidas has stated that there is

every possibility of accidents occurring while

performing the work like placing or removing tyres

from the press/mould and therefore Union has asked

only certain modification. Shri Kurian has stated

that an Occupational Health Centre is functioning

at the factory where first aid is administered by

male nurse and there is a doctor from 8.00 a.m. to

4.00 p.m. in the said centre and the male nurse

throughout. He, however clarified that medical

treatment is not given to the workmen at OHC but

only first aid. They have an ambulance in the factory

and the brand of the ambulance is TATA Winger.

It therefore reveals that there is a male nurse as

well as OHC where first aid is administered. There

is also an ambulance which takes care of the person,

in case of emergency. There is however nothing on

record that accidents have occurred while

performing the duty and that the workmen have

not been given any treatment or special leave or

that he has not been paid wages. The demand No.

36 being not fair and proper needs to be rejected.

Demand No. 37: Accident outside factory premises

201. It is demanded by Party I that in case a

workman meets with an accident while not on

duty outside the factory premises he should be

given 100% wages for such time he is fully

recovered to resume duty in any case not exceeding

six months and the Company should reimburse full

medical expenses. In the written statement, the

Party II(1) has stated that the benefit for workmen

meeting with an accident outside duty are covered

under various settlements and are more than

sufficient and need no further revision. Shri Rohidas

has stated that the demand is made in respect of

accidents which occur when the workmen comes

to attend their duty and when he goes home after

completion of duty as the company has not provided

any relief to the aggrieved workmen when the

accident occurs outside the factory premises since

the accident caused to the workmen directly

affects the working of the company. Shri Kurian

has stated that the 1991 settlement covers

accidents that may occur to the workmen outside

their duty hours and outside the precincts of the

factory. He also stated that under the E.S.I. Scheme

workmen receive all medicine and medical

expenses free of charge.

202. Discernibly, it is provided in 1991 settlement

under clause 7 that the workmen who are not

covered by ESI Scheme will be covered by Group

Insurance Scheme and the company would

reimburse medical expenses on production of bills

as per the grades as claimed by Shri Kurian and if

he is covered under ESI, the workmen would receive

all the medicines and medical expenses free of

charge. The company does not pay the wage for

the days the workman remains absent due to the

accident and the workman can avail the said wages

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2170

by applying the leave. Needless to mention, the

benefits for the workmen meeting an accident

outside the duty are covered under various

settlements including settlement dated 20.11.1991.

There is also no trend in the region as well as in

their other Plants situated elsewhere for providing

the demands mentioned in the claim statement.

The demand No. 37 therefore cannot be accepted.

Demand No. 38: Safety/Protective wear

203. It is demanded by Party I that confirmed

workmen other than to whom safety shoes are not

provided should be given a sum of Rs. 500/- towards

purchase of safety shoes and every workmen should

be given Rs. 250/- every year towards purchase of

umbrella and other rainwear as mentioned in the

claim statement. In the written statement, the Party

II(1) has stated that supplying protected wear to

its workmen is covered by statute and decided by

safety committee which is a statutory body and

issue of such safety wear is covered by settlement

dated 20.11.91 which is more than sufficient and

needs no further revision. Shri Rohidas has stated

that there is already a practice existing of providing

protective safety wear to the workmen who have

been working in different departments and the

Union has sought a slight modification in the

existing practice and the demand for protective

gear, safety shoes and rainwear is to be made on

yearly basis.

204. Shri Kurian has stated that under 1991

settlement at Exh. 116, only workmen of eight

departments specified therein are issued a raincoat

and gumboots worth Rs. 150/- every alternate year

and umbrella worth Rs. 150/- every alternate year

and the rest of the workmen do not get gumboots

and raincoat but are reimbursed Rs. 150/- per year

towards an umbrella and that between 1991 and

1995 safety shoes were not issued to every workman

in the factory and that they were reimbursed at

the rate of Rs. 150/- per year per workman. A little

peep into 1991 settlement shows that an amount

of Rs. 150/- each per year was paid towards

purchase of safety shoes and rainwear in eight

departments. There is therefore a practice of

payment of Rs. 150/- each towards purchase of

safety shoes and rainwear, although in eight

departments. There cannot be any dispute that

the confirmed workmen in eleven departments

mentioned in the claim statement are required to

wear safety shoes, protective gear and rainwear

and therefore, an amount of Rs. 300/- per year shall

be paid to the said workmen towards purchase of

safety shoes and an amount of Rs. 300/- per year

shall be paid for purchase of rainwear in the month

of May. Hence, the above demand No. 38 is

answered accordingly.

Demand No. 39: Sweaters

205. It is demanded by Party I that the Company

should pay to every permanent workman Rs. 500/-

towards purchase of sweater every year. In the

written statement, the Party II(1) has stated that

they are providing sweaters and money in lieu of

sweaters is given to the workmen as per the

settlement dated 20.11.91 for certain departments

including security/watchmen. Shri Rohidas in the

affidavit has stated that there is a trend in the

industrial units in the region to provide sweaters

to its employees once in a year. Shri Kurian has

stated that sweaters are provided under the 1991

settlement to some of the workmen specified in

clause IV(6)(c) at Exh. 116. He also admitted that

the workmen coming to the factory to attend the

third shift which commences at 12.00 midnight

would be traveling somewhere between 10.00 p.m.

and midnight from their homes to the factory, so

also workmen who had completed their second

shift which ends at 12.00 midnight would be

traveling back to their homes after midnight and

that the above set of workmen would also be

exposed to the cold weather during winter while

traveling to the factory or returning from the factory

to their homes.

206. Needless to mention, the company has been

providing a sweater to the workmen in terms of

1991 settlement and has been reimbursing

Rs. 200/- once in two years. The settlements

produced of Merck Ltd. as well as ZACL do not

show that they are providing sweaters to its

employees or paying cash in lieu thereof. There is

no trend in the industrial units in the region to

provide sweaters to its employees once in every

year. Shri Kurian has however admitted that the

sweaters are provided to the workmen since in

winter it gets cold and the workmen are exposed

to the weather. There is no dispute that the

workmen are working in three shifts and therefore

they are exposed to cold weather during winter

and therefore there is justification for providing

sweaters to all the workmen. There is also a

principle of payment of Rs. 200/- to the workmen

towards purchase of sweater every two years. There

is certainly inflation between the period from 1991-

1998 and therefore, an amount of Rs. 200/- should

be paid to every permanent workmen for purchase

of sweater every year and the same would be fair

and proper. Hence, the above demand is answered

accordingly.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2171

Demand No. 40: Uniforms

207. It is demanded by Party I that the existing

system of providing uniforms should continue with

modifications as mentioned in the claim statement.

In defence, the Party II(1) has stated that the

uniform are supplied to the workmen as per the

settlement dated 28.7.1981 and as per the said

settlement, the permanent tyre builders and tyre

curing operators were supplied three sets of

uniforms in a calendar year as against two sets

given for the present and for the rest of the

workmen, the existing practice of providing two

sets of uniforms continued. Shri Rohidas has stated

that there exists a practice of providing uniforms

to the workmen of the company and the Union has

sought only small modification in respect of already

existing provision. Shri Kurian has denied that

uniform of Banbury operators gets more dirty as

compared to other departments consisting of a pant

and a shirt and for the last 4-5 years they are

providing armless banians to certain departments

and workmen are allowed to work with banians

instead of wearing a shirt and this happens mainly

in Banbury, Tread tuber, Calendar, Tyre building

and Tyre curing Departments since the temperature

is high on the shop floor. He also admitted that in

Tyre curing department, the pant of the workmen

gets more soiled than the shirt. The workmen are

issued safety shoes but are not issued socks to

wear with the shoes. It is therefore considering the

above evidence, Banbury department should be

provided with one extra set of uniform; Tyre

building/Curing should be provided with one extra

pant; Band building/Banner department should be

provided with one extra shirt and every permanent

workman should be provided with two pairs of

shocks. Hence, the above demand No. 40 is partly

granted.

Demand No. 41: Soap/towels

208. (A) It is demanded by the Party I that soaps

as mentioned in the claim statement be granted.

In the written statement, the Party II(1) has stated

that soaps and towels are issued to the workmen

in accordance to various settlements arrived at

between the management and the Union which

are more than sufficient to meet the needs of the

workmen and no further revision on the same is

justified. Shri Rohidas has stated that the company

has already been providing soaps to its workmen

and the Union has only sought certain modification

in the existing practice keeping in mind the drastic

changes in economic scenario. Shri Kurian has

stated that the practice since 1991 has been to

give all the workmen one regular Lifebuoy soap of

150 gms. per month. He also stated that on

depending upon the type of work mechanics

perform, they may soil their hands more than the

other workers, however all the mechanics and

electricians are provided with cotton gloves. The

record shows that the Kottayam Plant has been

giving 3 cakes of soap per month to all production

workmen, engineering workmen and sweepers who

work in Banbury department and 2 cakes of soap

per month to all other workmen. The practice

followed in Kottayam Plant in giving 3 cakes of

soap per month to all production workmen,

engineering workmen and sweepers and 2 cakes

of soap per month to all other workmen is fair and

same should be followed by Party II(1).

209. (B) TOWELS: It is also demanded by

Party I that the rate of giving towels to the workmen

should be increased to Rs. 350/- per year and for

subsequent year 1997 and 1998 the rate should be

increased by Rs. 30/- every year. In the written

statement, the Party II(1) has stated that the towels

were issued to all the workmen in accordance to

various settlements. It is seen that in the 1991

settlement the existing practice of giving towel

was agreed to be continued. In 1981 settlement

one bath towel per year was issued to all the

workmen. There is no dispute that there was a

practice in the company of Party II(1) to give one

towel to the workers in 1981 and the same practice

continued in the settlements of 1984, 1988, 1991

and 2001 respectively. It needs no mention that

one towel is not sufficient considering the nature

of work being done by the workmen and the

purpose it was issued. It would be therefore just

and proper to issue two towels to the workmen

every year or the cost of the said two towels. Hence,

the above demands are answered accordingly.

Demand No. 42: Two wheeler tyre tubes

210. It is demanded by the Party I that every

workman should be given free of cost one set of

tyres and tubes for two wheelers and one set on

subsidized rate on seniority as mentioned in the

claim statement. In the written statement, the

Party II(1) has denied that the industrial units in

the region have accepted the principle of giving

discount on their products to the workmen who

are in employment if they want to avail of the

facility of buying the products manufactured by

the company. However, in the settlement dated

20.11.91, two numbers of two wheeler MRF tyre

and tubes were given to the workmen at

subsidized rates as a goodwill gesture from the

management without adding the cost so incurred.

Shri Rohidas has stated that many industrial units

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2172

in the region have already accepted the principle

of giving discount on their products to the

workmen who are in employment, if they want to

avail facility of buying the products. The company

has not been giving any benefit of discount to the

workmen in respect of the above said demand and

the workmen are required to buy their product

from the company’s outlet at factory rate, which is

more than the cost of production. Shri Kurian has

stated that under the 1991 settlement, the workmen

were entitled for subsidy of 20-30% on the market

price of two tyres for a two wheeler for the entire

period of the settlement of four years.

211. The claim of the Party I is that every

workmen should be given free of cost one set of

tyre and tubes for two wheeler and one set at

subsidized rate on seniority basis effective from

the year 1995. The Party I however has not produced

on record the cost price of the two wheeler tyre

during the period from 1991-1998. It is also not

denied that during the above period, the Party I

was not manufacturing two wheeler tyre and tubes

at their unit at Usgao. The TVT Plant and Kottayam

Plant do not provide for free two wheeler tyres and

tubes or at subsidized rate to its workmen. There

is no justification for granting free of cost one set

of tyres and tubes for two wheeler as none of the

other units of the Party II(1) are giving such a

benefit. The Party II(1) in the settlement dated

20.11.1991 has however made provision of giving

two wheeler tyre and tubes to its workers at

subsidized rate according to the seniority. There is

no dispute that on account of inflation the

subsidized rate as stipulated in 1991 settlement

requires to be revised as on 30.09.95 and therefore

for workmen who have put in service upto 6 years

should be entitled for subsidy of 25%, workmen of

years of service from 6 to 11 years should be

entitled for subsidy of 30% and the workmen of

years of service 11 years and above should be

entitled for 35% as subsidy on purchase of one set

of two-wheeler tyres and tubes. Hence, the above

demand is partly answered in the affirmative.

Demand No. 43: Subsidy towards credit Co-op.

Society loan

212. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should give interest free loans to be

repaid in 48 equal monthly installments. The loan

is to be given as per the Rules and Bye-laws of

MRF Employees Credit Co-op. Society as mentioned

in the claim statement. In defence, the Party II(1)

has denied that the company has accepted the

principle of giving loans to the workmen without

interest but only has subsidized the interest on

loans availed by the workmen from MRF Employees

Credit Co-op. Society Ltd. as specified in the various

settlements, the last settlement being signed

between the management and the Union on

20.11.1991. The loan is to be sanctioned to the

workmen concerned after they become members

of the society by paying the required share capital

and producing necessary surety as per the

Bye-laws of the society. Shri Rohidas in the affidavit

has stated that the company has already accepted

the principle of giving loans to the workmen and

requires certain modifications after looking at the

poor financial conditions of the workmen.

213. Shri Kurian has stated that they have MRF

Employees Credit Co-operative Society which

disburses loan to its members who are both from

the management and the workmen and under the

settlement of 1991 at Exh. 116, the maximum loan

given by the society was Rs. 18,000/-. The loans

have to be returned within 48 months by monthly

installments. Needless to mention, the company

has already accepted the principle of giving loans

to the workmen repayable in monthly installments.

In 1991 settlement, the subsidy towards Credit

Co-operative Society loan for purchase of furniture/

/vehicle etc. was granted to the different graded

workmen and the maximum was Rs. 18,000/-. In

2001 settlement, the interest subsidy on loan

availed from above society for purchase of furniture/

/vehicle etc. granted to the different graded

workmen was increased to the maximum of

Rs. 25,000/- for the period 1995 to 1998 repayable

in 36 installments, which workmen of Party I should

also be allowed to avail as the other Credit societies

and the Banks charge heavy interest in order that

workmen are not put in such difficult situation

and to prevent any hardship to them. The demand

of Party I for interest free loan as on 30.9.95 to all

the workmen irrespective of their grades therefore

cannot be granted. Hence, the above demand No.

43 is answered accordingly.

Demand No. 44: Welfare Fund

214. It is demanded by the Party I that every

permanent workman should be given the benefit

of Welfare Fund and that every workman should

contribute Rs. 3/- per month and the Company

should contribute Rs. 10/- per workman. In the

written statement, the Party II(1) has stated that

the contribution of the workmen and the company

to the Welfare fund is governed by terms and

conditions of various settlements including the last

settlement signed on 20.11.1991 between the

management and the Union and the contribution

to which are more than sufficient. Shri Rohidas has

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2173

stated that the company has already accepted the

principle of welfare fund and the present demand

only requires minimal modification in the said

provision. Shri Kurian has stated that under 1991

settlement, the company was contributing Rs. 4/-

per month per confirmed workmen for welfare

fund. Needless to mention, the Party II(1) has

already accepted the principle of Welfare fund. In

1991 settlement, the workman and the

management were contributing Rs. 2.50 per month

and Rs. 4/- per month respectively. The present

demand requires only minimal modification

keeping in view the sound financial capacity of

the company and that purpose of Welfare fund was

for the betterment of the workmen who are also

equally contributing towards the turnover of the

company, and therefore, an amount of Rs. 3/- from

the permanent workmen with contribution of

Rs. 6/- from the management would be fair and

proper. Hence, demand No. 44 is partly answered

in the affirmative.

Demand No. 45: Thrift Scheme

215. It is demanded by the Party I that the

existing practice of thrift scheme be continued

with modifications in the rate of workmen/

/management contribution as mentioned in the

claim statement. In defence, the Party II(1) has

stated that the thrift scheme for its workmen has

started subsequent to settlement signed between

the management and the Union on 2.5.1984 and

the contribution toward the thrift scheme and its

operation is governed by various settlements, the

last three settlements being settlements dated

2.5.1984, 18.1.1988 and 20.11.1991. Shri Rohidas has

stated that the company has already accepted the

principle of thrift scheme and that the Union has

demanded only a small modification in the scheme

considering fast changing economic scenario and

ever increasing inflationary rate.

216. Shri Kurian has stated that the contribution

towards thrift scheme in the year 1984 was Rs. 25/-

from the workman and Rs. 15/- from the

management and that there has been no change

in this proportion and rate of contribution in the

1988 or 1991 settlement. In 1988 settlement the

rate of contribution towards thrift scheme was

Rs. 50/- from the workman and Rs. 30/- from the

management and there has been no change in this

proportion and rate of contribution in the year 1991

or 2001 settlement. The contributions towards the

Thrift scheme are paid into the account in which

the signatories are management persons. The

amount is utilized to advance loans to the workmen

on a list based upon seniority of the workmen. He

also stated that the workman who takes such a

loan has to repay the same within four years and

the repayment is done by deduction from his wage.

217. Discernibly, the company has already

accepted the principle of thrift scheme. The Union

has demanded only a small modification in the

said scheme after considering the fast changing

economic scenario. The Party II(1) has doubled the

contribution towards thrift scheme in 1984

settlement from Rs. 25/- and Rs. 15/- respectively to

Rs. 50/- and Rs. 30/- respectively in 1988 settlement.

There is however no change in the contribution in

1991 and 2001 settlement and no justification has

been given for not increasing the contribution

towards the thrift scheme, which inculcates the

habit of saving for the workmen and therefore the

demand No. 45 of Party I for increasing the rate of

contribution to Rs. 100/- and Rs. 60/- by the

management and the workmen respectively

towards the thrift scheme is fair and proper. Hence,

the above demand is answered accordingly.

Demand No. 46: Double Building

218. It is demanded by the Party I that the

existing practice of double building in Tyre

Building Department should be abolished effective

from 1.1.1996 as the existing practice is dangerous

to workman’s life. In the written statement, the

Party II(1) has stated that the concept of double

building was introduced in 1985 at the Goa Unit

and it has been well accepted in the tyre industry

and that it does not pose any danger to the

workmen’s life. Double building allowance was

introduced in the settlement dated 18.8.1988 and

has enhanced in settlement dated 20.11.1991. Shri

Rohidas in the affidavit has stated that in double

building, the tyres are required to be carried twice

through the entire process of curing which is not

only tedious but also very dangerous as the tyres

are to be fed in the presses/moulds immediately

after being cured once and this process is very

dangerous and operate at extremely high

temperature and hence, the process should

abolished.

219. Shri Kurian has stated that the Party II(1)

has a system of double building in Tyre Building

Department. The normal process of tyre building is

where a single operator builds/assemble a green

tyre from the components supplied from the

different departments on a tyre building machine

and in the double building system, two individual

operators of the same grade work together to build

a single tyre. He clarified that it is more beneficial

to the workmen and that there is no loss of wages

and the workman prefers to go for double building.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2174

He reiterated that double building is a better

system and it is in practice all over the world in

tyre industries and that in settlement of 1991, there

is a mention of double building system with

allowance. There is no evidence on record that the

curing process is tedious and dangerous for

workmen or that tyre are required to be fed in the

presses/moulds after being cured once.

220. Admittedly, there are two systems in tyre

building, single building and double building. A

single operator assembles a green tyre from the

components supplied to him on the machine in a

single building system and in a double building

system, two individual operators of the same grade

work together on the same machine to build a

single tyre. The process of double building

therefore not only increases productivity in tyre

building but also decreases the work load and

fatigue on the individual workman. Moreover, the

said system is more beneficial to the workmen and

that they prefer to go for double building as the

earnings of the workmen doing double building

increases substantially by various allowances,

which according to Shri Kurian is followed all over

the world, so also by the Party II(1) since 1985 at

the Goa unit. No evidence has been adduced by

Party I that the double building poses any danger

to the workmen’s lives and that it operates at

extremely high temperature causing serious burns

and physical injuries to the workmen handling the

tyres or that it proved fatal. It is therefore demand

No. 46 is not fair and proper.

Demand No. 47: Union office

221. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should provide a well furnished Union

office within factory premises. In the written

statement, the Party II(1) has stated that the said

demand is in no way relates to the employer-

-employee relationship and hence deserved to be

rejected outright. There is no trend in the region

for the company to provide for a place which serves

as an Union office in the premises of the company.

Shri Rohidas Naik has stated that there is a trend

in the industrial establishment in the region as

also all over the country that company provides for

a place to the Union which serves as an Union

office within company premises which saves

considerable time and money of the workmen but

also serves as a stepping stone for cordial and

peaceful industrial relations. The company has not

provided any such place in the factory premises

and as such it becomes impossible for the Union to

communicate with them or to receive or to send

them any communication which may be very urgent

and this hampers the work of the Union.

222. Shri Kurian has stated that the Party II(1)

has not provided any Union office till date and at

present if a workmen needs to consult his office

bearers, he has to meet them on the shop floor. He

also stated that depending on the location where

the workmen resides, he might travel 40-50 kms. to

come to the factory and that he does not know

whether the company has provided the Union with

office at factory premises in their other Plants.

There is nothing on record that the other Plants

have provided office to the union, but Zuari Agro

Chemicals Ltd. in their Settlement dated 25.4.1994

at Exh. 209 had agreed to provide a rest room or a

suitable Union office as early as possible. It is not

known whether the other Plants have the rest room

or the Union office in the factory premises, however,

there is a requirement of office in the factory

premises in order to discuss and sort out

day-to-day issues, which cannot be done on the

shop floor.

223. The explanation of Shri Kurian that if the

workman needs to meet his office bearers, he has

to meet them on the shop floor cannot be accepted

being far-fetched as it is not possible for the

unionized members to meet the office bearers of

the Union on the shop floor and discuss their issues

as the workers in the factory of Party II(1) are

working continuously being a continuous running

system having three shifts, so also it becomes

impossible for the Union to communicate with the

office bearers or the workmen or to receive or to

send them any urgent communication. Needless to

reiterate, the Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. has

provided an office for the Union members at factory

premises. There is therefore no justification for the

management not to provide an office for the Union

at the factory premises, which could be a stepping

stone for cordial and peaceful industrial relations.

If there is an office within the premises of the

company, it would be very easy and practicable for

workmen to refer all their grievances to the Union

in shortest possible time, which otherwise hampers

their work and therefore demand No. 47 to have a

Union Office is just and fair.

Demand No. 48: Continuous Running Departments

224. It is demanded by the Party I that workmen

who are required to work during lunch break/

/dinner/breakfast should be given allowance of

Rs. 300/- per month and the same should be

considered for wages/salaries for all purposes. In

the written statement, the Party II(1) has stated

that none of the workmen works uninterruptedly

and continuously for eight hours in a shift without

a break for lunch/dinner/breakfast. All the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2175

workmen are permitted to go for their lunch/dinner/

/breakfast break at scheduled time during the shift

and therefore, compensation in any form does not

arise. Shri Rohidas has stated that the company

has not been paying any compensation to its

workmen who work uninterruptedly even during

lunch/dinner/breakfast break and does not

accommodate the workmen after completion of

work for their lunch/dinner/breakfast break and

therefore, compensation of Rs. 300/- per month is

very minimal.

225. Shri Kurian has stated that the factory is

continuous running system and that there are

departments like Banbury, Tread Tuber, Calendar,

Tyre Curing and Time Banner which run

continuously during lunch/dinner/breakfast break

by providing relievers during the said breaks and

that member of the crew are relieved in a staggered

system during that period. There is however no

evidence on record that the workmen from the

above departments which run continuously are not

permitted to go for their lunch/dinner/breakfast

break at scheduled time during the shift. No person

from the said departments has been examined to

prove that the said departments are running

continuously during the said breaks without

providing any relievers and that the workmen work

uninterruptedly without taking any break for lunch/

/dinner/breakfast and therefore the payment of

compensation as demanded by the workmen does

not arise. Hence, demand No. 48 cannot be granted.

Demand No. 49: Job specifications

226. It is demanded by the Party I that the

Company should do job specification with the Union

representatives in the month of December every

year along with Classification and Gradation. In

defence, the Party II(1) has claimed that the job

requirement on every machine is graded as per the

industrial engineering standard and the workmen

are trained on the job and paid according to the

job done by them. The holdup if any form is rare

which is obvious from breakdown/holdup

allowance allowed as per settlement dated 2.5.1984.

Shri Rohidas has stated that at present the

company has not been providing job specification

to any of the workmen on the alleged pretext that

the same is prerogative of the management and

keeps on charge-sheeting the workmen on the

ground that they have not produced tyres as per

job specification without disclosing to the

workmen the same. The Party II(1) never shows a

copy of IED report to workmen/Union which is

important since wage of every workman is

connected with the IED report.

227. Shri Kurian has stated that in the settlement

of TVT Plant at Exh. 293 colly, there is a system of

setting down the job specification on each job in

the production line and that the said settlement

specifies for the Tyre Building Department, the

number of tyres of each size that constitutes 100%

production and the method and machine on which

the same is to be produced and it also specifies the

crew jobs, crew strength and specifications of work

for the crew members and their work standards.

Shri Gracias has also admitted that in previous

settlements, there was no clause by which the

standards and norms were negotiated and fixed by

the Union and the management and it could be

that in other Plants of Party II(1), the norms and

standard of production for the calculation of 100%

production for each piece or crew are negotiated

between management and the Union. Shri Kurian

has also admitted that the standard of production

and crew strength of each department are specified

in the settlement of Kottayam Plant at Exh. 216

colly. He also admitted that except for the sections

under clause 15, 25, 32 to 38 of the settlement of

TVT Plant at Exh. 293, it has similar sections to

those specified in the remaining clauses of the

said Annexure at the Goa Plant.

228. It therefore reveals from the evidence of the

parties that the company has not been providing

any job specification to any of the workmen unlike

the TVT Plant and Kottayam Plant of MRF Ltd.

There is no such job specification in the Plant in

Goa and as such the workmen are entirely at loss

to know the correct position as to the job

specification although it is they who are required

to carry out the job as in the case of TVT and

Kottayam Plants of Party II(1), which leads to undue

harassment on the part of the management. The

unilateral fixation of the crew strength, works

standards and job specification without discussion

with the Union directly affects and prejudices the

wage of the production and engineering workmen

which have given rise to unnecessary dispute

between the parties, which has to be avoided in

the interest of both the management and the Union.

The demand of Party I for job specification as in the

cases of other Plants referred above is therefore

proper and justified. Hence, the demand No. 49 is

accepted.

Demand No. 50: General

229. It is demanded by Party I that in case of any

changes in operation are required from the

workmen as a result of new technological changes,

new processes, innovations, installations of new

machinery for the increase in production due to

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2176

them, additional production benefit should be

given to the workmen after discussing the norms

with elected representative of the Union within a

period of three months, failing which both the

parties should resolve the same by resorting to

legal machinery provided under the law and that

till such time the dispute is settled, the Company

should not make any changes in the existing

day-to-day working of the workmen. In defence,

the Party II(1) has stated that it has become must

for any industry to update its machinery,

technology and to increase productivity in order

to meet the competition that will be forced on the

industry with the induction of similar industry by

multinationals. The workmen are taken into

confidence whenever new machinery is installed.

The interest of the workmen in the event of

modernization is safeguarded by various

legislations and adapting to new technologies is

part and parcel of a growing industry.

230. Shri Rohidas has stated that the company

has not been discussing any change in technology

or introduction of new machinery with the Union

or the workmen and the same are incorporated by

the company to the detriment of the workmen at

most of the time thereby causing unnecessary losses

to itself and workmen in terms of time and money.

Shri Kurian has stated that the Industrial

Engineering Department does the time and motion

study of new machines, new processes, new size of

tyre or a new method before introduction of such

system at the shop floor. The IED prepares a report

on the basis of the above study and based on the

study, the management fixes the number of pieces

which would constitute 100% production of that

size of products in the concerned department

‘without discussion’ between the Union and the

management. He also stated that IED report is not

shared with the Unions since it is confidential

document, however at the same time, they inform

the workers/Unions the number of pieces which

constitutes 100% production for that new product,

which constitutes that norms. He also admitted

that they do not notify the Union of the proposed

study or change that may be introduced by the

management pursuant to IED report nor furnish to

the Union the IED report.

231. Needles to mention, the standards of

production and crew strength of each department

are specified in settlements of Kottayam Plant at

Exh. 216 colly. It is specifically mentioned in the

said settlements that in future all standards, as

and when new machinery, products, process or

methods are introduced, will be discussed and

implemented within one month of submission of

industrial engineering study report and that the

period between the installation of machinery/

/introduction of process, methods, etc. and

submission of IED report to the Unions and the one

month period earmarked for discussions as referred

above will be treated as trial period during which

workmen will be paid their average earnings of

the immediately preceding month and if no

consensus is arrived at between the parties within

the stipulated time of one month, the workmen

shall be paid on the basis of standards fixed by

Industrial Engineering Department.

232. The other settlement produced on record

between the management and workers of TVT Plant

at Exh. 293 also provides for method change/

/introduction of new size in clause 19, it states

that wherever method changes take place or new

sizes are introduced, fixation of crew strength,

fixation of production standards, work content and

the incentive payable per unit of production, etc.

arising out of method change/new size will be

discussed by the management and the Union and

will be settled as per IE norms, expeditiously within

a period of six weeks from the date of such method

change/introduction of new size and that the

workmen will extend full co-operation for carrying

out full and final study and to finalize the standard

as per IE Norms in an expeditious manner and that

during the period of six weeks, payment of incentive

will be made on the standard applicable before

such method change was introduced and regarding

new size, they have to produce in line with the

similar size available and where there is no

agreement on the final standard within this period

of six weeks, incentive shall be paid on the basis

of the revised standards/new standard as per the

existing practice, until the final decision is taken

on the standards.

233. It is therefore manifestly clear that in the

other Plants of Party II(1), no new machinery,

products, processes or methods are introduced prior

to discussion with the Union. It is therefore

obligatory on the part of the management to

disclose to the Union the Industrial Engineering

Report and to discuss with the Union before fixation

of the norms/standards of production as in the

above two cases. Needless to mention, failure of

furnishing of IED reports or refusal to discuss the

fixation of the norm by IED with the Union directly

affects and prejudices the wages of the production

and engineering workmen as admitted by Shri

Kurian in his cross examination since what

constitutes 100% for each piece in production

department is based upon the norms fixed by IED

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2177

report, which is not shared or discussed with the

Union before its implementation. It is therefore,

the Party II should share the report of Industrial

Engineering Department and other such reports

before introducing changes in methodology and

production and same should be made part of the

settlement as is the practice in the other sister

concerns of the Party II(1) and all decisions to that

effect should be taken bilaterally after discussion

with the Union and hence, the above demand No.

50 is answered accordingly.

Demand No. 51: Withdrawal of suspensions of union

members

234. It is demanded by Party I that in order to

pave the way for an amicable and long term

settlement and that good relations and peace,

harmony and tranquility are maintained, prior to

the negotiations on the Charter of demands, all

suspensions of Union members be withdrawn. In

defence, the Party II(1) has stated that the demand

is not fair and proper and that the workmen must

have been suspended for specific acts of

misconduct and has no scope for industrial dispute

in the present reference. Shri Rohidas has stated

that the said demand has been raised so as to pave

way for amicable settlement of Charter of demands

between the parties in the present dispute and

thereby bringing industrial peace and harmony

and also creating good relations. Needless to

mention, the said demand cannot be raised in

charter as rightly asserted by Party II(1). If the

workman is aggrieved by any suspension/

termination, the workman concerned or the Union

can raise the dispute against the said suspension,

termination, etc. It is therefore such a demand is

preposterous as the Party I has not specified as to

which are the workmen who have been suspended/

terminated and the reasons thereof. The workmen

could have been suspended or terminated for

specific acts of misconduct which have to be dealt

with by the Courts/Tribunals appropriately and as

such, the said demand has no scope in the present

reference. The Party II(1) has not shown any

justification for grant of the said demand and

therefore, the demand No. 51 is rejected.

Demand No. 52: Period of settlement

235. It is demanded by the Party I that the period

of settlement should be for three years effective

from October 1, 1995 to 30th September, 1998. In

defence, the Party II(1) has claimed that the trend

to sign the settlement between the company and

its workmen is for an effective period of four

years from the date of signing the settlement.

Shri Rohidas Naik has reiterated the said claim, to

which the witnesses of the Party II(1) disagreed.

Shri Rohidas Naik has produced on record their

own settlements as well as settlements of their

other units and of the factories within the region.

The Settlement dated 28.01.1981 of Party II(1) at

Exh. 113 was for a period of three years and six

months. The Settlement dated 18.01.1988 of Party

II(1) at Exh. 114 was for a period of four years. The

Settlement dated 02.05.1984 of Party II(1) at Exh.

115 was for a period of three years and six months.

The Settlement dated 20.11.1991 of the Party II(1)

at Exh. 116, was also for a period of four years.

There was no settlement between 1.10.1995 till

14.04.2001. The Settlement dated 14.04.2001 at

Exh. 453 covered two periods of three/four years

each i.e. from 01.10.1995 to 30.09.1998 and

01.10.1998 to 30.09.2002.

236. Needless to mention, the above settlements

of Party II(1) reveal that the trend to sign the

settlements between the company and the

workmen is for the periods of three years to four

years. The Settlements dated 31.08.2006, 15.10.2009

and 24.08.2013 of Kottayam Unit of MRF at Exh. 216

colly also show that it is for a period of three years.

The Settlement dated 12.05.2004 at Exh. 293 of TVT

Plant of MRF shows that it is for a period of four

years. The settlements of Merck Ltd. dated

16.04.1991 at Exh. 390, dated 6.10.94 at Exh. 391,

dated 7.3.1998 at Exh. 392, dated 26.7.2006 and

dated 03.11.2009 at Exh. 215 colly are for three and

half years. The settlements of Zuari Agro Chemicals

Ltd. dated 25.04.1994 at Exh. 209, dated 5.11.1997

at Exh. 210, dated 19.5.2000 at Exh. 211, dated

16.01.2003 at Exh. 212, dated 24.03.2006 at Exh.

213, dated 30.11.2009 at Exh. 214, dated 22.06.1994

at Exh. 401 and dated 25.4.94 at Exh. 419 have

been entered for a period of three years each. There

is therefore a trend within the region and outside

the region including their own units to sign the

settlements for a period of three years, including

the first part of settlement dated 14.4.2001. There

also cannot be any dispute that any settlement

given the fast changing scenario in market

condition and inflationary trends is required to be

in vogue for a shorter duration of time in order that

the workmen have a fair revision of service

conditions in the shortest possible time, reflecting

the correct and real market or inflationary trends.

It is therefore the demand No. 52 for a period of

settlement for three years is fair and proper.

Pursuant to discussion to all the demands as stated

above, issues No. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2178

Issues No. 3 and 3A :

237. It is the case of Party I that the reference of

dispute pertaining to Charter of demands raised

by Party II(1) is illegal and untenable at law, while

it is the case of Party II(1) that its demands are

legal and justified. It is a matter of record that the

appropriate Government referred the dispute as to

whether the demands served by Goa MRF Union

on the management are fair and justified and that

the appropriate Government by way of Order

referred to the Tribunal to decide (i) whether part

of present FDA+VDA to be merged with service

weightage/personal pay–VDA will be fixed with

maximum level for each year and directly linked

with individual performance and will be paid as

per a percentage of performance and (ii) 7 day

running for full Plant–to increase production and

to generate more employment, the full Plant will

run on all 7 days of the week, following a staggered

weekly off system for the workmen, whenever

required. 8 hours running of department machinery

whenever possible, will be implemented.

238. The amended reference was on account of

the points/issues proposed by the management of

Party II(1) to be discussed along with the Charter

of demands of the workmen. The management has

raised various issues including FDA, VDA at clause

No. 5 and seven day running for full Plant at clause

No. 14. The demands of Party II(1) at clause No. 5

and clause No. 14 of letter dated 7.2.1996 at Exh.

252 have not been proved nor justified by leading

specific evidence nor minutes of any meeting or

discussion has been produced to substantiate the

fact that the demands had been made on the

workmen and had been part of negotiations on the

Charter of demands of the workmen and since said

demands were never discussed/negotiated by the

parties, the same cannot be an Industrial dispute

capable of being referred under the provisions of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 and

therefore on this count alone, the above issue No.

3A has to be answered in the negative. Shri T. M.

Kurian and Shri Michael Gracias have also not

supported the above demands nor produced any

minutes of any meeting or discussion to

substantiate that such demands had in fact been

made on the workmen and had been part of

negotiation on the Charter of demands of the

workmen.

239. Shri Kurian has admitted that the records

are not available with the company for him to make

a statement that prior to 7.2.1996 whether company

had made a request for running a full Plant on all

the seven days a week following a staggered

weekly off system, but claimed that in 1984

settlement, Engineering department, Shipping

department, Tyre curing department, Tyre finishing

department, Post Inflation department, Quality

Control Inspection and Dispatch department were

changed to seven days running system with

staggered weekly off and that all other

departments continued to run on six days with

Sunday off. He also admitted that from 1984

settlement there was no change to seven day

running system to those departments that

continued in six day running system until

settlement dated 14.4.2001 which changed the

system to running the entire Plant on seven day

running system. He further stated that prior to

1984 settlement apart from Engineering

department, all other departments ran on six days

running system with Sunday off and that Clause 4

of settlement dated 2.5.1984 specifies the

departments listed in Annexure VII(1) thereto would

be run for seven days and that Tyre curing

department, Tyre finishing department, Post

Inflation department, Quality Control Inspection

and Dispatch department will be kept running for

seven days in a week, if necessary. He further stated

that as per clause 4 the above departments would

be run for seven days only if there was a necessity.

240. The evidence of Shri Kurian therefore shows

that the change in running system was part of

points of discussion which was submitted prior to

Charter of demands of Party I at which time there

was not GMU existing. The GMU came into

existence much after Charter of demands of Party

I and the points for discussion of Party II(1). There

is no seven day running system prior to filing of

Charter of demands and all the departments except

few were kept running for six days as per 1984

settlement and some departments was kept

running for seven days in a week, if so necessary.

It is therefore there was no system of running the

departments for seven day prior to 2001. The same

was introduced only in 2001 by way of settlement

dated 14.4.2001 which was illegal and without

discussion with Party I and without any minutes or

negotiations held on changing over to seven days

working and therefore, it cannot be said that the

demand raised by Party II(1) is justified.

241. Shri Michael Gracias has admitted that

there are no minutes in his possession to show

that the points in letter dated 7.2.1996 at Exh. 252

were discussed before conciliation or during

conciliation. There is no doubt that the

management has raised points/issues to be

discussed along with the Charter of demands dated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2179

15.2.1996 of Party I, however Shri Gracias who was

a party to the settlement dated 14.4.2001 has clearly

admitted in cross examination that there are no

minutes to show that the points in letter dated

7.2.1996 were discussed before conciliation or

during conciliation. There is also no evidence from

any of the parties to the settlement or through the

management witnesses that the said points/issues

dated 7.2.1996 at Exh. 252 were ever discussed,

negotiated or finalized before arriving at the

settlement dated 14.4.2001 and therefore, the case

of Party II(1) that its demands are legal and justified

cannot be accepted nor it can be said that the

Charter of demands raised by GMU which

culminated in settlement dated 14.4.2001 are fair

and proper.

242. Shri Gracias has further admitted in the

cross examination that from the time he joined the

company in the year 1973, the departments had a

six day running system with Sunday off and by

mutual understanding, the workmen of the Curing

department would work on Sundays depending

upon the material to be cured. He, however claimed

that departments such as engineering and stores

would also be run to seven days from inception

but admitted that as per clause 4 of 1984

settlement, Tyre curing, Tyre finishing, Post

inflation, Quality control inspection and Dispatch

departments would be run on seven days, if

necessary. He also admitted that the full Plant

commenced in a seven day running system

approximately in the year 2002. It is therefore the

statement of Shri Govind Mapari that under 2001

settlement, there was introduction of a new system

of running all departments in a seven day running

system, cannot be accepted. Shri Gracias has also

admitted that there is no quantified amount agreed

to be paid by the management in the settlement of

14.4.2001 for changing over to seven day working

system.

243. It is therefore not understood as to how the

said settlement dated 14.4.2001 was entered into

without agreeing the quantified amount to be paid

by the management for changing over to seven

day running system. The reference made in the

points for discussion along with Charter of demands

at Exh. 252 to seven day running for full Plant and

implementation of the same in 2001 settlement

would clearly imply that prior to Charter of demands

raised by the management dated 7.2.1996, the full

Plant was running for six days and certain

departments would run for seven days, if necessary

by mutual agreement. It is thus seen that there

was no practice of seven day running system but

by a notice with a reason by mutual agreement.

The award dated 15.3.2017 at Exh. 461 is

particularly with reference to the complaint filed

by Party I for change in service conditions effected

by the management after settlement dated

14.4.2001. The Party II(1) having failed to prove

that the points/issues raised by them is an

industrial dispute or a demand, capable of being

referred under the provision of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that they are

legal and justified, it has to be answered in the

negative, on the other hand, the Party I having

shown that the reference of dispute pertaining to

Charter of demands raised by Party II(1) is

untenable at law, issue No. 3 is answered in

negative and issue No. 3A in the affirmative.

Issue No. 3B:

244. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for Party II(1)

and Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II(2)

have submitted that a workman ceasing to be in

employment on superannuation may become a

member of the Union subject to the limitations

imposed by the Bye-laws. They have submitted

that Shri Rohidas Naik has not produced any

evidence to prove that he is the President of the

Union or that he has become member of the Party

I Union after attaining age of superannuation or

was a member at the time of his deposition. They

further submitted that a workman may surrender

his membership of the Union voluntarily and the

conduct of the member is determined for instance

by joining another Union and further by becoming

an office bearer of the said Union. Shri Rohidas

Naik is not member of Goa MRF Employees Union

on voluntarily giving up membership of the Union

and on accepting membership of MMS and

becoming office bearer of new Union, and

otherwise representing the new Union in official

capacity.

245. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardesai and Ld.

Adv. Bandodkar have further submitted that Shri

Rohidas Naik also stated that Union is a corporate

legal entity and the witness deposing on behalf of

the Union is mandatorily required to be authorised

by a specific resolution of the Union. Party I Union

a registered Trade Union is a body corporate under

Section 13 of Trade Unions Act and has not by a

resolution authorised Shri Rohidas Naik to depose

on oath before this Hon’ble Tribunal on behalf of

the Union and therefore his evidence cannot be

considered. They further submitted that Shri

Rohidas Naik has not produced any evidence to

prove that he was a member of the Union at the

point of time when he stepped in the witness box

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2180

to depose in the matter and therefore, Shri Rohidas

Naik is not authorized to depose on behalf of the

Union and in support thereof, they relied upon the

cases of (i) Alka Toraskar vs. Vaishya Urban

Co-operative Credit Society and anr. 2006(2)

Bom. C. R. (Cri) 717 (PB) and (II) Chico Ursula

D’Souza vs. M/s. Goa Plast Pvt. Ltd. 2008(6) BCR

399.

246. Discernibly, there is no prohibition under

Trade Unions Act or regulations made thereunder

for automatic cessation of membership on the

happening of an event such as superannuation of

a member unless the Bye-laws of that Union

specifically state so and in support thereof one can

rely upon the cases of (i) Tirumala Tirupati

Devasthanam vs. Commissioner of Labour, 1995

Supp (3) SCC 653 and (ii) Bokajan Cement

Corporation Employees Union vs. Cement

Corporation of India, 2004 (1) SCC 142. The citations

relied upon by Party II(1) viz. (i) Indian Oxygen Ltd

vs. Their Workmen, 1969 (I) LLJ 235 and (ii) State

Bank of India Staff Association vs. State Bank of

India and Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 378 were rendered on

the basis that there is prohibition in the rule

contained in the Bye-laws for membership to

continue or for a member to be an office bearer of

the Union. The Bye-laws of the Union does not

prohibit a membership to continue or for a member

to be an office bearer and hence, the above

contention of Ld. Advocates for Party II(1) and Party

II(2) cannot be entertained.

247. The reliance placed by Ld. Advocates for

Party II on the cases of (i) Alka Toraskar and

(ii) Chico Ursula D’Souza, supra stating that Shri

Rohidas Naik was not specifically authorized to

depose on behalf of the Union also cannot be

accepted as both the judgments are rendered in

criminal matters under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act where complaint is required to be

made by the payee and if the same is a body

corporate, then the same has to be under

authorization of the body corporate by a resolution,

unlike in the present case where Shri Rohidas Naik

was specifically authorised to represent the Union

by a resolution as also he is the witness to the fact

within his own knowledge. Moreover, the Party II

had not raised any objection as to the locus standi

of Shri Rohidas Naik or his committee to represent

the Union in any of the proceedings, including

the award passed in earlier Reference bearing

No. IT/18/03 where question of locus standi was

raised and decided where it was held that Shri

Rohidas Naik has locus standi to represent the

Union and hence, is a competent witness to depose

in the matter and therefore, the above contentions

raised by Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai and Ld. Adv.

Shri M. S. Bandodkar cannot be entertained.

248. The issue before the Tribunal is whether

the settlements dated 14.4.2001, 30.11.2002,

27.11.2006 and 6.4.2011 having been accepted by

the majority are binding on rest of the workmen

and as they cover all the demands which are

subject matter of the present Charter of demands

under adjudication, the dispute does not survive.

Curiously enough, the Party II(1) has not produced

the settlements dated 30.11.2002, 27.11.2006 and

6.4.2011 on record nor it appears that it is their

claim that the said settlements have been accepted

by the majority and binding on the rest of the

workmen. It is a matter of record that the Party II(1)

filed an application at Exh. 462 for amendment of

written statement wherein it was prayed that the

award be passed in terms of settlement dated

14.4.2001 to the extent that the said settlement

covers the period of demands dated 15.2.1996 as

according to it, the settlement dated 14.4.2001

divides the settlement into two parts from 1.10.1995

to 30.9.1998 and from 1.10.1998 to 30.9.2002 and

sought leave to confine the plea of the binding

nature of the settlement dated 14.4.2001.

249. Obviously, Party I wanted to give up its

plea that the settlement dated 30.11.2002,

27.11.2006 and 6.4.2011 cover all the demands

which are subject matter of the present Charter of

demands. The said application for amendment was

dismissed by order dated 20.7.2017 on the ground

that proposed amendment is working injustice to

Party I and not necessary for the purpose of

determining the controversy between the parties.

Be that as it may, the said settlements do not pertain

to the period of settlement covered by Charter of

demands of Party I. Nonetheless, even if it is

considered that the settlement dated 14.4.2001

cover all the demands of Party I which are subject

matter of present Charter of demands under

adjudication, it has to be seen whether they are

binding on Party I and its workmen or the workmen

who have signed and accepted the benefits of the

said settlement.

250. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for Party II(1)

has submitted that the burden of proof that the

settlement is invalid or that the terms of the

settlement is unfair or unreasonable lies on the

Party I Union and not on the management and in

support thereof, he relied upon the case of

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Workmen rep.

by Secretary, (2004) II(1)I LLJ 228. He further

submitted that the Certificate of registration of

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2181

settlement dated 25.04.2001 at Exh. 450 under

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 raises a presumption

that the settlement is in compliance with the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and it is

for the Union challenging the validity of the

settlement to rebut the presumption and as all the

office bearers and executive committee members

referred to in Goa MRF Union letter dated 29.06.199

at Exh. 441 have signed the settlement dated

14.4.2001, there is compliance of Rule 58. The

workmen of the Party I Union having received the

benefits, under the Settlement dated 4.3.1997 at

Exh. 119, Settlement dated 9.9.1997 at Exh. 120 and

Settlement dated 14.10.1997 at Exh. 121 which

merged in the final settlement dated 14.4.2001 on

part of the Charter of demands of Goa MRF Union

without demur, they cannot now make any claim

to the contrary and cannot now dispute the legality

or validity of contents of the settlement.

251. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai has further

submitted that question of adjudication has to be

distinguished from a voluntary settlement and

cannot be judged on the touchstone of the

principles which are laid down by the Courts for

adjudication. The spirit of the settlement has to be

judged not by the yardstick adopted in scrutinizing

an award for adjudication. It is not possible to scan

the settlement in bits and pieces and hold some

parts good and acceptable and others bad. The

settlement has to be accepted as a whole or

rejected as a whole and in support of his contention,

he relied upon the case of Herbertson Limited,

supra. He further submitted that adjudication

should not result into an anomalous situation in as

much as the settlement would bind the workers

who have accepted the settlement and the workers

bound by the award who are governed by different

conditions of service, thereby creating two sets of

workers employed by the same company enjoying

different conditions of service and in support

thereof, he relied upon the case of Sarva Shramik

Sangh, supra.

252. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai has further

submitted that 468 workmen out of 890 workmen

including the members of Party I have accepted

the benefits of the settlement dated 14.04.2001

which constitutes majority at the relevant point of

time as per list at Exh. 436, and individual

undertakings of 468 workmen who have accepted

the settlement dated 14.4.2001 as per Exh. 437 colly,

from the list of 890 confirmed workmen as on

14.4.2001 as per Exh. 438. The documents namely

muster roll for the month of March, April and May

2001 at Exh. 442 colly and pay slips for the month

of March, April and May 2001 at Exh 443 colly and

to the exclusion of 133 workmen out of 1218 as on

date at Exh. 454. He further submitted that the

wages of the workmen have been revised

periodically since 1976 to 2014 by settlements

dated 16.10.1976, 15.06.1981, 02.05.1984, 18.01.1988,

20.11.1991, 14.01.2001, 30.11.2002, 27.11.2006,

06.04.2011 and 01.12.2014 and as such it cannot be

any stretch of imagination said that any injustice

has been caused to the workmen and in support

thereof, he relied upon the case of Workmen vs.

Management of KCP Ltd and others in Writ Appeal

No. 1524 and 1525 of 2009.

253. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri V. Menezes has

submitted that the settlement of 14.4.2001 was

disclosed for the first time by amending the written

statement of Party II(1) in the year 2013, twelve

years after the same was claimed to be executed.

There is no explanation in the evidence of either

Shri Kurian or Shri Michael Gracias as to why Party

II(1) did not disclose the same for all these years.

Shri Michael Gracias has verified the amended

written statement but has not given any

explanation for its non disclosure before any forum

including the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble

Apex Court in connected matters, at any earlier

stage and for the first time in 2013 the details of

settlement were disclosed and claim was made

that the same was fair and proper and that

settlement, though being under Section 2(p) of the

Act was binding on all the workmen apart from

members of GMU, by virtue of the fact that it was

accepted, through undertakings signed by the

workmen numbering 468 out of 890 workmen

claimed to be the total number as on 14.4.2001.

The Party II(1) has not led any evidence to prove

that the contents of the said settlement or the

acceptance of their terms or of their binding nature

and as such the claim of Party II(1) ought to be

rejected.

254. Ld. Adv. Shri Menezes further submitted

that what is relevant is the total number of workmen

who were confirmed as on 30.9.1995 when the

previous settlement came to an end and the date

30.9.1998 on which day the settlement dated

14.4.2001 is claimed as having covered all demands

of Party I. The Party II(1) has not led any evidence

to show the total number of permanent workmen

on the above two dates and whether the majority

of the workmen, whether resigned/retired/expired

have signed the settlement. The burden of proving

that the settlement is fair and its execution,

applicability, coverage, acceptance of majority,

compliance of Rule 58 lies upon the Party claiming

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2182

its execution/existence and in support thereof, he

relied upon the cases of (i) Workmen of M/s. Delhi

Cloth General Mills Ltd., vs. The Management of

M/s. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd., AIR 1970

SC 1851; (ii) Tata Chemicals Ltd Vs. Workmen, AIR

1978 SC 828, (iii) Adil K. Patel vs. Tata Iron, 1994

Lab. I.C. 2394, (iv) Brooke Bond India Ltd vs The

Workmen, AIR 1981 SC 1660.

255. It is well settled in the above referred cases

that burden of proving execution, applicability,

compliance with Rule 58 and fairness of a

settlement lies upon the Party claiming its

execution. When the settlement is signed with one

of the Unions in an establishment, Industrial

adjudication will view the settlement from the

following angles namely (i) Whether the settlement

is a 2(p) settlement?; (ii) Whether the settlement is

entered into by a Union or Unions representing the

majority of the workmen?; (iii) Whether the

settlement was signed by the recognised Union;

(iv) How many workmen accepted the settlement?

(v) Whether the settlement is tainted: i.e. malafide,

corruption, collusion, fraud, unfair labour practices,

etc.; (v) whether the settlement is fair and just as

held in the cases. The point for determination is

therefore whether the Party II(1) proved that the

settlement dated 14.4.2001 was signed by persons

authorised to sign the same on behalf of the

workmen by a resolution to that effect; whether

Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957 has been complied; whether the Co-ordination

Committee has been properly constituted and

whether they have played any role in the

negotiations, besides the fact that the settlement

was fair, legal and proper.

256. The Party II(1) has examined Shri T. M. Kurian

as well as Shri Michael Gracias to prove that

Settlement dated 14.4.2001 is just and fair and

binding on all the parties. Shri Kurian in the

affidavit-in-evidence has reiterated the case of

Party II(1) and has stated that GMU negotiated

with the management on the Charter of demands

dated 11.9.1996 with Party II(1) and after protracted

negotiation on said Charter of demands, finally a

settlement under Section 2(p) read with section

18(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was arrived

at on 14.4.2001 with GMU and that the said

settlement give fair and reasonable increase in

wages and other benefits to the workers and was

operative from 1.10.1995 to 30.9.1998 and from

1.10.1998 to 30.09.2002 and that the settlement was

signed amongst others by Shri Michael Gracias.

The said settlement was registered before the

Labour Commissioner and office issued a Certificate

of registration dated 25.4.2001.

257. Shri Kurian has also stated that after signing

the settlement, the management displayed a notice

on the notice board of the factory dated 16.4.2001

informing the workmen that the settlement shall

be extended to such a workman who gives an

undertaking in the manner spelt out in the

schedule to the settlement and the benefits of the

settlement was extended to all the workmen giving

an undertaking that they shall abide by the

settlement and all the demands raised by Party I in

the Charter of demands dated 15.2.1996 are covered

by the said settlements. He also stated that Rs.

50,000/- was paid to Shri Savio Furtado and two

others as advance against any future settlements.

He, however admitted that he had stated in the

evidence in C-IT/4/98 that two undertakings were

given on 21.4.2001, one undertaking was given on

23.4.2001, one on 28.4.2001 and one on 30.4.2001, so

also that there is no undertaking by the workers

concerned in LCC/14/2000. He also stated that he

did not sign the settlement dated 14.4.2001 at

Exh.453. He also admitted that as per settlement at

Exh.453, it covers only the members of GMU as on

14.4.2001 but claimed that it was also extended to

all other workmen of Goa MRF Union upon giving

an undertaking to accept the settlement. It is

however not clarified as to how many workers have

accepted the benefits as there is nothing in the

Settlement dated 14.4.2001.

258. Shri Kurian has also admitted that he does

not know if Shri. Puti Gaonkar was the member of

GMU as on 14.4.2001 but admitted that he was not

the member of GMU and was not holding any post

in GMU as on 14.4.2001 but claimed that he was

the chairman of Co-ordination committee as on

14.4.2001, however it was not explained as to who

authorised him nor there is any authorization

produced on record. It is also not explained as to

why Shri Savio Furtado who claimed to be the

President of the Union had not signed the

settlement as Party thereof. He admitted that he

was not present for any meetings where Shri. Puti

Gaonkar was present for discussion while arriving

at settlement dated 14.4.2001 and that there are no

minutes recorded to substantiate the presence of

Shri. Puti Gaonkar in any meetings held prior to

settlement of 14.4.2001. He also admitted that there

is no resolution passed by the members of GMU

authorizing Shri Puti Gaonkar to deal on their

behalf or enter into any settlement on their behalf.

He also admitted that Shri. Puti Gaonkar has his

own Union by name Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

(GMS) and he is holding the post of President of

that Union and none of their workers are the

members of that Union nor the Union of Shri Puti

Gaonkar is associated in any manner with their

factory at Usgao.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2183

259. Shri Kurian has also admitted that as per

clause 3 of the Constitution and Rules of GMU at

Exh. 452, the Union shall be totally and completely

controlled by office bearers who are elected

representatives of workmen of M/s. MRF, Goa and

that the Union will not be associated with any

other trade Union, organization, group or person in

any capacity whatsoever for the matters related to

running of the Union or those regulating the

relationship with the employer with the conditions

of service. It is therefore not explained as to how

Shri. Puti Gaonkar was involved in signing of the

settlement when the rules prohibit any person

outside the office bearer of GMU to negotiate with

the management. He also admitted that he was

not personally aware what transpired in those

meetings with Shri. Puti Gaonkar and that the

Settlement dated 14.4.2001 nowhere refers to the

formation or existence of the co-ordination

committee and that he does not know the date on

which the co-ordination committee came into

existence. He also admitted that he does not have

the copy of the resolution by which the co-

ordination committee was formed and that he does

not know whether there was a meeting of the

workmen for appointing a co-ordination committee

and unable to say how many workmen were in

favour of creating this co-ordination committee.

260. Shri Kurian has claimed that the co-

ordination committee consisted of members of

GMEU and GMU but he is not aware as to how

many members of GMEU and how many members

of GMU were in favour of creation of co-ordination

committee and that he does not have the resolution

of GMEU workers in favour of creating the

co-ordination committee. He also admitted that the

settlement dated 14.4.2001 is not arrived at by

negotiating with the co-ordination committee with

Shri. Puti Gaonkar as Chairman but is arrived at

with negotiation only with GMU and that he does

not know whether Shri. Puti Gaonkar was

negotiating the Charter of demands of GMU dated

11.9.1996 and that he does not have copies of any

of the minutes referred to at page 1 and 2 of

settlement dated 14.4.2001 at Exh. 453. The witness

therefore has failed to show what Shri. Puti Gaonkar

was doing as the chairman of the co-ordination

committee; who negotiated the settlements; who

authorised the committee to arrive at settlement

as there are no minutes, no discussion and no

authorization for arriving at so called settlement.

Shri Kurian however admitted that he does not

know why the management despite the existence

of co-ordination committee to discuss Charter of

demands of both Unions, chose to sign settlement

dated 14.4.01 only with GMU.

261. If both Unions have agreed as stated by him

above, it is not explained why both the Unions

have not signed the said settlement and as to why

the settlement dated 14.4.2001 was not produced

before the Court and suppressed till 2013. The

evidence on record therefore clearly suggest that

Shri Kurian was neither acquainted with the facts

of the case nor offered any answer in support of

the settlement dated 14.4.2001. Shri Kurian has also

admitted that in complaint No. C-IT/4/98, he has

stated in his evidence that the company had no

record available with it to state the number of

confirmed workmen on its rolls as on 14.4.2001 but

claimed that as per the Muster roll at Exh. 442

colly, there were 890 confirmed workmen as on

April, 2001. He claimed that the Settlement of

14.4.2001 covers two period that is from 1.10.95 to

30.9.98 and 1.10.98 to 30.9.2002 but cannot confirm

as to how many workers were confirmed as on

30.9.95. The GMU came into existence in August,

1996 and that he cannot say how many members

of GMU were confirmed as on 30.9.1995. What

therefore emerges from the evidence of Shri Kurian

is that he did not sign the settlement dated

14.4.2001 at Exh. 453 and that the said settlement

covers only the members of GMU as on 14.4.2001

and that he cannot say how many members of

GMU were confirmed as on 30.9.1995.

262. The evidence further discloses that Shri.

Puti Gaonkar was not the member of the Union nor

there was resolution authorizing him to deal on

their behalf nor there was any General Body

Meeting of the Union indicating that they have

appointed Shri. Puti Gaonkar or that they have

accepted the settlement. The settlement has been

signed by the persons neither authorised nor

empowered to represent the workmen without any

authority nor it has been arrived at or negotiated

or entered into by the persons empowered or

actually having mandate to represent by the

majority of the workmen in the establishment and

in terms of the procedure laid down by the law.

None of the members of the so called negotiating

committee have the authorization of the Union or

the members that they claim to represent and

therefore the said settlement is not the product of

collective bargaining nor signed by the majority or

the duly authorised or elected representative. There

is also no resolution authorizing either Puti Gaonkar

or other office bearer of GMU to enter into the

settlement.

263. Shri Kurian has also admitted that Shri Savio

Furtado, Shri John M. Fernandes and Shri Pedro

Fernandes were each paid Rs. 50,000/- on 21.9.1999

but he explained that the said amount was

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2184

advanced against any future settlements.

Shri Michael has produced the photo copies of (1)

Details of arrears calculation of Shri Savio Furtado,

Shri John Fernandes and Shri Pedro Fernandes; (2)

Details of arrears paid to GMU; (3) Payment voucher

dated 21.9.1999 made to Shri Savio Furtado; (4)

Payment advice dated 21.9.1999 made to Shri Savio

Furtado; (5) Inter office Memorandum dated

18.9.1999 from HR Department to Accounts

department; (6) Payment voucher dated 28.10.1999

made to Shri Savio Furtado; (7) Payment advice

dated 28.10.1999 made to Shri Savio Furtado at

Exh. 495 colly., however the person who has

prepared the said documents and the author of the

same viz. Shri Mukund Chandra Bhole has not been

examined. The ledger referred by him at page 2 of

the said document is in electronic form maintained

on the computer and the data shown in the ledger

is fed in by some other officer as stated by him.

However, his clarification that the said data is

verified by the concerned Accounts Manager and

internal and external auditors has not been

supported by leading any evidence. The

management has also not certified the said

documents under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act

and therefore the said documents will not come to

the rescue of Party II(1) as Shri Kurian has already

admitted in C-IT/4/98 that the company had paid

Rs. 50,000/- on 21.9.1999 to above three persons

and he could not explain why the said amount was

paid.

264. Shri Michael Gracias has however stated in

the cross examination that no notice was put up

informing the workmen that the company is ready

to pay Rs. 50,000/- to any workmen as an advance

in the same manner paid to above persons. He has

also stated that the amount was an advance with

relation to the arrears payable in their respective

names and the advance payment is prevailing

practice that happens pending settlement. It is

however not explained why no notice was put up

and why only Savio and two others have been paid

Rs. 50,000/-. The explanation given by Shri Michael

is in stark contrast with that of Shri Kurian. The

documents produced at Exh. 495 colly through Shri

Michael Gracias are only to cover up the fact that

the said amount was not paid to the said persons

as inducements to accept the settlement of 2001,

more particularly when Shri Kurian has stated that

the said amount was the salary advance given to

them and recovered from salaries.

265. Shri Kurian has also admitted that the

company was advancing Rs. 24,000/- to those

workmen who had accepted the settlement dated

6.4.2011. There is neither explanation nor

documents to prove the above fact which clearly

shows that the settlement dated 14.4.2001 was

entered into by GMU by indulging in unfair labour

practices of taking undue favours from the

employer in terms of cash. Shri Savio Furtado and

others have also not stepped into the witness box

to prove the version of the management. Shri

Gracias also admitted in the cross examination that

the notice dated 16.4.2001 at Exh. 451 refers to the

word ‘Unions’. The witness however failed to

explain as to why the word ‘Unions’ is reflected in

the notice when Party II(1) claims that it had

entered into settlement dated 14.4.2001 only with

GMU and that it was restricted to the workmen/

/members of the GMU. The explanation that the

Party II(1) wanted to extend the benefits of the

settlement to all the workmen who are on the rolls

of the company as on 14.4.2001 is nothing but

inducement and unfair labour practices as the

evidence also shows that only few members of GMU

were extended the benefit of Rs. 50,000/- and

Rs. 24,000/- respectively nor there is anything on

record that the said settlement has been arrived at

or negotiated by the persons or representatives

empowered or actually having the mandate to

represent by the majority of the workmen in the

factory. The management has thus failed to show

the settlement dated 14.4.2001 is in compliance of

Rule 58 Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957

and that the settlement was fair, legal and proper

and that it is binding on Party I Union.

266. The Party II(1) has also examined Shri

Michael Gracias, the Manager of the Party II(1) to

prove the execution of the said settlement. He has

admittedly signed the settlement dated 14.4.2001

along with others. In the affidavit, he has stated

about the Charter of demands dated 15.2.1996

raised by Party I demanding exorbitant increase in

total wage of Rs. 48,000/- per month and that Party

I despite several rounds of discussion had no

intention of arriving at negotiable settlement. The

conciliation have failed and the Government had

referred the demands of the management and the

Union to the Tribunal; that the section of workforce

was unhappy with the functioning of GMEU and

that they organized into a new Union named GMU

and the management received a letter dated

29.6.1999 from them informing the management

that they have elected the office bearers of the

Union for the period from 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2001 and

received the Charter of demands dated 11.9.1996

and also resolution dated 3.4.1997 stating that in

a meeting held on 26.1.1997 attended by majority

of the members, it was resolved to authorise

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2185

executive committee to enter into agreement or

settlement in respect of Charter of demands and

that the management commenced negotiation with

the negotiating committee on their Charter of

demands dated 11.9.1996.

267. Shri Michael further stated that he along

with negotiating team, Shri Puti Gaonkar, Shri G.

Altaf Khan and others on behalf of the workmen

participated in the negotiation and the meetings

took place on 21.1.1998 and on other dates and

that the management signed the settlement with

GMU in the matter of interim relief and

memorandums of understanding at Exh. 119, 120 &

121 prior to arriving at the settlement dated

14.4.2001 and finally a settlement dated 14.4.2001

was arrived at with GMU having 409 permanent

workmen as per list at Exh. 449 and that the said

workmen including the members of GMU out of

890 workmen have accepted the benefits of the

settlement. Shri Gracias has also admitted that as

per the settlement dated 14.4.2001, the

undertakings to accept the terms of the settlement

was to be given by 30.4.2001 and that vide the

settlement dated 14.4.2001, settled Charter of

demands dated 11.9.1996 of GMU. He also admitted

that as per the records of Exh. 437 colly, the

undertakings given between 14.4.2001 and

30.4.2001 were five in all which has dates. He also

admitted that he does not have any document to

substantiate that Shri Puti Gaonkar was authorised

to sign the settlement dated 14.4.2001 as advisor

of GMU. He also admitted that by said

MOU/agreements at Exh. 120, 121 & 122

respectively, no settlements were arrived at on the

Charter of demands of GMU but the interim relief

of Rs. 600/- Rs. 900/- and Rs. 1200/- were agreed to

be paid to the workmen.

268. Shri Gracias has also admitted that the

meetings referred by him at para 18 of the affidavit

were only with GMU and not with members of

Savio Group of GMEU and that he does not have

any resolution of GMEU of Savio Group prior to

14.4.2001 or after accepting the terms of settlement

dated 14.4.2001 since the question of requiring such

a resolution did not arise and that Shri Savio

Furtado was not a signatory to the settlement. He

also admitted that Shri Savio was not present

during negotiations of settlement dated 14.4.2001

and that the co-ordination committee referred by

him in para 5 of the amended written statement

came into existence in 2002 much after settlement

dated 14.4.2001 was signed. If Shri Savio Furtado

was not present during the negotiations of the

settlement, it is not explained why he has signed

as a witness to the said settlement and how

settlement is binding on GMEU. He also stated

that he is not aware whether Savio Furtado had

given his resignation from the managing committee

of Party I on 20.9.1998.

269. What therefore emerges from the materials

on record is that there was no authorization for the

committee of GMU to sign 2001 settlement. The

Party II(1) has never given notice of settlement

dated 4.3.1997, 9.9.1997 and 14.10.1997 at Exh. 119

to 121 respectively, but the notice put up by Party

II(1) states that the relief was to be adjusted against

settlement on Charter of demands of Party I but

has never taken a stand in their pleadings that the

workmen having received benefits under the above

settlements cannot make a contrary claim. The

settlements at Exh. 119 to 121 are not settlements

within the meaning of Section 2(p) of Industrial

Disputes Act nor does it prove that the same are

with authorization as they are neither settlements

nor any part of the said settlements has a bargain

or is a concluded contract nor were they ever

accepted by the members of Party II(1) with any

binding obligations attached to them since the

relief was accepted pursuant to notice at Exh. 122

colly which does not refer to any settlements.

270. There is also no evidence as to what was

the representative character of GMU and how

many workmen it represented or had on its rolls on

those dates. Moreover, the settlement dated

14.4.2001 makes no mention of the above

settlements either in their recital or in any part of

the settlement, except the fact that it is agreed

that all the payments, advances and reliefs paid

during the period 1.10.95 till signing of the

settlement would be adjusted and therefore the

contention that the said settlements have been

merged into settlement dated 14.4.2001 cannot be

accepted. There is also no dispute that the

members of Party I have neither been paid any

arrears nor any benefit under settlement dated

14.4.2001 nor have they signed any undertakings

or accepted terms of above purported settlement

as the reliefs were paid to them under notice at

Exh. 122 which has no reference to the purported

settlement which would be adjusted against any

settlement or award on the Charter of demands of

Party I.

271. There is no presumption under Industrial

Disputes Act as to the fairness of the settlement

that it was executed in accordance with the

provisions of the Act or that it represents the

majority of the workmen in the establishment other

than one arrived under Section 12(3) of the Act.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2186

There cannot be any dispute that the judgments

cited by Party II(1) above including Herbertson Ltd.

are all case laws on specific facts where they

proceeded on the admitted position that a

settlement had been arrived at by the majority

Union. In all the above judgments cited by Ld. Adv.

Shri G. K. Sardesai, the number of members with

the Union signing the settlement was not disputed

as being, in all cases, a vast majority, while the

contesting Union was a minority as rightly

submitted by Ld. Adv. Shri V. Menezes for Party I.

In all the above cases, when a majority Union signed

a settlement with the management, with no dispute

as to the number of workmen represented by that

Union in the unit, the settlement was immediately

placed on record of the pending proceedings,

requesting an award to be passed on that

settlement, unlike in the present case where the

Party II(1) have chosen to suppress the settlement

dated 14.4.2001 for 12 long years from the Court

and had not disclosed it in any proceedings nor it

has been proved that they had intimated the

workers about the said settlement. Moreover, the

majority had not accepted the same. The

undertakings produced on record at Exh.437-colly

are undated, except for five signed between

14.4.2001 and 30.4.2001 as per the said settlement.

272. It is the case of Party II(1) that there were

890 permanent workmen as on 14.4.2001 but

admitted that 100 workmen were confirmed after

1.10.1998 who had also accepted the settlement. It

is thus clear that out of 468 undertakings as per

Exh.437 colly, 100 workmen confirmed after

1.10.1998 ought to be deducted. Shri Michael

Gracias has also admitted that there were more

than 30 workmen who were either on leave,

suspended or absent between 14.4.2001 and

30.4.2001 also need to be reduced, which means

that only about 300 workmen executed the

undertakings. The settlement is therefore not

accepted by the majority of the workmen as rightly

submitted by Ld. Adv. Shri V. Menezes even

assuming that there were 890 workmen claimed

by Party II(1). Moreover, the documents produced

by Party II(1) showing list of workmen at Exh. 436,

Exh. 437, Exh. 438, Exh. 442, Exh. 443 and Exh. 454

are not reflected in the pleadings nor the said

documents can be said to have been proved as

Shri Govind Mapari has admitted that he has not

created nor authored the said documents but by

some other person in the company. Both Shri

Michael and Shri Govind had admitted that the

list of workmen does not include persons who would

be covered by settlement dated 14.4.2001 or by an

award passed by the Tribunal for the period

between 1.10.1995 and 30.9.1995. It therefore shows

that the settlement was not signed by the majority.

The answer therefore is that the execution of the

settlement dated 14.4.2001 is not in conformity with

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act; that it is

tainted, malafide and used unfair labour practices,

so also that the clauses/obligations/conditions and

benefit as a whole is unfair and unacceptable as a

package.

273. Needless to mention, as rightly submitted

by Ld. Adv. Shri V. Menezes the settlement dated

14.4.2001 does not cover the Charter of demands of

GMU or GMEU as the GMU’s Charter dated

11.9.1996 is for the term 1.10.1995 to 30.9.1998 and

the terms of settlement dated 14.4.2001 covered

that period and also cover separate/additional

period from 1.10.1998 to 30.9.2002. It is neither the

case of Party II(1) or Party II(2) that GMU raised any

fresh Charter for additional period from 1.10.1998

to 30.9.2002. There is therefore no explanation from

the management as to at whose behest and under

whose authority was the second period negotiated

and covered under settlement dated 14.4.2001

setting out conditions of service for the workmen.

It has also come on record through Shri Michael

Gracias that the authority given by resolution of

26.1.1997 referred to in letter dated 4.3.1997 of GMU

was to negotiate Charter of demands dated

11.9.1996 which was for the period from 1.10.1995

to 30.9.1998 and not for the period from 1.10.1998

to 30.9.2002 for which there was no charter of

demands raised by GMU. It is therefore clear that

the negotiating committee of GMU was not

authorised to negotiate the settlement for a period

from 1.10.1998 to 30.9.2002 for which there was no

Charter of demands. There was also no resolution

other than one referred to in letter dated 4.3.1997

which was only for Charter of demands of 11.9.1996

for the period from 1.10.1995 to 30.9.1998. The

record therefore show that the settlement dated

14.4.2001 is without authority vested in the

committee of GMU to negotiate beyond the Charter

of demands dated 11.9.1996 for the period from

1.10.1995 to 30.9.1998.

274. Moreover, the question of changing service

conditions in the entire Plant to seven day running

system would only be agreed to implemented

prospectively after the date of settlement dated

14.4.2201. Shri Michael Gracias has categorically

admitted that the full Plant commenced in a seven

day running system approximately in the year 2002.

It could never have applied as a condition of service

to the period from 1.10.1995 to 30.9.1998 covered

under the Charter of demands dated 11.9.1996 and

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2187

therefore the change of service conditions which

was continuously in vogue since 1972 to a seven

day running system after 14.4.2001 with no

additional benefit for the workmen retrospectively

from 1995 to 2001 would be unfair, unjust and

without any authority. It therefore reveals that the

introduction of the said clause in 2001 settlement

renders the entire settlement illegal and without

any authorization. Moreover, the settlement of

14.4.2001 introduces a minimum rate of 115% or

above of average Plant, department and individual

workmen’s performance to be maintained on

standards as may be fixed by Industrial

Engineering Department of the factory, which

clause was also not found in any demand nor was

there any justification for introducing such a

minimum standard without negotiations of both

the parties, which in effect creates a new kind of

misconduct not defined in Certified Standing

Orders of Party II(1) without corresponding benefits

to the workmen.

275. The Party II(2) has therefore failed to prove

execution, applicability, and fairness of the

settlement dated 14.4.2001, so also that it is a

settlement under Section 2(p) of the Act; that the

settlement was entered into by a Union

representing the majority of the workmen; that it

was accepted by the majority of the workmen; the

settlement is free from taint, malafide, corruption,

collusion, fraud, unfair labour practices, etc.; that

the Co-ordination Committee has been properly

constituted; that they have played any role in the

negotiations; and was signed by persons authorised

to sign the same on behalf of the workmen by a

resolution to that effect and that Rule 58 of the

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 has been

complied with; besides the fact that the settlement

was fair, legal and proper. The contention of Ld.

Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for Party II(1) that the

Settlement dated 14.4.2001 has been accepted by

the majority after protracted negotiations; that it

was registered; none of the employees have

complained of force or coercion and therefore the

terms of the settlement are fair and reasonable and

hence, same is binding on the workmen as they

cover all the demands which are subject matter of

the present Charter of demands under adjudication

and therefore, the dispute does not survive cannot

be accepted nor award can be passed based on

the settlement dated 14.4.2001. It is therefore, the

issue No. 3B is answered in the negative.

276. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The

Reference

partly

allowed.

Consequently, Demand No.(3) Service

Increment/Increments, Demands No.8(A)

Acting Allowance, (B) Conveyance Allowance,

Allowance, (F) Leave Travel Allowance,

(H) Lunch Allowance, (I) Newspaper Purchase

Allowance, (P) Washing Allowance,

(Q) Weekly Off/Paid Holiday Working

Allowance, (V) Special Allowance, Demand

No.(11) Christmas/Ganesh Chaturthi/Id-Ul-Fitr

Festival Allowance, Demand No.(18)

Employment of Employees’ Sons & Daughters,

Demand No.(19) Attendance Bonus, Demand

No.(20) Relief in case of Death and Disability,

Demand No.(21) Medical Benefits, Demand

No.(22) Hospitalization Allowance, Demand

No.(24) Vehicle and Furniture Loan, Demand

No.(25) Housing Loan, Demand No.(27)

Retirement Benefit, Demand No.28(J) Holiday

declared by Central/State Government,

Demand No.(31) Marriage Gift, Demand

No.(32) Overtime, Demand No.(33) Promotion

Policy and Up-gradation, Demand No.(38)

Safety/Protective Wear, Demand No.(39)

Sweaters, Demand No.(40) Uniform, Demand

No.(41) Soap/Towels, Demand No.(42) Two

Wheeler Tyre Tubes, Demand No.(44) Welfare

Fund, Demand No.(45) Thrift Scheme, Demand

No.(47) Union Office, Demand No.(49) Job

Specification, Demand No. (50) General and

Demand No.(52) Period of Settlement, are all

granted/partly granted.

ii. The Demand No.(1) Classification and

Gradation, Demand No.(2) Wage Structure

Piece Rate, Demand No.(4) Service Benefits,

Demand No.(5) Dearness Allowance, Demand

No.(6) Variable Dearness Allowance, Demand

No.(7) Provident Fund, Demands No.8(D) Hill

Station Allowance, (G) Holiday Home Hire

Allowance, (J) Social Security Allowance, (K)

Petrol & Maintenance Allowance, (L)

Entertainment Allowance, (M) House

Maintenance Allowance, (N) Monsoon

Allowance, (O) Shift Working Allowance, (R)

Picnic Allowance, (S) Milk Allowance, (T)

Hazard Allowance, (U) Factory Allowance, (W)

Weight Lifting Allowance, Demand No.(9)

Staggering Allowance, Demand No.(10) Bonus,

Demand No.(12) Funeral Expenses, Demand

No.(13) Tubectomy/Vasectomy Allowance,

Demand No.(14) Gratuity, Demand No.(15)

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2188

Long Service Award, Demand No.(16)

Superannuation Scheme, Demand No.(17)

Insurance, Demand No.(23) Canteen Meal

Subsidy, Demand No.(26) Car Loan, Demands

No. 28(A) Accident Leave, (B) Casual Leave,

Paternity Leave, (F) Special Leave for

Unforeseen Circumstances, (G) Honeymoon

Leave, (H) Service Leave Demand, (I) Special

Leave for Natural Calamities, Bandh, etc.

Demand No.(29) Paid Holidays, Demand

No.(30) Transport, Demand No.(34) Working

Hours, Demand No.(35) Permanency, Demand

No.(36) Accident on duty, Demand No. (37)

Accident Outside Factory Premises, Demand

No.(43) Subsidy towards Credit Co-op. Society

Loan, Demand No.(46) Double Building,

Demand No.(48) Continuous Running

Departments and Demand No. (51)

Withdrawal of suspensions of Union Members,

are all rejected.

iii. The demands of Party II(1) as per order of

reference dated 26.11.1997 stand rejected.

iv. The interim relief paid to the workmen, if any

shall be adjusted towards the amount now

granted.

v. No order as to costs.

vi. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva),

Presiding Officer

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

Notification

No. 2-1-97/LD/Estt.-Part-I/227

On the recommendation of the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay, vide their letter No. A.5504/G/

/2017/37/2018 dated 06th January, 2018 and as per

the Rule 4 of Chapter II of Goa Judicial Service

Rules, 2005, the Governor of Goa is pleased to

promote the following Judicial Officers to the post

of District Judge in the State of Goa, with immediate

effect:-

1) Ms. Bela Narcinva Naik, Ad hoc District

Judge-1 & Additional Sessions Judge,

Mapusa, Panaji for being appointed to the

post of District Judge by regular promotion

(65%).

2) Ms. Dvijple @ Dvija Vilas Patkar, Civil Judge,

Senior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Mapusa, Panaji for being appointed

as District Judge by Accelerated promotion

(10%).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 5th February, 2018.

________

Notification

No. 8/16/2017-LD (Estt)(Part file)/229

Read: 1. Government Order No. 8-2-2013-LD (Estt)/

/204 dated 08-02-2013.

2. Government Order No. 8-2-2013-LD (Estt)/

/1637 dated 23-04-2013.

3. Government Order No. 8-2-2013-LD (Estt)/

/1094 dated 27-06-2013.

4. Government Order No. 8-2-2013-LD (Estt)/

/1347 dated 01-08-2013.

5. Government Order No. 8-8-2016-LD

(Estt.)/P.F./669 dated 31-03-2016.

Government of Goa was pleased to constitute

FEMA Committee vide above referred Orders in

the year 2013 for the purpose of pending

applications/future applications of Foreign

Nationals/Indian Nationals as regards the purchase

of property/sale of property by Foreigners/PIO/OCI,

etc. in terms of FEMA 1999.

However, certain instruments have been

registered with the Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-

-Registrars without obtaining the NOC from FEMA

Committee.

Some of the instances of such types are covered

under general permission under FEMA Regulations.

However, NOC from the FEMA Committee has been

made mandatory.

Certain persons, who have obtained/acquired

OCI cards and have acquired properties without

obtaining NOC from the FEMA Committee, are now

disposing off the properties. For every transaction

involving OCI/PIO/Foreign National of Non Indian

Origin, NOC from the FEMA Committee is

mandatory from 2013.

Hence, Government is now pleased to consider/

/allow the Foreign National of Non Indian Origin/

/OCI/PIO card holder or like to dispose off their

properties by paying penalty of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees

two thousand only) per transaction if NOC was not

obtained while acquiring properties.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2189

The said fees shall be paid to the respective

Receipt Head of the Office of the State Registrar-

-cum- Head of Notary Services.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Estt.).

Porvorim, 6th February, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 5/16/2012-PER/341

The Government of Goa is pleased to accept the

notice of voluntarily retirement under FR 56 (k)

(1-A) (a) tendered vide letter dated 14-11-2017 by

Smt. Olga Menezes, Junior Scale Officer of Goa

Civil Service presently posted as Member Secretary,

Sanjay Centre for Special Education and to permit

her to retire from service voluntarily with effect

from 31-01-2018 (a.n.) in terms of FR 56 (k) (1-A) (b),

by relaxing the notice period of 3 months, subject

to the condition that she shall not apply for

commutation of a part of her pension before the

expiry of the period of notice of three months.

Smt. Olga Menezes, Junior Scale Officer of Goa

Civil Service shall stand relieved from Government

service with effect from 31-01-2018 (a. n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 30th January, 2018.

________

Order

No. 15/7/2003-PER/342

Read: 1) Notification No. 1/25/87-PER dated

17-4-1996 published in the Official

Gazette, Series I No. 9 dated 31-5-1996.

2) Notification No. 15/50/87-PER-Part I

dated 12-12-1997 published in the

Official Gazette, Series I No. 44 dated

29-1-1998.

3) Notification No. 15/7/2003-PER dated

17-2-2011 published in the Official

Gazette, Series I No. 49 dated 03-03-2011.

4) Letter No. COM/I/5/42(1)/97-2009/Vol.I/

/1362 dated 18-01-2018 of the Deputy

Secretary, Goa Public Service Commission,

Panaji-Goa.

The result of the Departmental Examination of

the following Officers in the Cadre of Mamlatdar/

/Jt. Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies

conducted by the Goa Public Service Commission

in pursuance to the Notifications read in preamble

(1), (2) and (3) on 27-04-2017 and from 21-11-2017 to

23-11-2017, is declared, as indicated against their

names:

Sr.

Name of the officer

Result

Remarks

No.

1. Shri Mandar Mohan

Passed

—

Naik

2. Shri Ramesh Narayan

Passed

—

Gaonkar

3. Shri Sandeep S. Gawde

Passed

—

4. Shri Raghuraj Faldessai

Passed

—

5. Smt. Avelina Dsa E

Passed

—

Pereira

6. Smt. Durga D. Kinlekar

Passed

—

7. Smt. Sharmila Ulhas

Failed

Failed in

Gaunkar

paper VI.

This is issued based on the result of the above

candidates communicated by the Goa Public

Service Commission vide letter read in preamble

(4).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Harish N. Adconkar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 30th January, 2018.

________

Order

No. 13/16/2016/PER/351

Governor of Goa is pleased to grant extension in

service to Shri Shivdas K. Gaunekar, Registrar/Chief

Administrative Officer, District and Session Court,

North-Goa beyond the date of his superannuation

for a period of one year w.e.f. 01-02-2018 to

31-01-2019 in public interest. The said extension

shall be subject to Vigilance Clearance,

concurrence of Finance Department and approval

of Council of Ministers.

The extension is subject to termination without

assigning any reasons at any time during the period

of extension.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 31st January, 2018.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2190

Corrigendum

No. 22/7/2017-PER/321

Read: 1) Order No. 22/7/2017-PER dated

26-05-2017.

2) Corrigendum No. 22/7/2017-PER dated

01-01-2018.

The last para of the corrigendum dated

01-01-2018 shall be substituted to read as below:-

“Officers are entitled for pay and allowances

from the date of acceptance of promotion in terms

of FR-17”.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 29th January, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

Order

No. 44/47/2016-I/PHD/354

Read: Memorandum No. 44/47/2016-I/PHD/1872

dated 28-09-2017.

On the recommendation of the Goa Public

Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter

No. COM/I/5/24(4)/2017/253 dated 12-09-2017,

Government is pleased to appoint Dr. Elyska Hedvig

De Sa, to the post of Jr. Paediatrician (with

specialization in Developmental & Behavioural

Paediatrics) under Directorate of Health Services

on temporary basis in the Level-10 of Pay Matrix

[Pay Band-3, Rs. 15,600-39,100+Grade Pay of

Rs. 5400/- (pre-revised)] with immediate effect and

as per the terms and conditions contained in the

Memorandum cited above.

Dr. Elyska Hedvig De Sa is posted at Hospicio

Hospital, Margao.

Dr. Elyska Hedvig De Sa shall be on probation

for a period of two years.

Dr. Elyska Hedvig De Sa has been declared

medically fit by the Medical Board and her

character and antecedents have also been verified

by the District Magistrate, South Goa, Margao and

there is nothing adverse remarks recorded against her.

The appointment is made against the vacancy

occurred due to creation of the above post vide

Order No. 48/2/2016-I/PHD/1930 dated 07-11-2016.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 25th January, 2018.

Order

No. 21/11/2001-I/PHD/355

In exercise of the powers conferred under

Rule 7, Clause (f) of the Goa (Appointment to the

post of Residents in the Goa Medical College)

(Amendment) Rules, 2002, Government is pleased

to treat the period of Senior Residency rendered by

Dr. Jayashree Madkaikar, Senior Gynaecologist,

Sub-District Hospital, Ponda with effect from

09-03-1999 to 23-10-2001, as qualifying service

for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as she

joined the post of Junior Gynaecologist under

Directorate of Health Services on regular basis

w.e.f. 24-10-2001.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara De Souza, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 25th January, 2018.

________

Order

No. 2/13/2009-II/PHD/168

Government is pleased to accept the resignation

tendered by Dr. Joaquim Proenca, Clinical

Neurophysiologist, Department of Neurology, Goa

Medical College vide letter dated 23-11-2017, and

he stands relieved from the said post of Clinical

Neurophysiologist, Department of Neurology, Goa

Medical College w.e.f. 01-08-2017 (f.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health)/

/link.

Porvorim, 2nd February, 2018.

________

Notification

No. 38/11/2017-I/PHD/362

Read: Notification No. 38/11/2017/I/PHD dated

08-01-2018.

Government is pleased to establish permanent

a Medical Board which will examine such MTP

cases when referred from the court and ensure

urgent/immediate action. The composition of the

Medical Board is as under:

1. Secretary (Health)

— Chairman.

2. Dean, Goa Medical College,

— Member.

Bambolim

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2191

3. Medical Superintendent, Goa

— Member.

Medical College, Bambolim

4. Director, Directorate of Health — Member.

Services

5. Dy. Director (Public Health),

— Member.

Directorate of Health Services

6. Prof. and HOD, Department of — Member.

Paediatrics, GMC

7. Prof. and HOD, Department of — Member.

Pathology, GMC

8. Prof. and HOD, Department of — Member.

OBG, GMC

9. Prof. and HOD, Department of — Member.

Radiology, GMC

10. Prof. and HOD, Department of — Member.

Neurology, GMC

11. Prof. and HOD, Department of — Member.

Medicine, GMC

12. Prof. and HOD, Department of — Member.

Forensic Medicine, GMC

13. Sr. Gynecologist, North Goa

— Member.

District Hospital, Mapusa

(Senior most)

14. Sr. Pediatrician, Hospicio

— Member.

Hospital, Margao (Senior

most)

15. Chief Medical Officer/State

— Member

Programme Officer State

Secretary.

Family Welfare Bureau, DHS

The terms of the board shall be as under:

1) The term of the Board shall be for a period of

five years.

2) The board shall meet when an opinion is

sought by the Hon’ble Supreme Court/High

Court/District Court in any case of MTP. The

Medical Board will examine the case and

submit the report to the concerned court in

time stipulated by the court.

3) On third of the total number of members of

the Medical Board shall constitute the

quorum.

This supersedes the earlier Notification No. 38/

/11/2017-I/PHD dated 08-01-2018.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 30th January, 2018.

Notification

No. 13/10/2007-I/PHD/(Part)/376

In exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation

1.2.1.5 of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing

and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations,

2011 and in supersession of the Government

Notification No. DFDA/FSSA/1/2013/5855 dated

26th March, 2013, published in the Official Gazette,

Series II No. 1 dated 4th April, 2013, I, Shri B. R.

Singh, the Commissioner of Food Safety, hereby

notify the officers specified in column (2) of the

Table below for the purpose of registration under

the said Regulations, in respect of the areas

specified in the corresponding entries in column

(3) of the said Table.

TABLE

Sr.

Name of the officers

Areas

No.

1) Smt. Sanjyot Uday Kudalkar,

North Goa

Senior Food Safety Officer

District.

2) Shri Nelson Elosio Fernandes,

North Goa

Senior Food Safety Officer

District.

3) Shri Rajiv Ram Korde,

South Goa

Senior Food Safety Officer

District.

4) Shri Santa Rita Abel Rodrigues,

South Goa

Senior Food Safety Officer

District.

This Notification shall come into force with

immediate effect.

B. R. Singh, Commissioner of Food Safety.

Porvorim, 29th January, 2018.

———uuu———

Department of Women & Child

Development

Directorate of Women & Child Development

Order

No. 2-103(21)-2017/DW&CD/7504

Government approval is hereby conveyed in

exercise of the powers conferred by Section 44 and

Section 51 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to depute below

mentioned members forming panel of 3 persons

and 3 Child Care Institutions to assist the Child

Welfare Committee North Goa and South Goa under

the said Act.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 45

8TH FEBRUARY, 2018

2192

Below mentioned members are appointed on the

panel as under:-

Fit person Foster Care u/s 44 of the JJ Act, 2015:-

Sr.

Name of the Person

Designation

No.

1. Mrs. Rosita Almeida, C/o Mr. Inacio

Member.

Almeida, Velsao, H. No. 52,

Falvado, Goa

2. Mrs. Maria Goretti Mendes and

Member.

Mr. Isidora Joao Sebastian

Mendes, H. No. 35, Ratvaddo,

Navelim, Salcete-Goa 403707

3. Mr. Antonio J. J. Sa Silva &

Member.

Maria Diana Da Silva, H. No. 35,

Per Seraulim, P. P. Colva, Goa

403 708

Fit facility u/s 51 of the Act, 2015

Sr.

Name of the Child Care

Designation

No.

Institution

1. Lar de Santa Terezinha, Unit of

Member.

Discalaced Carmelite Monastery,

H. No. 236, Pajifond, Margao,

Salcete-Goa 403601

2. Navajyothi Rehabilitation Centre,

Member.

Sisters Adorers, Casa Sacramento,

Near Velsao Panchayat, P. O. Cansaulim,

Velsao, Goa 403712

3. Nitya Seva Society Rivona,

Member.

Nitya Seva Niketan, P. O. Rivona,

Goa 403705

The panel constituted will be functioned as and

when their called upon by the authorities by Child

Welfare Committee North Goa and South Goa to

assist under the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model

Rules, 2016.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dipak Dessai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary

(Women & Child Development).

Panaji, 31st January, 2018.

________

Notification

No. 2-103(29)-2017/DW&CD/7552

The District Magistrate (DM), North/South Goa,

is hereby appointed as the officer-in-charge

for Adopt a Home Program in the District to

co-ordinate, manage and monitor the implemen-

tation of the program as per the Ministry of Women

and Child Development has initiated a program

names “Adopt a Home” whereby the corporate

sector, business houses and individuals are invited

to support the children staying in the Children

Homes run by the State Government/UTs and their

Non Government Organisation partners under the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act.

This Notification shall come into force

prospectively from the date of Gazette notified.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dipak Dessai, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary

(Women & Child Development).

Panaji, 1st February, 2018.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 82.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI—GOA—399/200-2/2018.