Panaji, 26th September, 2019 (Asvina 4,1941)
SERIES II No. 26
397
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2018-20
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Agriculture
Directorate of Agriculture
—
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2019-20/Part(I)/823
On recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee conveyed by the Goa Public
Service Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/
/11/2(1)/2016/164 dated 14-08-2019, Government is
pleased to promote the following Agriculture
Officers to the post of Subject Matter Specialist,
Group ‘A’ Gazetted, in Krishi Vigyan Kendra, South
under the Directorate of Agriculture on regular
basis in the pay band of PB-III Rs. 15600-39100+
Rs. 5400 Grade Pay at Level 10 of the 7th CPC pay
matrix with immediate effect:
Note:-
There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official
Gazette, Series II No. 25 dated 19-09-2019 namely,
Extraordinary dated 20-09-2019 from pages 395
to 396 regarding Notification from Department
of Elections.
1) Shri Kishore Bhave, officiating Assistant
Director of Agriculture.
2) Shri Pradeep M. Malik, officiating Assistant
Director of Agriculture.
On regular promotion they are posted as shown
below:
1) Shri Kishore Bhave, posted as Subject Matter
Specialist (Horticulture), by relieving Shri
Shriram Dhaimodkar of additional charge.
2) Shri Pradeep M. Malik, posted as Subject
Matter Specialist (Agronomy), by relieving Shri
Chandrahas N. Dessai.
The above officers shall be on probation for a
period of two years from the date of their joining.
They shall exercise option within one month
from the date of promotion to fix their pay in terms
of F.R. 22(I) (a) (1).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Jt.
Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 20th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2019-20/Part(I)/824
On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public Service
Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/2(1)/2016/164 dated 14-08-2019, Government is pleased to
promote and appoint Shri Girish A. Kenkre, Agriculture Officer, Group ‘B’ Gazetted to the post of Subject
Matter Specialist on officiating basis in the pay band of PB-III Rs. 15600-39100+Rs. 5400 Grade Pay at
Level 10 of the 7th CPC pay matrix with immediate effect until further orders or till the post is filled on
regular basis whichever is earlier. He shall be posted as shown below:
Sr.
Name of the
Designation &
Place of posting on officiating
No.
Officer
Place of present
basis to the post of Subject
posting
Matter Specialist
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Girish A. Kenkre
Agriculture Officer,
As officiating Subject Matter Specialist (Plant
District Agriculture
Protection), Krishi Vigyan Kendra, South under
Office, South
Directorate of Agriculture by relieving Shri
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
398
Rajesh Desai of his additional charge. He shall
draw his pay and allowances against the
Budget Head 2415-01-150-01-01.
The officiating promotion will not bestow on the above officer any claim for regular promotion and the
service rendered on officiating basis in the grade will not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade
for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 20th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2019-20/Part(I)/825
In order to accommodate the newly promoted officers against the post of Subject Matter Specialist at
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, South under the Directorate of Agriculture, Government is pleased to order the
transfer of the following officer presently holding the post as shown below:
Sr.
Name of the Officer
Place of posting on
No.
& Designation
transfer
1
2
3
1.
Shri Chandrahas K. Dessai,
As Assistant Director of Agriculture (Extension) in the Directorate
Subject Matter Specialist
of Agriculture in place of Shri Kishore Bhave, holding the post
(Agronomy)
on officiating basis being promoted on regular basis against the
post of Subject Matter Specialist.
Joining time and TA for the above officer will be regulated as per Transfer Rules in force.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 20th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2019-20/Part(I)/826
On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public Service
Commission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/2(2)/2018/163 dated 14-08-2019, Government is pleased to
promote the following Assistant Agriculture Officers to the post of Agriculture Officer, Group ‘B’ Gazetted,
in the Directorate of Agriculture on regular basis in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800+Rs. 4600 Grade Pay
(Level-7 of the 7th Pay Commission Matrix) with immediate effect.
1) Kum. Milan S. Gaonkar (ST).
2) Smt. Nilima Y. Gawas.
3) Kum. Gauri Subhash Prabhu Dessai.
On regular promotion, they are posted as shown below:
Sr.
Name of the
Designation &
Place of posting on regular
No.
Officer
Place of present
promotion to the post of
posting
Agriculture Officer
1
2
3
4
1.
Kum. Milan S.
Asst. Agriculture Officer, Zonal
District Agriculture Office, North, Directorate
Gaonkar (ST)
Agriculture Office, Sanguem
of Agriculture, Tonca-Caranzalem.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
399
2.
Smt. Nilima Y.
Officiating Agriculture Officer,
On regular promotion to be retained as Zonal
Gawas
posted as Zonal Agriculture
Agriculture Officer, Tiswadi.
Officer, Tiswadi
3.
Kum. Gauri
Officiating Agriculture Officer,
On regular promotion to be retained as Zonal
Subhash Prabhu
posted as Zonal Agriculture
Agriculture Officer, Sanguem.
Dessai
Officer, Sanguem
The above Officers shall exercise their option within one month from the date of promotion to fix their
pay in terms of F.R. 22(I) (a) (1).
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 20th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. 2/9/95-AGR/2019-20/Part(I)/827
On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by Goa Public Service
Commission vide their No. COM/II/11/2(2)/2018/163 dated 14-08-2019, Government is pleased to promote
and appoint the following Assistant Agriculture Officers, Group ‘B’ Gazetted to the post of Agriculture
Officer against the reserved category on officiating basis in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800+Rs. 4600
Grade Pay which is at Level-7 of the 7th Pay Commission Matrix with immediate effect until further orders
or till the posts are filled on regular basis by the respective category whichever is earlier.
Promotion on officiating basis:
Against the resultant vacancy of Subject Matter Specialist (Plant Protection) promoted on officiating basis:
1) Shri Sandesh Jiva Raut Dessai.
Against Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe vacancies of Agriculture Officers:
2) Shri Vishwanath Narayan Gawas.
3) Shri Kirtiraj Naik Gaonkar.
On officiating basis they are posted as shown below:
Sr.
Name of the
Designation &
Place of posting on officiating
No.
Officer
Place of present
basis to the post of
posting
Agriculture Officer
1
2
3
4
1. Shri Sandesh
Officiating Agriculture Officer,
To be retained as officiating Zonal Agriculture
Jiva Raut Dessai
posted as Zonal Agriculture
Officer, Quepem.
Officer, Quepem
2. Shri Vishwanath
Asst. Agriculture Officer, Zonal
On officiating basis as Agriculture Officer shall
Narayan Gawas
Agriculture Office, Satari
hold the post of Agriculture Officer in District
Agriculture Office (North) under B.H 2402-00-
-001-01-01 vacated by Smt. Vaibhavi Dessai.
3. Shri Kirtiraj Naik
Asst. Agriculture Officer, Zonal
On officiating basis as Agriculture Officer shall
Gaonkar
Agriculture Office, Canacona
hold the post of Agriculture Officer in District
Agriculture Office (South) under B.H 2401-00-
-105-02-01 vacated by Kum. Gauri Subhash
Prabhu Dessai.
The officiating promotion will not bestow on the above officers any claim for regular promotion and
the service rendered on officiating basis in the grade will not count for the purpose of seniority in that
grade for eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Madhav B. Kelkar, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Agriculture).
Tonca-Caranzalem, 20th September, 2019.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
400
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Higher Education
—
Certificate
No. 8/2/2014-DHE(Q)/5309
Read: Order No. 8/2/2014-DHE(Q)/5730 dated
20-02-2019.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Ms. Shraddha Shrikant Naik (OBC) appointed to
the post of Assistant Professor in Political Science
(Group “A” Gazetted) in Government College of
Arts, Science and Commerce, Sanquelim-Goa under
Directorate of Higher Education vide above referred
Order has been verified by the Addl. Collector &
ADM, Office of the District Magistrate, North Goa
District, Panaji-Goa and nothing adverse has come
to the notice of the Government.
Prasad G. Volvoikar, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 24th September, 2019.
———u———
Directorate of Technical Education
College Section
—
Order
No. 8/1/76/GUK/PF/GCA/DTE/2019/1843
Read: Memorandum No. 8/34/86/EDN/Vol.II/833
dated 03-07-2019.
On the recommendations of the Goa Public
Service Commission conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/I/5/6(2)/2017/83 dated 29-05-2019,
Government is pleased to appoint Shri Gopal Uttam
Kudaskar on temporary basis to the post of Assistant
Professor in Fine Art (Painting) (Group ‘A’ Gazetted)
at Goa College of Art, Altinho, Panaji-Goa, on an initial
pay at Level 10 [(i.e. on an initial pay of Rs. 15,600/-
(pre-revised) in the Pay Scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100
(pre-revised) (PB-3)+Academic Grade Pay of
Rs. 6000/- (pre-revised)] w.e.f. from the date of
joining as per the terms & conditions contained in
the Memorandum cited above.
The appointment is against the post of Assistant
Professor in Fine Art (Painting) created vide order
No. 8/26/81/WET dated 02-07-1983, vacated by Shri
Mahendra M. Chodankar due to superannuation on
31-10-2016.
Shri Gopal Uttam Kudaskar will be on probation
for a period of two years.
He should join duties within 30 days of the
receipt of this order, failing which this order is liable
to be cancelled without further notice.
He has been declared fit by Medical Board, Goa
Medical College & Hospital, Bambolim vide letter
No. 4/105/85-H/GMC/2019/198 dated 23-07-2019.
His character and antecedents have been verified
and nothing adverse is reported against him as
conveyed by the Additional Collector & ADM,
North Goa, Office of the District Magistrate, North
Goa, Magisterial Branch, Collectorate Bldg., Panaji
vide letter No. 2/6/2013-MAG/VCA/3418 dated
16-09-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Addl.
Secretary (Technical Education).
Porvorim, 24th September, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Home
Home—General Division
—
Addendum
No. 24/11/2011-HD(G)/2482
Read: Order No. 24/11/2011-HD(G)/2226 dated
05-08-2019.
In the above referred order, the following para
shall be inserted after the first para:-
“The expenditure shall be debited to the Budget
Head 2014—Admn of Justice, 00, 800—Other
Expenditure, 01—Establishment of Fast Track Court
North/South (Plan), 01—Salaries (voted)”, under
Demand No. 03.
The rest of the contents of the above referred
order shall remain unchanged.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Nilesh K. Dhaigodkar, Under Secretary (Home).
Porvorim, 13th September, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
—
Order
No. 3/3/2018-IND/516/334
Ms. Nidhi Satija, IES, Joint Secretary (Budget),
Government of Goa shall hold additional charge of
the post of Chief Executive Officer, Goa Investment
Promotion and Facilitation Board (Goa-IPB) and
Chief Executive Officer, Start-up Promotion Cell
with immediate effect in addition to her own duties.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 23rd September, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
401
Order
No. 3/3/2018-IND/517/535
Government is pleased to accept the resignation
of Shri Vishal Prakash, Chief Executive Officer, Goa
Investment Promotion and Facilitation Board (Goa-
IPB) tendered by him vide letter dated 10-09-2019
and he stands relieved from the post of Chief
Executive Officer with immediate effect.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 23rd September, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Information and Publicity
—
Order
No. DI/INF/ESG/IFFI/05/Part-I/2040
In pursuance of the provisions of Clause 5 of Chapter II of the Rules and Regulations of Entertainment
Society of Goa, the Government of Goa is pleased to reconstitute the General Body of the Entertainment
Society of Goa (ESG) having office at Old GMC Complex, Panaji-Goa with following composition with
immediate effect:
Sr.
Category of appointment
Composition of the General Body
No.
of Member
1
2
3
1. Chief Minister of the State (ex officio Chairperson)
Dr. Pramod Sawant, Hon’ble Chief Minister-
Chairperson.
2. Vice Chairperson
Shri Subhash Phal Dessai-Vice Chairperson.
3. Member Secretary
Chief Executive Officer of ESG.
4. 12 representatives from Government Departments
1. Chief Secretary, Goa.
including two from Departments of Government
2. Finance Secretary, Goa.
of India
3. Secretary (Information & Publicity), Goa.
4. Director (Art & Culture), Goa.
5. Director (Information & Publicity), Goa.
6. Chairman, Economic Development
Corporation.
7. Chairman, Goa Tourism Development
Corporation.
8. Shri Shubham Chodankar, Corporator, a
representative of the Corporation of City of
Panaji.
9. Shri Josua Desouza, MLA Mapusa.
10. Smt. Alina Saldanha, MLA Cortalim.
11. Nominee-To be appointed by Government
of India.
12. Nominee-To be appointed by Government
of India.
5. 03 persons from other similar Societies or
1. Shri Pravin Zantye.
autonomous bodies
2. Shri Purnanand Chari.
3. Dr. Rajay Pawar.
6. 03 persons having proven track record in the
1. Shri Sharmad Raiturkar.
field of films
2. Shri Dhyaneshwar Moghe.
3. Shri Shiva Baba Naik.
7. 03 eminent persons in the field of entertainment
1. Shri Sanjay Shetye.
2. Shri Devidas Amonkar.
3. Shri Abhay Jog.
8. 05 persons who in the view of the Government is
1. Shri Sushant Khedekar.
worthy of helping Society to realize its objectives
2. Shri Shantaram Kundaikar.
3. Shri Raju Nayak.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
402
4. Shri Ramrao Wagh.
5. Shri William D’Costa.
The General Body of the Entertainment Society of Goa shall exercise the powers and functions as
specified under the Rules and Regulations of the Entertainment Society of Goa and also as per the
mandate provided by the State Government/ESG from time to time.
The tenure of the General Body shall be for a period of three years from the date of issue of this order.
The Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members will be eligible for re-appointment. However, the State
Government shall have the authority to terminate the membership of any member including the Member
Secretary at any time.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Meghana Shetgaonkar, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Information and Publicity).
Panaji, 19th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. DI/INF/ESG/IFFI/05/Part-I/2041
In pursuance of the provisions of Clause 6 of Chapter II of the Rules and Regulations of Entertainment
Society of Goa, the Government of Goa is pleased to reconstitute the Governing Body/Executive Council
of the Entertainment Society of Goa (ESG) having office at Old GMC Complex, Panaji-Goa with following
composition with immediate effect:
Sr.
Category of appointment
Composition of the Executive Body
No.
of Member
1
2
3
1. Chairperson of the Executive Council
Shri Subhash Phal Dessai, Chairperson.
2. Member Secretary of Executive Council
Chief Executive Officer of ESG, ex officio
(ex officio Member Secretary)
Member Secretary.
3. 05 representatives from amongst official members
1. Chief Secretary, Goa.
of the General Body
2. Finance Secretary, Goa.
3. Secretary (Information & Publicity), Goa.
4. Director (Art & Culture), Goa.
5. Director (Information & Publicity), Goa.
4. 04 non-official members from amongst the non-
1. Shri Sushant Khedekar.
official members of the General Body
2. Shri Shantaram Kundaikar.
3. Shri Shiva Baba Naik.
4. Shri Sharmad Raiturkar.
5. 06 Special Invitees
1. Shri Pravin Zantye.
2. Shri William Costa.
3. Shri Dhyaneshwar Moghe.
4. Shri Abhay Jog.
5. Shri Raju Nayak.
6. Shri Ramrao Wagh.
The Executive Council of the Entertainment Society of Goa shall exercise the powers and functions
as specified under the Rules and Regulations of the Entertainment Society of Goa and also as per the
mandate provided by the State Government/ESG from time to time.
The tenure of the Executive Council shall be for a period of three years from the date of issue of this
order. The Chairperson, Member Secretary and Members will be eligible for re-appointment. However, the
State Government shall have the authority to terminate the membership of any member including the
Member Secretary at any time.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Meghana Shetgaonkar, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Information and Publicity).
Panaji, 19th September, 2019.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
403
Department of Labour
—
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/553
The following Interim award passed by the
Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa
on 23-07-2019 in reference No. IT/18/17 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th September, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/18/17
Workmen,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
G-5, Macedo Apartments,
Tisk, Ponda, Goa-403 401.
…
Workmen/Party I
V/s
1. M/s. Orchid Biomedical System,
Division of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd.,
Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,
Salcete, Goa-403 722
.… Employer/Party II(1)
2. Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union,
Velho’s Bldg., 2nd Floor,
Panaji, Goa-403 001.
… Workmen/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar
along with Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
M. S. Bandodkar.
Workmen/Party II(2) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhaas Naik.
INTERIM AWARD
(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month
of July, of the year 2019).
This Order shall dispose of the application at
Exh. 8 filed by the Party I for interim relief.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Party I is as
follows:
That the current wages of the workmen involved
in the present reference are meager and not
sufficient for day-to-day needs of average family as
seen from the wage slips produced along with the
claim statement. The cost of living and so also the
consumer price index have been rising
exponentially over the last years; however, the
wages have not increased commensurate to the
rise in the consumer price index. The current wage
structure does not provide for any increase in
relation to the increase in the cost of living index.
There is no variable dearness allowance being paid
to the workers. Whenever there is an increase in
the cost of living, the workers are entitled to an
increase in the salary so that the inflation does not
cut into their purchasing power. Balance of
convenience lies in favour of workmen since the
wages are in serious need of revision. The employer
had already thought it convenient to negotiate
with a particular handpicked union and entered
into an unfair settlement by ignoring the workers
concerned in the reference whose wages remained
stagnant. If the interim increase is not granted, the
financial difficulties faced by the workmen would
continue and would result in their economic
deprivation and therefore to avoid any cascading
effect on the lives of the workmen, the financial
deprivation must be temporarily put to an halt. No
prejudice would be caused to the employer, if the
application is allowed as they are liable to pay
wages commensurate to the cost of living reflecting
the ever rising inflation and therefore a sum of
Rs. 6500/- as interim increase in wages per workman
be allowed.
3. The Party II(1) filed a reply inter-alia contention
that the application is bad in law and not
maintainable and filed by a section of workers
which would amount to discrimination between
the workers. The Party I workers did not come with
clean hands as the Party I are representing some
of the workers without specifying which workers
are required to be paid. The company is having
majority union known as Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers Union and has signed comprehensive
settlement dated 9-8-2017 on the Charter of
demands dated 22-2-2017 under Section 2(p) read
with Section 18(1) of the Act and offered benefits
to the minority union and some of the members of
the said union accepted the settlement but the
Party I have not accepted the settlement and have
not been giving the productivity as agreed in the
said settlement. There is no justification given for
interim relief of Rs. 6500/- per month. The union
has no locus standi to file the application for
interim relief. The Party II have given substantial
rise to all the workers who have signed the
settlement and the Party I have refused to accept
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
404
the benefits of the said settlement and therefore
there is no scope for asking for interim relief. No
case has been made out by Party I for grant of the
application. No prejudice would be caused to Party
I and therefore the application be dismissed.
4. Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments
came to be placed on record by Party I as well as
Party II(1).
5. Learned Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Party I has
submitted that the current wages of the workmen
involved in the present reference are meager and
not sufficient for day-to-day needs of an average
family as seen from the wage slips. The inflation
reduces the real value of Rupee and said factors
along with rising Consumer Price Index have to be
considered. The real value of the workmen’s salary
in 2018 is Rs. 16,890/- and therefore in real value
terms the increase is mere Rs. 1850/- for the year
2018 to 2019, Rs. 1850/- for 2019 to 2020 and
Rs. 2150/- from April, 2020 to September, 2020 and
that is the future increase of Rs. 5850/- on September,
2020 and therefore the salary which is currently
around Rs. 19,000/- would increase to Rs. 24,850/-
which clearly shows that the purchasing power of
the pay package will go on reducing in coming
future even if the rate of inflation does not increase.
The cost of living so also consumer price index has
been rising exponentially over the last years,
however the wages have not increased. The current
wage structure does not provide for any increase
in relation to the increase in the cost of living
index. There are no variable dearness allowances
being paid to the workers. He further submitted
that the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Lever
Ltd. vs. B. N. Dongre, (1994) 6 SCC 157 has
observed that if the rise in the pay packet does not
keep pace with the rise in prices of essentials, the
purchasing power of the pay packet falls reducing
the real wages leaving the workers and their
families worse off and therefore, if on account of
inflation, prices rise while the pay packet remains
frozen, the real wages will fall sharply. He further
submitted that the balance of convenience for
grant of interim increase lies in favour of the
workmen since their wages are in serious need of
revision. The employer has already thought it
convenient to negotiate only with a particular
handpicked union and entered into unfair
settlement and if interim increase is not granted,
the financial difficulties faced by the workmen
would continue and result in economic deprivation.
No prejudice would cause to the employer since it
is its duty to treat all the workmen fairly and
reasonably and therefore the application be
allowed.
6. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for
Party II(1) has submitted that the Court can pass
interim award only as per Section 2(b) of the Act
and an interim award can be granted only on the
basis of subject matter of reference and in support
thereof, he relied upon the case of Maharashtra
Girls Education Society, Pune vs. Maharashtra
Karmachari Sanghatana, Pune, (2018) III CLR 601.
He further submitted that the Party II(1) and Party
II(2) have signed a settlement with vast majority of
workers on their Charter of demands on 22-2-2017
and the said settlement has been signed on
9-8-2017 and accepted by the majority of members
of union without any exception by all the
establishments of Party II(1) and that the said
settlement is fair and reasonable and the settlement
signed by the majority has to be accepted by the
minority. The Party I have not accepted the
settlement and that they are not giving the
productivity as agreed as per clause 19 of the
settlement and therefore not entitled for any interim
reliefs. In support thereof, he relied upon the cases
of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs.
Their workmen, Civil Appeal No. 1484 of 1971
dated 16-10-1981.
7. It is well settled that the Tribunal has powers
to grant interim reliefs in terms of expression
‘incidental thereto’ occurring in Section 10(4) of
Industrial Disputes Act as held in the case of
Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and
others vs. Hotel Workers Union, 1960 (1) SCR
476. It is also well established that merely because
Court is vested with the powers of granting interim
relief in an application under Section 2-A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, the same would not relieve
Party I from establishing the three preconditions
required for seeking such a relief as pointed out in
the judgment in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra
Limited vs. Dwarkanath Babaji Dalvi & Anr., 2006
I CLR 902. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in
Webel Nicco Electronics Ltd. vs. Anima Roy,
1997(II) CLR 158, has laid down the parameters for
grant of interim relief by the Industrial Tribunal.
These parameters are (a) prima facie case and (b)
balance of convenience.
8. The following points therefore arise for my
determinations which are mentioned along with
their findings and reasons thereof.
Points
Findings
1. Whether the Party I have made
In the
out a prima facie case for
Negative
grant of relief claimed?
2. Whether irreparable loss and
In the
inconvenience would cause to
Negative
Party I in case of non grant of
relief claimed?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
405
POINT 1
9. The present reference is for the Charter of
demands raised by the Union vide letter dated
28-11-2016 against the management of M/s. Orchid
Biomedical System, a division of Tulip Diagnostic
Ltd., Verna Industrial Estate, Verna. There is no
dispute that the company has signed five
settlements i.e. dated 23-02-2008, 24-01-2011,
22-05-2014, 10-06-2014 and 09-08-2017. In all the
settlements, the Party II has given substantial
benefits to all workmen and settlement dated
22-05-2014 has been accepted by Gomantak
Mazdoor Sangh in toto without making any
allegation. There is also no dispute that 2/3rd of
the workmen have accepted the settlement dated
09-08-2017 for the period from 01-04-2017 to
30-09-2020. The said settlement signed by the
parties is a comprehensive settlement on the
Charter of demands dated 22-2-2017 which was
signed on 09-08-2017 and accepted by majority
members of union by all the establishment of Party
II and the said settlement has been offered to all
the members of the Party I and some of them have
accepted the said settlement.
10. Curiously enough, it is not known how many
of the workmen of Party I have raised the present
dispute and how many of them have been
challenging the said settlement dated 09-08-2017
to be unfair, malafide, unreasonable and against
the interest of the workmen. It is also not known
nor statement of claim filed on behalf of the Party
I workmen show that they are challenging the
settlement dated 09-08-2017 entered into by
majority union and the Party II. The Party I have
also not specified on whose behalf the demands
have been raised or whether the said persons are
the members of the union nor any list of workmen
have been filed nor any resolution seeking to raise
demand on the management has been produced
nor filed any affidavit in support of its case. The
fact remains that the Party I workmen have not
accepted the settlement nor they are giving the
productivity as agreed as per clause 19 of the
settlement. The settlement has been arrived by
vast majority of the concerned workers with their
eyes open and also accepted by them in its totality,
which fact cannot be ignored by the Tribunal as
when a recognised union negotiates with the
employees, it is expected to protect the best
interest of the workers. There are also no allegations
of malafide, fraud, corruption or other inducement
with respect to the settlement arrived at by the
parties and in the absence of the said allegations,
it cannot be said that the said settlement is unfair
or arbitrary as claimed by Party I in the application
for interim relief nor Party I workers who are in
minority have established the case for grant of any
reliefs at this stage.
11. Moreover, the terms of said settlement cannot
be considered to be in any way ex-facie, unjust or
unfair in the absence of challenge to the same as
settlement of labour dispute by direct negotiation
and collective bargaining is always to be preferred
for it is the best guarantee of industrial peace and
harmony between the employer and the workmen.
The Party II(1) and Party II(2) have signed a
comprehensive settlement arising out of the
Charter of demands dated 22-2-2017 covering all
the demands of Party I, which ensures industrial
peace and merely because some of the employees
do not agree to the terms of the settlement entered
into between the majority union and the employer,
they cannot be permitted to contend that it was
negotiated with a hand-picked union or that it
was an unfair settlement. No such case has been
even alleged by the Party I union, much less made
out by the Party I in the dispute raised by them
before the appropriate authority or in the claim
statement or in the application for interim relief.
The claim of Party I that the increase in the
consumer price index, justifies an upward revision
in wages, is not sufficient as by that fact alone, it
is not possible to draw an inference that the wages
paid is wholly inadequate to meet day to day
expenses, in the absence of any evidence to that
effect.
12. It requires a mention here that all the
establishments of Party II do not work separately
as seen from the Balance Sheet which is in the
name of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. The
establishments as mentioned by the Party I as
divisions are not financially independent but they
are of the one company viz. Tulip Diagnostics Pvt.
Ltd. who has signed the settlements along with all
its establishments and are part and parcel of the
same company and therefore as rightly pointed
out by Ld. Adv. M. S. Bandodkar, the demands raised
by the Party I purporting to be on the division of
Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. is bad in law and the
firms viz. Orchids Biomedical Systems, Qualpro
Diagnostics, Zephyr Biomedical and Coral Clinical
System who were partnership concerns were merged
into Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. on 30-1-2017 and
therefore from 31-1-2017 there are no divisions but
only one company known as Tulip Diagnostics Pvt.
Ltd. Moreover, the local committee of the union
and all other workers have signed and accepted
the settlement dated 4-12-2013 with Tulip
Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and not any division of the
said company and have not raised any issue about
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
406
the same with the company at any time and as
such, the Party I Union cannot claim that the Party
II(1) is a division of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and
therefore the claim of the Party I is incapable of
being adjudicated and hence, prima facie no relief
as been claimed can be granted.
13. Moreover, there are no facts and figures
available on record justifying grant of upward wage
revision including granting additional basic pay
and other emoluments. There is no evidence before
the Tribunal in support of the case of Party I that
they are entitled for a sum of Rs. 6500/- as interim
increase in wages per workman per month nor
they have filed an application before the Tribunal
for an opportunity to lead evidence. The Party II(1)
have raised an issue of jurisdiction and
maintainability before grant of interim relief in the
matter which requires evidence before deciding
the said issue. There also cannot be any dispute
that the Party I have accepted the settlement dated
10-06-2014 and as per clause (e) the parties have
agreed that during the operative period of the
settlement, the union/workmen shall not raise,
pursue/agitate any other demands of whatsoever
nature entailing additional financial or
administrative impact other than what has been
agreed in terms of the said settlement. The Party
I raised the Charter of demands giving a goby to
the settlement dated 10-06-2014 as in view of the
said terms and conditions of the settlement, they
were precluded from raising any financial demand
till new settlement is signed in accordance with
law. It is therefore as rightly submitted by Ld. Adv.
M. S. Bandodkar in view of the said clause of the
settlement, the Party I cannot make an application
for interim relief. Moreover, there are no materials
on record on financial position of the company,
industry cum region, paying capacity and
comparable concern. The settlements which have
been relied upon by the Party I are in no way
comparable to the company nor there is anything
on record as to how those settlements can be
compared with one establishment of the company
and therefore the wage structure as sought by the
Party I cannot be altered.
14. There are also no materials about the
necessities of the workmen, the justification of their
demands for living wage or fair wage and the
extent thereof in the claim statement as well as
application for interim relief. In short, the claim of
Rs. 6500/- as interim increase in wages per workman
by Party I workmen would put an obligation on
Party II to pay increase in wages to Party I workmen
without any obligation on the part of the workmen
to increase in productivity, which would be
discriminatory and would disturb industrial peace
and therefore would not be desirable state of
affairs, which is required to be protected to avoid
friction and unhealthy litigation. There are
absolutely no justifiable reasons given by the Party
I as to how they are entitled for said increase in
wages. Merely, claiming that the current wages of
the workmen is not sufficient for day-to-day needs
of the family and that the cost of living, so also the
consumer price index has been rising exponentially
over the last years is not sufficient. Prima facie
therefore, the Party I has failed to show any case
in its favour. It is therefore, the point No. 1 is
answered in the negative.
POINT 2
15. It is claimed by Party I workmen that the
balance of convenience for grant of interim relief
is in favour of Party I workmen since their wages
are in serious need of revision and that the inflation
has cut into their purchasing power. It is also
claimed that the workers involved in the reference
has been ignored and their wages remained
stagnant and if their interim increase is not
granted, the workers will face financial difficulties,
resulting in economic deprivation and that no
prejudice would cause to the employer, if the
present application is allowed. However, as rightly
pointed out by Ld. Adv. Shri Bandodkar there is no
change in circumstances to warrant the Charter of
demands dated 4-12-2013 for revision in wages for
2017 when the settlement dated 10-06-2014 signed
by the workers and the management revised the
wages till 31-3-2017. Moreover, the workers have
refused to give extra productivity which was one
of the reasons for increase in wages in 2017
settlement and since the minority union has refused
to sign the settlement dated 09-08-2017 and give
more productivity as agreed by the majority union,
balance of convenience cannot be said to be in
favour of the Party I workmen. No irreparable loss
would occasion to the Party I workmen as they
derive benefits of the settlement dated 10-06-2014
which has revised the wages from 1-1-2013 to
31-3-2017 and unless they accept the settlement
and give extra productivity as per the new
settlement, irreparable loss would occasion to the
Party II(1). There would be also discrimination and
industrial unrest, if the demand of interim increase
in wages of Rs. 6500/- is granted to the Party I
workmen without accepting the settlement and
giving productivity as is being done by the majority
union in terms of the settlement dated 09-08-2017.
No irreparable loss would cause to Party I workmen
if reliefs are not granted at this stage as their
charter of demands are pending for final
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
407
determination on merits. It is therefore the above
point No. 2 is answered accordingly.
16. Having said so, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The application filed by Party I for interim
relief at Exhibit 8 stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-II/554
The following Interim award passed by the
Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa
on 23-07-2019 in reference No. IT/03/18 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th September, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/03/18
Workmen,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
G-5, Macedo Apartments,
Tisk, Ponda, Goa-403 401.
…
Workmen/Party I
V/s
1. M/s. Zephyr Biomedicals,
Division of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd.,
Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,
Salcete, Goa-403 722.
.… Employer/Party II(1)
2. Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union,
Velho’s Bldg., 2nd Floor,
Panaji, Goa-403 001.
… Workmen/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar
along with Ld. Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II(1) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
M. S. Bandodkar.
Workmen/Party II(2) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri
Suhaas Naik.
INTERIM AWARD
(Delivered on this the 23rd day of the month
of July, of the year 2019).
This Order shall dispose of the application at
Exh. 9 filed by the Party I for interim relief.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Party I is as
follows:
That the current wages of the workmen involved
in the present reference are meager and not
sufficient for day-to-day needs of average family as
seen from the wage slips produced along with the
claim statement. The cost of living and so also the
consumer price index have been rising
exponentially over the last years; however, the
wages have not increased commensurate to the
rise in the consumer price index. The current wage
structure does not provide for any increase in
relation to the increase in the cost of living index.
There is no variable dearness allowance being paid
to the workers. Whenever there is an increase in
the cost of living, the workers are entitled to an
increase in the salary so that the inflation does not
cut into their purchasing power. Balance of
convenience lies in favour of workmen since the
wages are in serious need of revision. The employer
had already thought it convenient to negotiate
with a particular handpicked union and entered
into an unfair settlement by ignoring the workers
concerned in the reference whose wages remained
stagnant. If the interim increase is not granted, the
financial difficulties faced by the workmen would
continue and would result in their economic
deprivation and therefore to avoid any cascading
effect on the lives of the workmen, the financial
deprivation must be temporarily put to an halt. No
prejudice would be caused to the employer, if the
application is allowed as they are liable to pay
wages commensurate to the cost of living reflecting
the ever rising inflation and therefore a sum of
Rs. 6500/- as interim increase in wages per workman
be allowed.
3. The Party II(1) filed a reply inter-alia contention
that the application is bad in law and not
maintainable and filed by a section of workers
which would amount to discrimination between
the workers. The Party I workers did not come with
clean hands as the Party I are representing some
of the workers without specifying which workers
are required to be paid. The company is having
majority union known as Goa Trade & Commercial
Workers Union and has signed comprehensive
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
408
Settlement dated 9-8-2017 on the Charter of
demands dated 22-2-2017 under Section 2(p) read
with Section 18(1) of the Act and offered benefits
to the minority union and some of the members of
the said union accepted the settlement but the
Party I have not accepted the settlement and have
not been giving the productivity as agreed in the
said settlement. There is no justification given for
interim relief of Rs. 6500/- per month. The union
has no locus standi to file the application for
interim relief. The Party II have given substantial
rise to all the workers who have signed the
settlement and the Party I have refused to accept
the benefits of the said settlement and therefore
there is no scope for asking for interim relief. No
case has been made out by Party I for grant of the
application. No prejudice would be caused to Party
I and therefore the application be dismissed.
4. Heard arguments. Notes of Written arguments
came to be placed on record by Party I as well as
Party II(1).
5. Learned Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Party I has
submitted that the current wages of the workmen
involved in the present reference are meager and
not sufficient for day-to-day needs of an average
family as seen from the wage slips. The inflation
reduces the real value of Rupee and said factors
along with rising Consumer Price Index have to be
considered. The real value of the workmen’s salary
in 2018 is Rs. 16,890/- and therefore in real value
terms the increase is mere Rs. 1850/- for the year
2018 to 2019, Rs. 1850/- for 2019 to 2020 and
Rs. 2150/- from April, 2020 to September, 2020 and
that is the future increase of Rs. 5850/- on September,
2020 and therefore the salary which is currently
around Rs. 19,000/- would increase to Rs. 24,850/-
which clearly shows that the purchasing power of
the pay package will go on reducing in coming
future even if the rate of inflation does not increase.
The cost of living so also consumer price index has
been rising exponentially over the last years,
however the wages have not increased. The current
wage structure does not provide for any increase
in relation to the increase in the cost of living
index. There are no variable dearness allowances
being paid to the workers. He further submitted
that the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Lever
Ltd. vs. B. N. Dongre, (1994) 6 SCC 157 has
observed that if the rise in the pay packet does not
keep pace with the rise in prices of essentials, the
purchasing power of the pay packet falls reducing
the real wages leaving the workers and their
families worse off and therefore, if on account of
inflation, prices rise while the pay packet remains
frozen, the real wages will fall sharply. He further
submitted that the balance of convenience for
grant of interim increase lies in favour of the
workmen since their wages are in serious need of
revision. The employer has already thought it
convenient to negotiate only with a particular
handpicked union and entered into unfair
settlement and if interim increase is not granted,
the financial difficulties faced by the workmen
would continue and result in economic deprivation.
No prejudice would cause to the employer since it
is its duty to treat all the workmen fairly and
reasonably and therefore the application be
allowed.
6. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar for
Party II(1) has submitted that the Court can pass
interim award only as per Section 2(b) of the Act
and an interim award can be granted only on the
basis of subject matter of reference and in support
thereof, he relied upon the case of Maharashtra
Girls Education Society, Pune vs. Maharashtra
Karmachari Sanghatana, Pune, (2018) III CLR 601.
He further submitted that the Party II(1) and Party
II(2) have signed a settlement with vast majority of
workers on their Charter of demands on 22-2-2017
and the said settlement has been signed on
9-8-2017 and accepted by the majority of members
of union without any exception by all the
establishments of Party II(1) and that the said
settlement is fair and reasonable and the settlement
signed by the majority has to be accepted by the
minority. The Party I have not accepted the
settlement and that they are not giving the
productivity as agreed as per clause 19 of the
settlement and therefore not entitled for any interim
reliefs. In support thereof, he relied upon the cases
of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs.
Their workmen, Civil Appeal No. 1484 of 1971
dated 16-10-1981.
7. It is well settled that the Tribunal has powers
to grant interim reliefs in terms of expression
‘incidental thereto’ occurring in Section 10(4) of
Industrial Disputes Act as held in the case of
Management Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and
others vs. Hotel Workers Union, 1960 (1) SCR
476. It is also well established that merely because
Court is vested with the powers of granting interim
relief in an application under Section 2-A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, the same would not relieve
Party I from establishing the three preconditions
required for seeking such a relief as pointed out in
the judgment in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra
Limited vs. Dwarkanath Babaji Dalvi & Anr., 2006
I CLR 902. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in
Webel Nicco Electronics Ltd. vs. Anima Roy,
1997(II) CLR 158, has laid down the parameters for
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
409
grant of interim relief by the Industrial Tribunal.
These parameters are (a) prima facie case and (b)
balance of convenience.
8. The following points therefore arise for my
determinations which are mentioned along with
their findings and reasons thereof.
Points
Findings
1. Whether the Party I have made
In the
out a prima facie case for grant
Negative
of relief claimed?
2. Whether irreparable loss and
In the
inconvenience would cause to
Negative
Party I in case of non grant of
relief claimed?
POINT 1
9. The present reference is for the Charter of
demands raised by the Union vide letter dated
28-11-2016 against the management of M/s. Zephyr
Biomedicals, a division of Tulip Diagnostic Ltd.,
Verna Industrial Estate, Verna. There is no dispute
that the company has signed five settlements i.e.
dated 23-02-2008, 24-01-2011, 22-05-2014, 10-06-2014
and 09-08-2017. In all the settlements, the Party II
has given substantial benefits to all workmen and
settlement dated 22-05-2014 has been accepted by
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh in toto without making
any allegation. There is also no dispute that 2/3rd
of the workmen have accepted the Settlement
dated 09-08-2017 for the period from 01-04-2017 to
30-09-2020. The said settlement signed by the
parties is a comprehensive settlement on the
Charter of demands dated 22-2-2017 which was
signed on 09-08-2017 and accepted by majority
members of union by all the establishment of Party
II and the said settlement has been offered to all
the members of the Party I and some of them have
accepted the said settlement.
10. Curiously enough, it is not known how many
of the workmen of Party I have raised the present
dispute and how many of them have been
challenging the said Settlement dated 09-08-2017
to be unfair, malafide, unreasonable and against
the interest of the workmen. It is also not known
nor statement of claim filed on behalf of the Party
I workmen show that they are challenging the
Settlement dated 09-08-2017 entered into by
majority union and the Party II. The Party I have
also not specified on whose behalf the demands
have been raised or whether the said persons are
the members of the union nor any list of workmen
have been filed nor any resolution seeking to raise
demand on the management has been produced
nor filed any affidavit in support of its case. The
fact remains that the Party I workmen have not
accepted the settlement nor they are giving the
productivity as agreed as per clause 19 of the
settlement. The settlement has been arrived by
vast majority of the concerned workers with their
eyes open and also accepted by them in its totality,
which fact cannot be ignored by the Tribunal as
when a recognised union negotiates with the
employees, it is expected to protect the best
interest of the workers. There are also no allegations
of malafide, fraud, corruption or other inducement
with respect to the settlement arrived at by the
parties and in the absence of the said allegations,
it cannot be said that the said settlement is unfair
or arbitrary as claimed by Party I in the application
for interim relief nor Party I workers who are in
minority have established the case for grant of any
reliefs at this stage.
11. Moreover, the terms of said settlement cannot
be considered to be in any way ex-facie, unjust or
unfair in the absence of challenge to the same as
settlement of labour dispute by direct negotiation
and collective bargaining is always to be preferred
for it is the best guarantee of industrial peace and
harmony between the employer and the workmen.
The Party II(1) and Party II(2) have signed a
comprehensive settlement arising out of the
Charter of demands dated 22-2-2017 covering all
the demands of Party I, which ensures industrial
peace and merely because some of the employees
do not agree to the terms of the settlement entered
into between the majority union and the employer,
they cannot be permitted to contend that it was
negotiated with a hand-picked union or that it
was an unfair settlement. No such case has been
even alleged by the Party I union, much less made
out by the Party I in the dispute raised by them
before the appropriate authority or in the claim
statement or in the application for interim relief.
The claim of Party I that the increase in the
consumer price index, justifies an upward revision
in wages, is not sufficient as by that fact alone, it
is not possible to draw an inference that the wages
paid is wholly inadequate to meet day to day
expenses, in the absence of any evidence to that
effect.
12. It requires a mention here that all the
establishments of Party II do not work separately
as seen from the Balance Sheet which is in the
name of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. The
establishments as mentioned by the Party I as
divisions are not financially independent but they
are of the one company viz. Tulip Diagnostics Pvt.
Ltd. who has signed the settlements along with all
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
410
its establishments and are part and parcel of the
same company and therefore as rightly pointed
out by Ld. Adv. M. S. Bandodkar, the demands raised
by the Party I purporting to be on the division of
Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. is bad in law and the
firms viz. Orchids Biomedical Systems, Qualpro
Diagnostics, Zephyr Biomedical and Coral Clinical
System who were partnership concerns were
merged into Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. on 30-1-2017
and therefore from 31-1-2017 there are no divisions
but only one company known as Tulip Diagnostics
Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, the local committee of the union
and all other workers have signed and accepted
the Settlement dated 4-12-2013 with Tulip
Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and not any division of the
said company and have not raised any issue about
the same with the company at any time and as
such, the Party I Union cannot claim that the Party
II(1) is a division of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and
therefore the claim of the Party I is incapable of
being adjudicated and hence, prima facie no relief
as been claimed can be granted.
13. Moreover, there are no facts and figures
available on record justifying grant of upward wage
revision including granting additional basic pay
and other emoluments. There is no evidence before
the Tribunal in support of the case of Party I that
they are entitled for a sum of Rs. 6500/- as interim
increase in wages per workman per month nor
they have filed an application before the Tribunal
for an opportunity to lead evidence. The Party II(1)
have raised an issue of jurisdiction and
maintainability before grant of interim relief in the
matter which requires evidence before deciding
the said issue. There also cannot be any dispute
that the Party I have accepted the Settlement dated
10-06-2014 and as per clause (e) the parties have
agreed that during the operative period of the
settlement, the union/workmen shall not raise,
pursue/agitate any other demands of whatsoever
nature entailing additional financial or
administrative impact other than what has been
agreed in terms of the said settlement. The Party
I raised the Charter of demands giving a goby to
the Settlement dated 10-06-2014 as in view of the
said terms and conditions of the settlement, they
were precluded from raising any financial demand
till new settlement is signed in accordance with
law. It is therefore as rightly submitted by Ld. Adv.
M. S. Bandodkar in view of the said clause of the
settlement, the Party I cannot make an application
for interim relief. Moreover, there are no materials
on record on financial position of the company,
industry cum region, paying capacity and
comparable concern. The settlements which have
been relied upon by the Party I are in no way
comparable to the company nor there is anything
on record as to how those settlements can be
compared with one establishment of the company
and therefore the wage structure as sought by the
Party I cannot be altered.
14. There are also no materials about the
necessities of the workmen, the justification of their
demands for living wage or fair wage and the
extent thereof in the claim statement as well as
application for interim relief. In short, the claim of
Rs. 6500/- as interim increase in wages per workman
by Party I workmen would put an obligation on
Party II to pay increase in wages to Party I workmen
without any obligation on the part of the workmen
to increase in productivity, which would be
discriminatory and would disturb industrial peace
and therefore would not be desirable state of
affairs, which is required to be protected to avoid
friction and unhealthy litigation. There are
absolutely no justifiable reasons given by the Party
I as to how they are entitled for said increase in
wages. Merely, claiming that the current wages of
the workmen is not sufficient for day-to-day needs
of the family and that the cost of living, so also the
consumer price index has been rising exponentially
over the last years is not sufficient. Prima facie
therefore, the Party I has failed to show any case
in its favour. It is therefore, the point No. 1 is
answered in the negative.
POINT 2
15. It is claimed by Party I workmen that the
balance of convenience for grant of interim relief
is in favour of Party I workmen since their wages
are in serious need of revision and that the inflation
has cut into their purchasing power. It is also
claimed that the workers involved in the reference
has been ignored and their wages remained
stagnant and if their interim increase is not
granted, the workers will face financial difficulties,
resulting in economic deprivation and that no
prejudice would cause to the employer, if the
present application is allowed. However, as rightly
pointed out by Ld. Adv. Shri Bandodkar there is no
change in circumstances to warrant the Charter of
demands dated 4-12-2013 for revision in wages for
2017 when the settlement dated 10-06-2014 signed
by the workers and the management revised the
wages till 31-3-2017. Moreover, the workers have
refused to give extra productivity which was one
of the reasons for increase in wages in 2017
settlement and since the minority union has refused
to sign the settlement dated 09-08-2017 and give
more productivity as agreed by the majority union,
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
411
balance of convenience cannot be said to be in
favour of the Party I workmen. No irreparable loss
would occasion to the Party I workmen as they
derive benefits of the Settlement dated 10-06-2014
which has revised the wages from 1-1-2013 to
31-3-2017 and unless they accept the settlement
and give extra productivity as per the new
settlement, irreparable loss would occasion to the
Party II(1). There would be also discrimination and
industrial unrest, if the demand of interim increase
in wages of Rs. 6500/- is granted to the Party I
workmen without accepting the settlement and
giving productivity as is being done by the majority
union in terms of the Settlement dated 09-08-2017.
No irreparable loss would cause to Party I workmen
if reliefs are not granted at this stage as their
charter of demands are pending for final
determination on merits. It is therefore the above
point No. 2 is answered accordingly.
16. Having said so, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The application filed by Party I for interim
relief at Exhibit 9 stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-IV/558
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 15-07-2019 in Case
No. LC-II/IT/12/15 is hereby published as required
under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th September, 2019.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/12/15
Shri Francis Fernandes,
R/o. H. No. 275, Kadsal,
Khandepar Bazar,
Ponda-Goa.
…
Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Goa Meat Complex Ltd.,
Marvasada, Usgaon-Goa.
…
Employer/Party-II
Party-I/Workman represented by Adv. Shri D. Naik.
Party-II/Employer represented by Adv. Shri J. Lobo.
Panaji, Dated: 15-07-2019.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 01-07-2015,
bearing No. 28/26/2015-Lab/665, referred the
following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour
Court II, Panaji-Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of M/s. Goa Meat
Complex Limited, Marvasada, Usgao, Goa, in
terminating the services of Shri Francis
Fernandes, Butcher/Worker, with effect from
16-05-2013, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/12/15 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Workman/Party-I (for short,
‘the Workman’) filed his Statement of Claim on
20-08-2015 at Exhibit-5. The Workman stated that
he was employed with the Employer/Party-II (for
short “the Employer”) w.e.f. April, 2009 in the
capacity of ‘Butcher/Worker’ in its slaughter
operations. He stated that he was in continuous
service with the Employer from April, 2009. He
stated that his services were illegally terminated
by the Employer w.e.f. 16-05-2013 by its order dated
10-05-2013 on the ground that the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay at Goa has passed an interim
order on 30-04-2013. He stated that by the said
order the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa
stated that the slaughter of animals in the abattoir
at GMCL has been kept in abeyance. He stated
that he used to work even on Sundays and the
Employer used to pay him from petty cash and the
accounts department of the Employer used to take
his signature on the voucher. He stated that the
said vouchers are in power and possession of the
Employer. He stated that the Employer used to
make payment for working on Sundays apart from
his monthly salary.
3. He stated that he was shocked and shattered
that the Employer without following the principles
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
412
of natural justice and without his any fault abruptly
and illegally terminated his services with
immediate effect vide order dated 10-05-2013. He
submitted that the illegal and arbitrary action of
the Employer amounts to unfair labour practice.
He submitted that he made several requests to the
Employer to take him back in service but no heed
was paid to his request. He submitted that he is
now unemployed and has a dependent family to
support and is in great financial difficulty to meet
both the ends. He submitted that the arbitrary
action of the Employer is totally illegal, unjustified
and contrary to law and without following the
principles of natural justice. The Workman therefore
prayed that the action of the Employer in
terminating his services be declared as illegal and
unjustified and be reinstated him in service with
full back wages and continuity in service. The
workman also prayed for regularization of his
services.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
04-11-2015 at Exb. 10. The Employer denied that
the workman was employed with them at its
establishment at Usgao, Ponda, Goa w.e.f. April,
2009 in the capacity of ‘Butcher/Worker’ in its
slaughter operations. The Employer stated that the
Workman has attempted to disguise himself as a
permanent employee, when in fact his services
were used in its establishment on a purely daily
rated basis as and when required. The Employer
denied that the workman was in continuous service
with them from April, 2009. The Employer stated
that the services of the workman were legally
terminated by them w.e.f. 16-05-2013 vide its order
dated 10-05-2013 due to the interim order of the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa dated
30-04-2013. The Employer stated that the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Goa vide its order dated
30-04-2013 directed them to suspend operation
within its premises. The Employer stated that the
said notice of termination dated 10-05-2013 is legal.
The Employer stated that as the workman was a
daily wage worker and his services were used only
as and when they were required by them and as
such the termination of services of the workman
was entirely valid. The Employer submitted that
the termination of services of a daily wage worker
does not require application of principles of natural
justice as such a termination is an administrative
action and not a judicial/quasi-judicial action. The
Employer admitted that they used to maintain an
attendance register manually and then began to
maintain the attendance register via biometric
register. The Employer denied the overall case as
pleaded by the Workman and prayed for dismissal
of the present reference.
5. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
21-03-2016 at Exb. 11. The Workman, by way of his
re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
6. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the following issues on
28-07-2016 at Exb. 13.
1. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that he
was employed with the Employer/Party II w.e.f.
April, 2009 in the capacity of Butcher/Worker?
2. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the
action of the Employer/Party II in terminating
his services w.e.f. 16-05-2013 is illegal and
unjustified?
3. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to any
relief?
4. What order? What award?
7. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a)
Issue No. 1
: In the Affirmative.
(b)
Issue No. 2
: In the Affirmative.
(c)
Issue No. 3 & 4 : As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri
D. Naik, appearing for the Workman as well as Ld.
Adv. Shri J. Lobo, appearing for the Employer. Ld.
Adv. Shri D. Naik, appearing for the workman, chose
to file synopsis of written arguments.
8. Ld. Adv. Shri D. Naik, appearing for the
workman, during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman was employed by the
Employer at its establishment at Usgao, Ponda, Goa,
w.e.f. April, 2009 in the capacity of ‘Butcher/Worker’.
He submitted that the workman was in continuous
service with the Employer from April, 2009 till his
services has been illegally terminated by the
Employer w.e.f. 16-05-2013 vide its order dated
10-05-2013. He submitted that before terminating
services of the workman, neither he was issued
any show-cause notices or charge-sheet, nor
conducted any enquiry. He submitted that the
services of the workman have been terminated on
the ground that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
at Goa had passed an interim order on 30-04-2013
wherein the slaughter of animals in the abattoir at
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
413
GMCL has kept in abeyance. He submitted that
the division bench of Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay at Goa had passed an order dated
26-06-2013 allowing the operation in the
establishment of the Employer. He submitted that
the workman had completed 240 days continuous
service in the preceding 12 months from the date
of his termination w.e.f. 16-05-2013. He submitted
that the services of the workman have been
terminated without giving him a one months’
notice or in lieu of pay of months’ notice and
without paying him any retrenchment compensation,
thereby violated Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
He submitted that the Employer had published an
advertisement in the local newspaper for the
vacant post of butcher, production helper/
attendant. He submitted that the aforesaid acts on
the part of the Employer amounts to violation of
Section 25-G and Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947.
He therefore submitted that the action of the
Employer in terminating the services of the
Workman is illegal and unjustified. In support of
his oral contentions, he relied upon three
judgments, one in case of Director, Food and
Supplies, Punjab and others v/s Prakash Singh
and Ors., reported in 2012-III, LLJ 378 (P & H) of
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, second
in the case of Sanjeevan Gramin Vaidyakiya &
Samajik Sahayata Pratisthan through its
Chairman and Ors. v/s. Gorakhnath Popat
Bandhane and Ors., reported in 2012 (IV) LLJ 23
of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and third in the
case of State of Gujrat v/s PWD and Forest
Employees Union and Ors., reported in 2019 1
CLR 862 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He
submitted that the workman is unemployed from
the date of his illegal termination. He submitted
that since the workman was working with the
Employer since April, 2009 till the date of his
termination w.e.f. 16-05-2013, he may be reinstated
in service with full back wages and consequential
benefits thereof. He submitted that the Workman
was working on daily wage basis since the date of
his appointment from April, 2009 till the date of his
termination w.e.f. 16-05-2013 and hence, his services
shall be regularised. In support of his oral
contention, he relied upon three judgments of
Hon’ble Apex Court, one in the case of Sheo Narain
Nagar and Ors. v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr., reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432, second in
the case of ONGC Ltd v/s. Petroleum Coal Labour
Union and Ors., reported in 2015 (4) ALL MR 476
(S.C.) and third in the case of State of Gujrat v/s.
PWD and Forest Employee Union and Ors.,
reported in 2019 CLR 862.
9. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri J. Lobo representing
the Employer, during the course of his oral
arguments submitted that the workman was
working with the Employer since April, 2009 in the
capacity of Butcher/Worker in its establishment.
He submitted that the services of the workman
was terminated by them w.e.f. 16-05-2013 vide order
dated 10-05-2013 due to the interim order of the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa dated
30-04-2013 which directed them to suspend
operations within its premises. He submitted that
as the workman was appointed as daily wage
worker and not its employee permanent or
otherwise, his services was terminated by order
dated 10-05-2013 w.e.f. 16-05-2013. He submitted
that the services of the workman was never
regularised as he was not qualified for any job
with them. He submitted that the termination order
dated 10-05-2013 issued to the workman is just,
legal and proper. He submitted that as the workman
was working as daily wage worker, he was not
entitled for any retrenchment compensation etc.
as provided u/s 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 nor
required the application of principles of natural
justice. In support of his oral submissions, he relied
upon a judgment in the case of State of Karnataka
v/s. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
REASONS:
10. Issue No. 1:
The burden was cast on the workman to prove
the issue No. 1. The Workman examined himself to
prove his case and produced on record certain
documentary evidence in support of his oral
evidence. The Workman produced on record copies
of extract of attendance register/muster roll for the
period from April, 2009 to March, 2013 (Exb. 17-
-colly) and copies of extract of wage register/salary
statements for the period from April, 2009 till May,
2013 (Exb. 18-colly) in support of his oral evidence
that he was continuously working with the
Employer in the capacity of butcher/worker w.e.f.
April, 2009 till termination of his services w.e.f.
16-05-2013. It is therefore held that the workman
proved that he was employed with the Employer
w.e.f. April, 2009 in the capacity of ‘butcher/worker’.
The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in the
affirmative.
11. Issue No. 2:
While deciding the issue No. 1, I have discussed
and come to the conclusion that the Workman was
employed with the Employer in the capacity of
‘butcher/worker’ w.e.f. April, 2009. The evidence
on record indicates that the workman was
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
414
employed with the Employer continuously on daily
wage basis w.e.f. April, 2009 till his services
discontinued by the Employer to the effect from
16-05-2013 forenoon vide its order dated 10-05-2013
(Exb. 19).
12. In the case of Director, Food and Supplies,
Punjab and (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana has held as under:
“18. A conjoint and meaningful reading of these
provisions would reveal that even if a person
is engaged on daily wages and has completed
the continuous service as defined under Section
25-B, then, his services cannot be terminated
without following the statutory provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act, irrespective of the fact
that he was not appointed against a regular
post as alleged on behalf of the management.
Therefore, the contrary arguments of learned
counsel for the petitioner-management “stricto
sensu” liable to be and are hereby repelled
under the present set of circumstances.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana is well recognized
and it is applicable to the case in hand.
13. The Workman claimed that his services have
been terminated by the Employer by contending
to illegal and arbitrary. Upon careful perusal of the
termination order issued to the workman dated
10-05-2013 (Exb. 19), it appears that the slaughter
of animals in the abattoir at GMCL has been kept
in abeyance, the services of the workman engaged
for slaughter operations stands discontinued to take
effect from 16-05-2013 forenoon. Thus, the services
of the workman have been terminated by the
Employer otherwise than as a punishment inflicted
by way of disciplinary action. The termination of
services of the workman amounts to retrenchment
as defined u/s. 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The pre-
-condition for valid retrenchment has been provided
u/s 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Retrenchment of any
worker requires the compliance of Section 25-B of
the I.D. Act, 1947. The evidence on record indicates
that the workman has completed more than 240
days of continuous service from the twelve months
preceding the date of his termination i.e. 16-05-2013.
The evidence on record indicates that the Workman
has not been paid retrenchment compensation nor
issued any notice nor paid one month salary in lieu
of notice.
14. The workman has produced on record an
advertisement published in daily newspaper,
namely Navhind Times (Exb. 22), Gomantak (Exb.
23) and Tarun Bharat (Exb. 24) all dated 23-03-2016
calling for applications for the vacant post of
worker/butcher, production helper/attendant etc.
The workman has however, did not plead in his
pleadings or state on oath that the employer has
recruited other persons in his place. Thus, the
workman failed to prove that the employer has
recruited other person in his place and as such
violated Section 25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947. Hence,
it is held that the action of the Employer in
terminating services of the Workman w.e.f.
16-05-2013 amounts to illegal retrenchment and as
such, it is unjustified. The issue No. 2 is therefore
answered in the affirmative.
15. Issue No. 3:
While deciding the issue No. 2, I have discussed
and come to the conclusion that the action of the
Employer in terminating services of the Workman
w.e.f. 16-05-2013 is illegal and unjustified. The
evidence on record indicates that the Workman is
unemployed and have a dependent family to
support.
16. In the case of Sanjeevan Gramin Vaidyakiya
& Samajik Sahayata Pratisthan through its
Chairman and Ors.(supra), the Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay has held that “the respondent was
working as a Laboratory Assistant with the
Appellant and was working for more than five years.
His services were terminated without any show-
cause notice/memo, much less charges and
enquiry. The said termination was set aside by the
Labour Court, the respondent therefore filed the
present petition. The Hon’ble High Court observed
that the management had to disclose the material
on which it proceeded and give opportunity to the
employee before taking drastic action of
termination. The Hon’ble High court further held
as under:
“10. No work No wages” should be the formula.
It is not necessary in every matter that full
back wages should be provided and/or granted.
But in case like this and considering the facts
and circumstances, where the action of
termination as recorded is apparently in breach
of the basic principles of natural justice, there
is no reason even to interfere with the order of
back wages. In every matter through the
principle of full back wages need not be
followed but at the same time if the action if
illegal and in contravention of basic principles,
I see there is no reason that the order of back
wages as awarded need to be interfered with.
Apparently, the respondents and his family
suffered because of illegal action. Therefore,
taking over all view of the matter, no
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
415
interference is called for. The petition is
dismissed. Ad-interim order stands vacated.
No costs”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in its aforesaid case is not
applicable to the case in hand as the facts of the
aforesaid case are totally different then the case in
hand.
17. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its case of BSNL
v/s. Bhurumal, reported in 2013 (15) SCALE 131
has held as under:
“23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid
judgments that the ordinary principle of grant
of reinstatement with full back wages, when
the termination is found to be illegal is not
applied mechanically in all cases. While that
may be a position where services of a regular
permanent workman are terminated illegally
and or malafide and/or by way of victimization,
unfair labour practice etc. However, when it
comes to the case of termination of a daily
wage worker and where the termination is
found illegal because of procedural defect,
namely in violation of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, this court is consistent
in taking the view in such cases reinstatement
with back wages is not automatic and instead
the workman should be given monetary
compensation which will meet the ends of
justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction
is obvious.
24. Reasons for denying the relief of
reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is
trite law that when the termination is found
to be illegal because of non-payment of
retrenchment compensation and notice pay as
mandatorily required under Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, even after
reinstatement, it is always open to the
management to terminate the services of that
employee by paying him the retrenchment
compensation. Since, such a workman was
working on daily wage basis and even after he
is reinstated, he has no right to seek
regularization (see: State of Karnataka v/s Uma
Devi (2006) 4 SCC). Thus, when he cannot claim
regularization and he has no right to continue
even as a daily wage worker. No useful purpose
is going to be served in reinstating such a
workman and he can be given monetary
compensation by the court itself inasmuch as
if he is terminated again after reinstatement,
he would receive monetary compensation only
in the form of retrenchment compensation and
notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief
of reinstatement that too after a long gap
would not serve any purpose.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in its case of Telegraph
Department v/s. Santosh Kumar Seal, reported
in (2010) 6 SCC 773 also reiterated the same
principles.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is well recognized and also applicable to the
case in hand.
18. In the case in hand, the Workman was in the
employment of the Employer from April, 2009 till
16-05-2013. Applying the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment, in
my considered opinion a lump sum compensation
of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only)
would meet the ends of justice.
19. The workman also prayed for regularization
of his service. As the present reference has been
issued by the Government of Goa pertaining to the
legality and justifiability of the action of the
Employer in terminating services of the Workman
w.e.f. 16-05-2013 and the relief he is entitled to. It
is settled principle of law that this court cannot
expand the scope of the reference beyond the terms
of reference. The prayer of the workman for
regularization of his services stands rejected. The
judgment relied upon by Ld. Adv. Shri D. Naik has
no relevance to the present reference.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of M/s. Goa Meat
Complex Limited, Marvasada, Usgao, Goa, in
terminating the services of Shri Francis Fernandes,
Butcher/Worker, with effect from 16-05-2013, is
illegal and unjustified.
2. It is held that M/s. Goa Meat Complex Limited,
Marvasada, Usgao, Goa, is hereby directed to pay
to the workman, Shri Francis Fernandes, a sum of
Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only)
within a period of 2 months from the date of passing
the order, failing which it shall bear a simple
interest @ 9% per annum.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
416
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-IV/559
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 08-07-2019 in Ref. Case
No. IT/95/00 is hereby published as required under
Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th September, 2019.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Ref. Case No. IT/95/00
Shri Augustinho Da Costa,
Igramol, H. No. 172,
Diamt, Quepem-Goa.
…
Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Datsun Shipping Pvt. Ltd.,
Near Thakker House, Swatantra Path,
Vasco-da-Gama.
…
Employer/Party II
Workman/Party-I represented by Shri K. V. Nadkarni.
Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri A. V.
Nigalye.
Panaji, Dated: 08-07-2019.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section
10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947), the Government of Goa,
by Order dated 08-12-2000, bearing No. IRM/CON/
VSC/(14)/2000/6107 referred the following dispute
for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa,
at Panaji-Goa. The Government of Goa transferred
the said dispute for its adjudication to this Labour
Court-II from Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji,
Goa, vide its another order dated 09-02-2016.
“(1) Whether the action of management of
M/s. Datsun Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Vasco-da-Gama,
Goa, in terminating the service of Shri
Augustinho Da Costa, Barge Master, with effect
from 01-10-1999, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/95/2000 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Parties put in their appearance.
The Workman/Party-I (for short ‘Workman’), filed
his Statement of Claim on 19-02-2001 at Exb. 3.
The facts of the case in brief as pleaded by the
workman are that he was employed with the
Employer/Party-II (for short, ‘Employer’) as a Master
on their barge w.e.f. 01-12-1998 as per terms and
conditions laid down in their letter of appointment
dated 01-12-1998. He stated that as per Clause 1 of
the said letter of appointment, he was confirmed
in service w.e.f. the date of appointment i.e. from
01-12-1998 as the Employer had waived the
probationary period for him. He stated that as per
Clause No. 5 of the said letter of appointment, it
was agreed by the Employer that normally barges
of the Employer do not operate in monsoon season
i.e. from June to September of every year and
therefore he will be paid salary of Rs. 7000/- p.m.
as against fair season salary of Rs. 14,000/-. He
stated that it was further confirmed in the said
appointment letter that in case if he was called on
duty to operate the barge, he would be paid full
wages of Rs. 14,000/- p.m. for the period he has
actually worked. He stated that in Goa all barges
engaged in transportation of iron ore, employees
employed on such barges work for only 15 days
continuously on barges and enjoy off duty for 15
days in a month. He stated that he was also
enjoying similar terms and conditions of
employment while in employment with the
Employer. He stated that he was working in the
first fortnight of the month and accordingly for the
month of May, 1999 he was on duty up to
15-05-1999 and thereafter, he got down from the
barge for his normal off period. He stated that the
barge was laid down during non-operative period
of monsoon. He stated that as per his letter of
appointment though he was entitled for half
payment for four months from June to September,
1999, the Employer did not pay him the salaries for
the laid down period of about four months. He
stated that apart from the above Employer also did
not call him back to report back for duties from
01-10-1999 and when he reported for work on
01-10-1999, he was not taken back on duty and
was sent away. He stated that he was neither issued
any notice of termination of his service nor he was
conveyed anything about his status in the company.
He stated that after making several trips to the
office of the Employer, he finally wrote letter to the
Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Vasco, Goa on
13-10-1999 and 25-11-1999. However, the ALC, Vasco
did not issue any notice to the Employer. He stated
that it is only after his letter dated 14-06-2000, a
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
417
notice was issued to the Employer. He stated that
since he had family to support, and due to
necessity, he was compelled to take employment
from 25-11-1999 purely on temporary basis and on
lesser salary. He stated that he was employed with
Employer as a confirmed employee and for much
higher salary than the new temporary employment.
He submitted that the action of the Employer in
refusing employment to him w.e.f. 01-10-1999 be
declared as illegal and bad-in-law and direct the
Employer to reinstate him in their employment with
continuity in service and all other monetary and
other benefits as applicable to his post.
3. The Employer resisted the claim of the Workman
by filing its written statement on 06-01-2004 at
Exb. 7. The Employer, as and by way of its
preliminary objections, submitted that the
reference is not maintainable as the Party I is not
a ‘workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947, that no demand was made on the Employer
alleging termination of his services w.e.f.
01-10-1999 by the Employer either before them or
the ALC, Vasco, Goa and that the Government of
Goa has no jurisdiction to make the present
reference as the appropriate Government in respect
of the barge industry is the Central Government.
4. The Employer stated that it is a private limited
company engaged in the business of operation of
barge within the area of minor port and major port
in Goa carrying the ore from the river port to the
berth at the harbor or the transhipper as the case
may be. The Employer stated that for the purpose
of operating the barge, it has employed crew
members in the category of sailors, khalashis,
oilman, sukani, driver and master. The Employer
stated that at the relevant time in 1999, it was not
owning any barge but had taken barge on bare
boat chartered agreement from the other company
to run. The Employer stated that in the year 2002,
the Employer purchased the said barge and became
the owner of the said barge. The Employer stated
that the said barge was having two engines of 372
BHP each and as such was required to be operated
by a first class master. The Employer stated that
the business of transporting ore by barge is for few
months from October to May every year. The
Employer stated that the barge is idle without
business from June to September every year which
is the off season being rainy season. The Employer
stated that during the off season, the barges are
taken to the workshop for repairs. The Employer
stated that the master of the barge is the head of
the barge and is only answerable to the owner.
The Employer stated that the crew members on
the barge are working under the supervision and
the control of the master. The Employer stated that
the master being an administrative head on the
barge is not a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the
I.D. Act, 1947.
5. The Employer stated that the workman was
employed as a master on the barge w.e.f. 01-12-1998
on the terms and conditions stated in the letter of
appointment dated 01-12-1998. The Employer
stated that as per the said letter of appointment,
the workman was not allowed to take up any
employment with any other concern/person during
the period of his employment with the Employer.
The Employer stated that the workman was having
license as second class master and as such he
could not be employed in the normal course. The
Employer stated that they have got the dispensation
for workman to act as first class master from the
office of the Dy. Captain of Ports, Mormugao and the
said dispensation was valid up to 22-09-1999. The
Employer stated that the workman worked up to
May, 1999 and was paid his wages as per the letter
of appointment. The Employer stated that the
workman remained absent from duty from
01-06-1999 and started working at Salgaoncar
Mining Industries Limited, Margao, Goa on the
barge as a first class master. The Employer stated
that the workman was holding a certificate of
competency No. 1700 dated 14-07-1976 as a second
class master and was issued a dispensation letter
by the Dy. Captain of Ports, Margao to work as a
first class master. The Employer stated that the
dispensation is granted by the Dy. Captain of Ports
based on the letter and certificate of working
issued by the company with whom the master has
worked before granting of the dispensation. The
Employer stated that to its knowledge the workman
had worked with M/s. Salgaoncar Mining Industries
Limited as a master from June, 1999 and the said
company had applied for dispensation to Dy.
Captain of Ports, Mormugao to act as a first class
master. The Employer stated that workman had
attended work up to 15-05-1999 and had absented
from work from 01-06-1999, when they refused to
accept the demand of the workman for the salary
of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The Employer stated that
on 31-05-1999, the workman approached the
Managing Director of the Employer and demanded
that he should be paid the salary of Rs. 20,000/- per
month and on refusal to agree to his demand, the
workman collected his master’s certificate and
informed them that he is not interested in the
services of the Employer and left. The Employer
stated that the workman thereafter did not report
for work and made a demand for salary for June/
/July, 1999 through the United Bargemen’s
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
418
Association. The Employer stated that since the
workman had not worked from 01-06-1999, they
informed the union accordingly. The Employer
stated that the workman thereafter raised an issue
of non-payment of salary before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Vasco-da-Gama vide his
letter dated 13-10-1999. The Employer stated that
there was no termination of services of the
workman from 01-10-1999 by the Employer. The
Employer stated that the workman had remained
absent from 01-06-1999 after informing them that if
his salary is not increased to Rs. 20,000/- per month,
he is not interested in working with the Employer.
The Employer stated that the workman has left the
services on his own from 01-06-1999 and as such
the workman is not entitled to any relief and the
reference be rejected.
6. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
15-04-2004 at Exb. 8. The Workman, by way of his
Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him.
7. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
Parties in the present proceedings, the Hon’ble
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court framed the
following issues on 06-05-2004 at Exb-9.
1. Whether the Party I proves that the Party II
terminated his services w.e.f. 01-10-1999 and
that the said termination is illegal and
unjustified?
2. Whether the Party II proves that Party I did
not report for work from 01-06-1999 and hence
there was no question of issuing notice of
termination of service to the Party I?
3. Whether the Party I proves that he is a ‘workman’
as defined under Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947?
3A. Whether there is no industrial dispute
existing between the parties since no demand
was raised by Party I with Party II alleging
termination of his services w.e.f. 01-10-1999?
3B. Whether Party II proves that the
appropriate Government in respect of the barge
industry is the Central Government and hence,
the Government of Goa has no jurisdiction to
make the present reference?
4. Whether the Party II proves that the Party I
was gainfully employed from June, 1999?
5. Whether the Party I is entitled to any relief?
6. What Award?
8. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a)
Issue No. 1
:
In the Affirmative.
(b)
Issue No. 2
:
In the Negative.
(c)
Issue No. 3
:
In the Affirmative.
(c)
Issue No. 3A
:
In the Negative.
(d)
Issue No. 3B
:
In the Negative.
(e)
Issue No. 4
:
In the Affirmative
(f)
Issue No. 5 & 6
:
As per final order.
REASONS:
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Rep. Shri
K. V. Nadkarny appearing for the Workman as well
as Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye appearing for the
Employer.
9. Ld. Rep. Shri K. V. Nadkarny, representing the
Workman, during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Party I was working with the
Employer as Master on their barge from 01-12-1998
as per the terms and conditions laid down in the
letter of appointment dated 01-12-1998. He
submitted that as per Clause 1 of the said letter of
appointment, the Party I was confirmed in the
services of the Employer from the date of his
appointment by waiving the probationary period.
He submitted that as per clause 5 of the letter of
appointment, it was agreed by the Employer that
their barges normally do not operate in monsoon
season i.e. from June to September of every year
and therefore, the Workman would be paid salary
of Rs. 7000/- per month as against fair season salary
of Rs. 14,000/-. He submitted that the Employer has
signed an agreement with the union. He submitted
that the benefits of the said agreement has been
given to the Workman and as such the Employer is
estopped from contending that the Party I is not a
‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of
the I.D. Act, 1947 and that the nature of duties of
the Workman cannot be called as managerial,
administrative and supervisory nature. In support
of his oral contentions, he relied upon two
judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, one in
the case of Cedric D’silva v/s. Union of India and
Anr., reported in (2008) 1 LLJ 483 and another in
the case of Cricket Club of India and Anr. v/s.
Baljit Shyam (Mrs.) and Anr., reported in 1998 1
CLR 570. He also relied upon a judgment in the
case of Manoranjan Chakrabortty v/s. State of
West Bengal and Ors., reported in 2002 (2) LLN
579. He submitted that the Employer is in the
business of barge ore transportation. He submitted
that the barge of the Employer was registered with
Dy. Captain of Ports, which belongs to Government
of Goa. He submitted that the barges which are
operating at Margao-Goa are controlled by Dy.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
419
Captain of Ports and paper work are forwarded to
the Captain of Ports. He submitted that whenever
any accident took place to the barge, they have to
report to the Dy. Captain of Ports. He submitted
that the annual competency certificate for
operating the barge is issued by Dy. Captain of
Ports. He submitted that the barge cannot be
operated without competency certificate of the Dy.
Captain of Ports. He submitted that the crew
members are appointed only after the captain of
ports issues the necessary certificate. He submitted
that thus, the Captain of Ports has every right to
control the operation of the barges and hence, the
Government of Goa is the Appropriate Government
for the barge industry and not the Central
Government. He submitted that vide letter dated
13-10-1999 (at Exb. W-6), the Workman addressed a
letter to the ALC, Vasco, Goa, requesting for
continuity in service to him and as such there
exist a demand for reinstatement in service. He
submitted that the evidence on record indicates
that the Workman was not allowed to report for his
duties and that the said action on the part of the
Employer amounts to termination of his service
with effect from 01-10-1999 without any
justification. He submitted that the said action of
the Employer is illegal and unjustified and amounts
to illegal retrenchment of his service without
following the proper procedure of law. He
submitted that the Workman is therefore entitled
for reinstatement in service. In support of his oral
contention, he relied upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Village Papers
Mazdoor Sangh, Mehatpur v/s. State of H.P.,
reported in 1995 2 LLJ 628.
10. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye
representing the Employer, during the course of
his oral arguments submitted that undisputedly,
the Workman was appointed by him vide
appointment letter dated 01-12-1998 and he was
confirmed on the same date as barge master. He
submitted that as a barge master, he was
performing the duties of managerial, supervisory
and administrative in nature and drawing salary of
Rs. 14,000/- p.m. He submitted that clause 8 of the
appointment letter issued to the Party I on record
at Exb.W-1 clearly stated that he shall be
responsible to drive the barges owned/operated/
/leased by the Company and shall abide by all sea
water traffic regulations, while driving the barge.
He submitted that the oral evidence of the
Workman on record clearly indicates that he was
holding the top position other than all crew
members and that he used to give the instructions
to the khalasis to clean the barges, he was looking
after the work of driver, whether he was doing the
work properly or not and if any mistakes were
committed by any crew member then he was
correcting the same, any mistake occurred by the
crew member, he was telling them to correct the
same and he used to give the instructions about
the time of the barge to sukani. He submitted that
the aforesaid duties and responsibilities performed
by the Workman are clearly of managerial,
supervisory and administrative in nature and as
such the Party I is not a ‘workman’ within the
meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. In
support of his oral contention, he relied upon a
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the
case of Vandana Joshi v/s. Standard Chartered
Bank Limited, reported in 2010 III CLR 901. He
submitted that there was no demand pertaining to
the termination of services were made to the
Employer. The Workman directly approached the
ALC, Vasco, Goa and as such the dispute referred
for adjudication is incompetent. In support of his
oral contention, he relied upon a judgment in the
case of Shambhunath Goyal v/s Bank of Baroda
reported in (1978) 2 SCC 353 and in the case of
Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. v/s
Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat and Ors. reported
in 1968 SC 526.
11. He submitted that operation of barge is a
collective function of the crew and the Party I is
head of the barge. The Party I has not lead any
evidence in support of the issue in question, though
the opportunity was given to him. He submitted
that there is no evidence on record to show that
the Party I was performing the duties as specified
in Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted
that the term ‘appropriate government’ has been
defined u/s 2 (a) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted
that the Employer is a private limited company
engaged in the business of operation of barge
within the area of minor port and major port in
Goa, carrying the ore from the river port to the
berth at the harbour or the transhipper as the case
may be. He submitted that there is an access
between the major port and barge. He therefore,
submitted that the appropriate Government in the
present dispute is the Central Government and
not the State Government and as such this Hon’ble
Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the reference.
In support of his contention, he relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
in the case of M/s Sylvester and Co. V/s their
workmen thorough Transport and Dock Workers
Union & anr., reported in 2007 LAB I.C. 4103. He
submitted that there is no termination of service of
the Party I by the Employer. He submitted that the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
420
evidence on record indicates that the Party I did
not collect his wages till September, 1999. He
submitted that as per the document at Edb.W-3, he
visited in the office of the Employer on 01-09-1999
to join his duties and there was nobody in the
office as the office was closed. He submitted that
the said letter at Exb.W-3 on record indicates that
the Party I had not visited the office of the Employer
till 01-09-1999 after June to August, 1999. He
submitted that the Party I informed the Employer
that he is not interested in the job. He submitted
that the Party I did not allege of any misconduct,
therefore there is no question of taking any
disciplinary action. He submitted that the Party I
is not entitled to any relief as he was just 10 months
in service with the Employer. He submitted that
Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is not applicable
to the present dispute as the Party I has not worked
for 240 days. He therefore prayed that the dispute
referred by the Government be answered in the
negative.
I have carefully perused the entire records of
the present case including the synopsis of written
arguments filed by the Employer. I have carefully
considered the legal submissions advanced by the
Ld. Representatives appearing for the respective
parties.
12. Issue No. 3:
I am deciding the issue No. 3 first prior to the
issue No. 1 and 2 as the said issue No. 3 touches
the root jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate the
present reference.
The Employer pleaded that the Party I being the
master of the barge was performing the duties of
supervisory and administrative in nature and as
such he is not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of
Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The burden to
prove is on the Party I that he is a ‘workman’ within
the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947
and as such this court has jurisdiction to adjudicate
the present reference.
13. In the case of Cedric D’Silva (Supra) the
division bench of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay,
the Petitioner at the relevant time of his termination
of services was working as a Sr. Commander. The
two national airlines namely, Air India and Indian
Airlines (now merged) continue to enter into
settlements under the I.D. Act with their pilots
including Sr. Commanders. In other words, in a
large section of the industry they are still
considered to be a workman and not doing work
which is managerial or supervisory in nature. The
Hon’ble High Court has held that the petitioner is
a ‘workman’.
14. In another case of Cricket Club of India and
Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Workmen of M/s. Hindustan
Lever Ltd. and Ors. v/s. Management of Hindustan
Lever Ltd., reported in 1984 LIC 276, on the issue
whether the Company is estopped from contending
that a person was not ‘workman’ was observed
that “the agreement relied upon by the union is a
valid subsisting agreement which is in force. It is
neither repudiated nor terminated. It is binding
upon both the parties. Once the agreement is held
to be binding, the Employer is estopped from
contending that the workman involved in the
dispute who were salesman were not workmen
within the meaning of the expression under the
Act and held that the petitioner is a ‘workman’.
15. In the case of Monoranjan Chakraborthy
(supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held
that the petitioner was working as ‘supervisor’.
The petitioner was charge-sheeted, the order of
dismissal and initiation of domestic enquiry and
conclusion of that which were held in terms of the
standing orders of the Company. The Respondent
is therefore estopped from taking different stand
that the petitioner was a supervisor and not a
workman.
16. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble
Calcutta High Court in its aforesaid respective
judgments is well established and also applicable
to the case in hand. Applying the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay, the first witness of the workman,
Mr. Anthony Lobo in his affidavit in evidence
deposed that he is one of the signatory to the
settlement arrived at between Goa Barge Owners
Association and barge crew employed by them
and represented by their union namely United
Bargemen’s Association and produced copy of the
said settlement arrived between Goa Barge Owners
Association and the Union dated 29-03-2007 in the
course of conciliation proceedings u/s 12(3) r/w
Section 18 (3) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and that for the
last nearly two decades barge owners have been
executing memorandum of settlement in the
conciliation proceedings held by the State Level
Commission. He further deposed that All Goa Barge
Owners have accepted that the masters being it
first class or second class are the workmen and
accordingly, the benefits of all the settlements are
extended to first class and second class masters. In
his cross-examination, that the Employer is a party
to the said settlement. The aforesaid oral evidence
of the first witness of the workman have not been
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
421
denied by the Ld. Advocate for the Employer, and
as such, the said oral evidence remained
unchallenged. In view of the aforesaid settlement
signed by the Goa Barge Owners Association and
the Union, the Employer is estopped from
contending that the Party I is not a ‘workman’ as
defined in the Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
17. Ld. Shri A. V. Nigale representating the
Employer pointed out in the oral evidence that the
Workman being Master used to instruct the sukani
who was driving the barge as per his instructions.
The instructions of tying of the barge were given
by the workman to sukani, whenever the barge
was anchored at the berth and the transshiper. He
used to give the instructions to the khalasis to
clean the barge. He was looking after the work of
driver whether he was doing the work properly or
not, and if any mistakes were committed by any
crew member, he was correcting the same. The
discipline on the barge was maintained by the
crew members but any mistake occurred, he was
telling them to correct the same. The aforesaid
duties are supervisory in nature. He relied upon a
case of Vandana Joshi (supra), wherein the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay has held that the power to
sanction leave or initiate disciplinary proceedings
is not decisive factor in arriving at a conclusion,
whether the employee is a ‘workman’ u/s 2 (s) of
the I.D. Act, 1947 or not. Looking into the dominant
nature of duties and responsibilities performed by
the Appellant, we are of the opinion that the
Appellant was appointed in the bank’s lower
management cadre.
The facts before the Hon’ble High Court is
totally different than the case in hand and hence,
the principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay is not applicable to the case in hand.
Hence it is held that the Party I proves that he
is a ‘workman’ as defined u/s. 2 (s) of the I.D. Act,
1947. The issue No. 3 is therefore, answered in the
affirmative.
18. Issue No. 3A:
Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye during the course of
his oral arguments pointed out the letter of the
workman dated 13-10-1999 addressed to the Asstt.
Labour Commissioner, Vasco-da-Gama (Exb. W-6)
by which the Workman has raised the present
dispute and submitted that no demand letter was
issued to the Employer alleging termination of his
services w.e.f. 01-10-1999 at any point of time by
the Workman and as such there does not exist any
industrial dispute between the parties. He relied
upon the judgment in the case of Sindhu
Resettlement (Supra) as well as Shambu Nath Goel
(supra).
19. In the case of Sindhu Resettlement
Corporation Ltd. v/s Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat
and Ors. reported in 1968 SC 526, the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that “if no dispute at all is
raised by the employees with the management,
any request sent by them to the Government would
only be a demand by them and not an Industrial
Dispute between them and their employer”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India however in
its subsequent judgment in the case of
Shambhunath Goyal v/s Bank of Baroda reported
in (1978) 2 SCC 353 distinguished its aforesaid
Judgment passed in the case of Sindhu Resettlement
Corporation Ltd. and held that:
“The definition of industrial dispute in Section
2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shows
that where there is a dispute or difference
between the parties contemplated by the
definition and the dispute or difference is
connected with the employment or non-
employment or the terms of employment or with
the conditions of labour of any person there
comes into existence an industrial dispute. The
Act nowhere contemplates that the dispute
would come into existence in any particular,
specific or prescribed manner. For coming into
existence of an industrial dispute a written
demand is not a sine qua non”.
20. Thus the principle laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Shambhunath
Goyal is applicable to the present case. In the case
in hand, the union vide its letter dated 01-09-1999
(Exb. W-3) and another letter dated 10-09-1999 (Exb.
W-4) addressed to the Employer for settlement of
the workman. The Workman thereafter raised a
dispute vide his letter dated 13-10-1999 (Exb. W-6)
before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Vasco, Goa
and requested for payment of his wages and
continuity of services. In reply to the notice issued
to him, the Workman, by his letter dated 25-11-1999
(Exb. W-8), addressed to the ALC, Vasco, Goa stated
that he has not been allowed to work from this
month orally in its office by the Employer and that
amounts to refusal of employment. The aforesaid
evidence on record indicates that the Workman
has raised an industrial dispute pertaining to his
non-payment of wages as well as refusal of
employment to him. Hence the contention of the
Employer that no demand pertaining to the
termination of services were made to the Employer
is without any merits. It is held that the Employer
failed to prove that there is no industrial dispute
existing between the parties since no demand was
raised by the workman with the Employer alleging
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
422
termination of his services w.e.f. 01-10-1999. The
issue No. 3A is therefore answered in the negative.
21. Issue No. 3B:
The Employer in its written statement, filed in
the present proceedings contended that the
Government of Goa has no jurisdiction to make the
present reference as the Appropriate Government
in respect of the barge industry is the Central
Government.
Section 2 (a) of the I.D. Act, 1947 defines the
term ‘Appropriate Government’ and it means
(a) ‘Appropriate Government’:-
(i) In relation to any industrial dispute
concerning any industry carried on by or
under the authority of the Central
Government or by a railway company or
concerning any such controlled industry as
may be specified in this behalf by the
Central Government or in relation to an
industrial dispute concerning a Dock
Labour Board established under Section
5-A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or the
[Industrial Finance Corporation of India
Limited formed and registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956)], or the
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of
1948), or the Board of Trustees constituted
under Section 3-A of the Coal Mines
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the
Central Board of Trustees and the State
Boards of Trustees constituted under
Section 5-A and Section 5-B, respectively, of
the Employees Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of
1952) or the Life Insurance Corporation of
India established under Section 3 of Life
Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956),
or [The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Ltd. registered under the Companies Act,
1956 (1 of 1956)] or the deposit insurance or
credit guarantee corporation established
under Section 3 of the Deposit Insurance
and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961
(47 of 1961), or the Central Warehousing
Corporation established under Section 3 of
the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962
(58 of 1962) or the Unit Trust of India
established under Section 3 of Unit Trust of
India Act, 1963, or the Food Corporation of
India established under Section 3, or a Board
of Management established for two or more
contiguous states under Section 16 of the
Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or
[The Airports Authority of India constituted
under Section 3 of the Airport Authority of
India Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a Regional
Rural Bank established under Section 3 of
the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of
1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee
Corporation Limited or the Indian
Reconstruction Bank of India Limited], [The
National Housing Bank established under
Section 4 of the National Housing Bank Act,
1987 (53 of 1987), or [An Air Transport
Service or a Banking or an Insurance
Company], a Mine, an Oil Field] [Cantonment
Board or a Major Port any company in which
not less than 51% of the paid up share
capital is held by the Central Government,
or any Corporation, not being a Corporation
referred to in this clause established by or
under any law made by parliament, or the
Central Public Sector Undertaking,
Subsidiary Companies set up by the
principle undertaking the autonomous
bodies owned or controlled by the Central
Government, the Central Government].
(ii) In relation to any other industrial dispute
including the State Public Sector
Undertaking, Subsidiaries Companies setup
by the principal undertakings an
autonomous bodies owned or controlled by
the State Government, the State Government:
Provided that in case of a dispute between
a contractor and the contract labour
employed through the contractor in any
industrial establishment where such dispute
first arose, the Appropriate Government
shall be the Central Government or the State
Government as the case may be, which has
control over such industrial establishment.
22. In the case in hand, the workman was
appointed as Master. The Employer is a private
limited company engaged in the business of
operation of barge. The barge is registered under
the Inland Vessels Act, 1917. As per the said Indian
Vessels Act, the barge is registered with the Dy.
Captain of Ports, Mormugao Harbour, which belongs
to the Government of Goa. The evidence on record
indicates that whenever there is an accident to
the barge, they have to report to the Dy. Captain
of Ports with a copy to the Captain of Ports. The
evidence on record indicates that the annual
competency certificate for operating the barge is
issued by Dy. Captain of Ports, however, the survey
report is signed by the captain of ports and that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
423
the barge cannot be operated without competency
certificate of the Dy. Captain of Ports. The evidence
on record indicates that the crew members are
appointed only after Captain of Ports issue the
necessary certificate. Thus, the aforesaid evidence
on record indicates that the State Government is
empowered to act as per the Inland Vessels Act,
1917. That apart the first witness of the Workman,
Shri Anthony Lobo in his affidavit in evidence
deposed that all the barges in the State of Goa are
registered with the Captain of Ports at the
registered office of the Captain of Ports, Panaji, Goa
and that the necessary certification for the
operation of barges in Goa are also issued by the
Captain of Ports of Goa. He further deposed that
necessary sea worthiness certificate to all barges
operating in Goa are also issued periodically by
the office of the Captain of Ports, Goa and the
movement of barges in Goa are also regulated and
controlled by the office of Captain of Ports Goa. He
further deposed that the necessary certificate of
competency to all masters, drivers and all types of
other crew employed on the barges in Goa are also
issued by the Captain of Ports Goa and that all the
taxes and other duties on the barges are levied
and collected by the office of Captain of Ports Goa.
He also deposed that all the barge owners
represented to their association has conceded and
submitted to the jurisdiction of State Labour
Commissioner and also for the last nearly two
decades the barge owners have been executing
memorandum of settlement in conciliation
proceedings held by the State Labour
Commissioner. Therefore, for all purposes, State
Government is the Appropriate Government in
respect of present dispute.
23. Ld. Adv. Shri Nigalye, appearing for the
Employer submitted that the barge of the Employer
was engaged in the transportation of ore from the
river point to Mormugao port, which is a major port
and the Appropriate Government in relation to the
major port is the Central Government, and relied
upon the judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s
Sylvester & Co. (Supra). The said Judgment has
no relevance to the present case. Hence, it is held
that the Employer failed to prove that the
Government of Goa has no jurisdiction to make
present reference as the Appropriate Government
in the case of barge industry is the Central
Government. The issue No. 3B is therefore answered
in the negative.
24. Issue No. 1 and 2:
Undisputedly, the Workman was appointed by
the Employer as a ‘Master’ on its barge vide letter
dated 01-12-1998 (Exb.W-1) by waiving the
probationary period and confirmed w.e.f. 01-12-1998.
In terms of clause 5 of the said appointment letter
issued to the workman stated that normally the
barges in the Employer Company do not operate in
monsoon season i.e. during June, July, August and
September of each year. During such monsoon
period the workman would be paid a salary of
Rs. 7000/- p.m. since the barges would not be in
operation. However, in case the workman is called
on duty to operate the barge during such period,
then he would be entitled for salary @ Rs. 14000/-
p.m. for the period for which he actually worked.
In view of the aforesaid clause 5 of the appointment
letter issued to the workman, he is not be required
to be present for duties in the monsoon season i.e.
from June to September. The Employer however,
did not produce on record any documentary
evidence to suggest that the workman did not
report for work from 01-06-1999 though he was
called. The Employer also did not produce on record
any notice issued to the workman directing him to
report for duties failing which he would have been
treated as ‘abandoned his services’. During the
course of his cross-examination, the Managing
Director of the Employer Shri Shrikant Vaghalkar,
deposed that the workman was not specifically called
to attend his duty on the barge on 01-06-1999. No
notice of termination as stated in clause 9 of the
appointment letter at Exb. W-1 was issued to the
workman. Thus, it is held that the Employer failed
to prove that the workman did not report for work
from 01-06-1999 and hence, there was no question
of issuing notice of termination of services to him.
The issue No. 2 is answered in the negative.
25. The evidence on record indicates that the
Workman vide his letter dated 13-10-1999 (Exb.W-6)
addressed to the ALC, Vasco, Goa informed that
the Employer denied his salary as per the
appointment letter issued to him nor ready to take
him to work. Further evidence on record indicates
that the Workman vide its letter dated 25-11-1999
(Exb. W-8) addressed to the ALC, Vasco, Goa stated
that he was not allowed to work from the said
month orally in his office and in presence of ALC,
Vasco and the same amounts to refusal of
employment. The said refusal of employment to
the workman amounts to termination of his services
w.e.f. 01-10-1999. Thus, the aforesaid evidence on
record clearly indicates that the services of the
workman have been terminated by the Employer
w.e.f. 01-10-1999.
26. The evidence on record indicates that the
Workman was working with the Employer as a
permanent workman. The oral evidence of the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
424
workman indicates that on 01-10-1999 he reported
for duty, however, the proprietor of the Employer
told him that he had no faith in him and therefore
he would not allow him to report for duty. The
aforesaid action on the part of the Employer
amounts to refusal of employment to the workman
w.e.f. 01-10-1999. The evidence on record indicates
that no notice of termination was issued to the
workman nor held any enquiry against the
workman by issuing him charge-sheet. Hence, it is
held that the action of the Employer in terminating
services of the workman w.e.f. 01-10-1999 is illegal
and unjustified. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered
in the affirmative.
27. Issue. No. 4 and 5:
While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove, I
have discussed and come to the conclusion that
the action of the Employer in terminating services
of the workman w.e.f. 01-10-1999 is illegal and
unjustified. The workman in his claim statement
filed in the present proceeding stated that, since
he had his family to support and due to necessity,
he was compelled to take employment from
25-11-1999 purely on temporary basis and on lesser
salary. The evidence on record indicates that the
workman was working on barge owned by M/s.
Salgaonkar for some days. The evidence on record
indicates that the workman was also working for
Shree Damodar Shipping Lines Pvt. Ltd. wherever
he was called. The workman however, admitted
that the payment of vouchers dated 21-1-2003,
17-5-2003, 10-6-2004, 12-5-2005 and 6-4-2006 (Exb.
15 colly) of having received payment for the period
from May, 2004, April, 2005 and March, 2006. The
aforesaid evidence on record indicates that the
workman was gainfully employed from 25-11-1999.
The issue No. 4 is therefore, answered in the
affirmative.
28. The evidence on record indicates that the
date of birth of the workman is 25-05-1947. (Age as
on date is 72 years) as appears on his certificate
issued by the Dy. Captain of Ports. Thus, the
reinstatement in service for the workman is not
possible. However, taking into consideration the
entire facts and relevant circumstances of the
present matter, this court awards a lump sum
compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs
only) to meet the ends of justice.
In view of the above, I pass the following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of M/s. Datsun
Shipping Pvt. Ltd., in terminating services of
its workman, Shri Augustinho Da Costa, Barge
Master, w.e.f. 01-10-1999, is illegal and
unjustified.
2. It is further held that the Employer M/s.
Datsun Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Vasco-da-Gama, is
hereby directed to pay to the workman a lump
sum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees
three lakhs only).
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-IV/560
The following award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 15-07-2019 in Case
No. LC-II/IT/10/15 is hereby published as required
under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th September, 2019.
______
THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. LC-II/IT/10/15
Shri Santan Mascarenhas,
R/o. H. No. 230,
Usgaon, Ponda-Goa.
…
Workman/Party-I
V/s
M/s. Goa Meat Complex Ltd.,
Marvasada, Usgaon-Goa.
…
Employer/Party-II
Party-I/Workman represented by Adv. Shri D. Naik.
Party-II/Employer represented by Adv. Shri J. Lobo.
Panaji, Dated: 15-07-2019.
AWARD
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause
(c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the
Government of Goa, by Order dated 24-06-2015,
bearing No. 28/25/2015-Lab/627, referred the
following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour
Court II, Panaji-Goa.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
425
“(1)
Whether the action of M/s. Goa Meat
Complex Limited, Marvasada, Usgao, Goa, in
terminating the services of Shri Santan
Mascarenhas, Butcher/Worker, with effect
from 16-05-2013, is legal and justified?
(2)
If not, what relief, the Workman is entitled
to?”
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. LC-II/IT/10/15 and registered
A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance
to the said notice, the Workman/Party-I (for short,
‘the Workman’) filed his Statement of Claim on
20-08-2015 at Exhibit-5. The Workman stated that
he was employed with the Employer/Party-II (for
short “the Employer”) w.e.f. April, 2007 in the
capacity of ‘Butcher/Worker’ in its slaughter
operations. He stated that he was in continuous
service with the Employer from April, 2007. He
stated that his services were illegally terminated
by the Employer w.e.f. 16-05-2013 by its order dated
10-05-2013 on the ground that the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay at Goa has passed an interim
order on 30-04-2013. He stated that by the said
order the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa
stated that the slaughter of animals in the abattoir
at GMCL has been kept in abeyance. He stated
that the division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay at Goa has passed an order dated
26-06-2013 allowing the operation in the
establishment of the Employer. He stated that he
used to work even on Sundays and the Employer
used to pay him from petty cash and the accounts
department of the Employer used to take his
signature on the voucher. He stated that the said
vouchers are in power and possession of the
Employer. He stated that the Employer used to
make payment for working on Sundays apart from
his monthly salary.
3. He stated that he was shocked and shattered
that the Employer without following the principles
of natural justice and without his any fault abruptly
and illegally terminated his services with
immediate effect vide order dated 10-05-2013. He
submitted that the illegal and arbitrary action of
the Employer amounts to unfair labour practice.
He submitted that he made several requests to the
Employer to take him back in service but no heed
was paid to his request. He submitted that he is
now unemployed and has a dependent family to
support and is in great financial difficulty to meet
both the ends. He submitted that the arbitrary
action of the Employer is totally illegal, unjustified
and contrary to law and without following the
principles of natural justice. The Workman therefore
prayed that the action of the Employer in
terminating his services be declared as illegal and
unjustified and be reinstated him in service with
full back wages and continuity in service. The
workman also prayed for regularization of his
services.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
04-11-2015 at Exb.10. The Employer denied that
the workman was employed with them at its
establishment at Usgao, Ponda, Goa w.e.f. April,
2007 in the capacity of ‘Butcher/Worker’ in its
slaughter operations. The Employer stated that the
Workman has attempted to disguise himself as a
permanent employee, when in fact his services
were used in its establishment on a purely daily
rated basis as and when required. The Employer
denied that the workman was in continuous service
with them from April, 2007. The Employer stated
that the services of the workman were legally
terminated by them w.e.f. 16-05-2013 vide its order
dated 10-05-2013 due to the interim order of the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa dated
30-04-2013. The Employer stated that the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Goa vide its order dated
30-04-2013 directed them to suspend operation
within its premises. The Employer stated that the
said notice of termination dated 10-05-2013 is legal.
The Employer stated that as the workman was a
daily wage worker and his services were used only
as and when they were required by them and as
such the termination of services of the workman
was entirely valid. The Employer stated that
although the order of the Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay at Goa permitted them the
recommencement of operation in its premises,
operations were never begun due to renovation
work which began at its premises. The Employer
stated that the said renovation work is still
persisting on the present date. The Employer stated
that the Workman was daily wage worker, as
opposed to an employee and he was therefore not
entitled to a salary. The Employer stated that the
workman instead entitled to a daily wage, which
daily wage was consolidated and paid to him once
a month, only for those duration for which he was
appointed on contract. The Employer submitted
that the termination of services of a daily wage
worker does not require application of principles
of natural justice as such a termination is an
administrative action and not a judicial/quasi-
judicial action. The Employer admitted that they
used to maintain an attendance register manually
and then began to maintain the attendance register
via biometric register. The Employer denied the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
426
overall case as pleaded by the Workman and prayed
for dismissal of the present reference.
5. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
21-03-2016 at Exb.11. The Workman, by way of his
Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the
submissions and averments made by him in his
claim statement to be true and correct and denies
all the statements and averments made by the
Employer in the Written Statement, which are
contrary to the statements and averments made by
him. He stated that his father, Pedro Antonio
Mascarenhas was employed in the services of the
Employer and has expired on 09-07-2006 while in
the employment with the Employer. He stated
that his mother Mrs. Conceicao Fernandes e
Mascarenhas has made an application dated
07-10-2006 to the Employer under the harness
scheme to provide employment to him.
6. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this court framed the following issues on
17-11-2016 at Exb. 16.
1. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that he
was employed with the Employer/Party II
w.e.f. April, 2007 in the capacity of Butcher/
/Worker?
2. Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the
action of the Employer/Party II in terminating
his services w.e.f. 16-05-2013 is illegal and
unjustified?
3. Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to
any relief?
4. What order? What award?
7. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
:
In the Affirmative.
(b) Issue No. 2
:
In the Affirmative.
(c) Issue No. 3 & 4 :
As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri
D. Naik, appearing for the Workman as well as
Ld. Adv. Shri J. Lobo, appearing for the Employer.
Ld. Adv. Shri D. Naik, appearing for the workman
chose to file synopsis of written arguments.
8. Ld. Adv. Shri D. Naik, appearing for the
workman, during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman was employed by the
Employer at its establishment at Usgao, Ponda, Goa,
w.e.f. April, 2007 in the capacity of ‘Butcher/Worker’.
He submitted that the workman was in continuous
service with the Employer from April, 2007 till his
services has been illegally terminated by the
Employer w.e.f. 16-05-2013 vide its order dated
10-05-2013. He submitted that before terminating
services of the workman, neither he was issued
any show-cause notices or charge-sheet, nor
conducted any enquiry. He submitted that the
services of the workman have been terminated on
the ground that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
at Goa had passed an interim order on 30-04-2013
wherein the slaughter of animals in the abattoir at
GMCL has kept in abeyance. He submitted that
the division bench of Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay at Goa had passed an order dated
26-06-2013 allowing the operation in the
establishment of the Employer. He submitted that
the workman had completed 240 days continuous
service in the preceding 12 months from the date
of his termination w.e.f. 16-05-2013. He submitted
that the services of the workman have been
terminated without giving him a one months’
notice or in lieu of pay of months’ notice
and without paying him any retrenchment
compensation, thereby violated Section 25-F of the
I.D. Act, 1947. He submitted that the Employer
had published an advertisement in the local
newspaper for the vacant post of butcher,
production helper/attendant. He submitted that
the aforesaid acts on the part of the Employer
amounts to violation of Section 25-G and Section
25-H of the I.D. Act, 1947. He therefore submitted
that the action of the Employer in terminating the
services of the Workman is illegal and unjustified.
In support of his oral contentions, he relied upon
three judgments, one in case of Director, Food and
Supplies, Punjab and others v/s Prakash Singh
and Ors., reported in 2012-III, LLJ 378 (P & H) of
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, second
in the case of Sanjeevan Gramin Vaidyakiya &
Samajik Sahayata Pratisthan through its
Chairman and Ors. v/s. Gorakhnath Popat
Bandhane and Ors., reported in 2012 (IV) LLJ 23
of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and third in the
case of State of Gujrat v/s PWD and Forest
Employees Union and Ors., reported in 2019 1
CLR 862 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He
submitted that the workman is unemployed from
the date of his illegal termination. He submitted
that since the workman was working with the
Employer since April, 2007 till the date of his
termination w.e.f. 16-05-2013, he may be reinstated
in service with full back wages and consequential
benefits thereof. He submitted that the Workman
was working on daily wage basis since the date of
his appointment from April, 2007 till the date of his
termination w.e.f. 16-05-2013 and hence, his services
shall be regularised. In support of his oral
contention, he relied upon three judgments of
Hon’ble Apex Court, one in the case of Sheo Narain
Nagar and Ors. v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Anr., reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432, second in
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
427
the case of ONGC Ltd. v/s. Petroleum Coal Labour
Union and Ors., reported in 2015 (4) ALL MR 476
(S.C.) and third in the case of State of Gujrat
v/s. PWD and Forest Employee Union and Ors.,
reported in 2019 CLR 862.
9. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri J. Lobo representing
the Employer, during the course of his oral
arguments submitted that the workman was
working with the Employer since April, 2007 in the
capacity of Butcher/Worker in its establishment on
a daily basis as and when required. He submitted
that the services of the workman was terminated
by them w.e.f. 16-05-2013 vide order dated
10-05-2013 due to the interim order of the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay at Goa dated 30-04-2013
which directed them to suspend operations within
its premises. He submitted that as the workman
was appointed as daily wage worker and not its
employee permanent or otherwise, his services
was terminated by order dated 10-05-2013 w.e.f.
16-05-2013. He submitted that the services of the
workman was never regularised as he was not
qualified for any job with them. He submitted that
the termination order dated 10-05-2013 issued to
the workman is just, legal and proper. He submitted
that as the workman was working as daily wage
worker, he was not entitled for any retrenchment
compensation etc. as provided u/s 25-F of the
I.D. Act, 1947 nor required the application of
principles of natural justice. In support of his oral
submissions, he relied upon a judgment in the case
of State of Karnataka v/s. Uma Devi, reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
REASONS:
10. Issue No. 1:
The burden was cast on the workman to prove
the issue No. 1. The Workman examined himself to
prove his case and produced on record certain
documentary evidence in support of his oral
evidence. The Workman produced on record copies
of extract of attendance register/muster roll
for the period from April, 2007 to March, 2013
(Exb.18-colly), copies of biometric attendance
record (Exb. 19-colly) and copies of extract of wage
register/salary statements for the period from April,
2007 till May, 2013 (Exb. 20-colly) in support of his
oral evidence. The said oral as well as documentary
evidence on record indicates that the workman
was working with the Employer in the capacity of
butcher/worker w.e.f. April, 2007 till termination of
his services w.e.f. 16-05-2013. It is therefore held
that the workman proved that he was employed
with the Employer w.e.f. April, 2007 in the capacity
of ‘butcher/worker’. The issue No. 1 is therefore
answered in the affirmative.
11. Issue No. 2:
While deciding the issue No. 1, I have discussed
and come to the conclusion that the Workman was
employed with the Employer in the capacity of
‘butcher/worker’ w.e.f. April, 2007. The evidence
on record indicates that the workman was
employed with the Employer continuously on daily
wage basis w.e.f. April, 2007 till his services
discontinued by the Employer to the effect from
16-05-2013 forenoon vide its order dated 10-05-2013
(Exb. 22).
12. In the case of Director, Food and Supplies,
Punjab and (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana has held as under:
“18. A conjoint and meaningful reading of these
provisions would reveal that even if a person
is engaged on daily wages and has completed
the continuous service as defined under Section
25-B, then, his services cannot be terminated
without following the statutory provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act, irrespective of the fact
that he was not appointed against a regular
post as alleged on behalf of the management.
Therefore, the contrary arguments of learned
counsel for the petitioner-management “stricto
sensu” liable to be and are hereby repelled
under the present set of circumstances.”
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana is well recognized
and it is applicable to the case in hand.
13. The Workman claimed that his services have
been terminated by the Employer by contending
to be illegal and arbitrary. Upon careful perusal of
the termination order issued to the workman dated
10-05-2013 (Exb. 22), it appears that the slaughter
of animals in the abattoir at GMCL has been kept
in abeyance, the services of the workman engaged
for slaughter operations stands discontinued to take
effect from 16-05-2013 forenoon. Thus, the services
of the workman have been terminated by the
Employer otherwise than as a punishment inflicted
by way of disciplinary action. The termination of
services of the workman amounts to retrenchment
as defined u/s. 2 (oo) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The
pre-condition for valid retrenchment has been
provided u/s 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Retrenchment
of any worker requires the compliance of Section
25-B of the I.D. Act, 1947. The evidence on record
indicates that the workman has completed more
than 240 days of continuous service from the twelve
months preceding the date of his termination i.e.
16-05-2013. The evidence on record indicates that
the Workman has not been paid retrenchment
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
428
compensation nor issued any notice nor paid one
month salary in lieu of notice. The workman has
produced on record copies of daily newspapers,
namely the Navhind Times, Gomantak and Tarun
Bharat all dated 23-03-2006 in which the
advertisement were published by the Employer,
calling for applications for the vacant post of
worker/butcher, production helper/attendant etc.
The workman has however, did not plead in his
pleadings or stated on oath that, after the
termination of his service, the employer recruited
other person in his place. Hence, it is held that the
workman failed to prove that his termination from
service is in violation of Section-25-H of the I.D.
Act, 1947. Hence, it is held that the action of the
Employer in retrenching the services of the
Workman w.e.f. 16-05-2013 is illegal and unjustified,
in violation of Sec. 25-F of the I. D. Act, 1947. The
issue No. 2 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
14. Issue No. 3:
While deciding the issue No. 2, I have discussed
and come to the conclusion that the action of the
Employer in terminating services of the Workman
w.e.f. 16-05-2013 is illegal and unjustified. The
evidence on record indicates that the Workman is
unemployed and have a dependent family to
support.
15. In the case of Sanjeevan Gramin Vaidyakiya
& Samajik Sahayata Pratisthan through its
Chairman and Ors.(supra), the Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay has held that “the respondent was
working as a Laboratory Assistant with the
Appellant and was working for more than five years.
His services were terminated without any show-
cause notice/memo, much less charges and
enquiry. The said termination was set aside by the
Labour Court, the respondent therefore filed the
present petition. The Hon’ble High Court observed
that the management had to disclose the material
on which it proceeded and give opportunity to the
employee before taking drastic action of
termination. The Hon’ble High court further held
as under:
“10. No work No wages” should be the formula.
It is not necessary in every matter that full
back wages should be provided and/or granted.
But in case like this and considering the facts
and circumstances, where the action of
termination as recorded is apparently in breach
of the basic principles of natural justice, there
is no reason even to interfere with the order of
back wages. In every matter through the
principle of full back wages need not be
followed but at the same time if the action if
illegal and in contravention of basic principles,
I see there is no reason that the order of back
wages as awarded need to be interfered with.
Apparently, the respondents and his family
suffered because of illegal action. Therefore,
taking over all view of the matter, no
interference is called for. The petition is
dismissed. Ad-interim order stands vacated.
No costs”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay in its aforesaid case is not
applicable to the case in hand, as the facts of the
present case is different than the aforesaid case
before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in its case of BSNL
v/s. Bhurumal, reported in 2013 (15) SCALE 131
has held as under:
“23. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid
judgments that the ordinary principle of grant
of reinstatement with full back wages, when
the termination is found to be illegal is not
applied mechanically in all cases. While that
may be a position where services of a regular
permanent workman are terminated illegally
and or malafide and/or by way of victimization,
unfair labour practice etc. However, when it
comes to the case of termination of a daily
wage worker and where the termination is
found illegal because of procedural defect,
namely in violation of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, this court is consistent
in taking the view in such cases reinstatement
with back wages is not automatic and instead
the workman should be given monetary
compensation which will meet the ends of
justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction
is obvious.
24. Reasons for denying the relief of
reinstatement in such cases are obvious. It is
trite law that when the termination is found
to be illegal because of non-payment of
retrenchment compensation and notice pay as
mandatorily required under Section 25-F of
the Industrial Disputes Act, even after
reinstatement, it is always open to the
management to terminate the services of that
employee by paying him the retrenchment
compensation. Since, such a workman was
working on daily wage basis and even after he
is reinstated, he has no right to seek
regularization (see: State of Karnataka v/s Uma
Devi (2006) 4 SCC). Thus, when he cannot claim
regularization and he has no right to continue
even as a daily wage worker. No useful purpose
is going to be served in reinstating such a
workman and he can be given monetary
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
429
compensation by the court itself inasmuch as
if he is terminated again after reinstatement,
he would receive monetary compensation only
in the form of retrenchment compensation and
notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief
of reinstatement that too after a long gap
would not serve any purpose.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in its case of Telegraph
Department v/s. Santosh Kumar Seal, reported
in (2010) 6 SCC 773 also reiterated the same
principles.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is well recognized and also applicable to the
case in hand.
17. In the case in hand, the Workman was in the
employment of the Employer from April, 2007 till
16-05-2013 as daily wage worker. Applying the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held
that the workman is entitled to a lump sum
compensation of Rs. 100000/- (Rupees one lakh only)
in order to meet the ends of justice.
18. The workman also prayed for regularization
of his service. As the present reference has been
issued by the Government of Goa pertaining to the
legality and justifiability of the action of the
Employer in terminating services of the Workman
w.e.f. 16-05-2013 and the relief he is entitled to. It
is settled principle of law that this court cannot
expand the scope of the reference beyond the terms
of reference. The prayer of the workman for
regularization of his services stands rejected. The
judgment relied upon by Ld. Adv. Shri. D. Naik has
no relevance to the present reference.
In view of the above, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. It is held that the action of M/s. Goa Meat
Complex Limited, Marvasada, Usgao, Goa, in
terminating the services of Shri Santan
Mascarenhas, Butcher/Worker, with effect from
16-05-2013, is illegal and unjustified.
2. It is held that M/s. Goa Meat Complex Limited,
Marvasada, Usgao, Goa, is hereby directed to pay
to the Workman, Shri Santan Mascarenhas, a lump
sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one
lakh only) in order to meet the ends of justice.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Narulkar)
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
Notification
No. 28/2/2019-LAB/Part-VI/561
The following award (Part) passed by the
Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa
on 13-08-2019 in reference No. IT/5/17 is hereby
published as required under Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of
1947).
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 17th September, 2019.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/5/17
Workmen,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,
G-5, Macedo Apartments,
Tisk, Ponda-Goa.
…
Workmen/Party I
V/s
1. M/s. Majorda Beach Resort,
Majorda,
Salcete, Goa 403 713.
… Employer/Party II(1)
2. Eastern International
Hotels Ltd., Balray Sahani
Marg, Juhu Beach,
Mumbai-400 049.
… Employer/Party II(2)
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S. P.
Gaonkar.
Employer/Party II(1) and (2) represented by Ld. Adv.
Shri M. S. Bandodkar.
AWARD (Part)
(Delivered on this the 13th day of the month
of August of the year 2019)
In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d)
of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (for short the Act),
the Government of Goa by Order dated 17-03-2017
bearing number 28/05/2017-LAB/141 has referred
the following dispute for adjudication.
“(1)
Whether S/Shri Yatin Chodenkar, Jose
Francisco Mories, Savio Dias, Vincent
Miranda, Ms. Candida D’Costa and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
430
Ms. Diana Almeida, are workmen as defined
under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?
(2)
If the answer to the issue No. (1) above is in
the affirmative, then, whether the action of
the management of M/s. Majorda Beach
Resort, Majorda, Salcete, Goa, in terminating
the services of the above mentioned
workmen, with effect from 07-06-2016, is legal
and justified?
(3)
If the answer to issue No. (2) above is in the
negative, then, what relief the workmen are
entitled to?
2. Upon receipt of the dispute reference
No. IT/05/17 was registered. Notices were issued to
both the parties under registered post, upon which
both the parties were served. Party I filed a claim
statement at Exb. 3. Party II filed a written statement
at Exb. 5.
3. In short, it is the case of Party I/workmen that
they were illegally terminated by issuing unsigned
letters of termination after which they made a
representation dated 6-7-2016 stating that the
terminations were illegal, unjustified and bad in law.
The dispute of illegal termination was raised before
the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Margao after which
they have settled all other workmen except the
Party I workmen. The management has not issued
any chargesheet nor any enquiry was conducted
and hence violated principles of natural justice.
Hence, the dispute.
4. The Party II filed a written statement inter-alia
contending that no case has been made by Party I to
grant any reliefs as none of the persons mentioned
in the reference were working as workmen nor they
were covered under provisions of Section 2(s) of the
Industrial Disputes Act.
5. In the rejoinder at Exh. 6, the Party I have denied
the case set up by Party II in the written statement.
6. Based on the above averments of the respective
parties, issues came to be framed at Exh. 8.
7. In the course of further proceedings, Party I
workmen viz. Shri Jose Francisco Moraes, Mr. Savio
Dias, Ms. Candida D’Costa and Ms. Diana Almeida
represented by Shri P. Gaonkar and Party II
represented by Learned Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar
settled the matter amicably by filing the consent
terms dated 29-07-2019 along with payment receipts
at Exb. 33 colly, which reads as under:
a) It is agreed by and between the parties that
each concern person concerned in the
reference shall be paid following amount as
mentioned against their names in full and final
settlement of all their claims arising out of
settlement which shall include retrenchment/
/closure compensation as on 31-12-2018.
(1) Mr. Jose Francisco
… Rs. 3,02,096/-
Moraes
(2) Mr. Savio Dias
… Rs. 2,52,207/-
(3) Ms. Candida D’Costa
… Rs. 3,54,880/-
(4) Ms. Diana Almeida
… Rs. 2,84,720/-
b) That all other dues like leave salary, ex-gratia,
notice pay have been already paid to them by
letter dated 7-6-2016 and paid gratuity by
cheque Nos. 536281, 457776, 457773, 457775
dated 18-07-2016.
c) It is agreed by the persons concerned in the
reference that they accept money hereinabove
in full and final settlement of all their claims
arising out of their employment and they shall
have no claim against Majorda Beach Resort
or Eastern International Hotels Limited of
benefits which can be computed in terms
of money or claim of reinstatement or
re-employment.
d) It is agreed between the parties that this
application to be filed in Tribunal for disposing
their entire claim concerned in the reference
IT/5/17.
8. The above consent terms are signed by the
Party I workmen viz. Mr. Jose Francisco Moraes, Mr.
Savio Dias, Ms. Candida D’Costa, Ms. Diana Almeida
and their representative Shri P. Gaonkar, so also by
Shri Smith Fernandes, Sr. Deputy Manager Accounts
and his Advocate Shri M. S. Bandodkar on behalf of
the Party II. I have gone through the consent terms
filed as above, which in my view, are just and fair
and in the interest of both the Party I workmen
mentioned in Para 7 above, as well as Party II and
hence, the same are accepted.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The reference stands partly disposed of in
view of the consent terms dated 29-07-2019
filed by the Party I workmen viz. Mr. Jose
Francisco Moraes, Mr. Savio Dias, Ms. Candida
D’Costa, Ms. Diana Almeida and Party II at
Exb. 33 colly.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
431
Office of the Commissioner, Labour & Employment
—
Order
No. 2/540/2019/EST/EE/491
In supersession to earlier orders, the following Officers/Officials are hereby appointed as Public
Information Officer and Assistant Public Information Officer for area shown against the name to deal with
the applications received from the public under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Regional Employment Exchange, Goa
Sr.
Name of the Officer/
Public Information Officers/
Area of Operation
No.
Official & Designation
Assistant Public Information Officer
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Bhalchandra U. Sinai Kenkre,
Public Information Officer
Throughout the State of Goa.
Employment Counselling Officer
2.
Shri Premjeet B. Naik Desai,
Assistant Public Information
Throughout the State of Goa.
Assistant Employment Officer
Officer
(In his absence)
Shri Cajitan Fernandes,
Assistant Employment Officer
Jayant G. Tari, Commissioner (Labour and Employment).
Panaji, 13th September, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
—
Notification
No. 12-14-2014-LD/Estt/1699
On the recommendation of the Hon’ble High
Court of Bombay, vide letter No. A.1218/2057/2019
dated 11-09-2019, Government of Goa is pleased to
appoint Ms. Vijaya V. Ambre, District Judge-1 and
Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, as the
President, Children’s Court, Panaji, for the State of
Goa with immediate effect.
The expenditure towards her salary and other
benefits shall be debited to the Budget Head of
Women & Child Development under Demand
No. 58.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 16th September, 2019.
Department of Personnel
—
Notification
No. 7/8/2016-PER(PART-I)/2369
Read: Notification No. 7/8/2016-PER(PART-I)/352
dated 29-01-2019.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Article
316 of the Constitution of India read with
Regulation 5 of the Goa Public Service Commission
(Members and Staff) (Conditions of Service)
Regulations, 1988 and in review of the notification
read in preamble, the tenure of Shri Jose Manuel
Noronha, as Chairman, Goa Public Service
Commission shall be for six years, reckoned from
the date he entered his office as Chairman or until
he attains the age of sixty two years, whichever is
earlier.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 29th August, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
432
Department of Power
Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer
—
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part III(B)/Vol IV/1909
Read: Order CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part III(B)/Vol IV/1204 dated 12-07-2019.
Government is pleased to order with immediate effect posting of the officers promoted as Assistant
Engineer (Elect.) on regular basis.
Sr.
Name of the promottee Officer
Place of posting on promotion
No.
1
2
3
1. Shri V. D. S. Kuncoliencar, Diploma
Assistant Engineer, Division III, Ponda, vice Shri Prakash
Naik transferred.
2. Shri Damodar Bicu Tari, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Tech.), Division XVII, Mapusa
against vacant post.
3. Shri Tilak Francisco Braganza, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Tech.), Office of the Executive
Engineer (Planning), Panaji.
4. Shri Ramesh K. Mendonca, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Elect.), Division III, Ponda against
vacant post.
5. Smt. Deepa Jayant Miringkar, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Com.), Sub-Div. III, Division X, Ponda
against vacant post.
6. Shri Fentan O’Dourado, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (LTMT), Sub-Div. I, Division VIII (MRT),
Margao against vacant post with additional charge of
Assistant Engineer (HTMT Unit).
7. Shri Sydney D’souza Costa, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Com.), Sub-Div. II, Division VI, Mapusa
vice Shri A. K. Chandran transferred.
8. Shri Dattaraj P. Naik, Degree
Assistant Engineer (Com.), Sub-Div. II, Division I, Panaji
vice Shri Nadim Baig transferred.
9. Shri Andre Joao Do P. S. Souza, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Tech.), Division II (S&W), Margao
against vacant post.
10. Shri Vattu D. Sawant, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Tech.), Division I, Panaji, vice
Shri Edwin Miranda transferred.
11. Shri Savio Benjamin Fernandes, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Com.), Sub-Div. I, Division VI, Mapusa
vice Shri Maruti Shiroor, promoted.
12. Shri Angelo Vincent M. R. Alcaoes
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-I, Division XIV,
Rodrigues, Diploma
Verna, vice Ravikumar Bhat transferred.
13. Shri Govind Dulo Phadte, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Shift Duty), Division-III, Ponda
against vacant post.
14. Shri Conception P. A. Alvares, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Shift), Division-XII, Xeldem, vice
Shri Walter D’Souza transferred.
15. Smt. Shweta Anilkumar Naique Parulekar,
Assistant Engineer (Tech.), Division-VI, Mapusa, vice
Diploma
Shri Ashish Rajput transferred.
16. Kum. Dionisia Dias Juliao, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (CVC), Office of the Chief Electrical
Engineer, Panaji, vice Shri Vallabh Samant transferred.
17. Shri Sanjay P. Gaonkar, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-III, Canacona,
Division-XVI, Margao, vice Shri Vinayak Mhalsekar
promoted.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
433
18. Shri Rajesh Purushattam Bhagat, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-III, Division-X,
Ponda, vice Shri Arvind Dhavalikar transferred.
2. The above officers shall join immediately at the new place of posting within a period of seven days.
Any delay on part of concerned officers, they shall be responsible and answerable to the Government.
3. On promotion, the officers at Sr. No. 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17 shall continue to hold the charge of the
post of Junior Engineer (Elect.), until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Reshma Mathew, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 16th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part III(B)/Vol IV/1910
Read: Order CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part III(B)/Vol IV/1205 dated 12-07-2019.
Government is pleased to order with immediate effect posting of the officers promoted as Assistant
Engineer (Elect.) on officiating basis.
Sr.
Name of the promottee Officer
Place of posting on promotion
No.
1
2
3
1. Shri Sharad G. Naik, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-II, Division
IV, Margao, vice Shri Pramod Naik, transferred.
2. Shri Bento Sabina Barreto, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-IV, Division
VI, Mapusa, against vacant post.
3. Shri Savio Mervin Ferrao, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Tech.), Division IX, Tivim,
against vacant post.
4. Shri Kavendra Shrikant Naik, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-III, Division
IV, Margao, vice Shri Dinesh Mahale, transferred.
5. Shri Anil Tukaram Patil, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Shift), Division-IX, Tivim,
against vacant post.
6. Shri Satish J. Palekar, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-I, Division
X, Ponda, vice Shri P. P. Bharthan, transferred.
7. Shri Suraj N. Waghmode, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-III, Division
XIV, Verna, vice Shri M. K. Mujwar, transferred.
8. Shri Nitin Ramesh Bhat Prabhu, Degree
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-II, Division
X, Ponda, vice Shri Keshav Gaude, transferred.
9. Shri George Fernandes, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (O&M), Sub-Division-II, Division
XVI, Margao, vice Shri Santosh Sawant, transferred.
10. Shri Agnelo Rodrigues, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (LTMT), Sub-Division-II, Division
VIII, Margao, Jacinta Mergulao transferred with
additional charge of the vacant post of LTMT, Sub-
Div-III, Mapusa.
11. Shri Balkrishna S. Naik, Diploma
Assistant Engineer (Shift), Sub-Division-II, Amona,
Division-IX, Tivim, vice Shri Suresh Sulebhavi,
transferred.
1
2
3
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
434
2. The above officers shall join immediately at the new place of posting within a period of seven days.
Any delay on part of concerned officers, they shall be responsible and answerable to the Government.
3. Promotion on officiating basis, the officers at Sr. Nos. 2, 3, 7, 11 shall continue to hold the charge
of the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.), until further orders.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Reshma Mathew, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 16th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. CEE/Estt-31-25-88/GPSC/Part-III(B)/Vol-IV/1911
On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa Public
Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/16(1)/2019/120 dated 19-06-2019, the Government is pleased
to promote the following Junior Engineers (Elect.) to the post of Assistant Engineers (Elect.), Group ‘B’
Gazetted in the Pay Matrix Level 7 on regular basis, with immediate effect and posted at the places
shown below against their names until further orders.
Sr.
Name of the
Present place of
Place of posting on
No.
Officers
posting
promotion
1
2
3
4
1.
Shri Sandip N. Salgaonkar,
O/o the Executive Engineer,
Assistant Engineer (Tech.), Division
Diploma
Division VI, Mapusa
XVII, Mapusa.
2.
Shri M. H. Kamaladinni,
O/o the Executive Engineer,
Assistant Engineer (Tech.), Division-IV,
Diploma
Division IV, Margao
Margao, against vacant post
3.
Shri Pradeep J. Naik,
O/o the Executive Engineer,
Assistant Engineer (Elect.), Division XII,
Diploma
Division XII, Xeldem
Xeldem.
2. The above promotion is in pursuance to the recommendations of GPSC contained in para 8 of the
Minutes of DPC held on 18-06-2019 wherein the promotion to above officers are proposed to effect on
retirement of Shri Mahadevappa, Shri J. N. Revannasamy and Shri Dinkar A. Bandekar on superannuation
on 31-07-2019 & 31-8-2019.
3. The promote officers shall be on probation for a period of two years. They shall exercise an option
for fixation of pay under F.R-22(1) (a) (i) within one month from the date of promotion and shall be entitled
for the pay in the promotional post of Assistant Engineer (Elect.) from the date they accept the post.
4. The above promotion are subject to the decision of Writ Petition Nos. 945/2017 filed by Junior Engineer
Association and 986/2018 filed by Shri Kapil Natekar before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa.
5. On promotion, they shall continue to hold the charge of the post of Junior Engineer (Elect.) until
further order in addition to their own duties.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Reshma Mathew, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary.
Panaji, 16th September, 2019.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
—
Order
No. 2/50/98-II/PHD/1436
Government is pleased to accept the notice of
voluntary retirement dated 04-07-2019 tendered by
Dr. Sushama A. Bhonsule, Professor and Head,
Department of Pharmacology, Goa Medical College
under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and
relieve her from the post of Professor, Department
of Pharmacology in Goa Medical College w.e.f.
04-10-2019 (f.n.) i.e. on expiry of three months notice
period.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 18th September, 2019.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
435
Order
No. 7/23/2018-III/PHD/1445
Read: Memorandum No. 7/23/2018-III/PHD/761
dated 01-07-2019.
On the recommendations of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide letter
No. COM/I/5/35(4)/2018/51 dated 02-05-2019,
Government is pleased to appoint Smt. Vinaya
Paresh Karpe to the post of Assistant Pharmaceutical
Chemist (Group “B” Non-Gazetted) in Level-6 of
Pay Matrix (Pre-revised-Pay Band-2 Rs. 9,300-34,800+
4200 Grade Pay) under the Institute of Psychiatry
& Human Behaviour with immediate effect as per
the terms and conditions contained in the
Memorandum cited above.
Smt. Vinaya Paresh Karpe shall be on probation
for a period of two years.
Smt. Vinaya Paresh Karpe has been declared
medically fit by the Medical Board. Her appointment
is made subject to the verification of her character
and antecedents. In the event of any adverse
matter noticed by the Government on verification
of character and antecedents, her services shall be
terminated.
The above appointment is made against the
vacancy occurred due to retirement of Smt. Mangala
Kadam, Assistant Pharmaceutical Chemist after
attaining the age of superannuation on 31-12-2018.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).
Porvorim, 20th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. 11/3/89-IV/PHD/3(Part I)/1451
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/14(1)/2011/185 dated 30-08-2019,
Government is pleased to promote Dr. Sapna Sada
Raut Dessai, Lecturer to the post of Assistant
Professor in Department of Oral Medicine &
Radiology (Oral Medicine & Oral Diagnosis) under
Goa Dental College & Hospital, on regular basis in
Level 11 of Pay Matrix of the 7th Pay Commission
(pre-revised PB-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100+Grade Pay
Rs. 6,600/-) and other allowance to be fixed as per
rules with immediate effect.
The promotion is made against the vacancy
occurred due to revival of post vide Order No. 4/1/
/2018-IV/PHD/4936 dated 25-01-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).
Porvorim, 20th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. 11/3/89-IV/PHD(Part File)/1454
On the recommendation of the Goa Public
Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter
No. COM/II/11/14(3)/2014/878 dated 29-08-2019,
Government is pleased to promote Dr. Karla
Carvalho, Lecturer to the post of Assistant Professor
in Department of Oral Pathology under Goa Dental
College & Hospital, on regular basis in Level 11 of
Pay Matrix of the 7th Pay Commission (pre-revised
PB-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100+Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/-) and
other allowance to be fixed as per rules with
immediate effect.
The promotion is made against the vacancy
occurred due to revival of post vide Order No. 4/1/
/2018-IV/PHD/4936 dated 25-01-2019.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).
Porvorim, 20th September, 2019.
________
Order
No. 10/11/91-I/PHD/2119
Read: Order No. 10/11/91-I/PHD dated 15-02-2016.
A tentative Seniority list in the grade of Chief Medical Officer under Directorate of Health Services
was drawn and circulated vide Memorandum dated 15-02-2016.
The representations received from the Officers have been examined and now, a final seniority list is
drawn in the grade of Chief Medical Officer under Directorate of Health Services, as under:-
Sr.
Name of the
Date of
Date of
Date of
Qualification
Remarks
No.
Doctor
Appointment
Joining
Birth
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Dr. Maximiano Alba Jose De Sa
21-03-2018
22-03-2018
24-01-1961
MBBS, MD
Retd. (VR).
(T. B. Chest)
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 26
26TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
436
2. Dr. Vandana R. Dhume @ Gaunekar 21-03-2018
22-03-2018
09-03-1966
MBBS
3. Dr. Vikas P. Kuvelkar
21-03-2018
02-04-2018
29-11-1959
MBBS
4. Dr. Rupa Naik
21-03-2018
26-03-2018
03-07-1964
MBBS
5. Dr. Chandrakant Porob
21-03-2018
22-03-2018
19-08-1958
MBBS
6. Dr. Anant Palekar
21-03-2018
02-04-2018
20-06-1959
MBBS
7. Dr. Surekha Parulekar
21-03-2018
01-04-2018
17-05-1960
MBBS
8. Dr. Doreen Noronha
21-03-2018
01-04-2018
30-03-1960
MBBS
Swati A. Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 16th September, 2019.
———uuu———
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 40.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—219/160–9/2019.
Directorate of Skill Development &
Entrepreneurship
—
Order
No. 2/171/2019/EST/SDCT/1597
Sanction is hereby conveyed to write-off the loss
due to theft of Government item which was in the
custody of Shri Hanuman Kalshaonkar, Ex-VI in the
year 2011 at Government ITI Pernem, amounting to
Rs. 9300/- (Rupees nine thousand three hundred
only) in respect of missing item i.e. old condemned
engine with gear box in terms of Rule 12(1),
Annexure V of the Goa Delegation of Financial
Power Rules, 2008.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Dipak Desai, Director and ex officio Joint
Secretary (Skill Development & Entrepreneurship).
Panaji, 20th September, 2019.
1
2
3