Panaji, 19th March, 2020 (Phalguna 29, 1941)
SERIES II No. 51
951
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 General Administration
__
Notification
No. 37/3/2019-GAD-III/5335
In pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 40A of
the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Goa Act No. 14
of 1994), the Government of Goa hereby declares
Sunday, the 22nd March, 2020 (Chaitra 02, Saka
1942) as a “paid holiday”, being the “Polling Day”
for General Elections to Zilla Panchayats of North
and South Goa District throughout the State of
Goa.
The aforesaid paid holiday shall be in addition
to the holidays indicated in the Government
Notification No. 37/5/2019-GAD-III/3287 dated
10-10-2019, published in the Official Gazette, Series
II No. 29, dated 17-10-2019, to the workers and
establishments as detailed below:-
(i)
industrial workers of the State of Goa;
(ii) daily wage workers of the Government
Departments and State Government
Industrial Departments;
(iii) commercial and industrial workers of private
establishments in the State of Goa;
(iv) workers of all private establishments;
(v) daily wage/casual workers employed in any
business, trade, industrial undertakings or
any other establishments.
The said paid/public holiday will also apply and
be available to the registered voters of the poll
bound areas even if they are working outside the
territorial limits of such areas, notwithstanding
whether or not such voters belonging to Central or
State Government Officers, Central/State
Government undertakings or other entities.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Shripad Arlekar, Under Secretary (GA-I).
Porvorim, 17th March, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Industries
__
Order
No. 11/5/2019-IND/171
The Government of Goa is hereby pleased to
constitute a Monitoring Committee to oversee the
process of auctioning for Special Economic Zones
(SEZ) land as initiated and taken forward by Goa
Industrial Development Corporation (Goa-IDC) in a
advisory capacity, comprising of the following
members:
1. Minister for Industries
— Chairman.
2. Chairman, Goa-IDC
— Vice-
-Chairman.
3. Secretary (Industries)
— Member.
4. Shri Manoj Caculo, President, — Member.
Goa Chamber of Commerce
and Industry and Director,
Goa-IDC
Note:-
There are four Extraordinary issues to the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 50 dated 12-03-2020
as follows:—
(1) Extraordinary dated 13-03-2020 from pages
941 to 943 regarding Order from Office of the
Collector & District Election Officer, South Goa
District.
(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 16-03-2020 from
pages 945 to 946 regarding Notifications from
Department of Finance.
(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 17-03-2020 from
pages 947 to 948 regarding Notification from
Department of Elections.
(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 18-03-2020 from
pages 949 to 950 regarding Notification from
Department of Finance.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
952
5. Shri Damodar Kochkar,
— Member.
President, Goa State
Industries Association and
Director, Goa-IDC
6. Ms. Purti Patkar,
— Member.
Director, Goa-IDC
7. Shri Jaivant Desai,
— Member.
Director, Goa-IDC
8. Managing Director, Goa-IDC
— Member
Secretary.
The terms of reference of the above Committee
shall be as under:-
(i) The Chairperson may co-opt any person as
an advisor/expert(s)/official(s) if necessary,
for obtaining necessary inputs and
assistance.
(ii) The Chairperson shall hold its meetings on
such dates and at such time and place as
determined by him.
This supersedes earlier Order No. 11/5/2019-IND/
/115 dated 17-02-2020.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Industries).
Porvorim, 12th March, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 28/33/2019-LAB/193
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s. Sanofi India Limited, Plot
No. L-121, Phase-III, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,
Goa, and it’s workmen, represented by the Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena, in respect of the matter specified in
the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the
“said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby
refers the said dispute for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted
under Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the Local Committee of Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena Union has a Locus Standi to
raise dispute of collective nature on behalf
of Bhartiya Kamgar Sena Union?
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in
affirmative, then,–
(a) Whether the action of the management
of M/s. Sanofi India Limited in refusing
work and non-payment of emoluments to
S/Shri Shankar Pandit, Sainath Mishal and
Shri Abhijit Naik, Operators, for 04-01-2017;
to S/Shri Suraj Tamse, Vijay Kumar Naik, Saish
Shet, Navindra Borkar, Sanjay C. Patil,
Sandeep Gaonkar and Shri Sanjay Satarkar
for 05-01-2017; and to S/Shri Suraj Tamse,
Vijay Kumar Naik, Saish Shet, Sanjay C. Patil
and Shri Ashwek Parab for 06-01-2017, is legal
and justified?
(b) If not, what relief the said workmen are
entitled to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 11th March, 2020.
________
Order
No. 28/5/2020-LAB/194
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s. Cine Kamala, Tisk, Usgao,
Ponda, Goa, and it’s workman Shri Ramesh S. Naik,
Door Keeper, in respect of the matter specified in
the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the
“said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court-II of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7(1) of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Cine Kamala, Tisk, Usgao, Ponda, Goa,
in refusing employment to Shri Ramesh S.
Naik, Door Keeper, with effect from
20-01-2019, is legal and justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
953
(2)
If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 11th March, 2020.
________
Order
No. 28/11/2019-LAB/Part-I/199
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals
Industries Limited, Madkaim Industrial Estate,
Madkaim, Goa, and it’s workmen, represented by
the Ranbaxy Workers Union, in respect of the matter
specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter
referred to as the “said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”), the Government of Goa hereby
refers the said dispute for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted
under Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1)
Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited,
Madkaim Industrial Estate, Madkaim, Goa, in
refusing to concede the following demands
raised by the Ranbaxy Workers Union,
vide it’s letter dated 28-10-2017, is legal and
justified?
CHARTER OF DEMANDS
Demand No. 1: Pay Scales:
GRADES
I:
3575-160-4375-180-5275-200-6275-220-7375-
-240-8575-260-9875-280-11275.
II-3: 4050-185-4975-205-6000-225-7125-245-8350-
-265-9675-285-11100-305-12625.
III-2: 4500-200-5500-220-6600-240-7800-260-9100-
-280-10500-300-12000-320-13600.
IV-1: 5075-235-6250-260-7550-285-8975-310-
-10525-335-12200-360-14000-385-15925.
Demand No. 2: Flat Rise:
Union demands that all the workmen shall be
given the flat rise of Rs. 4000/- in the basic.
Fitment: The above amounts shall be added to
the existing basic and thereafter fitted in the
revised pay scale in the higher stage.
Demand No. 3: Seniority Increments:
Union demands that the workmen shall be given
seniority increments as mentioned below:
Service upto 3 years
: one increment.
Service from 3 years to
: two increments
7 years
Service from 7 years to
: three increments.
10 years
Service from 10 years to
: four increments.
15 years
Service from 15 years to
: five increments.
20 years
Service above 20 years
: six increments.
Demand No. 4: Variable Dearness Allowance
(VDA):
Union demands that the VDA shall be paid at
the revised rate of Rs. 3/- per point rise beyond
4501 points of AICPI (1960) the computation of VDA
shall be made quarterly based as per existing
system. VDA upto 4500 shall be merged in basic.
Demand No. 5: House Rent Allowance (HRA):
Union demands that HRA shall be paid at the
revised rate of 30% of basic, as the cost of
accommodation is very high in Goa due to Tourist
State.
Demand No. 6: Education Allowance:
The Union demands that Rs. 1500/- shall be
added in the existing Education Allowance.
Demand No. 7: Conveyance Allowance:
Union demands that all workmen shall be
paid revised conveyance allowance by adding
Rs. 1500/-.
Demand No. 8. Paid Holidays:
Union demands that all the workmen shall be
granted paid holidays at rate of 12 days per year.
Demand No. 9: Leave:
Union demands that all the workers shall be
given leave on following basis:
(i) Earned Leave: Union demands that all the
workmen shall be given Earned Leave at the rate
of 35 days Earned Leave per year with accumulation
upto 120 days and leave shall be allowed to be
taken 10 times in a year.
(ii) Casual Leave: Union demands that all the
workmen shall be given Casual Leave at the rate
of 15 days of Casual Leave per year with
encashment facility.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
954
(iii) Sick Leave: Union demands that those
workmen covered under ESIC shall be given Sick
Leave at the rate of 15 days per year and those
workmen outside the purview of ESIC shall be given
15 days Sick Leave per year with accumulation
upto 75 days.
Demand No. 10: Leave Travel Assistance (LTA):
Union demands that LTA shall be paid at the
revised rate by adding Rs. 5000/- per annum to the
existing LTA, with minimum of four days Earned
Leave. The amount shall be paid one week before
the commencement of leave.
Demand No. 11: Medical Reimbursement:
Union demands that those workmen who are
outside the purview of the ESIC, shall be
reimbursed full medical expenses incurred by them
for self and his family including dependent father
and mother.
Demand No. 12: Loan:
Union demands that existing loan shall be
increased to Rs. 300000/- towards house repair or
construction of house or for purchase of household
articles or marriage of self or his/her family member
or purchase of vehicle, etc.
Demand No. 13: Bonus/Ex-gratia:
Union demands that all the workers shall be
paid Bonus/Ex-gratia at the rate of 20% of gross
wages (Basic, FDA and VDA) every year before
Diwali.
Demand No. 14: Shift Allowance:
Union demands that those workmen who work
in the shifts shall be paid shift allowance as under:
Second shift: Rs. 50/- per shift and Third shift:
Rs. 75/- per shift.
Demand No. 15: Fixed Dearness Allowance (FDA):
Union demands that all the workers shall be
paid FDA @ revised rate of Rs. 3000/- per month.
Demand No. 16: Promotion Policy:
Union demands that the promotion policy be
discussed with the Union in order to remove some
anomalies.
Demand No. 17: Accident benefits while on duty
and while coming for duty and while going from
the duty:
Union demands that those workmen who met
with accident while coming for duty and going
back from the duty shall be treated as accident
while on duty and they shall be given all the
benefits such as full wages and full medical
reimbursement.
Demand No. 18: City Compensatory Allowance
(CCA):
Union demands that all the workmen shall be
paid CCA at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month.
Demand No. 19: Transport facility:
Union demands that management shall provide
free transport facility in all shifts on the following
routes:
(i) Madkai to Marcel and back.
(ii) Madkaim to Shiroda and back.
(iii) Madkaim to Ponda/Usgao and back.
(2)
If answer to issue No. (1) above is in negative,
then, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 13th March, 2020.
________
Order
__
No. 28/42/2019-LAB/200
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Lupin Limited, B-15,
Phase 1A, Verna Industrial Area, Verna, Salcete,
Goa and it’s workman Shri Sandeep Methe,
represented by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, in
respect of the matter specified in the Schedule
hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa, at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7-A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether Shri Sandeep Methe, Manage-
ment Associate could be construed as
workman as defined under Clause (s) of
Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?
(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above, is in
affirmative, then, whether the action of the
management of M/s. Lupin Limited, B-15,
Phase 1A, Verna Industrial Area, Verna,
Salcete, Goa in transferring Shri Sandeep
Methe from Engineering to EHS-ETP
Department, is legal and justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
955
(3) If answer to issue No. (2) above is in
negative, then, to what relief the workman
is entitled?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 13th March, 2020.
–––––––
Order
No. 28/39/2019-LAB/202
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion
that an industrial dispute exists between the
management of M/s. Radisson Blu Resort Goa,
Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa and it’s workman,
Mrs. Christina Lima, Senior Housekeeping
Supervisor, represented by the Kamgarancho Ekvott,
in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule
hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Goa, at Panaji-Goa, constituted under
Section 7A of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether Mrs. Christina Lima, Senior
Housekeeping Supervisor, could be
construed as workman as defined under
Clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?
(2) If answer to issue No. (1) above, is in
affirmative, then, whether the action of the
management of M/s. Radisson Blu Resort
Goa, Cavelossim, Salcete, Goa, in
transferring Mrs. Christina Lima, from
Radisson Blu Resort Goa, Cavelossim to
Mercure Goa Devaaya Retreat Hotel at
Divar, Goa, with effect from 12-09-2018, is
legal and justified?
(3) If answer to issue No. (2) above is in
negative, then to what relief the workman
is entitled?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
A. S. Mahatme, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 13th March, 2020.
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/Part-II/183
The following Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
25-02-2020 in reference No. IT/09/10 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, 6th March, 2020.
———
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND
LABOUR COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/09/10
Workmen,
Rep. by the General Secretary,
Goa MRF Union,
H. No. 282, Dr. P. S. Ramani Road,
Wadi, Talaulim,
Ponda-Goa.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. MRF Ltd.,
Tisk, Usgao,
Ponda-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P.
Agrawal.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri G.
K. Sardessai.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 25th day of the month
of February, of the year 2020)
By Order dated 25-06-2010, bearing No. 28/24/
/2010-LAB/305, the Government of Goa in exercise
of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),
has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal
for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of M/s. MRF Limited,
Tisk, Usgao, Ponda, Goa, in deducting 50%
wages for four days i.e. from 13-01-2009 to
16-01-2009, of all the workmen who are the
members of Goa MRF Union, is legal and
justified?
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
956
(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?”
2. Upon receipt of the reference, IT/09/10 was
registered. Notices were issued to both the parties
under registered post, upon which both the parties
were served. Party I thereafter filed a Claim
statement at Exh. 5 and the Party II filed a written
statement at Exh. 7.
3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the
Party II is a Limited Company incorporated under
the Companies Act. The present dispute is in
respect of all workmen about 1000 approximately
working in their factory at Ponda. The company is
engaged in manufacture of tyres and has several
factories all over India. The company has been
attempting to disrupt the unity of the workmen
employed by the company who are the members of
the union. There has been large scale harassment
and victimization of their members due to their
legitimate trade union activities. The company by
notice dated 27-12-2008 purported to have
curtailed its monthly allotment plan for Goa Unit
by 20,000 tyres from January, 2009 and claimed
drastic cut in the production and that there would
be no work available due to alleged cuts and further
threatened to cut down in shifts in the plant and
the meeting was purportedly fixed on 7-1-2009 for
discussing the issue with the workmen. The union
replied to the said notice on 30-12-2008. By notice
dated 10-1-2009, the company alleged that the
delivery of the new material for tyre manufacturing
has stopped and production would come to a
standstill by 2-1-2009 and threatened that they
would stop work on the ground of ‘force majeure’.
The said notice was illegal contrary to Clause 19
of the Standing Orders and unwarranted. The
company by notice dated 12-1-2009 tried to justify
its illegal lay off in different shifts which were
false and untenable.
4. The company by notice dated 15-1-2009 once
again illegally and contrary to the standing orders
purported to invoke Clause 19 of the Certified
Standing Orders and thus continued the lay off by
reducing the number of workmen in each shift
without following the mandatory provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act. The company by notice
dated 16-1-2009 illegally directed that the workmen
would be laid off and given 50% of the wages when
such action was totally unjustified. The union by
reply dated 17-1-2009 denied that there was any
truckers strike or that any of the reasons specified
were justified. The pay slips for the month of
January, 2009 did not contain company name
though the illegal deduction towards lay off days/
force majeure was inserted. Clause 19 of the
Certified Standing Orders is illegal and the
company was not authorized to invoke the said
provision which is contrary to Chapter V-B of the
I.D. Act. The management of the company had
illegally deducted wages to the extent of 50%
during the period from 27-12-2008 to 16-1-2009
depending on the shifts to the workmen. The
notices issued by Party II are illegal and that they
are entitled to their entire wages during the said
period. The union had raised the dispute for
consideration before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Ponda but the conciliation
proceedings ended in a failure. The company
employs more than 1000 workmen and hence
provision of Chapter V-B applies to the company.
No notice has been given as required under Section
25-M of the Act nor any application for permission
from appropriate Government was taken and as
such purported lay off is illegal and therefore they
are entitled to all benefits including payment of
full wages for said period. Hence, the reference.
5. In the Written statement, the Party II has stated
that the present matter involves invoking
provisions of certified standing orders on account
of the countrywide truckers strike during the
relevant point of time due to which transportation
of goods and raw material coming from various
parts of the country had paralyzed and the company
was left with no raw material rendering the
manufacturing process to a grinding halt. The
truckers strike commenced on 4-1-2009 and all the
workmen
were
informed
including
the
representatives of the union about the
deteriorating situation on day to day basis,
meetings were called and the union representatives
were apprised of the reduced production target
due to the market recession followed by non-
availability of essential raw materials due to
truckers strike, however the representatives of the
union repeatedly opted not to attend the meetings
for discussion. The transportation/delivery of the
raw materials essential for manufacturing process
had ceased within two days of truckers strike and
only a part of the process could be kept operational
due to balance material while the major operations
were stopped for want of raw material.
6. The manufacturing process reached its total
halt by 12-1-2009 in shift III after all available raw
materials were exhausted in the process of
production and in order to deal with the situation
the best course of action available at the disposal
of the management was to invoke Clause 19 of the
certified standing orders. The truckers strike was
called off on 13-1-2009 and since raw material was
procured from different parts of the country,
complete normalcy in the manufacturing process
was attained w.e.f. shift I of 17-1-2009. The truckers
strike was the cause which was beyond the control
of the management and 50% wages as per law was
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
957
paid to the workmen opting for registering their
attendance. While workmen having understood the
fact of no work being available due to truckers
strike opted for above majeure, but section of the
workmen insisted that they would stay in the
factory without registering their attendance. There
was no malice or any unfair labour practice in
imposing Clause 19 of the certified standing orders
which however did not amount to violation of
provisions of I.D. Act nor the same amounts to
change in service conditions. No notice under
Section 25-M was required to be given to the
workmen or the Government. There is no substance
in the present reference and therefore same
deserves to be dismissed with cost.
7. In the rejoinder at Exh. 8, the Party I has
denied the case set up by the Party II in the written
statement.
8. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 12 are
as follows:
(1) Whether workmen/Party I prove that the
action of Party II in deducting 50% wages for
four days i.e. from 13-01-2009 to 16-01-2009
of the workman who are the members of
Party I union is illegal and unjustified?
(2) Whether Employer/Party II proves that this
claim cannot be an Industrial dispute as the
action taken by it is provided under the law
and by following a proper procedure so also
upon proper notice issued to the workforce
from time to time?
(3) Whether the Employer/Party II proves that
the reference has been made by the
appropriate Government without any
material on record, in haste and without
application of mind?
(4) What Relief? What Award?
9. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined
Shri Sudhakar Naik as witness who produced on
record a copy of notice dated 27-12-2008 issued by
Party II at Exh. 16, a copy of letter dated 31-12-2008
by Party I in reply to notice dated 27-12-2008 at
Exh. 17, a copy of notice dated 1-1-2009 at Exh. 18,
a copy of notice dated 10-1-2009 at Exh. 19, a copy
of notice dated 12-1-2009 at Exh. 20, a copy of
notice dated 15-1-2009 at Exh. 21, a copy of notice
dated 16-1-2009 at Exh. 22, a copy of letter dated
17-1-2009 at Exh. 23, copies of 6 pay slips of the
employees for January, 2009 at Exh. 24 colly, a copy
of letter dated 16-4-2009 by GMU union to ALC at
Exh. 25, a copy of letter dated 18-6-2009 by ALC to
MRF Ltd. at Exh. 26, a copy of minutes of
conciliation dated 22-3-2010 at Exh. 27, a copy of
failure report dated 26-3-2010 at Exh. 28, a copy of
reference order dated 25-6-2010 at Exh. 29.
10. On the other hand, the Party II examined
Shri Prashant Kumar Shetty as a witness who
produced on record a copy of Newspaper cutting
of Times of India dated 23-1-2009 at Exh. 53, a copy
of Newspaper cutting of Herald dated 26-12-2008
at Exh. 54, a copy of Newspaper cutting of Herald
dated 20-1-2009 at Exh. 55, copies of Newspaper
cuttings of Times of India dated 6-11-2008 and
7-11-2008 at Exh. 56 colly, a copy of Newspaper
cutting of Times of India dated 18-11-2008 at Exh.
57, a copy of Newspaper cutting of Gomantak dated
2-1-2009 at Exh. 58, a copy of Newspaper cutting
of Navhind Times dated 4-1-2009 at Exh. 59, a copy
of Newspaper cutting of Gomantak dated 11-1-2009
at Exh. 60, a copy of Newspaper cutting of Navhind
Times dated 12-1-2009 at Exh. 61, a copy of
Newspaper cutting of Gomantak dated 12-1-2009
at Exh. 62, a copy of Newspaper cutting of The
Hindu dated 13-1-2009 at Exh. 63, a copy of
Newspaper cutting of Navhind Times dated
13-1-2009 at Exh. 64, a copy of Newspaper cutting
of Gomantak dated 13-1-2009 at Exh. 65, copies of
Newspaper cuttings of Times of India dated
16-11-2008, 24-11-2008, 26-11-2008, 30-11-2008 and
30-11-2008 at Exh. 66 colly, a copy justification
statement of GMU dated 15-4-09 at Exh. 67 colly, a
copy of letter dated 28-8-2009 along with
justification statement of the management at Exh.
68 colly, a copy of letter dated 22-3-10 by MRF to
ALC at Exh. 69, copy of attendance sheets of
workmen at Exh. 70 colly.
11. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by Party I
as well as Party II.
12. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1
…
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 2
…
In the negative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the negative.
Issue No. 4
…
As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 2:
13. Learned Adv. Shri P. Agrawal for the Party I
has submitted that the Party II had invoked
provisions of Clause 19 of the Certified Standing
Orders for stoppage of work on account of
countrywide truckers’ strike during the relevant
point of time, however the action of the Party II in
laying-off the workmen has been without following
the mandatory provision of Chapter V-B of the
Industrial Disputes Act as well as breach of clause
of Certified Standing Orders. He further submitted
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
958
that the question which is required to be decided
is as to whether the Clause 19 of the Certified
Standing Orders could be invoked by the Party II
for the reasons mentioned in the notices at Exh. 16
to 22 and in particular, notice dated 12-1-2009 at
Exh. 20, however as per the said notice, the
stoppage of work was not due to any causes as
specified in Clause 19 of the Certified Standing
Orders and as such action by Party II is
impermissible as it is without permission from the
appropriate Government under 25-M of the Act
and in support thereof, he relied upon the cases of
(i) Suhrid Geigy Ltd. vs. Chemical Mazdoor Sabha,
MANU/GJ/0168/1979 decided on 23-8-1979;
(ii) Hartex Tubes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur and Ors.,
MANU/MH/0265/1997 decided on 4-9-1997 and
(iii) Vimal S. Roy vs. N.E.P.C. Airlines, Chennai
and Ors. MANU/MH/0149/2002 decided on
28-11-2001.
14. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for
the Party II has submitted that the present matter
involves the provisions of Clause 19 of Certified
Standing Orders on account of countrywide
truckers strike during the relevant point of time
and that the action taken by the Party II is as
provided under the law and by following proper
procedure and issuing proper notices to the
workmen. The witness, Shri Prashant Shetty has
also confirmed that Certified Standing Orders are
invoked on account of countrywide truckers strike
and that there was worldwide recessions followed
by non-availability of raw materials coming to the
factory and that it did not violate provisions of I.D.
Act nor does it amount to change in service
conditions and as such no notice was required to
be given either to the workmen or the Government
under Section 25-M. The Party I workmen failed to
acknowledge the gravity of the situation pertaining
to the consequences of the truckers strike which
was otherwise beyond the control of the
management which is evident from various
newspaper clippings produced on record. There
was no malice or unfair labour practice in invoking
Clause 19 of Certified Standing Orders nor does it
violate the provisions of I.D. Act and therefore, the
reference be dismissed and in support thereof, he
relied upon the case of Pearl Agencies vs. Union
of India and others, 2003(1) LLN 575.
15. Admittedly, the workers were laid off for the
period from 13-1-2009 to 16-1-2009 by invoking
Clause 19 of Certified Standing Orders of the
company on the ground of ‘force majeure’ for
stoppage of work. The Party I has challenged the
action of the Party II on the ground that said lay off
was in contravention of provision of Chapter V-B of
the I.D. Act, while it is the case of Party II that lay
off was as per Clause 19 of Certified Standing Orders
of Party II on account of countrywide truckers strike
which had paralyzed the transportation of goods
and raw materials. The short question therefore is
whether Clause 19 of the Certified Standing Orders
could be invoked by Party II for the reasons
mentioned in the various notices at Exh. 16 to
Exh. 22.
16. It is apposite to refer Clause 19 of Certified
Standing Orders of the company as well as various
provisions of law before dilating the issue involved
in the present reference, which are as follows:
Clause 19: Stoppage of work due to force
majeure: The management, may at any time, in
the event of the catastrophe, breakdown of
machinery or stoppage of power supply,
epidemics, civil commotion or other cause
beyond its control, stop any section or sections
of establishment, wholly or partially for any
periods without notice.
In the event of such stoppage during working
hours, the workmen affected shall be notified by
notices put upon the Notice Board in the
department concerned, or at the office of the
Manager, as soon as practicable, when work will
be resumed and whether they are to remain or
leave their place of work. The workmen shall
not ordinarily be required to remain for more
than two hours after the commencement of the
stoppage. If the period of detention does not
exceed one hour, the workmen so detained shall
not be paid for the period of detention. If the
period of detention exceeds one hour, the
workmen so detained shall be entitled to receive
wages for the whole of the time during which
they are detained as a result of the stoppage. In
the case of piece rate workers, the average daily
earning for the previous month shall be taken to
be the daily wages. No other compensation will
be admissible in case of such stoppage.
Whenever practicable, reasonable notice shall
be given of resumption of normal work.
In case where workmen are laid off for short
periods on account of failure of plant or a
temporary curtailment of production, the period
of unemployment shall be treated as compulsory
leave either with or without pay, as the case
may be. When, however, workmen have to be
laid off for an indefinitely long period, their
services may be terminated after giving them
due notice or pay in lieu thereof.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
959
The management may in the event of a strike
affecting either wholly or partially any section
or department of establishment close down
either wholly or partially such section or
department as also any other section or
department affected as a result. The fact of such
closure shall be notified by notice put on the
notice board in the section or department
concerned and near the Time Office as soon as
practicable. The workmen concerned shall also
be notified by a general notice, prior to
resumption of work, as to when work will be
resumed.
Section 2(KKK) of the I. D. Act refers to lay
off which means the failure, refusal or inability
of an employer on account of shortage of coal,
power or raw materials or the accumulation of
stocks or the break-down of machinery (or
natural calamity or for any other connected
reason) to give employment to a workman whose
name is borne on the muster rolls of his
industrial establishment and who has not been
retrenched.
25-M Prohibition of lay-off: (1) No workman
(other than a badli workman or a casual
workman) whose name is borne on the muster-
rolls of an industrial establishment to which this
Chapter applies shall be laid-off by his employer
except [with the prior permission of the
appropriate Government or such authority as
may be specified by that Government by
notification in the Official Gazette (hereinafter
in this section referred to as the specified
authority), obtained on an application made in
this behalf, unless such lay-off is due to shortage
of power or to natural calamity, and in the case
of a mine, such lay-off is due also to fire, flood,
excess of inflammable gas or explosion. (8) Where
no application for permission under sub-section
(1) is made, or where no application for
permission under sub-section (3) is made within
the period specified therein, or where the
permission for a lay-off has been refused, such
lay-off shall be deemed to be illegal from the
date on which the workmen had been laid-off
and the workmen shall be entitled to all the
benefits under any law for the time being in
force as if they had not been laid-off.
17. In short, a person is said to be laid-off on
account of failure, refusal or inability of the
employer on account of shortage of coal, power or
raw materials, etc. to give employment to a
workman and that under Chapter V-B, 25-M, no
workmen shall be laid-off by the employer except
with the prior permission with the Government on
an application made, unless such lay-off is due to
shortage of power or to natural calamity. In the
instant case, the workmen were laid-off for the
period from 13-1-2009 to 16-1-2009 by Party II by
invoking Clause 19 of the Certified Standing
Orders for which various notices were issued and
in one of the notices dated 12-1-2009, it was stated
that the management has no other option then to
go for stoppage of work on force majeure due to All
India Truckers Strike which is beyond the control
of the management. Clause 19 also speaks of
stoppage of work due to force majeure which
includes fire catastrophe, breakdown of machinery
or stoppage of power supply, epidemics or other
case beyond its control. The notices including
notice dated 12-1-2009 do not make a mention of
the stoppage of work due to any causes as specified
in clauses of Certified Standing Orders.
18. Ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai has submitted
that All India Truckers’ strike and global recession
were beyond the control of the management and
therefore its action is not violative of provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act, however it is to be noted
that it is the case of Party II that the stoppage of
work was due to non-availability of raw material.
The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of
Suhrid Geigy Ltd. supra has clearly held that if
the management wants to lay-off its workers, it
had to take action either on the basis of contract
between the parties or on the basis of relevant
standing orders and if the management commits
breach of provision of any standing orders, limited
power of lay-off under it could not be available to
the management and its action would be
completely ultra-vires. The stoppage of work
resorted by Party II under Clause 19 of Certified
Standing Orders was not on account of fire,
catastrophe and other eventualities mentioned
therein nor on account of failure of plant or
temporary curtailment of production as mentioned
in the Certified Standing Orders, nor the Certified
Standing Orders provide for lay-off for stoppage
of work on account of strike by Truckers or
non-availability of raw material. The words ‘or other
cause beyond its control’ in the Certified Standing
Orders relate to causes mentioned earlier and not
other clauses. The strike by All India Truckers as
reflected in the Paper notifications produced by
Party II cannot be the cause for lay-off of the
workers of Party I.
19. The witness of the Party I, Shri Sudhakar Naik
had clearly stated in his affidavit that the Party II
illegally invoked Clause 19 of Certified Standing
Orders and laid-off the workmen in each shift
without following the mandatory provisions of I.D.
Act and paying them compensation and tried to
justify its illegal lay-off on the ground of force
majeure. In the cross examination, he stated that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
960
he does not know the reason for less production in
the month of January, 2009 though according to
him there was stock of raw material with the
company and that he is not aware if in the month
of January, 2009, the manufactured tyres were
dispatched or not. The above assertion by the
witness has not been categorically denied. The
Party II has not produced anything on record that
there was no raw materials with the company and
that the production was curtained or that the
workers were laid-off because of paucity of the raw
material. The witness of Party II, Shri Prashant
Shetty, Production Manager has admitted that he
has not produced any documents in support of
Para 8 of his affidavit that transportation/delivery
of raw material essential for manufacturing process
had ceased within two days of truckers strike.
There is nothing on record to prove that there was
gradual cessation of manufacturing process for the
relevant period during the truckers strike. No
documents have been produced to show that the
production was affected by truckers strike and that
there was no availability of raw material. It is
therefore on the above count alone, the case of
Party II fails.
20. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the
Party II was employing more than 100 workmen at
its factory at Usgao and therefore it is covered
under Chapter V-B of the I.D. Act. Chapter V-B
contains Section 25-K to 25-S which are mandatory
in nature and in contravention of any Sections from
Chapter V-B renders the action taken as null and
void and the same is clear, if one peruses sub-
section 8 of Section 25-M, which postulates that if
no permission is taken for laying-off the workmen,
such lay-off is illegal. There cannot be any dispute
that Clause 19 of Certified Standing Orders is
subject to Chapter V-B of the Act. The Party II has
not taken any permission from the appropriate
Government to lay-off the workmen w.e.f. 13-1-2009
to 16-1-2009. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in
case of Vimal S. Roy, supra has clearly laid down
that where there are more than 100 workmen in
the establishment, prior permission of the
appropriate Government ought to have been
sought for before laying of the employees. No such
permission has been taken and therefore, the lay-
off is deemed to be illegal under Section 25-M(8) of
the I.D. Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in
the case of Hartex Tubes Pvt. Ltd. supra, has also
held that the shortage of material cannot be a
ground for lay-off and if in law there are statutory
requirements under Chapter V-B in seeking
permission before lay-off is effected, ingenuity
cannot be allowed to defeat the requirement of
law.
21. Even, if it is considered that All India Truckers’
strike was the cause of lay-off, it cannot be gainsaid
that Party II is not required to take prior permission
under Section 25-M of the Act before effecting lay-
off. Shri Prashant Shetty has not disputed that the
company employs more than 1000 workmen and
that it is not seasonal in nature. He has also
admitted that the company has not taken
permission from the appropriate Government for
reducing the payment to the workers as according
to him it is not required. He denied the suggestion
that non-payment of full wages was an illegal action
of the management. The Party II has not taken any
permission to lay-off before the appropriate
Government and as such the action of the Party II
in laying off the workmen is illegal and in
contravention of Section 25-M of the Act and
therefore Party I workmen are entitled to full wages
for said period. The submission of Ld. Adv. Shri G.
K. Sardessai that there is no malice or any unfair
labour practice in imposing Clause 19 of Certified
Standing Orders and that the said provision was
invoked on account of countrywide truckers’ strike
cannot be accepted having any merits. It is
therefore, the above issue No. 1 and 2 are answered
accordingly.
Issue No. 3:
22. It is claimed by the Party II that the reference
has been made by the appropriate Government
without any material on record, in haste and
without application of mind, however, no evidence
has been led to that effect. Hence, the issue No. 3
is answered in the negative.
Issue No. 4:
23. Needless to mention, the Party I have
sufficiently proved that the action of the Party II
in deducting 50% wages for four days i.e. from
13-1-2009 to 16-1-2009 of the workmen is illegal
and unjustified and therefore they are entitled for
the reliefs claimed. Hence, the above issue is
answered in the affirmative.
24. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i)
It is hereby held that the action of M/s. MRF
Limited, Tisk, Usgao, Ponda, Goa, in
deducting 50% wages for four days i.e. from
13-01-2009 to 16-01-2009, of all the workmen
who are the members of Goa MRF Union, is
illegal and unjustified.
(ii)
Consequently, the Party II is directed to pay
the Party I workmen full wages for four days
i.e. from 13-01-2009 to 16-01-2009 with all
consequential benefits.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
961
(iii)
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
________
Notification
No. 28/2/2020-LAB/184
The following Award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on
14-02-2020 in reference No. IT/93/98 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, 6th March, 2020.
______
IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR
COURT
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding
Officer)
Ref. No. IT/93/98
Workmen
Rep. by the President,
Hotel Goan Heritage Staff Union,
Gaurawaddo, Calangute,
Bardez-Goa.
… Workmen/Party I
V/s
M/s. Hotel Goan Heritage,
Calangute,
Bardez-Goa.
… Employer/Party II
Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Shri A. S.
Eremita.
Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri P. J.
Kamat.
AWARD
(Delivered on this the 14th day of the month
of February, of the year 2020)
By Order dated 29-09-1998, bearing No. IRM/
/CON-MAP/(25)/-98/1099, the Government of Goa
in exercise of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The
Act), has referred the following dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Hotel Goan Heritage, Calangute, Bardez-Goa,
in terminating the services of the following workmen
with effect from 14-05-1998, is legal and justified?
(1) Shri Alex Lopes, Trainee Captain.
(2) Shri Valerian Britto, Pantry men.
(3) Shri Sanjeev Naik, Accounts Assistant.
(4) Shri Ireneu Gonsalves, Steward.
(5) Smt. Rita Fernandes, Floor Supervisor.
(6) Shri Chandu Chavan, Gardener.
(2)
If not, to what relief the above workmen are
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, it was registered
as IT/93/98 and registered A/D notices were issued
to both the parties. Upon appearance, Party I filed
a Claim statement at Exh. 5 and Party II filed a
Written statement at Exh. 6.
3. In short, the case of Party I in the claim
statement is that the Party II is a two starred hotel
at Calangute and there are various employees
employed in the said hotel in various designations.
The workers formed a union by name Hotel Goan
Heritage Staff Union due to various unfair labour
practices and exploitation of the workers in the
said hotel. The members of the union were harassed
for one reason or the other in order to weaken the
union activities. The Union raised various demands
before the Party II for the welfare of the workers in
the hotel and also filed a Charter of demands and
as long pending grievances and demands were
not solved, a strike notice was addressed to the
Party II. The Party II thereafter on 30-6-1997 issued
a charge sheet to the Party I workmen viz. Alex
Lopes, Valerian Britto and Rosario Fernandes. The
Party I thereafter approached the Chairman/
/General Manager and the discussions were held
pertaining to the charge sheets and it was resolved
that the charge sheets will be withdrawn.
4. The Party I workman viz. Alex Lopes was
appointed as trainee steward vide order dated
7-2-1990 and at the time of dismissal he was
employed as trainee captain. He was President of
the Union and in that capacity he raised various
demands before the Party II. The workman was
charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 30-6-1997
for making derogatory remarks against the
management. However, till date the workman was
not given any opportunity of hearing to controvert
the charges nor departmental enquiry was
conducted. The workman was dismissed vide order
dated 14-10-1998 alleging that he along with 23
workers abstained from work in concerted action
to disrupt the smooth work of the hotel. No
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
962
departmental enquiry was held in respect of the
charges. It is also claimed by the Party I, Shri Alex
Lopes by way of amendment that he was promoted
to the post of Trainee Captain and he was to be
regularized as Captain after six months probation
period in Grade V and was drawing salary in terms
of Grade V and that he was thereafter illegally
terminated from service with effect from 14-5-1998
and that if he had to continue to be in service,
then he would definitely be promoted in Grade VI
(Sr. Captain). The termination of the Party I workman
was illegal and therefore he should be promoted
and re-instated along with full back wages with
interest and all benefits that would accrue to him.
5. In the written statement, Party II has
contended that the Party II is a two starred hotel
mainly catering to the foreign tourists and therefore
certain level of code of conduct and discipline is
expected of staff employed by such establishment
and any misconduct or misdeed on the part of
employees affect the working and reputation of
the hotel. The Party I workmen are involved in
various acts of misbehaviour and non co-operation.
The Party I Shri Alex Lopes was initially appointed
as a Trainee Steward and that he was thereafter
promoted as Trainee Captain and that the post of
Trainee Captain is a supervisory post and the work
performed by him was of supervisory nature and
therefore he is not a workman. Shri Lopes was
hostile towards management during the period of
his service and was acting against the interest of
the management. He became the President of the
Union and under the cover of Presidentship started
writing defamatory and threatening letters to the
management on non existing issues and resorted
to sudden strike to pressurize the management to
agree to the unreasonable demands.
6. The Party II further claimed that and on
27-2-1998 when the occupancy of the hotel was
almost 100% with foreign guests, about 23 workers,
members of the union, abstained from work to
disrupt the smooth work of the hotel and the said
act of absenteeism on the part of the workmen
amounted to resorting to an illegal and unjustified
strike without any prior notice. Show cause notices
were issued to the workers who resorted to strike
by absenting from work, however the workers have
refused to accept the show cause notices at the
instances of the Party I workmen. The Party I
workmen along with the other staff on 25-2-1998
forced their entry into executive dining room and
abused the General Manager with filthy and
indecent language. The Party I workmen along with
others were deserting their place of work very often
and threatening the superiors. The past records of
Shri Lopes were not satisfactory as he was charge
sheet on 6-6-1997 for habitual absence during the
period from December, 1996 to May, 1997. The acts
of misconducts on the part of Shri Lopes being
gross and serious and not satisfactory, the Party II
dismissed him from services by letter dated
14-5-1998. The action of the management in
terminating the services of Shri Lopes for the
misconduct is just and proper and therefore, the
reference be dismissed.
7. In the rejoinder at Exh. 7, the Party I denied
the case put forth by Party II in written statement.
8. Issues that came to be framed at Exh. 8 are as
follows:
(1) Whether the Party I proves that since the
Party II terminated the services of the
workmen without holding any enquiry, the
Party II is not entitled to lead any evidence
before this Tribunal to prove the charges
of misconduct?
(2) Whether the Party I proves that termination
of services of the workmen by the Party II
is by way of unfair labour practice and
victimization?
(3) Whether the Party I prove that the
action of the Party II in terminating the
services of the workmen is illegal and
unjustified?
(4) Whether the Party II proves that the
workman Mr. Alex Lopes is not a
“workman” within the meaning of Section
2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947?
(5) Whether the Party I proves that the
workman Miss Rita Fernandes is not a
“workman” within the meaning of Section
2(s) of the I. D. Act, 1947?
(6) Whether the Party II proves that the
workmen are guilty of the charges of
misconduct levelled against them?
(7) Whether the workmen are entitled to any
relief?
(8) What Award?
9. It is a matter of record that issue No. 1, 4 and
5 which were framed as preliminary issues were
answered by Order dated 3-7-2009 by my
predecessor. It has been held that the Party II is
entitled to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to
prove the charges levelled against the workman/
/employee involved in the reference and that the
employee, Shri Alex Lopes and Mrs. Rita Fernandes
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
963
are held to be workmen within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the Act. It is also a matter of record
that the Party I workmen including Shri Valerian
Britto, Shri Sanjeev Naik, Shri Ireneu Gonsalves,
Smt. Rita Fernandes and Shri Chandu Chavan have
filed the terms of settlement before the Court and
thus settled the matter.
10. The Party I examined Shri Alex Martin Lopes
on issue No. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 and produced on record
a copy of written statement of Party II dated
12-6-98 filed before Labour Commissioner at
Exh. 104, a copy of letter dated 28-5-98 addressed
by Hotel Goa Heritage Staff Union to Party II at
Exh. 105, a copy of letter dated 29-5-98 by Hotel
Goa Heritage Staff Union to ALC at Exh. 106, a
copy of letter dated 26-5-98 addressed by Party II
to Hotel Goa Heritage Staff Union at Exh. 107, a
copy of letter dated 20-5-98 addressed to Party II
by Hotel Goa Heritage Staff Union at Exh. 108, a
copy of letter dated 20-5-98 addressed to Party II
by Hotel Goa Heritage Staff Union and letter
addressed to Inspectorate of Police at Exh. 109 colly,
a copy of letter dated 21-4-98 addressed by Party
I to Party II at Exh. 110, a copy of letter dated 4-3-
98 issued by Party II to the President and the staff
union at Exh. 111, a copy of fresh Charter of
demands dated 20-1-98 addressed by Union to
Chairman & G.M. of Party II at Exh. 112, a copy of
letter dated 12-11-97 addressed to the G.M. of Party
II by the Union at Exh. 113, a copy of letter dated
6-6-97 issued to Alex Lopes at Exh. 114, a copy of
reply dated 9-6-97 filed by Alex Lopes at Exh. 115,
a copy of letter dated 24-12-97 addressed to G.M.
by President of the Union at Exh. 116, a copy of
application of registration of Hotel Goa Heritage
Staff Union dated 20-12-96 along with Form A and
other documents at Exh. 117 colly, a copy of
certificate of registration of trade union dated
17-1-97 at Exh. 118, a copy of letter of appreciation
dated 26-7-91 at Exh. 119, a copy of letter dated
12-6-98 addressed to the Labour Commissioner by
the Union at Exh. 120, a copy of letter dated 2-3-97
addressed to the Chairman, Shri Flaviano Pimenta
at Exh. 121, a copy of reply dated 17-3-97 by
Shri Flaviano Pimenta at Exh. 122, a copy of
appointment letter dated 7-2-90 of Alex Lopes at
Exh. 123, a copy of charge-sheet dated 30-6-97
issued to Alex Lopes at Exh. 124, a copy of
dismissal order dated 14-5-98 issued to Alex Lopes
at Exh. 125, a copy of Notice of reference dated
12-10-1998 at Exh. 126.
11. In the cross examination, Shri Lopes
also produced on record a copy of reply dated
16-11-1993 at Exh.127, a copy of reply dated
15-5-1995 at Exh.128, a copy of reply to the
termination letter dated 18-6-1998 at Exh. 129 colly,
copies of letters dated 30-1-1997, 1-2-1997 and
24-12-1996 at Exh. 130 colly, a copy of receipt
from Western Union dated 29-6-2017 at Exh. 130-A.
Shri Alex Lopes was re-examined as per Order dated
25-1-2019 at Exh. 138 and produced on record a
copy of Memorandum of settlement dated 5-8-1991
at Exh. 141, a copy of Memorandum of settlement
dated 24-1-1996 at Exh. 142, a copy of Memorandum
of settlement dated 20-4-2009 at Exh. 143, a copy
of Memorandum of settlement dated 14-1-2012 at
Exh. 144, a copy of Memorandum of settlement
dated 13-2-2015 at Exh. 145, a copy of Memorandum
of settlement dated 26-3-2018 at Exh. 146, a copy
of application under RTI Act received by the
O/o Commissioner, Labour and Employment, Govt.
of Goa on 21-3-2018 at Exh. 147. Shri Alex Lopes
was also re-examined as per Order dated 26-8-2019
at Exh. 151 and produced on record notarized copies
of I. D. Card as Steward and as Captain at Exh. 153
colly, a copy of Circular dated 13-12-1993 at
Exh. 154, copies of wage slips from 1993 to 1998 at
Exh. 155 colly, a copy of Duty Chart (2 pages) at
Exh. 156.
12. Heard arguments. Notes of Written
arguments came to be placed on record by Party I
as well as Party II.
13. I have gone through the records of the case
and have duly considered the arguments advanced.
My answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 2
…
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 3
…
In the affirmative.
Issue No. 6
…
In the negative.
Issue No. 7
…
As per final order.
Issue No. 8
…
As per final order.
REASONS
Issue No. 2, 3 and 6:
14. It is well settled in the case of D. K. Yadav
vs. J. M. A. Industries Ltd., 1993 SCC (L&S) 723
that no man should be condemned unheard in order
to prevent authority from acting arbitrarily affecting
the rights of the person concerned and that no
decision must be taken which will affect the right
of any person without his/her being informed of
the case and giving him/her an opportunity of
putting forward his/her case as an order involving
civil consequences must be made consistently with
the rules of natural justice and fair play. It is also
held in the case of Mahinder Singh Gill vs. Chief
Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 that the
duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard
will be implied from the nature of the function to
be performed by the authority which has the power
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
964
to take punitive or damaging action. They have a
duty to proceed in a way which is free from even
the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness
or unfairness and that they have to act in a manner
which is patently impartial and meets the
requirements of natural justice. The procedure
prescribed must be just, fair and reasonable even
though there is no specific provision in a statute
or rules made thereunder for showing cause against
action proposed to be taken against an individual,
which affects the right of that individual.
15. Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat for the Party II has
submitted that the allegations for termination of
service of the Party I, Shri Lopes are mentioned in
the letter of termination at Exh. 54 as well as in the
written statement. The Party I Shri Alex Lopes
became the President of the Union and under the
cover of Presidentship started writing defamatory
and threatening letters to the Party II on non-
existing issues and also resorted to sudden strikes
and issued threats of strike during the peak season
to pressurize the management to agree to the
unreasonable demands and when the occupancy
of the hotel was almost 100% on 22-2-1998, about
23 workers, members of the union abstained from
work in concerted action to disrupt the smooth
work of the hotel. Show cause notices issued to
them were refused and on 25-2-1998, the Party I
along with the other staff forced their entry into
the executive dining room and abused the General
Manager with filthy and indecent language and
threatened to assault him. The Party I along with
the other workers was deserting their place of work
and was threatening the supervisor when
questioned. The past record of the Party I, Shri
Lopes was not satisfactory. The Party I was issued
show cause notices and the charge sheet on
30-6-1997. The Party I was involved in all such
incidences and therefore, he was dismissed on
14-5-1998. He further submitted that in the matter
of Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills vs. Nand Kishore Singh,
1950 (2) SCLJ 1353, the Apex Court has held that
when the workman was guilty of insubordination
and if his attitude was such as would not be
conducive to the maintenance of discipline, he
would be guilty of such misconduct and cannot
escape the punishment of dismissal.
16. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri A. S. Eremita for the
Party I has submitted that the Party II has miserably
failed to prove that the workman, Shri Alex Lopes
was guilty of charges of misconduct levelled against
him and that he has been terminated without
conducting any departmental enquiry in respect
of the purported charge sheet and he was targeted
by Party II on account of his union activities. He
further submitted that upon perusal of dismissal
order dated 14-5-1998 at Exh. 54, it is observed that
the termination was sought basically on the
grounds viz. (a) alleged involvement in strike on
22nd February, 1998; (b) alleged refusal of show
cause notices by other workmen alleged to be upon
instance of Shri Alex Lopes and other office bearers
of the union; (c) alleged entry by Shri Lopes and
other office bearers of the union in the dining room
on 25th February, 1998 and abusing the General
Manager with indecent words and (d) charge
sheets dated 6-6-1997 and 30-6-1997, which have
not been proved by the Party II as the said
allegations are false and baseless which are
intended only to illegally terminate the services of
the Party I workman.
17. The Party II in support to their allegations
against Shri Alex Lopes has examined the
Personnel Manager, Shri William D’Souza who
claimed that Shri Lopes was hostile towards the
management and was acting against the interest
of the management as the President of the Hotel
Heritage Staff Union and that on 22-2-1998, when
the occupancy of the hotel was almost full with
foreign tourists, about 23 workers including Ireneu,
members of the Union abstained from work and
the said act of mass absenteeism amounted to
resorting illegal and unjustified strike without any
notice. It is claimed by Party II that 23 workmen
had allegedly abstained from work to disrupt the
smooth work of the hotel and yet the Party II had
taken action only against 6 workmen who were
office bearers of the Union. There is no dispute
that show cause notices at Exh. 47 colly were
issued to all the 23 workers who had gone on
alleged strike, however none of the letters speak of
involvement of Alex Lopes or instigation of the
said workers nor any notice was issued to him by
registered post.
18. Shri William D’Souza in the cross examination
has admitted that the workers had joined the duties
on 24-2-1998 however there is no attendance record
from 22-2-1998 to 24-2-1998. He admitted that the
Party II maintains the records of all the workers
and the residential address of the workers are
available with the Party II, however no action was
taken against the workers who abstained from duty
on 22-2-1998. Shri Alex Lopes on page 6 of the
cross examination has denied that on 22-2-1998
when the occupancy of the hotel was full about 23
workers at his instigation abstained from work and
he claimed that it was his off day being Sunday.
The said fact has not been denied by the Party II.
Shri William D’Souza in the cross examination
has stated that he does not recollect whether
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
965
22-2-1998 was a Sunday and whether Shri Alex
Lopes and two others were on off day. The Duty
chart produced by the Party I at Exh. 156 colly also
show ‘Off duty on Sunday’ as against Shri Alex
Lopes and therefore, the allegation of Party II that
Party I workman, Alex Lopes was involved in the
strike on 22-2-1998 is baseless intended only to
illegally terminate his services.
19. The allegation that the workmen refused the
show cause notices upon the instigation of Alex
Lopes and other office bearers of the union also
cannot be countenanced as the notices dated
24-2-1998 at Exh. 47 colly with respect to the strike
were never served on any workmen. The Party II
could have easily served the workmen by sending
it to them by registered post at their residential
address. Shri William has admitted in the cross
examination that other 23 workers who had
abstained from work were issued memos. He
claimed that the notices issued to 10 workers who
had abstained from work from 22-2-1998 are at
Exh. 47 colly and the names of other workers who
had abstained from work on said day are
mentioned on the said notices. He claimed that
the said workers have refused to accept the notices
but does not know whether the remaining workers
who had abstained from work had also refused to
accept the notices. He admitted that the Party II
had not sent the notices by registered post,
although their residential addresses were available
with them. No explanation has been given in that
regard. There is no attendance records of the said
workers from 22-2-1998 to 24-2-1998 as admitted by
Shri William and therefore, the allegation that the
Party I workers have refused to accept the notices
issued to them by the Party II at the instigation of
the Party I is unfounded and baseless.
20. The allegation of the Party II that Shri Alex
Lopes and other office bearers of the union had
entered and abused the General Manager on
25-2-1998 is also without any substance as the
General Manager, Shri Anthony Vales had not
stepped into the witness box to prove the said
allegation as the said fact was to his own personal
knowledge. Shri William has claimed that he was
aware of the fact that at the relevant time the
Union had raised issues towards non-payment of
ESI and Provident Fund to the authorities
concerned within the prescribed time for the
period from 1997 to 1998. He also admitted that at
that time, Shri Anthony Vales was the General
Manager who used to deal with the issues raised
by the workmen. None of the other workmen have
been examined to prove the said fact of entering
and abusing the General Manager as it is their
case that Shri Lopes and one Luis Silveira in one
voice entered and abused him. It therefore cannot
be said that the Party II has proved the said
allegation.
21. It is also alleged that the Party I workman
was issued charge sheet dated 6-6-1997 for habitual
absence during the period from December 1996 to
May 1997 and charge sheet dated 30-6-1997 for
allegedly making derogatory statement against the
Chairman and the General Manager of the company
at Exh.53. The alleged charge sheet dated
30-6-1997 was never served upon said Shri Lopes,
in any event the said charge sheet deals with
events almost one year prior to dismissal of the
workman. Shri William D’Souza also admitted in
the cross examination that he does not recollect
that any enquiry was conducted in respect of
charge sheet dated 30-6-1997 issued to Shri Lopes
or that any action was taken against him for
committing the acts stated in the charge sheet. It
is therefore the allegations made by Party II against
the workman, Shri Alex Lopes in the charge sheet
dated 30-6-2017 at Exh. 53 are unsubstantiated and
baseless.
22. The Notice/charge sheet dated 6-6-1997 at
Exh.48 was replied to by the Party I by way of
letter dated 9-6-1997 at Exh 115 giving explanation
for alleged absenteeism and the Party II did not
proceed with the said letter and even did not make
any enquiry as admitted by Shri William D’Souza
in his cross examination where he has stated that
there are no records to show that the Party I was
unauthorizedly absent on the days specified in the
notice dated 6-6-1997 and that he had not seen the
attendance record on the basis of which the notice
at Exh. 48 dated 6-6-1997 was issued. The Party II
have also not produced on record the amount of
earned leaves and other statutory leave periods
available to the Party I. The Party II ought to have
produced the documents to show the days of
absence of Party I and only if the same exceeded
the leave periods available to the Party I, the
Party II was entitled to take action against the
Party I. It is therefore the only conclusion is that
the charges of absenteeism against the Party I
remained unsubstantiated. The allegation that Shri
Lopes along with Valerian Britto have been
deserting their place of work and threatening the
superiors when questioned also remained
unsubstantiated as Shri William has admitted that
he has not record to support the said allegation.
23. Shri William has also admitted in the cross
examination that before termination of services of
the Party I, no show cause notice was issued to
him as to why the services should not be
terminated and also no enquiry was conducted
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
966
into the allegations laid down in the dismissal letter
nor opportunity was given to the Party I of being
heard and therefore the termination of services of
the Party I, Shri Alex Lopes is illegal and non est
and therefore it is clear that the Party II has failed
to prove any misconducts allegedly committed by
the Party I including that there was monetary loss
or loss of clients on account of alleged misconduct,
misbehaviour and non-co-operation on the part of
the Party I, Shri Lopes and therefore, the Party II
has failed to prove that the workman, Shri Lopes
was guilty of charges of misconduct leveled against
him and on the contrary, the Party I, Shri Lopes has
proved that the termination of services by the
Party II is by way of unfair labour practice and
victimization and that the action of the Party II in
terminating his services is illegal and unjustified
and hence the issue No. 2 and 3 are answered in
the affirmative and issue No. 6 is answered in the
negative.
Issue No. 7 and 8:
24. The question therefore is what reliefs the
Party I is entitled to, once it is held that the
termination of Party I workman, Shri Lopes is illegal,
whether the Party I is entitled for re-instatement
with full back wages and continuity in service
with consequential benefits attached to the post
or adequate monetary compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages.
25. Ld. Adv. Shri Eremita has submitted that the
Party I was initially employed with the Party II as
a Trainee Steward and thereafter regularized to
the post of steward on completion of probation
period. He was thereafter promoted to the post of
Trainee Captain to be on probation for a period of
six months and thereafter to be regularized to the
post of Captain and at the time of termination of
services on 14-5-1998, he was working as a Captain
as evident from the ID card at Exh. 153 colly as
well as Circular dated 13-12-1993 at Exh. 154, Wage
slips at Exh. 155 colly and Duty chart at Exh. 156
and if the Party I had to continue in service, he
would definitely be promoted to the post of Sr.
Captain with corresponding increments in his
wages and therefore, the Party I Shri Alex Lopes is
entitled to the post of Captain together with the
back wages and all the benefits available under
the law including promotion and other benefits on
retirement and in support thereof, he relied upon
the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Maha-vidhyalaya (D.ED) & Ors.,
(2013) 10 SCC 324.
26. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat for the
Party II has submitted that the post of Trainee
Captain was not there with the Party II in the year
1991 when the settlement of 5-8-1991 was signed
and the said post was created in the year 1993 and
the Party I was promoted vide the letter dated
1-4-1993 and after dismissal of the Party I in May,
1998, the said post was kept vacant as there was
no need of Trainee Captain and eventually it was
abolished in the year 2009 under clause 2 of the
Settlement dated 20-4-2009 at Exh. 55. The Party I
has brought on record all the settlements at Exh.
141 to 146 and is claiming full back wages based
on the said settlements. The post of Trainee Captain
under settlement at Exh. 55 was abolished and as
such the relief, if any to the Party I can be given
only up to 31-3-2008 which is effective date of the
said settlement and not beyond that. The Party I
thereafter by way of amendment has claimed that
after six months as Trainee Captain he was to be
regularized as Captain and thereafter as Sr. Captain
and the said contentions are afterthoughts and are
made only to claim back wages from 1-4-2008 i.e.
after abolition to the post of Trainee Captain. The
Party I cannot be granted relief in terms of
reinstatement with or without wages as Trainee
Captain, which post the Party II has abolished. The
Party I cannot be given relief in any other post
when the said post was not in existence from
1-4-2008. The Hon’ble Tribunal also cannot direct
the Party II to create a post of Trainee Captain to
accommodate the Party I or to accommodate him
in some other post higher than the Trainee Captain
as that was not the issue referred to this Hon’ble
Tribunal as creation or abolition of post and
regularization are a purely an executive function.
27. Ld. Adv. Shri Kamat has further submitted
that the Party I has now after 20 years of litigation,
sought to change his stand that he was to be
confirmed as Captain after six months and then
promoted as Sr. Captain at the fag end of the
proceedings when he realized that the post of
Trainee Captain was abolished. Relying upon the
case of Haryana State Co-op. Land Development
Bank vs. Neelam, 2005-06 SCLJ 911, he submitted
that an employee can be reinstated only to the
post which he was holding at the time of his
termination. He further submitted that the
Industrial Tribunal derives the jurisdiction from the
reference and the specific issue was in the
reference relates to the legality and justifiability of
the termination of Shri Lopes as a Trainee Captain
and the question whether the Party I would have
been confirmed as a Captain and/or promoted as
Sr. Captain is not an issue at all and therefore, the
issue which is not referred to it for adjudication
cannot be decided and in support thereof, he relied
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
967
upon the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
vs. Om Prakash Sharma, 2005-06 SCLJ 1055 and
therefore what is to be decided is whether
termination of Shri Lopes w.e.f. 14-5-1998 as a
Trainee Captain is legal and justified.
28. Ld. Adv. Shri Kamat has also submitted that
for granting the relief, the Tribunal has to see if
during said period of litigation whether the Party
I was employed elsewhere, whether the Party I had
tried to secure job elsewhere during the said period
and that how Party I maintained himself during all
these period. The Party I has not pleaded in his
evidence that he was not gainfully employed
elsewhere and that he had tried for jobs but could
not get and as to how he maintained himself and
his family during all this period of litigation and
that the burden is on the Party I to prove the above
fact. Shri Lopes has admitted that he has not
applied for employment in any other establishment
after his termination; his wife is housewife and he
has three children studying. He claimed that he is
getting money from his uncle from Canada. The
Party II has examined Shri Sudesh Pednekar, the
investigator with M/s. Cobra Detective and Security
Services who deposed that he conducted
investigation in respect of gainful employment of
Shri Alex Lopes and that on 27-12-2013 at around
11.30 a.m., he met his wife who informed him that
Shri Lopes is working on his tourist taxi bearing
No. GA-03-K-2320 and that on 8-1-2004, he called
Shri Chandu Chawan on his mobile who informed
him the fact of Shri Lopes running a tourist taxi.
Shri William D’Sousa also stated that the Party I
was also engaged in providing cable network
services in Calangute and other places and earning
more than 10,000/- per month. The Party I has
therefore failed to prove that he was not gainfully
employed.
29. The Party I workman was initially employed
as Trainee Steward and thereafter regularized and
thereafter promoted to the post of Trainee Captain
to be on probation for a period of six months. Exhibit
W-2 is the appointment of the Party I as Trainee
Captain on 1-4-1993 wherein it is stated that on
successful completion of training period of six
months, he will be confirmed in writing as Captain,
if his services are found to be satisfactory and of
standard. There is nothing on record in writing
produced by the Party I that he has been
regularized to the post of Captain as per Exh.
W-2. He claimed that at the time of termination he
was working as Captain and produced on record
ID card at Exh. 153 colly, Circular dated 13-12-1993
at Exh. 154, Wage slips at Exh. 155 colly and Duty
charts at Exh. 156. The said documents have been
disputed by the Party II, which in any case have
not been proved by Party I as the identity card
does not bear the name of the Manager and/or
as to when it was issued. The Circular dated
13-12-1993 at Exh. 154 is also not an appointment
letter, although the word ‘Captain’ has been
bracketed below the name of Alex Lopes. Exh. 155
colly are the wage slips but they do not refer Shri
Alex Lopes as Captain. The Duty charts at Exh. 156
also do not bear the signature of the person who
had issued nor there is indication that it pertains
to the Party II.
30. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by Ld. Adv.
Shri P. J. Kamat it is throughout the case of
Party I in the claim statement, rejoinder as well as
in the affidavit-in-evidence that he was holding
the post of Trainee Captain till the recording of
evidence before the Tribunal on 14-11-2017. The
Party I for the first time after 20 years of litigation
sought to change his stand that he was confirmed
as Captain after six months and then promoted
as Sr. Captain, which defense is clearly an
afterthought. Moreover, the specific issue in the
reference relates to the legality and justifiability of
termination of Shri Lopes as a Trainee Captain and
question whether he has been confirmed as a
Captain and/or promoted as Sr. Captain is not an
issue at all. The Tribunal is not entitled to pass an
order beyond the terms of reference. Moreover, the
documents produced on record also do not
conclusively establish that he was confirmed to
the post of Captain and promoted as Sr. Captain as
claimed by the Party I and therefore, the claim of
the Party I that he was a Captain at the time of his
termination cannot be accepted.
31. It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court that relief by way of reinstatement
with back wages is not automatic, even if
termination of an employee is found to be illegal or
is in contravention of the prescribed procedure
and that monetary compensation in lieu of
reinstatement and back wages in cases of such a
nature may be appropriate. In the instant case,
the Party I workman, Shri Alex Lopes was working
as Trainee Captain at the time of termination of his
service and as per the deposition of the Party I,
Lopes at Exh. 14, as on 18-1-2001, the Party I was
37 years of age and as on date, the Party I is more
than 55 years of age, although no proof by way of
birth certificate has been produced by Party I. There
is no dispute that the age of retirement of the
employee with the Party II is 58 years and therefore
he would cross superannuation in next three years
or so. The Party I Shri Alex Lopes has reached
closer to the date of superannuation, so also that
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
968
the Party II has lost confidence in him considering
that he was involved in union activities and
therefore he is not entitled for reinstatement as a
matter of right, even though his termination has
been termed as illegal and bad in law. The Party I
therefore will not be entitled for reinstatement and
in lieu thereof he could be compensated with an
amount equivalent to full back wages for the period
from the date of award till the date of
superannuation along with all the consequential
benefits, including the benefits of all the
settlements.
32. There are also no pleadings by Party I
workman that he has not been employed after he
was terminated nor he has stated what efforts he
has made for securing gainful employment. The
Party II has produced on record through Shri Sudesh
Pednekar the confidential report dated 9-1-2014
along with CD and certificate dated 4-7-2016 at
Exh. 99 colly and Exh. 100 in support of the fact
that the Party I was gainfully employed and was
working on his tourist taxi bearing No. GA-03-K-2320,
however there is nothing on record that said tourist
taxi was in the name of Shri Lopes and that he
found him plying the said taxi. On the contrary,
Shri William has admitted that the said Maruti
Omni is shown in the name of Agnelo Sequeira
and Anthony Sequeira in the Registration
Certificate. Shri Pednekar only claimed that he
met his wife and one Chandu Chawan who
informed the said fact of Shri Lopes running a
tourist taxi and therefore the said evidence is not
sufficient to prove that Shri Lopes was gainfully
employed. The claim of Shri William that Shri Lopes
was also providing cable network services in
Calangute and other places and earning more
than Rs. 10,000/- is also not supported by any
evidence.
33. Admittedly, the Party I, Shri Lopes was
illegally terminated from the services w.e.f.
14-5-1998 as Trainee Captain in Grade IV. The
Party I has produced on record the Settlements at
Exh. 141 to 146 which would also be applicable to
Shri Alex Lopes, if he had to continue in service,
even if it is considered that he was in Grade IV as
Trainee Captain. The Apex Court in the case of
Deepali Gundu Surwase, supra has clearly held
that if the employer wants to avoid payment of full
back wages, then it has to plead and also lead
cogent evidence to prove that the employee was
gainfully employed and was getting wages equal
to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the
termination of the service. The Party II has failed to
prove as stated earlier that the Party I was gainfully
employed. It is therefore, once it is found that the
workman was not guilty of any misconduct or that
the employer has foisted a false charge or is guilty
of victimizing the workman, then there will be
ample justification for award for full back wages.
There is no dispute that at the time of termination
of his services, he was in Grade IV as Trainee
Captain, no doubt, the said post has been abolished
however the grade continues. It cannot be accepted
and it would amount to great injustice to a
workman or an employee if he is denied back wages
simply because there is long lapse of time between
termination of service and finality given to the
order of passing of an award as held in the case of
Deepali Gundu Surwase, supra. Needless to
mention, it has been found that the allegations
leveled against the Party I are frivolous and that he
was not gainfully employed ever since he was
terminated from the services and therefore, he is
entitled for entire back wages from the date of
termination till date. It is also matter of record that
the Party I was being paid 75% of suspension
allowance as per order at Exh. 37 till date which
is required to be adjusted at the time of payment
of back wages. Hence, the above issues are
answered accordingly.
34. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i)
The present reference stands partly
allowed.
(ii)
It is hereby held that the action of the
management of M/s. Hotel Goan Heritage,
Calangute, Bardez-Goa, in terminating the
services of the workman, Shri Alex Lopes
with effect from 14-05-1998, is illegal and
unjustified.
(iii) Consequently, the Party II is directed to pay
the Party I workman, Shri Alex Lopes, in
lieu of reinstatement, an amount equivalent
to full back wages for the period from the
date of award till the date of superannuation
along with all the consequential benefits,
including the benefits of all the settlements.
(iv) The Party II is also directed to pay the Party
I workman, Shri Alex Lopes an amount
equivalent to full back wages for the period
from the date of termination till the date of
award, along with all consequential
benefits, including the benefits of all the
settlements, after deducting the amount of
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
969
subsistence allowance already paid to him
from time to time, within 60 days of the
publication of the Award, failing which the
Party II shall pay an interest @ 9% per
annum.
(v)
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Vincent D’Silva)
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal and
Labour Court.
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
__
Order
No. 5/40-3/89/LD(Estt)/567
Whereas, the Government vide Notification
No. 5/40-3/89/LD(Estt) dated 29-09-1989, published
in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 31 dated
02-11-1989, appointed Mr. Fatu Bhavanath Bhaangi,
Advocate (hereinafter referred as the “Applicant”)
as a Notary for period of three years with effect
from 01-10-1989, in and throughout the area of
Margao Judicial Senior Division;
And whereas, the Government vide Certificate
of Practice dated 29-09-1989 has certified that the
Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for
a period of three years from 01-10-1989 in and
throughout the area of Margao Judicial Senior
Division;
And whereas, the Government on the request of
the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of
Practice as a Notary for subsequent 06 terms upto
01-10-2013 and the period of validity of the
Certificate of Practice in the Endorsement dated
06-11-2013 issued to the Applicant expired on
30-09-2018;
And whereas, the Applicant has failed to renew
his Certificate of Practice six months prior to expiry
of the period of validity of the said Certificate of
Practice until his period expired on i.e. 30-09-2018,
as required under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of
the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952) and
sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 B of the Notaries Rules, 1956
(hereinafter referred as the “said Act” and “said
Rule”) and the Applicant has failed to submit the
mandatory annual returns, since his last renewal
i.e. 29-10-2013, as per Rule 14 of the Notaries
Rules, 1956.
And now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of
Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa
hereby removes the name of applicant entered as
a Notary from the Register maintained by it under
Section 4 of the said Act.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 5th March, 2020.
________
Order
No. 9-18-2004-LD(Estt)Part-II(37)/564
Whereas, the Government vide Notification
No. 9-18-2004-LD(Estt)/PartII-(36)/3068 dated
09-07-2009, published in the Official Gazette, Series
II No. 17 dated 23-07-2009, appointed Mr. Trivikram
Narayan Pai Raiturkar, Advocate (hereinafter
referred as the “Applicant”) as a Notary for period
of five years with effect from 09-07-2009, for the
area of Salcete taluka;
And whereas, the Government vide Certificate
of Practice dated 09-07-2009 has certified that the
Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for
a period of three years from 09-07-2009 in the area
of Salcete taluka;
And whereas, the Government on the request of
the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of
Practice as a Notary for subsequent 02 terms and
the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice
in the Endorsement dated 15-05-2014 issued to the
Applicant expired on 08-07-2019;
And whereas, the Applicant has failed to renew
his Certificate of Practice six months prior to expiry
of the period of validity of the said Certificate of
Practice until his period expired on i.e. 08-07-2019,
as required under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of
the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952) and
sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 B of the Notaries Rules, 1956
(hereinafter referred as the “said Act” and “said
Rule”).
And now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of
Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa
hereby removes from the Register maintained by it
under Section 4 of the said Act, the name of
Applicant entered as a Notary.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 11th March, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
970
Order
No. 12-12-81/LD/574
Whereas, the Government vide Notification No.
12-12-83/LD dated 19-05-1983, published in the
Official Gazette, Series II No. 8 dated 27-11-1983,
appointed Mr. Mohan Anandrao Redkar, Advocate
(hereinafter referred as the “applicant”) as a Notary
for period of three years with effect from
01-05-1983, in and throughout the area of Margao
Judicial Senior Division;
And whereas, the Government vide Certificate
of Practice dated 19-05-1983 has certified that the
Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for
a period of three years from 01-05-1983 in and
throughout the area of Margao Judicial Senior
Division;
And whereas, the Government on the request of
the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of
Practice as a Notary for subsequent 09 terms and
the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice
expires on 07-08-2023 in the Endorsement dated
08-08-2018 issued to the Applicant. However, vide
letter dated 21-11-2019, the spouse of the above
Applicant informed that her husband Shri Mohan
Anandrao Redkar, Advocate who was practicing
as a Notary died on 15-04-2019;
And whereas, the validity of the Endorsement
dated 08-08-2018 to the Certificate of issued to
Mr. Mohan Anandrao Redkar stands withdrawn
and cancelled, since the said Advocate died on
15-04-2019, in the light of the Notaries Act, 1952
(Central Act 53 of 1952) and Notaries Rules,
1956 (hereinafter referred as the “said Act” and
“said Rule”).
And now therefore, in pursuance of Clause (f) of
Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa
hereby removes from the Register maintained by
it under Section 4 of the said Act, the name of
Applicant entered as a Notary.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 11th March, 2020.
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 22/1/2013-PER(Vol.II)/865
The Governor of Goa, on the recommendation
of the Goa Public Service Commission, conveyed
vide their letter No. COM/II/12/37(1)/2015/384
dated 17-02-2020, is pleased to declare the
successful completion of the Probation period w.e.f.
13-11-2015 of the following Junior Scale Officers
(Dy. Superintendent of Police) of Goa Police Service
in the grade.
Sr.
Name of the officers
No.
1. Shri Sammy Tavares.
2. Shri Mahesh K. Gaonkar.
3. Shri Serafin Dias.
4. Shri Lawrence D’Souza.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).
Porvorim, 11th March, 2020.
———uuu———
Department of Public Health
__
Corrigendum
No. 38/165/2009-I/PHD/537
Read: Government Order No. 35/165/2009-I/PHD
dated 09-06-2016.
In the first para of the Government Order dated
09-06-2016 referred to above regarding medical
reimbursement of Government Employees, Freedom
Fighter, MLAs under the Medical Attendance
Rules, the figures “1994” may be corrected to read
as “1944”.
Swati Dalvi, Under Secretary (Health-II).
Porvorim, 12th March, 2020.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 51
19TH MARCH, 2020
971
Government Printing Press
__
Subscription Rates
N o t i c e
The subscribers to the Official Gazette are kindly
reminded that their present subscription term ends
on the 31st March, 2020, being the end of financial year.
In case they wish to continue to be subscribers for the
ensuing financial year 2020-2021 they have to renew their
subscriptions from 1st April, 2020.
Subscriptions also can be opened for half year
i.e. from 1st April or 1st October or for any quarter,
beginning on 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January.
Renewal of subscription from 1st April should be
effected on or before 31st March, 2020 in order to avoid
interruption in the despatch of copies of the Gazette.
It should be noted that, in case the subscription is not
opened/renewed before the commencement of the period
to which it refers, the subscribers will be entitled to receive
copies of the Gazette only from the date the subscription
is actually opened/renewed.
Official Gazette is now available through e-mail
for an annual subscription of Rs. 200/- (Rupees two
hundred only).
The subscription charges are accepted either in cash,
postal order, demand draft or cheques (subject to
clearance) drawn only on State Bank of India, Panaji, in
favour of the Director, Printing and Stationery,
Panaji-Goa.
SUBSCRIPTION RATES
(Within the Union of India)
All 3
Series
Series
Series
Series
I
II
III
Rs. P.
Rs. P.
Rs. P. Rs. P.
For any quarter ..................
900.00
460.00
350.00 175.00
(Postage) ...........................
60.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
For half year ........................
1750.00
920.00
700.00 350.00
(Postage) ...........................
60.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
For any period exceeding
6 months up to one year... 3450.00 1840.00 1400.00 700.00
(Postage) ............................
110.00
60.00
60.00
60.00
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 21.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—394/160–3/2020.