Panaji, 3rd June, 2021 (Jyaistha 13, 1943)

SERIES II No. 10

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

—

Order

No. 3/14/Urban Credit/TS II/BZ/2021/RCS/368

Read: 1. Order No. 48-8-2001-TS-RCS/III/311 dated

21-04-2017.

2. Letter

No.

BUCC/2158/21

dated

04-03-2021.

3. Letter No. ARCS/BZ/ADT/CIRCULAR/

/1283 dated 31-03-2021.

Whereas, Adv. Sushma T. Mandrekar alias

Sushma Harish Chodankar, H. No. 713/33,

Ardhawada, Maem, Bicholim-Goa was appointed

as Registrar’s Nominee under Section 86(1) of the

Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 read with

Rule 116(1) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules,

2003 vide Order read at Sr. No. 1 above.

And whereas, now a request has been received

from The Bordem Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Bordem, Bicholim-Goa vide their letter read at

Sr. No. 2 above to designate Adv. Sushma T.

Mandrekar alias Sushma Harish Chodankar, as their

dedicated nominee to adjudicate disputes referred

by from Adv. Sushma T. Mandrekar alias Sushma

Harish Chodankar.

In view of above, the above named nominee

Adv. Sushma T. Mandrekar alias Sushma Harish

Chodankar, in exercise of powers conferred under

Section 123(B) of the Goa Co-op. Societies Act, 2001

read with Rule 116 of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Rules, 2003, I, the undersigned hereby

authorise the above named nominee to entertain

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-23

167

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

all disputes referred to him by The Bordem Urban

Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Bordem, Bicholim-Goa

without routing it through this department.

When a purported dispute is referred by the

society, the above named nominee is authorised to

first decide under sub-section (1) of Section 86 of

the Goa Co-operative Societies Act whether the

matter referred by society involves a dispute and

pass appropriate Orders under sub-section (1) of

Section 86.

Only upon the nominee satisfying that there

exists a dispute, she shall proceed to adjudicate

the same and give award accordingly. The Nominee

shall abide by the terms and condition on which

he was originally appointed as nominee read

at Sr. 1 above.

This appointment shall come into force with

immediate effect and shall remain in force for one

year and same can be withdrawn at any stage

without assigning any reason.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 21st May, 2021.

________

Order

No. 4/4/Credit/TS-II/BZ/2018/RCS/364

Read: 1) Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/PZ/

/2017/RCS/Suppl/5306 dated 10-02-2020.

2) Order No. 4/4/Credit/TS-II/BZ/2018/RCS/

/197 dated 07-05-2020.

3) Letter No. DNSPM/HO/444/HO/2020-21

dated 19-02-2021 received from the

Chairman of Deendayal Nagari Sahakari

Pathsaunstha Maryadit, Bicholim-Goa.

In exercise of powers conferred upon me vide

Notification read at Sr. No. 1 above, the term of The

Chief Executive Officer of Deendayal Nagari

Sahakari Pathsaunstha Maryadit, Bicholim-Goa

empowered vide Order at Sr. No. 2 to act as

Note:- There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official

Gazette, Series II No. 9 dated 27-05-2021 namely,

Extraordinary dated 28-05-2021 from pages 165

to 166 regarding Order from Department of

Home.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

168

Sale-cum-Recovery Officer as provided under

sub-section (1) of Section 91D of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, in relation to the

recovery of debts and to attach and sell the property

of defaulters or to execute any decree by

attachment and sale of property and execution of

all recovery orders of decree holder viz Deendayal

Nagari Sahakari Pathsaunstha Maryadit, Bicholim-

-Goa passed by the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op.

Societies, ABN/EXE, North Goa District, Ponda-Goa

or the Nominee of Registrar or such other authority

authorized by the Registrar is hereby extended for

further period of one year on following conditions.

1. The Officer empowered with the powers of

Sales-cum-Recovery Officer shall work under

the general guidance, superintendence and

control of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Arbitration/execution, North Goa

District, Ponda-Goa.

2. He shall follow all the procedures as laid down

under the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001

and the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003

or in compliance with any other relevant

provisions of any other Act/Rules and also

bye-laws of the society concerned while

execution of decree.

3. The Board of Directors of the society shall be

fully responsible along with the Officer

empowered with the powers of Sales-cum-

-Recovery Officer for any acts in contravention

of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws.

4. The Board of Directors shall review the

performance of the Officer empowered with the

powers of Sales-cum-Recovery Officer every

month and ensure compliance.

5. The above extension Order shall remain in force

for one year from the date of its issue and the

same can also be withdrawn at any stage

without assigning any reason thereof.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 21st May, 2021.

________

Order

No. 3/1/Urban/TS-II/SZ/2017/RCS/Vol.I/366

Read: 1) Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TSII/

/PZ/2017/RCS/Suppl/5306 dated 10-02-2020.

2) Letter No. SUCCSL/20-21/333 dated

05-11-2020 of the Sahakar Urban Credit

Co-op Society Ltd., Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.

3) Letter No. 29-12/ADT/ARSZ/Recovery/

/Sales Officer/1584 dated 18-11-2020, of

the Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies,

South Zone, Margao.

4) O. M. No. 3/1/Urban/TS-II/PZ/2017/RCS/

/Vol. I/3353 dated 08-01-2021.

5) Letter No. 29-14/20/ADT/ARSZ/Recovery/

/Sales Officer/42 dated 06-04-2021 of the

Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South

Zone, Margao.

In exercise of powers conferred upon me vide

Notification read at Sr. No. 1 above, the General

Manager of the Sahakar Urban Credit Co-operative

Society Ltd., Vasco-da-Gama, Goa is hereby

empowered to act as Sale-cum-Recovery Officer as

provided under sub-section (1) of Section 91D of the

Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, in relation to

the recovery of debts and to attach and sell the

property of defaulters or to execute any decree by

attachment and sale of property and execution of

all recovery orders of decree holder viz The Sahakar

Urban Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa passed by the Assistant

Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Arbitration/

/Execution or the Nominee of Registrar. This

appointment is subject to following conditions:-

1. The Officer empowered with the powers of

Sales-cum-Recovery Officer shall work under

the general guidance, superintendence and

control of the Assistant Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, Arbitration/Execution,

South Goa District, Margao-Goa.

2. He shall follow all the procedures as laid down

under the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001

and the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003

or in compliance with any other relevant

provisions of any other Act/Rules and also bye-

laws of the society concerned while execution

of decree.

3. The Board of Directors of the society shall be

fully responsible along with the Chief

Executive Officer for any acts in contravention

of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws.

4. The Board of Directors shall review the

performance of the General Manager every

month and ensure compliance.

5. This Order shall remain in force for one year

from the date of its issue and the same can

also be withdrawn at any stage without

assigning any reasons thereof.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar (Co-op. Societies).

Panaji, 17th May, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

169

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Art & Culture

Order

No. DAC/7/IMB/Partfile/2020-21/554

In continuation to the Order No. DAC/7/IMB/

/Partfile/2020-21/3663 dated 02-03-2021, the

Government is pleased to extend the service of

Shri Digamber Atmaram Kankonkar, Classic Apts.,

E-66/1, Katye Bhat, Ella Old Goa, Tiswadi-Goa, as

Member Secretary of Institute Menezes Braganza,

Panaji-Goa for one year from 03-02-2021 to

02-02-2022.

This issue with the approval of the Government

vide No. 3482 dated 21-04-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sagun R. Velip, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary

(Art & Culture).

Panaji, 25th May, 2021.

———uuu———

Goa Housing Board

Order

GHB/ADM/205/2021

In exercise of the powers conferred by regula-

tion 3 of the Goa Housing Board (Appointment and

functions of Technical Committee) Regulations,

2012, the Goa Housing Board, with the prior

approval of the Government conveyed vide letter

No. 2/3/2015/HSG/55 dated 01-06-2021, hereby

re-constitutes the Technical Committee consisting

of the following members, namely:—

1. Chairman of the Goa Housing

— Chairman.

Board

2. Secretary-cum-Managing

— Member.

Director of Goa Housing Board

3. Superintendent Engineer,

— Member.

Circle Officer-II,

Public Works Department,

North Goa District

4. Shri Umesh Balkrishna

— Member

Shirodkar, Architect

5. Shri Sanjay Sawant,

— Member.

Architect

6. Housing Engineer,

— Member

Goa Housing Board

Secretary.

This order shall be deemed to have come into

effect from the date of Government approval i.e.

w.e.f. 01-06-2021.

Nikhil Desai, Managing Director (Goa Housing

Board).

Porvorim, 2nd June, 2021.

V. No. AP-113/2021.

Department of Labour

Order

No. 28/16/2021-LAB/237

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the

opinion that an industrial dispute exists between

the management of M/s. HQ, Palette Hotels (I)

Private Limited, Swantantra Path, P.O. Box 31,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa and it’s workmen, represented

by the Goa Trade and Commercial 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 severance of employer/employee

relationship between the management of

M/s. HQ, Palette Hotels (I) Private Limited,

Swantantra Path, P.O. Box 31, Vasco-da-Gama,

Goa and it’s workmen, namely, Ms. Kshama G.

Chodankar, Accountant, Shri Kalpesh Shet

Vernekar, Commi-I and Shri Kalidas Mayekar,

Supervisor in Housekeeping Department,

represented by the Goa Trade and Commercial

Workers Union is on account of termination of

their services or as a result of voluntary action

on part of the workmen?

(2) Based on issue No. (1) above are the workmen

entitled to any relief?”.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 20th May, 2021.

________

Order

No. 28/15/2021-LAB/239

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Herald Publications Private

Limited, Campal Trade Centre, Panaji, Goa and it’s

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

170

workperson, Ms. Andrea Fernandes, Correspondent,

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) or the said Act.

SCHEDULE

“(1) Whether, Ms. Andrea Fernandes, Correspon-

dent, could be construed as “Workman” as

defined under 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. Herald Publications

Private Limited, Campal Trade Centre, Panaji,

Goa, in terminating the services of Ms. Andrea

Fernandes, with effect from 22-11-2019 is legal

and justified?

(3) If answer to issue No. (2) above is negative,

which relief the workperson is entitled to?”.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 20th May, 2021.

________

Order

No. 28/11/2021-LAB/243

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the

opinion that an industrial dispute exists between

the management of M/s. Tevapharm India Private

Limited, Plot A-1, Phase 1-A, Verna Industrial

Estate, Verna, Goa, and its 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 7 A of the said Act.

SCHEDULE

“(A) (1) Whether the transfer of S/Shri Yosobanta

Maharane and Yogesh Pednekar from

packaging section to production section

by the management of M/s. Tevapharm

India Private Limited, Plot A-1, Phase 1-A,

Verna Industrial Estate, Verna-Goa,

amounts to change in service conditions?

(2) If answer to above is in affirmative, then,

to what relief the workmen are entitled?”.

“(B) (1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Tevapharm India Private Limited, Plot

A-1, Phase 1-A, Verna Industrial Estate,

Verna-Goa, in deducting earned wages of

the workmen S/Shri Yosobanta Maharane

and Yogesh Pednekar as mentioned in the

Annexure hereto, is legal and justified?

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

negative, then to what relief the workmen

are entitled?”

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 24th May, 2021.

ANNEXURE

Sr.

Name

Designation

Wage

Amount

No.

of the

period

deducted

workmen

(1) Shri

Operator 3 days for the Rs. 3,975/-.

Yosobanta

month of

Maharane

August, 2019

6 days for the Rs. 7,950/-.

month of Sep-

tember, 2019

(2) Shri Yogesh Operator 3 days for the Rs. 3,287/-.

Pednekar

month of

August, 2019

6 days for the Rs. 6,794/-.

month of Sep-

tember, 2019

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/230

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 26-04-2021 in Case

No. LC-II/R-IT/04/2021, is hereby published as

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

171

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.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 11th May, 2021.

______

THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/R-IT/04/2021

Shri Damodar Mangueshkar,

represented by Cidade-de-Goa Hotel

Employment Union,

Vaiguinim Beach

Dona Paula-Goa

… Workman/Party I

V/s

1. M/s. Cidade de Goa

Vainguinim Beach,

Dona Paula-Goa

… Employer/Party II (1)

2. M/s. Fomento Resorts

Pvt. Ltd.

Vainguinim Beach,

Dona Paula-Goa

… Employer/Party II (2)

Party I/Workman represented by Adv. Shri S.

Gaonkar.

Party II/Employer - Represented by Adv. Shri G. K.

Sardessai.

Panaji, Dated: 26-04-2021.

AWARD

1. In Exercise of the powers conferred by

Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)

the Government of Goa by Order dated 23-01-2007

bearing No. 28/15/2006-LAB/75 referred the

following dispute for adjudication to Labour Court

II of Goa at Panaji, Goa.

(1)

“Whether the action of the Management of

M/s Cidade de Goa, Unit of M/s Fomento

Resorts & Hotels Limited, Dona Paula, Goa, in

deducting a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month

from the earned wages of Shri Damodar

Mangueshkar, Employee No. 1173, with effect

from May, 2005, is legal and justified?

(2)

If not, to what relief the Workman is entitled?

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. IT/92/07 and registered A/D

notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to the

said notice, the Parties put in their appearance. This

Hon’ble Court adjudicated the reference and passed

an award dated 26-05-2010 after hearing both parties.

The Workman challenged the said award before the

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa and it bears

Writ Petition No. 804/2010. The Hon’ble High Court

of Bombay at Goa bench, disposed off the said

petition filed by the Workman, vide its judgment

dated 05-02-2020 and remanded back the reference

and directed to disposed off the said reference as

expeditiously as possible and in any case within

three months from the date of filing of the

authenticated copy of the said judgment and order.

3. The Party-I (for short ‘Workman’), filed his

Statement of Claim on 11-12-2007 at Exhibit-3. The

facts of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workman

are that the Employer/Party-II (for short

“Employer”) is a Hotel Industry. He stated that he

was initially employed as ‘Clerk’ by Hotel Cidade-

de-Goa, a unit of Party-II(2) w. e. f. 10-11-1984. He

stated that his services were confirmed, vide letter

dated 10-11-1985. He stated that since his joining,

he was doing the work of clerks, though he was

designated as ‘Accounts Supervisor’. He stated that

the work was assigned to him daily by his superior

and as per his instructions, he was doing the work.

He stated that he was not the sanctioning authority

of any leave of any of the workmen working in

his Department. He stated that since the

commencement of the hotel, he was continuously

working in the hotel without any break in service.

4. He stated that he was issued a show cause

notice dated 25-04-2005 stating that a financial loss

of Rs. 39,508/- was caused due to him. He stated that

he had submitted his reply to the aforesaid show

cause notice, vide his reply dated 27-04-2005 and

stated that he has carried out his work as per the

guidelines and directions from the superiors. He

stated that in his aforesaid reply dated 27-04-2005,

he has given the details about the procedure

followed by the Hotel. He stated that as per the

instructions, the Management set the plan of billing

and accordingly the billing was done. He stated

that inspite of a proper reply, the Employer

commenced illegal deductions from his wages w. e.

f. May 2005, since he is an office bearer of the Union.

He stated that he made another representation

through his Union vide Union’s letter dated 27-07-

2005 against the said illegal deduction. He stated

that no reply was received from the Management

about the illegal deductions and failed to refund the

illegally deducted amount from his earned wages.

He stated that the Union had no option left, but to

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

172

raise the dispute before the appropriate authority

on behalf of the Workman. He stated that the Union

accordingly, raised a dispute of illegal deductions

before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Panaji vide

its letter dated 08-08-2005, which ended in failure.

5. The Workman submitted that the Employer

failed to conduct a proper enquiry by giving him an

opportunity to explain his side before deducting an

amount from his earned wages. He submitted that

the said action of the Employer violates the

principles of natural justice. He submitted that he

spoke to the guest, Mrs. Kiran Gajree and she has

agreed to make the payment, provided the Employer

sent her the pending unpaid bills officially if there

is any shortfall in payment. He submitted that he

had informed the aforesaid fact to Mr. Rahul Joshi,

the Front Office Manager of the Employer’s hotel.

He submitted that he was telephonically informed

by the said guest that she had spoken to the

management that they have not submitted any bill.

He submitted that the short payment or non-

collection of payment was due to the system fault as

the same was not shown in the computer system nor

there were any written instructions to him to collect

the same. He submitted that as he is an office bearer

of the union, the false charges were framed against

him only to victimize him. He submitted that though

it is the responsibility of the night auditors to correct

an error and bring to the notice of concerned

workman, no action was initiated against any other

person. He submitted that because of his union

activity, he was singled out and illegal deductions

were made from his earned wages. He submitted

that before deductions, the Employer failed to follow

the provisions of law and hence the deductions of

Rs. 2000/- wages per month from his earned wages

from the month of May, 2005 is illegal, unjustified

and bad-in-law and hence the same is ought to be

refunded to him. He submitted that he is entitled to

refund the said amount illegally deducted from his

earned wages. He therefore prayed that this Hon’ble

Court be declared that the deductions made from

his earned wages from the month of May, 2005 be

declared as illegal, improper and unjustified and

direct the Employer to refund the same amount

illegally deducted from his earned wages along with

an interest of 18% and damages.

6. The Employer filed its Written Statement on

28-12-2007 at Exhibit-5. The Employer, by way of its

preliminary objections, submitted that the Party-I is

not a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s)

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 as he was

employed

mainly

managerial

and/or

administrative and/or supervisory capacity, drawing

wages exceeding 1,600/- per month and/or by nature

of duties attached to him and/or by reason of the

powers vested in him, his functions were of

supervisory nature, that the Party-I was not

performing any manual, skilled, unskilled, technical,

operational or clerical work and as such the

reference is illegal, bad in law, null and void and not

maintainable, that there is/was no ‘industrial

dispute’ exists within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of

the I. D. Act, 1947 as on the date of making reference

by the Government.

7. Without prejudice to the foregoing submissions,

the Employer stated that it is a Company

incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on

13-10-1981 and owns a Hotel establishment known as

“Cidade de Goa” a beach resort situated at Vaiguinim

Beach, Dona Paula-Goa. The Employer stated that

the said hotel establishment is having 210

well-appointed air-conditioned rooms, restaurants,

Bars, club saude, banqueting facilities, shopping

arcades, etc. which said properties and assets of the

Company are maintained and looked in after by the

Company’s department known as ‘Estate’. The

Employer stated that it employs large number of

employees and consisting of various departments,

such as House-Keeping, Food Beverages, Accounts,

Engineering, Front Office, Security, Stewarding and

Personnel headed by competent managerial and

supervisory personnel known as Heads of

Departments, etc. The Employer stated that the

workman was initially appointed as ‘Trainee

Restaurant Cashier’ in the F & B (General)

Department of the Company. Thereafter, he was

confirmed in the said post of Restaurant Cashier on

10-11-1985. The Employer stated that the Party-I was

promoted as ‘Front Office Assistant/Cashier’ in the

Front Office Department w. e. f. 01-04-1991, under

letter dated 01-04-1991. The Employer stated that

again, the Party I was appointed/promoted as a ‘Front

Office Supervisor’ in Grade-VIII w. e. f. 01-10-2003,

under letter dated 01-10-2003. The Employer stated

that the said appointment/promotion was in a

supervisory/administrative category/post and on a

probationary basis. The Employer stated that the

details of responsibilities/duties as a Front Office

Supervisor were as specified in the Annexure to the

letter dated 01-10-2003. The Employer stated that

the Workman was confirmed w. e. f. 01-10-2004 to

the said supervisory/administrative post of ‘Front

Office Supervisor’ under letter dated 01-10-2004. The

Employer stated that the Workman was thereafter

transferred and posted for work as ‘Accounts

Supervisor’ in the General Stores Section of the

Accounts Department w. e. f. 01-09-2005 under letter

dated 01-09-2005 and on a trainee for a period of six

months which was extended for a further period of

six months w. e. f. 01-03-2006 under letter dated

01-03-2006.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

173

8. The Employer stated that during the course of

working as ‘Front Office Supervisor’ as above it was

found that the Party-I had caused a financial loss of

Rs. 39,508/- to them. The Employer stated that

therefore, the Party-I was issued a show cause notice

dated 25-04-2005 by which he was required to show

cause as to why the aforesaid amount of Rs. 39,508/-

should not be recovered by deduction from his

monthly salary. The Employer stated that the said

Show Cause notice was served upon the Party-I on

the same day i.e. 24-05-2005. The Employer stated

that the Party-I replied to the Show Cause Notice,

vide his reply dated 27-04-2005. The Employer stated

that since the reply submitted by the Party-I was

found to be factually incorrect, they rejected the

same. The Employer stated that they informed the

said fact to the Party-I, vide their letter dated

03-05-2005. The Employer stated that they also

informed the Party-I about their decision to recover

the said sum of Rs. 39,508/- from his monthly salary

commencing from May, 2005 @ Rs. 2000/- per month

till the recovery of the entire amount. The Employer

stated that thereafter, the services of the Party-I,

were terminated vide their order dated 28-11-2006

w. e. f. 01-12-2006 and accordingly no further

deductions were made. The Employer denied the

overall case of the Party – I as pleaded in his

statement of claim and prayed for rejection of the

present reference by holding that the Party-I is not

entitled for any relief.

9. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder on

11-01-2008 at Exhibit-6. The Workman, by way of his

re-joinder, denied each and every statement,

averments and submissions made by the Employer,

vide their Written Statement filed in the present

proceedings and reiterates and confirms the

statements, averments and submissions made by him

in his statement of claim. The Workman stated that

it is the settled law that mere designation of an

employee is not a criteria to determine as to whether

an employee is a Workman or not. He stated that

neither he was having any supervisory powers, nor

he can sanction leave or to recommend the

promotion, increment or to take any disciplinary

action against any Workman. He stated that because

he is a “Workman”, he was recognized as an Office

bearer of the Union by the Employer and he was

given the benefits of the settlement signed under

the provisions of the I. D. Act, 1947 by the Employer.

10. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

Parties, the Presiding Officer of Hon’ble Industrial

Tribunal cum Labour Court framed the following

issues on 07-02-2008 at Exb.7.

Whether the Party-I proves that he is a

“Workman” within the meaning of Section 2

(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

Whether the Party-I proves that the short

payment/non collection was due to the system

failure?

Whether the Party-I proves that being office

bearer the false charge of causing financial

loss of Rs. 39,508/- to the Company was

framed to victimized him?

Whether the Party-I proves that the action of

the Party II in deducting Rs. 2000/- from his

earned wages from May, 2005 is illegal and

unjustified and bad-in-law?

Whether the Party-II proves that the Party-I

was primarily and substantially performing

the duties of managerial, administerial and

supervisory nature?

Whether the Party-II proves that the Party-I

had caused financial loss of Rs. 39,508/- to

the company?

Whether the Party-II proves that the reference

is illegal, bad-in-law, null and void?

11. My Findings to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

In the negative.

(d) Issue No. 4

In the affirmative.

(e) Issue No. 5

In the negative.

(f) Issue No. 6

In the negative.

(g) Issue No. 7

In the negative.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Ms.

Fatima Dias h/f Adv. Shri. S. Gaonkar, appearing for

the Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Shri. G.K. Sardessai,

appearing for the Employer. I have carefully perused

the entire records of the present case including the

synopsis of written arguments filed by the respective

parties as well as the judgment of Hon’ble High Court

of Bombay at Goa, disposing off its writ petition No.

804/2010. I have also carefully considered the

submissions advanced before me.

REASONS:

Issue No. 1 and 5:

12. Vide its judgment dated 05-02-2021, the

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa bench held

that the Employer has failed to prove that the

Party I was primarily and substantially performing

duties of managerial, administrative, supervisory in

nature and further held that the Party I is a ‘workman’

within the meaning of section 2 (s) I.D. Act, 1947.

The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in the

affirmative and issue No. 5 is answered in the

negative.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

174

Issue No. 2:

The burden was casted on the Workman to prove

the said issue No. 2. To prove his case, the Workman

examined himself and produced on record certain

documentary evidence in support of his oral

evidence. On the contrary, the Employer examined

Smt. Zarine Lobo, its Human Resources-Executive.

13. The evidence of the Workman on record

indicates that he was issued a show-cause notice

dated 25-04-2005 stating that the Workman has

caused financial loss of Rs. 39508/- to the Employer.

He replied to the said show-cause notice, vide his

letter dated 27-04-2005, stating that he has carried

out his duty as per the guidelines and directions

from his superior and that he had given details about

the procedure followed by the hotel. As per the

instructions, the management set the plan of billing

and as per the said plan, the billing was done. The

reply of the Workman on record at Exb. W/2 indicates

that the short payment or non-collection of payment

was due to the system fault as the same was not

shown in the computer system nor there any written

instructions to him to collect the same. As the

Employer denied the aforesaid pleadings as well as

oral evidence of the Workman, it was incumbent

upon the Workman to prove the said fact of short

payment or non-collection of the payment was due

to the system fault as the same was not shown on

the computer system, by cogent evidence. The

Workman has however failed to prove the said fact

that the short payment or non-collection of the

payment was due to system fault by examining any

other witness or producing any document to that

effect. It is therefore held that the Workman failed to

prove that the short payment or non-collection of

payment was due to the system failure. The issue

No. 2 is therefore answered in the negative.

Issue No. 3, 4 and 6:

I am deciding the issue No. 3, 4 and 6

simultaneously as all the said issue No. 3, 4 and 6 are

co-related to each other.

14. Undisputedly, the Workman was issued a

show-cause notice dated 25-04-2005 (Exb.E/1) by

alleging that during the course of performance of

his duty, they have incurred an aggregate financial

loss of Rs. 39,508/-. In one case, on account of

non-presentation of bill of guest, Mr. Sven

Kretschmer to Mr. Andrea List, who was to pay for

the same, and consequent non-recovery of Rs.17640/-

and another case of short collection of Rs. 21868/-

with respect to the guest Mrs. Kiran Gajree, who

stayed in the hotel from 26-02-2005 to 05-03-2005. By

the said show-cause notice, the Workman was

directed to show-cause and explain in writing why

the above said amount should not be recovered from

him by deduction from his monthly salary and also

punished for negligence in performance of his duty.

15. The Workman replied to the said show-cause

notice, vide his letter dated 27-04-2005 (Exb. W/2),

stating that he has carried out his duty as per the

guidelines and directions from his superior and that

he had given details about the procedure followed

by the hotel. As per the instructions, the

management set the plan of billing and as per the

said plan, the billing was done. The reply of the

Workman on record indicates that the short payment

or non-collection of payment was due to the system

fault as the same was not shown in the computer

system nor there were any written instructions to

him to collect the same. The Employer, vide its letter

dated 03-05-2005 (Exb. E/3-colly) informed the

Workman that in case of Mr. Sven Kretschmer, there

were clear cut instructions in writing in log book to

the effect that Mr. Sven Kretschmer’s bill amount

needs to be collected which was not done and in

case of Mrs. Kiran Gajree, his contention that because

of extension of 45 minutes in his shift resulted in the

loss of Rs. 21,868/- cannot be believed and that an

aggregate financial loss of Rs. 39,508/- as set out in

the show-cause notice is directly attributable to his

gross negligence and carelessness. The Workman

was further informed that they have decided to

recover the said loss of Rs. 39,508/- from his monthly

salary commencing from May, 2005, @ Rs. 2000/- per

month till recovery of the entire amount.

16. The Workman, in his oral evidence, deposed

that no enquiry was conducted before the said

deduction of an amount of Rs. 2000/- from his salary.

When the Workman spoke to the guest, Mrs. Kiran

Gajree, she had agreed that she would make the

payment, provided that the management officially

sends pending unpaid bills to her, if any short

payment is made. Accordingly, the Workman had

informed Mr. Rahul Joshi, Front Office Manager of

the Employer. The said guest informed the Workman

on telephone that he had spoken to the management

and the management will not submit any bill. As

the Workman is the office bearer of the union,

a false charge was framed to victimize him. He was

cross-examined by the Ld. Advocate appearing for

the Employer. However, his testimony remained

unshaken.

17. On the contrary, the Employer examined its

Human Resources-Executive in the Personnel

Department, namely Mrs. Zarine Lobo as their sole

witness. In her cross-examination, the said witness

of the Employer deposed that neither she worked in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

175

the Front office nor aware about the procedure of

work to be followed in the front office of the Employer.

She admitted that whenever the customer

approaches the hotel of the Employer, he has to follow

certain conditions laid down by the Employer and

that if the customer has unpaid or paid any less

amount of the tendered bill, in that event the

management has right to recover the same from the

said customers. The Employer is also maintaining

the detailed address of the customers. She admitted

that the Employer has employed night auditors to

check the correctness of the bill and the other details

and that it is only after certifying the bills by the

said night auditors, the bills are paid by the

respective customers. She admitted that the bills,

which are referred in para 5 of her affidavit in

evidence were checked and certified by the night

auditors appointed by the Employer. The said

witness further admits that besides the Workman,

no other employee was issued any show-cause notice

or made any deduction by the Employer. She

admitted that the Workman had informed the

management that short payment or non-collection

of payment was due to system fault and that the

Employer has not conducted any enquiry to find

out, if the said short payment or non-collection

of payment was on account of system failure.

She is not aware, if the letter of the Workman

dated 09-03-2005 at Exb. E/2 was obtained from him

forcefully by stating that the said matter will be

closed and no further action will be taken against

him by Mr. Javed Afridi, the Personnel Manager of

the Employer. He deposed that the Employer is

having a written document to substantiate her

statement that the written orders / instructions were

given to the Workman to issue a proper bill to the

guest, Mr. Sven Kretschmer. However, after she

directing to produce the same and verifying the

records, she deposed that no such document is

available with the Employer. She admitted that no

guest of the hotel can checkout, unless he pays his

bills and that it is the practice of the Employer that

unless and until the bill of the guest are being paid

by the said guest or anybody else, the said guest

will not be allowed to checkout from the hotel. She

admitted that when the said guest, Mr. Sven

Kretschmer had checked out, the Workman was not

on his duty and that she is not aware, if the Employer

had written any letter to the said guest, Mr. Sven

Kretschmer that his bill is still outstanding. Thus, it

appears from the cross-examination of the sole

witness of the Employer, her testimony has been

shaken.

18. The Employer has produced on record a letter

of the Workman dated 09-03-2005 (Exb. E/2). The said

letter at Exb. E/2 on record indicates that the

Workman assured the Employer not to repeat mistake

and inconvenience caused due to short collection

from Mrs. K. Gajree. Ld. Adv. Shri. G.K. Sardessai,

representing the Employer, during the course of his

arguments submitted that by the said letter at Exb.

E/2, the Workman has admitted his mistake and as

such no enquiry is necessary. As the Employer has

not referred the said letter of the Workman at Exb. E/2

in its letter dated 03-05-2005 (Exb. E/3-colly) in

arriving at a conclusion about the alleged gross

negligence and carelessness of the Workman but

referred the reply of the Workman at Exb. W/2 and

that the sole witness of the Employer, Mrs. Zarine

Lobo, in her cross-examination, deposed that she is

not aware if Mr. Javed Afridi, the Personnel Manager

of the Employer has obtained the said letter from

the Workman forcefully by stating that the said

matter would be closed and no further action would

be taken against him. In view of above, I am not

giving any weightage to the said letter of the

Workman dated 09-03-2005 at Exb. E/2.

19. The Workman, vide his letter dated 20-05-2005

(Exb.W/3) addressed to the Employer denied the

allegations levelled against him and requested not

to deduct an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month as the

guests are willing to pay short fall amount, the

Employer can recover the said amount from the

guests or authorize him to recover the said amount

from the guests. By his another letter dated

24-06-2005 (Exb. W/4), addressed to the Employer, he

denied the charges and requested the Employer to

collect the amount from the guests and refund his

salary deduction from the month of May, 2005. Since,

the Employer failed to investigate the said fact of

short payment or non-collection of payment was due

to system fault as alleged by the Workman nor

produced on record any cogent evidence to show

that the financial loss of amount of Rs. 39,508/-

caused to them was on account of negligence in

performance of duties of the Workman especially

when the customers are willing to pay the short fall,

if any. Hence, it is held that the Employer failed to

prove that the Workman has caused financial loss of

Rs. 39,508/- to them. The issue No. 6 is therefore

answered in the negative.

20. Ld. Adv. Shri. S. Gaonkar, representing the

Workman in his synopsis of written arguments

submitted that no penal action can be made against

an employee without conducting an domestic

enquiry and relied upon the following judgments:

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

176

21. In the case of Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel v/s.

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Anr.,

reported in (1985) 2 SCC 35, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as under:

“Unless either in the Certified Standing Order

or in the service regulations an act or omission is

prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the

employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct

and punish the workman even though the alleged

misconduct would not be comprehended in any of

the enumerated misconducts. Removal or dismissal

from service on account of the misconduct

constitutes penalty in law. The workman sought

to be charged for misconduct must have adequate

advance notice of what action or what conduct

would constitute misconduct. If after undergoing

the elaborate exercise of enumerating misconduct,

it is left to the unbridled discretion of the employer

to dub any conduct as misconduct, the workman

will be on tenterhooks and he will be punished by

ex post facto determination by the employer. It is

therefore, not possible to accept the view that even

if snpressio very and snggestio falsi does not fall

in any of the enumerated misconducts, yet for the

purpose of service regulation, it would nonetheless

be a misconduct punishable as such”.

22. In the case of Manish Kumar v/s. The State of

Bihar and Ors., Civil Writ Jurisdiction case

No.15391 of 2018, the Hon’ble High Court of Patna

in para 11 of its judgment observed as under:

“14. In any view of the matter, if an employee is

being subjected to a penalty having serious

monetary consequences, it would be only fair to

make him know that the proposed punishment is

of deduction of 10 percent of salary for indefinite

period/entire period of contractual service. The

petitioners also should have been made known

their fault. This is no way of imposing punishment

on an employee as such orders come as a bolt from

the blue and cannot be countenanced. The manner

in which the order has been couched reflects a

cavalier approach. Even if an employee is a

contractual employee, the relationship of master

and servant is established during the tenure of the

service and his right to know the ground on which

he is being punished financially cannot be taken

away. The Director, State Education Project has

not taken care to even state in the order as to what

was found against the petitioners for justifying

the order of deduction of 10 per cent of salary for an

indefinite period.”

23. In the case of The State of Punjab v/s. Surinder

Singh, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine P & H 16391,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 5 of its judgment

has observed as under:

“5. In so far as challenge to orders dated 14-01-

1982, 20-10-1983 and 28-08-1984 is concerned it is

barred by limitation. The workman slept over the

matter. Thus, on the ground of delay and latches

respondent’s claim is to be rejected. In so far as

order dated 30-09-1987 is concerned workman has

been punished by imposing the penalty of

stoppage of increment without cumulative effect

is without holding any enquiry. Even if the

disciplinary authority intends to impose minor

penalty having regard to the serious allegation or

charge, the enquiry cannot be by passed or the

disciplinary authority cannot sidetrack the

disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, imposition of

penalty of stoppage of increment without

cumulative effect would be civil consequences there

would be financial implications. Therefore, without

hearing the workman and proving the charge

against him in a domestic enquiry the disciplinary

authority cannot impose the penalty”.

Thus, it is well established principles of law that

no penal action can be made against the employee

without conducting a domestic enquiry.

24. In the case in hand, the aforesaid evidence on

record clearly indicates that the action of the

Employer in deducting a sum of Rs. 39,508/- from the

earned wages of the Workman from May, 2005

@Rs.2000/- per month without conducting an

enquiry. The said action of the Employer is in

violation of the principles of natural justice and as

such it is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. Hence,

it is held that Workman proved that the action of the

Employer in deducting a sum of Rs. 2000/- from his

earned wages from May, 2005 is illegal and

unjustified. The issue No. 4 is therefore, answered in

the affirmative.

25. The evidence on record indicates that the

managing committee of the union had signed two

memorandum of settlements u/s 18 (1) r/w 2 (p) of

the I.D. Act, one dated 01-05-2001 and another dated

23-12-2004 with the management of the Employer

before the Commissioner, Labour and Employment

and the Workman was one of the signatory to the

said settlement. The evidence on record indicates

that the Workman was elected as a Treasurer of the

Cidade-de-Goa Hotel Employees Union by the

members of the said Union and the Union had

informed the management vide union letter dated

01-07-2005.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

177

26. Thus, it is proved that the Workman was an

office bearer of the union. However, there is nothing

on record about the relations of the Workman with

his other collegue, superior officers of the Employer

etc. In the absence of the said records, it cannot be

said that the action of the Employer in deducting

Rs. 2000/- per month from his earned wages is only

to victimize him as he was an office bearer of the

union. Hence, it is held that the Workman failed to

prove that being an office bearer, a false charge of

causing financial loss of Rs. 39,508/- to the Employer

was framed to victimize him. The issue No. 3 is

therefore answered in the negative.

27. While deciding the issue No. 4 hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

action of the Employer in deducting a sum of Rs.

2000/- per month from the earned wages of the

Workman w.e.f. May, 2005 is illegal and unjustified.

Neither the Workman nor the Employer has

pleaded or stated on oath as to how much amount

was deducted from the earned wages of the

Workman. However, the Workman has relied upon

his four salary slips from May, 2005 to August, 2005

(Exb.W/8-colly). The said salary slips on record

indicates that the total amount of Rs. 8000/- was

deducted from the earned wages of the Workman

(May, 2005 to August, 2005). The Employer is

therefore directed to refund the said amount of

Rs. 8000/- or if any other excessive amount deducted

from the earned wages of the Workman along with

simple interest @10% p.a. from the date of its

deduction.

Issue No. 7:

28. The Employer contended that the present

reference issued by the Government of Goa is illegal,

bad-in-law, null and void and not maintainable as

the Party-I is not a “workman” within the meaning

of Section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and that he was

employed in the managerial and/or administrative

and/or supervisory capacity drawing wages

exceeding Rs.1600/- per month and/or by virtue of

duties attached to him and/or by reasons of the

powers vested in him, his functions were supervisory

in nature. The aforesaid contention of the Employer

Company has been denied by the Party I. It is

therefore incumbent upon the Employer Company

to prove their aforesaid contention by leading

material evidence.

29. While discussing the issue No. 1, the Hon’ble

High Court of Bombay at Goa concluded that the

Party I is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section

2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

The term ‘industrial dispute’ has been defined

u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it means “any dispute

or difference between employers and employers, or

between employers and workmen, or between

workmen and workmen, which is connected with

the employment or non-employment or the terms of

employment or with the conditions of labour, of any

person.”. In the case in hand, the Party I proved that

he is a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s)

of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the dispute raised by him

against the Employer on the terms of employment is

an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined u/s Section 2 (k) of

the I.D. Act, 1947 and hence, this court has every

jurisdiction to decide the present reference. Hence,

it is held that the Employer failed to prove that the

present order of reference issued by the Government

of Goa is bad-in-law and not maintainable.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

It is held that the action of the Management

of M/s Cidade de Goa, Unit of M/s Fomento

Resorts & Hotels Limited, Dona Paula, Goa, in

deducting a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month from

the earned wages of Shri Damodar

Mangueshkar, Employee No. 1173, with effect

from May, 2005, is illegal and unjustified.

It is further held that the Employer,

M/s Cidade de Goa, Unit of M/s Fomento

Resorts & Hotels Limited, Dona Paula, Goa, is

hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs. 8000/-

or if any other excessive amount deducted

from the earned wages of the Workman along

with simple interest @10% p.a. from the date

of its deduction.

No Order as to Cost.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer

Labour Court-II.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/208

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

12-04-2021 in Appl. No. 01/2014 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.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 27th April, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

178

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Appl. No. 01/2014

Shri Vinayak Tukaram Patil,

Flat No. 1, “D” Building,

Housing Board Colony,

Upasnagar, Zuarinagar, Sancoale,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa-403 726 … Applicant/Party I.

V/s

1. Shree Krupa Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Contractor to: M/s. Zuari

Industries Ltd.,

C/o. Mr. Paul T. Fernandes,

Plot No. 12, Queen Vision,

Near Verna Church,

Velsao-Pale, Salcete,

Goa-403 722

…

Opponent/Party II(1).

2. M/s. Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd.,

Zuarinagar,

Sancoale, Goa

(403 726)

…

Opponent/Party II(2).

Applicant/Party I represented by Shri G. J.

Fernandes.

Opponent/Party II(1) represented by Shri K. V.

Nadkarny.

Opponent/Party II(2) represented by Ld. Adv. Shri

G. K. Sardessai.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 12th day of the month

of April of the year 2021)

This is an application filed by the Applicant/

/Party I under Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

2. Briefly stated, the case of Party I workman is

as follows:

Party I workman joined the employment on

01-11-1984 as a ‘Rigger’ and was deployed to work

at the Factory of Party II(2) at Zuarinagar, Vasco-da-

-Gama and at the time of his recruitment, the

clerical staff of the Party II(1) recorded his date of

birth as 05-12-1954 when his actual date of birth

was 05-12-1964. The Party I workman brought the

discrepancy to the knowledge of his superiors who

informed him to concentrate on his work and not

be alarmed by the erroneous date of birth recorded

in the company documents as the same would be

corrected in the course of time of his service and

informed him that he had a long period of service.

The Party I kept on reminding the Party II(1) and

Party II(2) about the error but they individually

and jointly did not take any concrete action. The

workman not being satisfied with the action of

Party II informed Goa Trade and Commercial

Workers’ Union (GTCWU) about his grievance and

the Union vide letter dated 05-07-2011 wrote to

Party II(1) seeking rectification of the records in

respect of date of birth. The Employer did not take

any action. The Party I being aggrieved wrote to

Dy. Labour Commissioner under the Industrial

Disputes Act regarding the faulty record

maintained by the Employer and provided the

documentary evidence obtained from the Chief

Registrar of Births and Deaths in the form of Birth

Certificate. The Party II did not respond but vide

letter dated 11-08-2012 informed that the said

certificate has not been accepted and that they

would maintain 05-12-1954 as date of birth. The

Party I wrote to the Assistant Labour Commissioner

seeking his urgent intervention in the matter

but no action was initiated. The Party II(1) on

31-12-2012 wrongfully and illegally terminated the

services of Party I by way of superannuation. The

Party I addressed a letter to Party II(1) relating to

the matter. Thereafter, the Dy. Labour

Commissioner convened a meeting on 30-07-2013

between Party I workman and the Employer,

however, there was no outcome. The workman

being aggrieved by wrongful and illegal

termination of his services filed the present

application. The Party I is entitled for the relief

claimed.

3. The Party II(1) filed a Written Statement

inter-alia claiming that the claim filed by Party I

workman is bad in law and that he has not given

any justification for the demands. The dispute

raised by Party I is not an industrial dispute. The

Party I joined the services with Party II(1) in the

year 1984 and at the relevant time his date of birth

was 05-12-1954. The Party I was formally working

with M/s Grewal Engineering Services wherein the

Identity Card issued to him shows his date of birth

as 05-12-1954. The Party I had filled his PF

nomination form which is mandatory for an

employee on 15-01-2007 and in the said form also

the date of birth was recorded as 05-12-1954. The

Party I workman did not raise the issue of his date

of birth till he got a certificate of birth in the year

2010 in order to get undue advantage of further

period of 10 years of his services. The date of birth

of Party I is considered as final which is recorded

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

179

in their records as mentioned by Party I at the

time of his joining the services of Party II(1). The

Party I is trying to get his date of birth corrected

at the fag end of his service tenure which is not

permissible as per law. The present dispute is

raised by Party I to pressurize and harass the

Employer. The action taken by Party II(1) is perfectly

legal and justified. The claim raised by Party I is

unwarranted, false and baseless and as such he is

not entitled for any relief.

4. The Party II(2) filed a Written Statement

inter-alia contending that the reference is bad

as against Party II(2). There was no demand on

Party II(2) in the matter of alleged claim. There was

no plea before the Conciliation Officer that Party I

is an employee of Party II(2). There is no employer-

-employee relationship between Party I workman

and Party II(2). The superannuation is neither

termination nor dismissal. The Party I has been

superannuated from the services as on 31-12-2012

on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years.

The Party I did not raise issue of his date of birth

at any time earlier and the issue was raised after

he got his date of birth registered fraudulently

after 26 years in service of Party II(1) and the change

in the date of birth cannot be altered at the fag

end of his career.

5. The Party I filed a Rejoinder at Exhibit 12

denying the case put forth by Party II in the written

statement of Party II(1) and Party II(2).

6. Issues framed at Exhibit 14 are as follows:

1) Whether the Party I proves that Party II(1)

erroneously recorded his date of birth as

05-12-1954 instead of 05-12-1964 thereby his

services were terminated by way of wrongful

superannuation on 31-12-2012?

2) Whether the Party I proves that Party II(1)

and Party II(2) are jointly and severally

responsible for wrongful and illegal

termination of his services by way of

superannuation?

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

dispute raised by Party I is not an ‘Industrial

Dispute’ and hence not maintainable?

4) Whether the Party II(2) proves that there is

no Employer- Employee relationship between

Party I and Party II(2)?

5) What relief? What Award?

7. In the course of evidence, the Party I,

Shri Vinayak Patil examined himself as witness and

produced on record his Affidavit-in-Evidence at

Exh. 23 and documents namely, a copy of salary

slip for the month of June 2007 issued by Party II(1)

at Exb. 24, a copy of certificate issued by Party II

(1) dated 19-7-2009 at Exb. 25, a copy of certificate

issued by Party II(1) to Party I dated 13-6-2011 at

Exh. 26, a copy of certificate issued by Party II(1) to

Party I dated 8-8-2012 at Exh. 27, a copy of birth

certificate issued by Chief Registrar of Births and

Deaths, Govt. of Karnataka at Exb. 28, a copy of

letter dated 29-3-2013 to HR Manager of Party II(2)

at Exh. 29, a copy of letter dated 16-4-2013 from

ALC, Vasco to Party II(1) at Exh. 30, a copy of letter

dated 30-07-13 from DLC, Margao at Exh. 31. In the

cross examination, the Party II(1) produced through

him a copy of letter dated 28-12-12 at Exh. 39 colly,

a copy of the nomination and declaration form

dated 15-01-2007 at Exh. 42. A copy of application

for transfer of EPF account dated 15-01-2007 at

Exh. 43, a copy of letter dated 26-11-2012 at Exh.

44. The Party I also examined Smt. Anjani Vinayak

Patil as witness No. 2 and produced on record her

Affidavit-in-Evidence at Exh. 45, a copy of notarized

birth certificate of Vinayak Patil at Exh. 47. The

Party I also examined Shri Maruti Desai as witness

No. 3 and produced on record his Affidavit-in-

-Evidence at Exh. 49. On the other hand, the

Party II (1) examined Shri Mohammad Usman Khan

as their witness and produced on record his

Affidavit-in-Evidence at Exb. 51, In the cross

examination, the Party I produced through him a

copy of letter dated 30-07-2013 at Exh. 52.

8. Heard arguments. Notes of written arguments

came to be placed on record by the Parties.

9. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the submissions made

by the learned advocates for their respective

Parties. My findings on 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

…

In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 5

….

As per final order

REASONS

Issue No. 1:

10. Learned representative Shri G. J. Fernandes

for Party I workman has submitted that the

services of Party I were terminated on 31-12-2012

prematurely by way of alleged superannuation

without holding any inquiry in respect of correction

of date of birth sought by the Party I as his date of

birth has been wrongly recorded as 05-12-1954

when his date of birth was 05-12-1964. The arrogant

and unilateral conduct of Party II has resulted in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

180

the termination of the employment of Party I

workman 10 years earlier then prescribed

under mandatory provisions of The Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The

Applicant was in continuous service from his date

of appointment on 01-11-1982 till 31-12-2014. He

further submitted that the Party II(1) and Party II (2)

have neither maintained mandatory service records

in Form V to prove that the date of birth of the

workman was correctly recorded in the records of

the industrial establishment. The Party II is

required to maintain a service card bearing the

signature/thumb impression of the workman,

which has not been complied and therefore the

termination of the services of Party I workman by

way of superannuation is illegal and bad-in-law

and as such, the Party I workman is entitled for the

reliefs claimed.

11. Admittedly, the services of Party I were

terminated by way of superannuation on

31-12-2012 without holding any inquiry whatsoever

in respect of correction in the date of birth sought

by the workman. There is no dispute that Party I

had claimed that his date of birth was 05-12-1964

and had produced a certificate of birth issued by

Appropriate Authority, while it is the case of

Party II (1) that the date of birth recorded by it was

05-12-1954 and accordingly they had rightly

discharged him on attaining the age of

superannuation. There is no dispute that Party II (1)

and Party II(2) had admitted in the reply to

interrogatories that they had not conducted any

inquiry with respect to the date of birth of the

Party I workman who is claiming that he was born

on 05-12-1964. There is no dispute that Party II (1)

and Party II(2) have not maintained mandatory

service records in Form V prescribed under The

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)

Central Rules, 1946. It is also the admitted fact that

Party II (1) and Party II(2) do not have their own

Certified Standing Orders. Neither Party II (1) and

Party II (2) can claim that the Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central

Rules 1946, are not applicable to them and they do

not have their own Certified standing orders. It

therefore follows that in the absence of Certified

Standing Orders, Parties are governed under the

above referred Act and Rules.

12. There is no dispute that the Party I workman

is not required to plead law in his Statement of

Claim as Party I has pleaded the facts and cause of

action seeking relief, which he is claiming. The

contention of Advocates for Party II (1) and

Party II (2) that there are no pleadings as regards

to the applicability of the above Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central

Rules, 1946 cannot be accepted as in the Written

Statement of Party II(1), it has been averred that

the date of birth of Party I is considered as final

which is recorded in their records as mentioned by

Party I workman at the time of his joining the

services of Party II(1) and as per the procedure in

vogue in their organization and as per the settled

law, the only date which can be taken in the account

is the one which is recorded at the time of joining

and the said date is not subject to any revision and

that too at the fag end of his service tenure, which

is an indication of the fact that the Party II (1) have

maintained the service record as mandated by law

at the time of joining of the services. It is also

claimed that the date of birth is considered as final

which is recorded in their records at the time of

his joining the service, which in other words mean

that Party II (1) is aware of the mandate of law in

terms of the Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act and Central Rules, 1946.

13. There is no dispute that the Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central

Rules, 1946 are applicable to the parties in the

present case as the above Act and the Rules have

been extended to the State of Goa. There is also no

dispute that Party I is a workman under Industrial

Disputes Act as well as under the Factories Act,

1948. The Party I was employed by Party II(1) at the

Factory of Party II(2) which is an industrial

establishment. Rule 2(b) of the Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946

define ’Form’ as a form set out in Schedule II

appended to the Rules. Notably, as per Form V,

Standing Order 1, Schedule 1-B prescribed by the

Rules, service card has to be mandatorily

maintained under the Rules. The service card in

Form V in the Rules has at Item No. 7, the date of

birth and at Item No. 37, the date of superannuation

which are necessary to be maintained in an

industrial establishment by the Employer. The

service card needs to bear the signature/thumb

impression of the workman. There is no dispute

that no service card as required under the above

provision has been produced on record as

maintaining of the service record is the personal

responsibility of the Employer. The said procedural

necessity of the Employer in an industrial

establishment is mandated to be completed in three

months by the Employer under the Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

181

No such record has been maintained by Party II (1).

The Employers cannot take advantage of their

non-compliance of the statutory provisions as to

maintaining the service record in Form V and

completing the same within three months.

14. The Party II(1) have produced on record

Identity Cards issued to the Party I by Party II(1)

and M/s Grewal Engineering Services and the

application filed before the Provident Fund

Commissioner with a view to counterpoise the

requirement of law claiming that as per the said

documents, the Party I had given date of birth as

05-12-1954 correctly. However, the Identity Card

produced by Party II at Exh. 39 Colly (3) itself has

a wrong date as it is mentioned as 12-05-1954

instead of 05-12-1954 as claimed by Party II(1). The

discrepancy in the said date has not been

explained by Party II (1) as it is their claim that the

date of birth of Party I is 05-12-1954 and not

12-05-1954 and therefore the Identity Card issued

by Party II(1) to Party I is not a correct reflection of

the date of birth of Party I and the Party II (1)

cannot rely upon the said Identity Card issued by

it as the date of birth has been incorrectly recorded

in the said Identity Card. Moreover, Identity Cards

are issued merely for the purpose of permitting the

workman to enter/exit the premises of industrial

establishment through the designated gates. The

other Identity Card at Exh. 39 Colly(4) allegedly

issued by Grewal Engineering Services has not

been proved as none of the Officers of said Grewal

Engineering Services have been examined.

Moreover, the said date of birth has to be

compulsorily maintained in Form V which is legally

determinative of the date of birth and date of

superannuation in respect of workman concerned

and therefore, the Identity Cards produced by

Party II (1) will not prove that his date of birth is

as reflected in the said Identity Cards issued by

Party II (1) and Grewal Engineering Services.

15. The Party II(1) has also produced on record

the Nomination and Declaration Form dated

15-1-2007 of Party I with respect to Employees

Provident Fund Organization at Exh. 42 (in cross)

wherein the date of birth has been shown as

05-12-1954 under Employees Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The said Act

is undoubtedly an act to provide for the

constitution of Provident funds and (Pension funds)

and deposit-linked insurance fund for employees

in factories and other establishments. The said Act

is a beneficial piece of legislation and has no

estoppel mandated that the date of birth of a

beneficiary cannot be corrected, if wrongly entered.

It cannot be said that the date of birth of an

employee is never wrongly recorded by the

Employer and prescribes a procedure to correct

the wrongly recorded date of birth in the records

and the main document required for correction is

the certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and

Deaths. No doubt, the said Form has been signed

by Party I. However, it is an admitted fact that the

said Form has been filled by Shri Mohammed Usman

Khan, the witness of Party II(1). He had claimed

that he was employed as Booking Clerk-cum-

-Supervisor with Party II(1) and that the card was

prepared for becoming member of PF on

regularization of services of Party I in the year 1986.

He claimed that the date of birth in the card and

in all other Company’s record was recorded as

05-12-1954 as the same was submitted by Party I.

However, the Party II(1) has not produced any other

documents allegedly maintained by the Company

showing the date of birth as 05-12-1954. Moreover,

in a pointed query raised by Party I in the cross

examination ‘Could a mistake or error have occurred

when you recorded in your own handwriting the

date of birth of the Applicant as 05-12-1954 in the

Provident Fund Form at Exh. 42 (in cross)’; he

answered that there is no mistake in the Form as

recorded by him. Be that as it may, the Party II (1)

has violated the provisions of law relating to

industrial employment by not following the

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946

and the Central Rules, 1946.

16. The Party II(1) had not conducted any enquiry

prior to termination of the Party I workman despite

the workman having sought correction of his date

of birth. There is also no dispute that a formal

industrial dispute was also pending before the

Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes

Act regarding the date of birth of Party I. The

Party II (1) admittedly had not recorded the date of

birth and date of superannuation as no mandatory

records were maintained. They therefore cannot

put forth the above two documents as the record

of birth as they concealed their own non-

-compliance thereby adversely affecting the

workman as regards to his age. No opportunity of

hearing was afforded to the Party I/Applicant

before termination. The Party II(1) has not tendered

any justification for not holding preliminary

departmental enquiry as regards to the age of

Party I and therefore are not permitted to take

solace in the fact that the Party I workman was

given the Identity Cards and that he had filed the

prescribed form before Provident Fund Authorities

showing his correct date of birth. The conduct of

Party II(1) in not holding enquiry and not

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

182

maintaining the record as per law is discriminatory

and dehors the mandate of law.

17. Learned Advocates for Party II (1) and

Party II (2) Shri K. V. Nadkarny and Shri G. K.

Sardessai have both submitted that the Party I

workman had submitted the copy of Certificate of

Birth issued by the Authority as late as 2012 when

he addressed a complaint dated 28-02-2012 wherein

he has stated in his Affidavit that on 29-03-2012 he

provided to both his Employers certified copy of

the birth certificates and that Party II(1) informed

vide letter dated 11-08-2012 that his documents

were not accepted and that they would maintain

the record without any correction. They further

submitted that Party I workman retired on

31-12-2012 and the letter to the Conciliation Officer

was addressed on 28-12-2012 when admittedly

Party I worked for Grewal Engineering Services for

15-20 years and thereafter for Party II (1) since 2007.

They further submitted that Party I workman has

produced the birth certificate two days before his

date of superannuation and one month prior to his

actual date of retirement to the Dy. Labour

Commissioner. Relying upon the cases of (i) State

of Maharashtra and Anr. v/s Gorakhnath Sitaram

Kamble & Ors., 2011 ALL SCR 443, (ii) Yashwant

G. Tambe v/s Union of India and Anr. 2010(4)

ALL MR 315 and (iii) Shaikh Dawood Shaikh

Ommor @ Mujjawar v/s Reserve Bank of India

and Another, 2004-II-LLJ 202, they submitted that

the change in date of birth cannot be permitted at

the fag end of service tenure and no alteration of

entry is permitted.

18. Per contra, Shri G. S. Fernandes, learned

representative for Party I has submitted and rightly

so that the Party II(1) have gravely violated the

laws relating to industrial employment and has

wrongly terminated the employment of Party I

workman by way of superannuation ten years prior

to that when he was legally permitted to remain

and continue in employment without holding any

enquiry or according him an opportunity of fair

hearing, which is sufficient enough to set aside

the order of termination issued by Party II (1). The

action of Party II(1) cannot be countenanced by

any law which has debarred him from earning his

livelihood consisting of three members of his family

as per Exh. 63 (in cross). The Party I has produced

on record the copy of his Birth Certificate which

Party II (1) never sought in terms of the requirement

of law under Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act, 1946 and the Central Rules. The

Certificate of Birth produced by Party I was

maintained by statutory authority which raises a

presumption of correctness of its entries and such

entries made in the statutory register are

admissible in evidence. The entries as per Birth

Certificate would prevail over entry made in the

Identity Cards and the Form maintained by

Provident Fund Organization, in the absence of

any proof that the same was recorded at the

instance of Party I workman. The Party II(1) and (2)

therefore cannot brush aside the said Certificate of

Birth as sham. It was enjoined on Party II (1) to hold

an enquiry as regards to the authenticity of the

said Birth Certificate before superannuating the

Party I workman.

19. No doubt, it is well settled that even an

administrative order which involves civil

consequences must be made consistently with the

rules of natural justice. The lowest minimum

requirement on the part of Party II (1) was to afford

an opportunity to the person effected thereby, a

fair hearing which has admittedly not been done

by Party II (1) on the sole ground that the Party I

workman sought permission for change in the date

of birth at the fag end of his service career.

Nonetheless, it is claimed by Party I in the Claim

Statement as well as the Affidavit that the workman

brought the discrepancies to the knowledge of the

Superiors who informed him to concentrate on his

work and not be alarmed by the erroneous date of

birth recorded in the Company’s document as the

same would be corrected in the course of time of

his service and that he had a long period of service

and hence he should not be alarmed and that he

kept on reminding the Employer about the error in

records of the Company’s documents which they

represented that it was not urgent. The said fact

has been denied by Party II (1). However, it is an

admitted fact that the Party I had filed the

application informing the said fact to both the

Employers, however, no notice was taken nor it

was informed that the application has been filed

at the fag end of his service career and therefore

the change of date cannot be permitted.

20. Needless to mention, the Party II (1) could

have given opportunity to Party I once he produced

the Birth Certificate issued by Competent

Authority as any administrative order passed would

involve civil consequences. The Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 also

postulates holding of enquiry before passing of

any orders. The principles of natural justice has

come to be recognized as being a part of the

guarantee contained in Article 14 of the

Constitution and violation of rule of natural justice

results in arbitrariness which is the same as

discrimination and therefore violation of principles

of natural justice is a violation of Article 14 of the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

183

Constitution. The Party II(1) has not produced the

service record showing the date of birth and the

date of superannuation which they are required to

maintain. The non-production of the said

documents constitute failure on the part of

Party II(1) to produce the best evidence and the

presumption has therefore to be raised against it

that if such evidence had been produced, the same

would have gone against it. Admittedly, no such

documents have been maintained by Party II(1). The

Party II (1) unilaterally decided to reject the

certificate of birth produced by Party I which they

should have sought from Party I at the time of his

employment. The Party II(1) having not done the

said act, the action of Party II(1) in retiring the

workman before the date of superannuation must

fail. The patently arbitrarily act of Party II(1) in not

rectifying the date of birth and retiring him wrongly

without holding an enquiry cannot be sustained

in law.

21. The reliance placed by Party II(1) and

Party II (2) on the case of (i) State of Maharashtra

and Anr., supra, is not applicable to the case at

hand as in that case there was a notification by

which the Government servant could not alter

the date of birth after five years from 16-08-1981.

No date of birth was recorded by Party II(1) at the

time of entry of Party I into service as required

under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)

Act, 1946 and the Central Rules. The Party I had no

occasion to see his Service Book as it was not

maintained nor he has signed the same. There is

therefore no occasion for him to record his

objection and therefore his silence cannot be

accepted as accepting the date of birth as

05-12-1954. There is therefore no inordinate delay

or laches on his part to seek necessary correction

of the service record. His inaction therefore does

not preclude him from showing that his entry of

his date of birth was not correct. The Party I

workman is also not a public servant unlike the

case of State of Maharashtra and Ors., supra nor

there is any possibility of any other employees being

effected for their respective promotions or that they

are likely to suffer irreparable injury, on the contrary

the Party I workman would lose about 10 years of

service on account of lapse on the part of Party II (1).

The Party I has clearly made out a case on the

basis of materials placed before the Court and the

Court is fully satisfied that there is a real injustice

to the Party I workman. The reliance placed on the

above case is therefore misplaced.

22. The Party II(1) has also relied upon the case

of (ii) Yashwant G. Tambe, supra which is also not

applicable to the case at hand as in that case the

workman accepted a particular date of birth to be

his real date of birth throughout his career and

enjoyed benefits of promotion on the basis of

seniority list published from time to time and that

the workman raised a dispute at the fag end of his

service when he was on the verge of retirement

and that the order retiring the workman on the

basis of date of birth recorded in his school Leaving

Certificate was found to be proper and therefore

could not be assailed on the grounds that

principles of natural justice were not followed,

unlike in the present case where the facts are

completely at variance as the Party I had not

remained silent and had raised the dispute. There

was no service record of Party I workman

maintained by Party II(1) on the basis of any

document nor it was done at the instance of Party

I and therefore the present case cannot be equated

to the case relied upon by Party II(1).

23. The reliance placed on (iii) Shaikh Dawood

Shaikh Ommor @ Mujjawar, supra also cannot

assist the Party II (1) in any way as the Party II (1)

had no service record maintained as per the

requirement of the law regarding the date of birth

of Party I workman. It was throughout the case of

Party I that he was born on 05-12-1964 as shown in

the Birth Certificate, which certificate is not

disputed by Party II (1) and therefore the reliance

placed on the above case is not applicable as

Party I had conclusive material to support his claim

and that he had raised the dispute after he was

assured that necessary correction would be made,

but not made. In short, the Party I has sufficiently

proved that the Party II (1) had erroneously recorded

his date of birth as 05-12-1954 instead of

05-12-1964 thereby terminating his services by way

of wrongful superannuation on 31-12-2012 and

therefore issue No. 1 stands proved.

Issue No. 2 and 4.

24. Shri G. S. Fernandes, learned representative

of Party I has submitted that the Party II (1) and

Party II(2) are jointly and severely responsible for

wrongful and illegal termination of his services by

way of superannuation. He has claimed that both

the Employers are responsible for wrongful

termination of his services and therefore the

Party I is entitled for the relief claimed against

both the employers. Learned Adv. Shri G. K.

Sardessai for Party II (2) has submitted and rightly

so that it is an admitted fact that Party I was

absorbed by the Contractor namely Party II (1) Shree

Krupa Services Ltd. and prior to that he was

working with Grewal Engineering Services who

was the Contractor of Party II (2) namely; Zuari

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

184

Agro Chemicals Ltd. and that he never worked for

Zuari Agro Chemicals and that he was employed

by the Contractor and the Contractor was working

for Party II(2) and therefore Party II(2) is not liable

for any acts.

25. Interestingly, there was no demand by

Party I on Party II(2) in the matter of alleged

claim and there was also no demand by Party I on

Party II(2) before the Conciliation Officer. There

was also no plea before the Conciliation Officer

that Party I is an employee of Party II (2) and

therefore there is no employer-employee

relationship between Party I workman and

Party II (2). The Party I was also not relieved from

the services of Party II(2) on his attaining of 58

years neither he was terminated or dismissed by

Party II (2). There has neither been any pleadings

nor made a reference in his Affidavit-in-Evidence

with regard to applicability of the provisions of the

Act with respect to Party II (2). The Party I therefore

cannot get any relief from Party II (2) as he is neither

employee of Party II(2) nor it is the case of Party I

that he was employed by Party II (2) and therefore

Party I has failed to prove that Party II (1) and

Party II (2) are jointly and severely responsible for

the alleged wrongful and illegal termination of his

services on superannuation. On the other hand,

the Party II (2) has proved that there is no employer-

employee relationship between Party I and

Party II (2) and therefore issue No. 2 is answered in

the negative and issue No. 4 in the affirmative.

Issue No. 3.

26. Learned representative for Party II (1),

Shri Nadkarny has submitted that the dispute

raised by Party I is not an industrial dispute and

therefore the reference is bad in law. However, the

submission of Party II(1) is without any merit as

any workman is entitled to raise a dispute under

Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act wherein any

dispute or differences between employer and

employers or between employers and workmen

or between workmen and workmen which is

connected with the employment or non-

-employment or the terms of employment or with

the condition of labour, or any person can be termed

as industrial dispute. The Party I workman has been

unceremoniously terminated by Party II (1) without

completing his entire tenure of service and

therefore he has rightly raised a dispute and hence,

above issue is answered in the negative.

Issue No. 5.

27. Needless to mention, the Party I has proved

that the Party II (1) has terminated the services in

breach of the provisions of law and without

holding any domestic enquiry. The Party II (1) had

admittedly not maintained the service record which

is the responsibility of the Employer. The date of

birth and the date of superannuation were not

recorded as required and terminated his services

without any justification. The Party I workman was

born on 05-12-1964 and has still two years of service

before he attains superannuation under the law. It

is, therefore, the Party I workman is required to be

re-instated in service with full back wages,

continuity in employment and all consequential

benefits, as the termination of Party I workman by

Party II (1) was not bonafide and bad in law and

found to be utterly invalid. Moreover, the Employer

had taken away illegally the right to work of the

workman contrary to the relevant law or in breach

of contract and has deprived the workman of his

earnings and therefore the workman whose

services have been illegally terminated would be

entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and

other reliefs, hence the above issue is answered

accordingly.

28. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the action of the

Party II (1) in terminating the services of

Party I workman, Shri Vinayak Patil by way

of superannuation with effect from 31-12-2012

is illegal and unjustified.

2. The Party II(1) is directed to re-instate the

services of Party I workman with full back

wages with continuity in employment and

all consequential benefits.

3. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Vincent D’Silva)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-II/214

The following award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 26-03-2021 in Case

No. Ref. LC-II/IT/05/15 is hereby published as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 29th April, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

185

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/05/15

Shri Shankar Parab,

C/o. Mohan Parab, Varcha Vada,

Menkurem, Colvale-Goa.

…. Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.,

Kundaim Industrial Estate,

Kundaim-Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party-I represented by Shri Subhash Naik

Jeorge.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri G.K.

Sardessai.

Panaji, dated: 26-03-2021

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the

Government of Goa, by Order dated 17-06-2015,

bearing No. 28/29/2015-Lab/614 referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this Labour

Court-II, Panaji, Goa.

“(1) Whether the action the management

of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Plot No.

128-139 & 324-326, Kundaim Industrial

Estate, Kundaim, Goa, in dismissing

Shri Shankar Parab, Workman Grade A, with

effect from 30-04-2014, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II IT/05/15 and registered

A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance

to the said notice, the Parties put in their

appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short

‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on

28-08-2015 at Exb-4. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/

/Party II (for short, “Employer”) is a Multinational

Company engaged in the production of soaps. He

stated that he was employed by the Employer

initially as, “Trainee”, vide its letter dated

14-08-2001. He stated that he was designated

as “Probationer Worker”, vide its letter dated

14-08-2002. He stated that he was confirmed in

service by the Employer, vide its letter dated

14-11-2002. He stated that he was promoted to

“Workman Grade A” w.e.f. 01-04-2007, by its letter

dated 01-04-2007.

3. He stated that he was issued a charge-sheet

cum show-cause notice dated 10-05-2012. He stated

that the charges levelled against him by the said

charge-sheet are vague, false and fabricated. He

stated that by the said charge-sheet, it was alleged

that the said incident took place outside the factory

premises after duty hours and that there is no

provision in the Standing Orders of the Employer

permitting them to issue charge-sheet in such

alleged circumstances. He stated that he was also

suspended from service pending enquiry. He stated

that he denied the allegations levelled against him

in the said charge-sheet.

4. He stated that the Employer, being not

satisfied with his reply, held an enquiry into the

charges levelled against him by appointing an

Enquiry Officer. He stated that the Enquiry Officer

submitted his findings to the Employer. He stated

that thereafter, the Employer issued to him a

second show-cause notice dated 14-03-2014

directing him as to why the report of the Enquiry

Officer should not be accepted and that

punishment shall not be imposed upon him. He

stated that he replied to the said show-cause notice

vide his letter dated 26-03-2014 giving reasons as

to why the Employer shall not accept the report of

the Enquiry Officer and that no action shall be

taken against him. He stated that thereafter, he

was dismissed from service by the Employer vide

its letter dated 30-04-2014.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal letter issued to

him by the Employer, he raised an industrial dispute

with the Employer demanding reinstatement in

service with full back wages and continuity in

service. He stated that as the Employer did not

accept his demand, he wrote to Conciliation Officer

to intervene in the dispute, which ended in failure.

He contended that the enquiry in respect of the

charge-sheet issued to him was held in violation of

principles of natural justice. He submitted that the

charges levelled against him are very vague. He

submitted that the charges levelled in the charge

sheet do not amounts to misconduct as per the

Standing Orders of the Employer. He submitted

that the findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer

are perverse and not based on evidence on record.

He submitted that the action of the Employer

in terminating his services with effect from

30-04-2014 is illegal and unjustified. He submitted

that since the date of his termination, he is

unemployed and has no source of income. He

submitted that presently, he makes both ends meet

with family support and with the help of savings

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

186

he had made while he was in the employment of

the Employer. The Workman therefore prayed for

his reinstatement in service with full back wages

and with continuity in service and other

consequential benefits.

6. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement on

14-12-2015 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way

of its preliminary objections, submitted that the

present reference filed by the Workman is bad-in-

-law and not maintainable, that the present dispute

of the Workman is not an ‘industrial dispute’ as

defined under I.D. Act, 1947, that there is no

application of mind by the Appropriate

Government while referring the present dispute

and that the Workman was held to be guilty of the

charges levelled against him by the Enquiry Officer,

post an enquiry which was conducted in strict

adherence to the principles of natural justice, after

giving an ample opportunity to the Workman to be

heard and for leading evidence.

7. The Employer stated that it is a Company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is

carrying on the business of manufacturing of soaps.

The Employer stated that the Workman was issued

a suspension order dated 04-05-2012 for the charges

amounting to gross misconduct and indiscipline

(consisting of abuse, threatening and intimidation

of his fellow workmen and his parents) which had

been levelled against him by his fellow workman,

Mr. Mahesh Naik, which warranted detailed

investigation against him. The Employer stated that

the Workman was suspended pending enquiry

w.e.f. 05-05-2012. The Employer stated that the

Workman was thereafter issued a charge-sheet cum

show-cause notice dated 10-05-2012. The Employer

stated that in the said charge-sheet issued to the

Workman, it was alleged that he had been

threatening Mr. Mahesh D. Naik, his co-worker in

the unit for last two months period and that the

visited Mr. Mahesh Naik’s house two months back

alongwith Mr. Vishwas Tari, another co-worker and

threatened his mother. He abused Mr. Mahesh Naik

with expletives and had also threatened Mr.

Mahesh Naik on several occasions with dire

consequences, in the company bus if he does not

quit his job. That on 03-05-2012, he reported to

work in B shift (4.00 p.m. to 12.00 a.m.). After

completion of the shift at around 12.10 a.m. on

04-05-2012, he took the company transport bus to

go back from work. It is reported that around

12.30 a.m., he again abused Mr. Mahesh Naik with

words “gand mari and chodriya” in the company

bus and physically assaulted him with tomatoes.

He also threatened to kill him on that day, that he

has caused lot of trouble to Mr. Mahesh Naik by

constantly verbally abusing and threatening him

again with dire consequences if he does not quit

the job on many occasions. The Employer stated

that Mr. Mahesh Naik has complained with the

local police administration about the behaviour of

the Workman. The Employer stated that the said

complaint was lodged in Ponda Police Station. The

Employer stated that due to his complaint, police

had come to the factory on 04-05-2012 and enquired

about the incident in front of the gate and this

incident has brought bad name for the company.

The Employer stated that the aforesaid act

constitute very serious and grave misconduct as

stipulated under the Certified Standing Orders,

which are in force and applicable to the Workman.

The Employer stated that the Workman was

therefore charged with the following clauses:

Clause 21 (12): “Commission of any act

subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the

premises of the establishment or outside of it

adversely affect the discipline or business of the

establishment.”

Clause 21 (35): “Restraining or detaining or

gheraoing any representative/employee or

employees of the company either inside or outside

the premises of the Company.”

Clause 21 (40): “Use of impolite or insulting or

abusive language, assault or threat of assault,

intimidation or coercion within the premises of the

company or any other person authorized to work in

the company and any such act outside the premises

of the company, if it directly affects or likely to

affect the discipline or work or business of the

company.”

8. The Employer stated that the Workman filed

his reply dated 31-05-2012 to the charge-sheet

issued to him. The Employer stated that as the

reply filed by the Workman was found to be

unsatisfactory, they conducted an enquiry into the

said charge-sheet by appointing Mr. A. M. Gaikwad

as an Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated that Ld.

Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry in an

impartial manner and every opportunity was given

to the Workman to defend the charges levelled

against him. The Employer stated that the Workman

fully participated in the said enquiry. The Employer

stated that after completion of the enquiry, Ld.

Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated

22-10-2013. The Employer stated that after

appreciating the evidence on record, Ld. Enquiry

Officer held the Workman guilty of the charges

levelled against him. The Employer stated that it

has considered the proceedings of the enquiry, the

findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 22-10-2013

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

187

and concurred with the same. The Employer stated

that it has considered the past records of the

Workman and they did not find any extenuating

circumstances. The Employer stated that the

Workman was accordingly served with the second

show-cause notice dated 14-03-2014 alongwith the

findings of the Enquiry Officer, directing him as to

why they should not proceed with appropriate

action. The Employer stated that the Workman filed

his reply vide his reply, dated 26-03-2014 to the

aforesaid show-cause notice. The Employer stated

that after carefully perusing the contents of the

said reply of the workman, they did not find the

satisfactory explanation. The Employer stated that

it has considered the past records of the Workman

and did not find any extenuating circumstances

and in view of the gravity of the proved

misconduct, they dismissed the Workman with

immediate effect, vide its letter dated 30-04-2014.

The Employer denied the overall case as pleaded

by the Workman and prayed for dismissal of the

present reference.

9. Thereafter, an opportunity was given to the

Workman to file re-joinder to the written statement

filed by the Employer. However, Ld. Rep. Shri

Subhash Naik Jeorge, appearing for the Workman

submitted that he do not wish to file any re-joinder

on behalf of the Workman.

10. Based on the pleadings filed by the

respective parties, this court framed the following

issues on 16-03-2016 at Exb. 8.

1. Whether a fair, proper and impartial enquiry

was conducted against the Workman/

/Party I in respect of charge-sheet dated

10-05-2012 in accordance with the principles

of natural justice?

2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled

against the Workman vide charge-sheet

dated 10-05-2012 have been proved to the

satisfaction of this court by acceptable

evidence?

3. Whether the Party I/Workman proves that

the action of the Employer/Party II in

dismissing him from services w.e.f.

30-04-2014 is illegal and unjustified?

4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the present order of reference issued by

Government of Goa is bad-in-law and not

maintainable in view of the submissions

made in para “a” to “d” of its written

statement?

5. Whether the Workman is entitled to any

relief?

6. What Order? What Award?

11. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a) Issue No. 1

: In the Affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

: Partly in the Affirmative

and Partly in the Negative.

: In the Negative.

(d) Issue No. 4

: In the Negative.

(e) Issue No. 5 & 6 : As per final order.

Both the parties filed their synopsis of written

arguments respectively. I have carefully perused

the entire records of the present case including

the synopsis of written arguments filed by both

the parties and is of the opinion as under:

REASONS

12. Issue No. 1 and 2:

By order dated 23-08-2018, passed in my findings

on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that a fair

and proper enquiry has been conducted against

the Workman in accordance with the principles of

natural justice read with provisions of the Certified

Standing Orders of the Employer Company and

that it is further held that except the charge of

misconduct i.e. Clause 21 (35): “Restraining or

detaining or gheraoing any representative/

/employee or employees of the company either

inside or outside the premises of the Company.” of

the Certified Standing Order of the Employer

Company, the management has successfully proved

the other two charges of misconduct namely

Clause 21 (12): “Commission of any act subversive

of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of

the establishment or outside of it adversely affect

the discipline or business of the establishment”

and Clause 21 (40): “Use of impolite or insulting or

abusive language, assault or threat of assault,

intimidation or coercion within the premises of the

company or any other person authorized to work in

the company and any such act outside the premises

of the company, if it directly affects or likely to

affect the discipline or work or business of the

company.” leveled against the Workman vide

charge sheet dated 10-05-2012. The issue No. 1 is

therefore answered in the affirmative and issue

No. 2 is partly answered in the affirmative and

partly in the negative.

13. Issue No. 3:

The Workman filed his statement of claim in the

present matter, which is on record at Exb. 4. It

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

188

appears from the statement of claim filed by the

Workman that he challenged his dismissal from

service by contending to be illegal and unjustified

on the ground that the enquiry conducted against

him is in total violation of principles of natural

justice and also contrary to the provisions of the

Certified Standing Orders, that the findings given

by the Enquiry Officer are totally perverse and not

based on evidence on record and that the charges

levelled against him are not misconducts as per

the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders.

The burden to prove the issue No. 3 was cast on

the Workman.

14. As stated above, by order dated 23-08-2018

passed in my findings on the preliminary issue

No. 1 and 2, I have discussed and come to the

conclusion that a fair and proper enquiry has been

conducted against the Workman in accordance

with the principles of natural justice read with

provisions of the Certified Standing Orders of

the Employer Company and that it is further

held that except the charge of misconduct i.e.

Clause 21 (35): “Restraining or detaining or

gheraoing any representative/employee or

employees of the company either inside or outside

the premises of the Company.” of the Certified

Standing Order of the Employer Company, the

management has successfully proved the other two

charges of misconduct namely Clause 21 (12):

“Commission of any act subversive of discipline or

good behaviour on the premises of the

establishment or outside of it adversely affect the

discipline or business of the establishment” and

Clause 21 (40): “Use of impolite or insulting or

abusive language, assault or threat of assault,

intimidation or coercion within the premises of the

company or any other person authorized to work in

the company and any such act outside the premises

of the company, if it directly affects or likely to

affect the discipline or work or business of the

company.” leveled against the Workman vide

charge sheet dated 10-05-2012.

15. Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik, representing

the Workman, in his written synopsis stated that

the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the

Workman is shockingly disproportionate. As there

is no pleadings as well as evidence of the Workman

to suggest that the punishment imposed upon him

is shockingly disproportionate, I do not find any

merits in the arguments of Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash

Naik.

16. Even otherwise, the Workman is governed

by Certified Standing Orders (CSO) of the Employer.

Clause 23 (a) of the CSO provides for various kinds

of punishment and it differs from warning or

censured to dismissal without notice or payment

in lieu of notice. In terms of Clause 23 (d) of the

CSO, an enquiry shall be held against the Workman

by giving him a charge-sheet clearly setting forth

the circumstances appearing against him and

requiring explanation. In terms of Clause 23 (g) of

the CSO, the Manager shall take into account the

gravity of the misconduct, the previous records if

any of the Workman and any other extenuating or

aggravating circumstances that may exist while

awarding the punishment.

17. The evidence on record indicates that the

Workman joined in the services of the Employer

since 14-08-2001 as ‘Trainee Worker’ and later

he was issued order of ‘probationary worker’ on

14-08-2002. The Workman was confirmed in service

w.e.f. 14-11-2002.

Ld. Adv. Shri G.K. Sardessai, representing the

Employer, in his synopsis of written arguments has

relied upon the following judgments.

18. In the case of Mahendra Nissan Allwyns

Ltd. v/s M.P. Siddappa and Anr, reported in (2000)

ILL J168 SC, before the Hon’ble Apex Court, by an

award, the Labour Court confirmed the order of

removal from service. On a writ petition filed by

the Respondent, the Hon’ble High Court came to

the conclusion that the punishment imposed

against the Workman is not proportionate to the

charges levelled against him and that the charges

of misconduct were not in serious nature. While

allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent, the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that

“3. The High Court found no fault with finding

that the charges had been proved. It found

that the charges were not serious in nature

and the punishment that was imposed was

disproportionate.

4. We do not agree with the High Court. The

charges are of a serious nature. The first

respondent was found to have led out workmen

from the factory premises regardless of the

challenge by the Security Guard. Along with

these workmen, the first respondent entered

the administrative building of the appellant

and the room of the Deputy Manager. The

Deputy General Manager and Manager

(Personnel) were abused in Filthy language and

threatened, examples of which have been

given. Misbehavior was also proved against

the first respondent in his conduct with five

executives of the appellants. If these are not

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

189

serious charges against workman worthy of

his dismissal from service, we do not know

what can be. The High Court was quite wrong

in the conclusion that it reached and in the

order that it passed the punishment imposed

against the respondent must remain

unaltered.”

19. In case of Mahindra and Mahindra V.N.B.

Narawade, reported in 2005 (3) SCC 134, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“It is no doubt true that after introduction of

section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act,

certain amount of discretion is vested with

labour court/industrial tribunal in interfering

with the quantum of punishment awarded by

the management, where the concerned

workman is found guilty of misconduct. The

said area of discretion has been very well

defined by the various judgments of this Court

referred to herein above and it is certainly not

unlimited as has been observed by the Division

Bench of the High Court. The discretion which

can be exercised under Section 11-A is available

only on the existence of certain factors like

punishment being disproportionate to the

gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the

conscience of the court, or the existence of any

mitigating circumstance which requires the

reduction of the sentence, or the past

misconduct of the workman which may

persuade the Labour Court to reduce the

punishment. In the absence of any such factor

existing, the labour court cannot by way of

sympathy alone exercise the power under

Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the

punishment. As noticed here above at least in

two of the cases citied before us, i.e., Orissa

Cement Ltd. (supra) and New Shorrock Mills

(supra), this Court held: “punishment of

dismissal for using of abusive language cannot

be held to be disproportionate.” In this case all

forums below have held that the language used

by the workman is such that it cannot be

tolerated by any civilized society. Use of such

abusive language against a superior officer,

that too not once but twice, in the presence of

his subordinates cannot be termed to be an

indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in

the absence of any extenuating factor to herein

above.”

20. In the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. V.

Uttam Manohar Nakate, reported in 2002 (2) SCC

489, the Supreme Court held as under:

“Furthermore, it is trite, the Labour Court or

the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in

terms of the provisions of the Act, must act

within the four-corner thereof. The Industrial

Courts would not sit in appeal over the

decision of the employer unless there exists a

statutory provision in this behalf. Although

its jurisdiction is wide but the same must be

applied in terms of the provisions of the statue

and no other.

If the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser

punishment may be imposed, but such an order

cannot be passed on an irrational or

extraneous ground.”

21. In the case of Anand Bazar Patrika V. Their

Employees, reported in 1963-II L.L.J. 429, the

Supreme Court dealt with the extent of jurisdiction

of Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal and

observed as follows:

“The extent of the jurisdiction which a labour

Court or an industrial Tribunal can exercise

dealing with such disputes is well-settled. If

the termination of an industrial employee’s

service has been preceded by a proper domestic

enquiry which has been held in accordance

with the rules of natural justice and the

conclusions reached at the said enquiry are

not perverse, the Tribunal is not entitled to

consider the propriety or the correctness of the

said conclusions. If, on the other hand, in

terminating the services of the employee, the

management has acted maliciously or

vindictively or has been actuated by a desire

to punish the employee for his trade union

activities, the Tribunal would be entitled to

give adequate protection to the employee by

ordering his reinstatement, or directing in his

favour the payment of compensation: but if

the enquiry has been proper and the conduct

of the management in dismissing the employee

is not mala fide, than the Tribunal cannot

interfere with the conclusions of enquiry officer,

or with the orders passed by the management

after accepting the said conclusion.”

22. In the case of Bemco Hydraulics, Ltd. Versus

Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation

Officer and another reported in 1960(61) FLR 8,

the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed

as under:

“In the present case as the charge discloses,

the assault committed by the second

respondent workman was purely a private

matter as he committed the acts of assaulting

the workman who were not supporting the

strike, outside of employment. Assault was

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

190

committed to terrorize the workman outside of

employment with a view to force him to work,

which acts certainly constitute an act

subversive of discipline. It is open to the

employer to take disciplinary action against

the delinquent workman when the act

complained of is not far too remote and

unconnected with the employment but one

which has casual connection which has link

between the alleged conduct of misconduct and

employment is real and substantial, immediate

and not remote or tenuous, as was noticed by

the Supreme court in the case Glaxo

Laboratories (India), Ltd. [1985-I L.L.N 57].

23. Among the aforesaid judgments, the

principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

its case of Mahendra Nissan Allwyns Ltd (supra)

is applicable to the case in hand. In the instant

case, the misconducts proved against the Workman

are grave and serious in nature. The Workman was

in the services of the Employer for around 12 to 13

years. There is no mitigating circumstances by

which the Workman entitled for lesser punishment

than his dismissal from service. In my considered

opinion, the punishment imposed upon the

Workman of dismissal from service is just, fair and

proper and proportionate to the proved misconduct.

Hence, it is held that Workman failed to prove that

the action of the Employer in dismissing him from

service w.e.f. 30-04-2014 is illegal and unjustified.

The issue No. 3 is therefore answered in the

negative.

24. Issue No. 4:

The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary

objections, submitted that the reference filed by

the Workman is bad-in-law, that the present

dispute raised by the Workman is not an ‘industrial

dispute’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, that there is non-application of mind by

the Appropriate Government while referring the

present dispute and that the Workman was held

guilty of the charges levelled against him by the

Enquiry Officer, post an enquiry which was

conducted in strict adherence to the principles of

natural justice after giving an ample opportunities

to the Workman of being heard and for leading

evidence. The burden was cast on the Employer to

prove its aforesaid allegation.

25. The term ‘industrial dispute’ has been defined

u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it means “any

dispute or difference between employers and

employers, or between employers and workmen, or

between workmen and workmen, which is connected

with the employment or non-employment or the terms

of employment or with the conditions of labour, of

any person.” In the case in hand, it is not in dispute

that the Party I is a ‘Workman’ within the meaning

of Sec. 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the Party II is

an Employer within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of

the I.D. Act, 1947. Consequently, the present

dispute raised by the Workman pertaining to his

non-employment w.e.f. 30-04-2014 is an ‘industrial

dispute’ within the meaning of Sec. 2 (k) of the I.D.

Act, 1947.

Hence, I do not find any merits in the

submissions of the Employer that the reference is

not maintainable in law. It is therefore, held that

the Employer failed to prove that the present order

of reference issued by the Government of Goa is

bad-in-law and not maintainable. The issue No. 4

is therefore answered in the negative.

26. Issue No. 5:

While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the action of the Employer in dismissing him from

service w.e.f. 30-04-2014 is legal and justified. The

Workman is therefore not entitled to any relief. The

issue No. 5 is therefore answered in the negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action the management

of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Plot

No. 128-139 & 324-326, Kundaim Industrial

Estate, Kundaim, Goa, in dismissing Shri

Shankar Parab, Workman Grade A, with effect

from 30-04-2014, is legal and justified.

2. It is held that the Workman, Shri Shankar

Parab, is not entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

_______

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-II/213

The following award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 30-03-2021 in Case

No. LC-II/IT/04/2015 is hereby published as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disptues

Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 29th April, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

191

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/IT/04/2015

Shri Vishwas Tari,

Surrchem Bhat,

Kumbharjua, Goa.

… Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited,

Kundaim Industrial Estate,

Kundaim, Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Shri Subhash Naik

Jeorge.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri G. K.

Sardessai.

Panaji, Dated: 30-03-2021.

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the Government of

Goa, by Order dated 17-06-2015, bearing No. 28/31/

/2015-Lab/595, referred the following dispute for

its adjudication to this Labour Court-II of Goa at

Panaji, Goa.

“(1)

Whether the action of the management

of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Plot

No. 128-139 & 324-326, Kundaim Industrial

Estate, Kundaim, Goa, in dismissing

Shri Vishwas Tari, Workman Grade B, with

effect from 30-04-2014, is legal and justified?

(2)

If not, what relief, the Workman is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II-IT/4/2015 and registered

A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance

to the said notice, the Parties put in their

appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short

‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on

09-05-2015 at Exb. 4. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/

/Party-II (for short ‘Employer’) is a multi-national

factory and is engaged in the production of soap.

He stated that he was engaged by the Employer

initially as a ‘trainee’ vide letter dated 25-08-2006

in its aforesaid factory. He stated that he was

employed as a “Probationary Worker”, vide letter

of the Employer dated 26-08-2007. He stated that

thereafter, he was confirmed in the services, vide

letter of the Employer dated 26-11-2007.

3. He was issued a charge-sheet cum show-cause

notice dated 12-02-2012 allegedly vague, false and

fabricated charge-sheet. He stated that he was

suspended from service pending enquiry. He stated

that he replied to the said charge-sheet denying

the allegations levelled against him. He stated that

the Employer however, not satisfied with the reply

filed by him, held an enquiry against him by

appointing an Enquiry Officer. He stated that the

Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and

submitted his findings to the Employer. He stated

that thereafter, the Employer issued the second

show-cause notice dated 21-01-2014 to him asking

why the report of the Enquiry Officer should not

be accepted and why the punishment should not

be imposed upon him. He stated that he replied to

the said show-cause notice dated 21-01-2014, vide

his letter dated 03-02-2014 giving reasons as to

why the Employer shall not accept the report of

the Enquiry Officer and no action shall be taken

against him. He stated that thereafter, the Employer

dismissed him from their services w.e.f. 30-04-2014.

Aggrieved by the said letter of dismissal, he raised

an industrial dispute with the Employer demanding

reinstatement in service with full back wages and

continuity in service, which ended in failure.

4. The Workman contended that the Enquiry

Officer conducted the enquiry in total violation of

the principles of natural justice. He submitted that

the Enquiry Officer was biased in favour of the

management. He submitted that the findings given

by the Enquiry Officer were totally perverse and

not based on evidence on record of the enquiry

proceedings as well as contrary to the provisions

of the Standing Orders applicable to him. He

submitted that the charges levelled against him

are not misconducts as per the provisions of the

Standing Orders. He submitted that the charges

levelled against him have not been proved. He

submitted that the charges levelled against him in

the charge-sheet does not amounts to misconduct

as per the Standing Orders of the Employer. He

submitted that the action of the Employer in

terminating his services w.e.f. 30-04-2014 is illegal

and unjustified. He submitted that since the date

of his termination, he is unemployed and has no

source of income. He stated that presently he makes

both ends meet with family support and with the

help of savings he had, while he was in the

employment of the Employer. The Workman

therefore, prayed that he be reinstated in service

with full back wages and continuity in service

with cost.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

192

5. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement on

14-12-2015 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way

of its preliminary objections, submitted that the

present reference filed by the Workman is

bad-in-law and hence not maintainable, that the

present dispute raised by the Workman is not an

industrial dispute as defined under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, that there is non-application of

mind by the Appropriate Government while

referring the present dispute and that the

Workman was held to be guilty of the charges

levelled against him by the Enquiry Officer, which

was conducted in strict adherence to the

principles of natural justice, after giving an ample

opportunities to him to be heard and for leading

evidence.

6. The Employer stated that it is a company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and

carrying on the manufacturing of soap. The

Employer stated that the Workman was issued a

suspension order dated 12-02-2012 as there were

specific complaints against him of physical abuse,

threatening and intimidation of his fellow Workman

and his parents as well as other serious

misconducts warranting detailed investigations.

The Employer stated that the Workman was

suspended pending enquiry with immediate

effect. The Employer stated that the Workman

was informed that he would be served with a

show-cause notice/charge-sheet in due course and

that an independent enquiry would be conducted

into the charges levelled against him in terms of

the standing orders applicable to him. The

Employer stated that the Workman replied the said

suspension letter, vide his letter dated 13-02-2012.

The Employer stated that the Workman was

thereafter issued a charge-sheet cum show-cause

notice dated 20-02-2012. The Employer stated that

in the charge-sheet issued to the Workman, it was

alleged that he reported for work on 12-02-2012 in

B shift (4.00 p.m. to 12.00 a.m.) and reported to

work in packing hall for carrying out the duties for

the WRA operations and packing operations. The

Employer stated that it was further alleged that at

around 6.10 p.m., he approached Mr. Mahesh Naik,

employee card No. 442 in the canteen hand

washing area and asked him in anger and in a

threatening tone “why did you lodge a police

complaint against him and that it is reported

against him that he then slapped Mr. Mahesh Naik

on his left cheek and that after slapping him, he

threatened him again that “now go and complain

about this and that he do not fear anybody”. The

Employer stated that it was further alleged that

prior to the above mentioned incident, he had

threatened Mr. Mahesh Naik on previous occasions

as well as to resign from the services of the

Company for accepting long term settlement

dated 07-11-2011 with the company and that on

06-02-2012, he had threatened him in the company

bus that if he fails to resign within one month, he

will physically abuse him because he signed the

settlement and that it was also reported that on

02-02-2012, he went to his residence and

threatened his parents that as Mahesh has accepted

the long term settlement, he should resign from

the company else he will physically abuse him.

The Employer stated that the Workman was

therefore charged for the following misconducts

as stipulated under the Certified Standing Orders

which are in force and applicable to him.

Clause 21 (1): “Wilful insubordination or

disobedience, whether or not in combination with

others, to any lawful and reasonable order of a

superior;

Clause 21 (8): Habitual breach of any standing

order or any law applicable to the establishment

or any rules made thereunder.”

Clause 21 (11): “…..riotous, disorderly, indecent or

improper behaviour on the premises of the

establishment or outside the premises of the

establishment if it adversely affects or is likely to

affects or is likely to affect the working or discipline

of the establishment.”

Clause 21 (12): Commission of any act subversive

of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of

establishment or outside of it adversely affect the

discipline or business of the establishment.”

Clause 21 (32): “Wilful interference with the work

of other workmen”.

Clause 21 (35): “Restraining or detaining or

gheraoing any representative/employee or

employees of the Company either inside or outside

the premises of the Company”.

Clause 21 (40): “Use of impolite or insulting or

abusive language, assault or threat of assault,

intimidation or coercion within the premises of the

Company against any employee of the Company or

any other person authorized to work in the

Company, and any such act outside the premises

of the Company, if it directly affects or is likely to

affect the discipline or work or business of the

Company”.

Clause 21 (52): To manhandle or obstruct other

workers from attending their duties”.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

193

7. The Employer stated that the Workman filed

his reply dated 25-02-2012 to the charge-sheet/

/show cause notice. The Employer stated that they

having found the reply unsatisfactory, issued a

notice of enquiry dated 09-03-2012 to the Workman

informing him about the enquiry. The Employer

stated that they conducted an enquiry into the

above said charges. The Employer stated that the

enquiry was conducted by Mr. Vijay Palekar, the

Enquiry Officer, in impartial manner and every

opportunity was given to the Workman to defend

the charges levelled against him and the Workman

fully participated in the enquiry. The Employer

stated that the entire proceedings were duly

recorded and accounted for, to the knowledge and

satisfaction of both parties. The Employer stated

that the Enquiry Officer, after holding an enquiry

in strict compliance to the principles of natural

justice, submitted his findings, vide a speaking

and reasoned enquiry report dated 28-12-2013

specifically recording the fact that a police

complaint had been filed by the victim against the

Workman with the Ponda Police Station on

13-02-2012 regarding the aforementioned

misconducts committed by the Workman and that

a doctor had duly examined the victim post his

physical abuse by the Workman. The Employer

stated that as per the findings in the Enquiry

Report, the Workman had not only been threatening

the victim repeatedly for signing the long term

settlement but his parents as well. The Employer

stated that the Workman through his threats, was

telling the victim to resign from the services of the

Employer. The Employer stated that consequently,

Ld. Enquiry Officer found the Workman guilty of

the charges levelled against him in the charge

sheet cum show-cause notice hereinabove

mentioned. The Employer stated that after

appreciating the evidence on record, they held the

Workman guilty of the charges levelled against

him by them. The Employer stated that they

considered the proceedings of the enquiry, the

findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 28-12-2013

and concurred with the same. The Employer stated

that they considered the past record of the

Workman. The Employer stated that they did not

find any extenuating circumstances and

accordingly the Workman was served with a

second show cause notice dated 21-04-2014 along

with findings of the Enquiry Officer as to why the

company should not proceed with the appropriate

action. The Employer stated that the Workman filed

his reply dated 03-02-2014. The Employer stated

that after carefully perusing the contents of the

replies of the Workman and once again going

through the proceedings of the enquiry and the

findings of the Enquiry Officer dated 28-12-2013,

did not find the explanation satisfactory. The

Employer stated that they concurred with the

Enquiry Report cum findings submitted by the

Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated that they

considered the past record of the Workman and

did not find any extenuating circumstances. The

Employer stated that in view of the gravity of the

proved misconducts, they dismissed the Workman

with immediate effect vide letter dated 30-04-2014.

The Employer denied the overall case as pleaded

by the Workman and prayed for dismissal of the

present reference.

8. Thereafter, case was fixed for filing rejoinder

on 08-01-2016. However, Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik

Jeorge appearing for the Workman submitted that

he does not wish to file any rejoinder.

9. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

parties, this court framed following issues on

16-03-2016 at Exb. 8.

1. Whether a free, fair and proper enquiry has

been conducted against the Party I/Workman

in respect of charge-sheet dated 20-02-2012

in accordance with the principles of natural

justice?

2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled

against the Workman vide charge sheet dated

20-02-2012 have been proved to the

satisfaction of this court by acceptable

evidence?

3. Whether the Party I/Workman proves that the

action of the Employer/Party II in dismissing

him from services w.e.f. 30-04-2014 is illegal

and unjustified?

4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the present order of reference issued by the

Government of Goa is bad-in-law and not

maintainable in view of the submissions

made in para “a” to “d” of its written

statement?

5. Whether the Workman is entitled to any

relief?

6. What Order? What Award?

10. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under

(a) Issue No. 1

: In the Affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

: Partly in the Affirmative

and

Partly in the Negative.

: In the Negative.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

194

(d) Issue No. 4

: In the Negative.

(e) Issue No. 5 & 6 : As per final order.

Both the parties filed their synopsis of written

arguments respectively. I have carefully perused

the entire records of the present case including

the synopsis of written arguments filed by both

the parties and is of the opinion as under:

REASONS

11. Issue No. 1 and 2:

By order dated 12-12-2019, passed in my findings

on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that a fair

and proper enquiry has been conducted against

the Workman in accordance with the principles of

natural justice and that it is further held that except

the charge of misconduct i.e. Clause 21 (1): “wilful

insubordination or disobedience whether or not in

combination with another of any lawful and

reasonable order of a superior”, all the charges of

misconduct levelled against the Workman vide

charge-sheet dated 20-02-2012 have been proved

to the satisfaction of this court by acceptable

evidence. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in

the affirmative and issue No. 2 is partly answered

in the affirmative and partly in the negative.

12. Issue No. 3:

The Workman filed his statement of claim in the

present matter, which is on record at Exb. 4. It

appears from the statement of claim filed by the

Workman that he challenged his dismissal from

service by contending to be illegal and unjustified

on the ground that the enquiry conducted against

him is in total violation of principles of natural

justice and also contrary to the provisions of the

Certified Standing Orders, that the findings given

by the Enquiry Officer are totally perverse and not

based on evidence on record and that the charges

levelled against him are not misconduct as per the

provisions of the Certified Standing Orders. The

burden to prove the issue No. 3 was cast on the

Workman.

13. As stated above, by order dated 12-12-2019

passed in my findings on the preliminary issue

No. 1 and 2, I have discussed and come to the

conclusion that a fair and proper enquiry has been

conducted against the Workman in accordance

with the principles of natural justice and it is further

held that except the charge of misconduct i.e.

Clause 21 (1): “wilful insubordination or

disobedience whether or not in combination with

another of any lawful and reasonable order of a

superior”, all the charges of misconduct levelled

against the Workman vide charge-sheet dated

20-02-2012 have been proved to the satisfaction of

this court by acceptable evidence.

14.

Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik, representing

the Workman, in his written synopsis stated that

the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the

Workman is shockingly disproportionate. As there

is no pleadings as well as evidence of the Workman

to suggest that punishment of dismissal from

service is disproportionate to the proved

misconduct, I do not find any merits in the

submissions of Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik,

appearing for the Workman.

15.

Even otherwise, the Workman is governed

by Certified Standing Orders (CSO) of the Employer.

Clause 23 (a) of the CSO provides for various kinds

of punishment and it differs from warning or

censured to dismissal without notice or payment

in lieu of notice. In terms of Clause 23 (d) of the

CSO, an enquiry shall be held against the Workman

by giving him a charge-sheet clearly setting forth

the circumstances appearing against him and

requiring explanation. In terms of Clause 23 (g) of

the CSO, the Manager shall take into account the

gravity of the misconduct, the previous records if

any of the Workman and any other extenuating or

aggravating circumstances that may exist while

awarding the punishment.

16. The evidence on record indicates that the

Workman joined in the services of the Employer

initially as a “Trainee”, vide letter dated

25-08-2006 and later he was issued order of

“Probationary worker” on 26-08-2007. The Workman

was confirmed in service w.e.f. 26-11-2007.

Ld. Adv. Shri G.K. Sardessai, representing the

Employer, in his synopsis of written arguments has

relied upon the following judgments.

17. In the case of Mahendra Nissan Allwyns

Ltd. v/s M.P. Siddappa and Anr, reported in (2000)

I LLJ168 SC, before the Hon’ble Apex Court, by an

award, the Labour Court confirmed the order of

removal from service. On a writ petition filed by

the Respondent, the Hon’ble High Court came to

the conclusion that the punishment imposed

against the Workman is not proportionate to the

charges levelled against him and that the charges

of misconduct were not in serious nature. While

allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent, the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that

“3. The High Court found no fault with finding

that the charges had been proved. It found

that the charges were not serious in nature

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

195

and the punishment that was imposed was

disproportionate.

4. We do not agree with the High Court. The

charges are of a serious nature. The first

respondent was found to have led out workmen

from the factory premises regardless of the

challenge by the Security Guard. Along with

these workmen the first respondent entered

the administrative building of the appellant

and the room of the Deputy Manager. The

Deputy General Manager and Manager

(Personnel) were abused in Filthy language and

threatened, examples of which have been

given. Misbehavior was also proved against

the first respondent in his conduct with five

executives of the appellants. If these are not

serious charges against workman worthy of

his dismissal from service, we do not know

what can be. The High Court was quite wrong

in the conclusion that it reached and in the

order that it passed the punishment imposed

against the respondent must remain

unaltered.”

18. In case of Mahindra and Mahindra V.N.B.

Narawade, reported in 2005 (3) SCC 134, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“It is no doubt true that after introduction of

Section 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act,

certain amount of discretion is vested with

labour court/industrial tribunal in interfering

with the quantum of punishment awarded by

the management, where the concerned

workman is found guilty of misconduct. The

said area of discretion has been very well

defined by the various judgments of this Court

referred to herein above and it is certainly not

unlimited as has been observed by the Division

Bench of the High Court. The discretion which

can be exercised under Section 11-A is available

only on the existence of certain factors like

punishment being disproportionate to the

gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the

conscience of the court, or the existence of any

mitigating circumstance which requires the

reduction of the sentence, or the past

misconduct of the workman which may

persuade the Labour Court to reduce the

punishment. In the absence of any such factor

existing, the labour court cannot by way of

sympathy alone exercise the power under

Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the

punishment. As noticed here above at least in

two of the cases citied before us, i.e., Orissa

Cement Ltd. (supra) and New Shorrock Mills

(supra), this Court held: “punishment of

dismissal for using of abusive language cannot

be held to be disproportionate.” In this case all

forums below have held that the language used

by the workman is such that it cannot be

tolerated by any civilized society. Use of such

abusive language against a superior officer,

that too not once but twice, in the presence of

his subordinates cannot be termed to be an

indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in

the absence of any extenuating factor to herein

above.”

19. In the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. V.

Uttam Manohar Nakate, reported in 2002 (2) SCC

489, the Supreme Court held as under:

“Furthermore, it is trite, the Labour Court or

the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, in

terms of the provisions of the Act, must act

within the four-corner thereof. The Industrial

Courts would not sit in appeal over the

decision of the employer unless there exists a

statutory provision in this behalf. Although

its jurisdiction is wide but the same must be

applied in terms of the provisions of the statue

and no other.

If the punishment is harsh, albeit a lesser

punishment may be imposed, but such an order

cannot be passed on an irrational or

extraneous ground.”

20. In the case of Anand Bazar Patrika V. Their

Employees, reported in 1963-II L.L.J.429, the

Supreme Court dealt with the extent of jurisdiction

of Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal and

observed as follows:

“The extent of the jurisdiction which a labour

Court or an industrial Tribunal can exercise

dealing with such disputes is well-settled. If

the termination of an industrial employee’s

service has been preceded by a proper domestic

enquiry which has been held in accordance

with the rules of natural justice and the

conclusions reached at the said enquiry are

not perverse, the Tribunal is not entitled to

consider the propriety or the correctness of the

said conclusions. If, on the other hand, in

terminating the services of the employee, the

management has acted maliciously or

vindictively or has been actuated by a desire

to punish the employee for his trade union

activities, the Tribunal would be entitled to

give adequate protection to the employee by

ordering his reinstatement, or directing in his

favour the payment of compensation: but if

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

196

the enquiry has been proper and the conduct

of the management in dismissing the employee

is not mala fide, than the Tribunal cannot

interfere with the conclusions of enquiry officer,

or with the orders passed by the management

after accepting the said conclusion.”

21. In the case of Bemco Hydraulics, Ltd. Versus

Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation

Officer and another reported in 1960(61) FLR 8,

the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed

as under:

“In the present case as the charge discloses,

the assault committed by the second

respondent workman was purely a private

matter as he committed the acts of assaulting

the workman who were not supporting the

strike, outside of employment. Assault was

committed to terrorize the workman outside of

employment with a view to force him to work,

which acts certainly constitute an act

subversive of discipline. It is open to the

employer to take disciplinary action against

the delinquent workman when the act

complained of is not far too remote and

unconnected with the employment but one

which has casual connection which has link

between the alleged conduct of misconduct and

employment is real and substantial, immediate

and not remote or tenuous, as was noticed by

the Supreme court in the case Glaxo

Laboratories (India), Ltd. [1985-I L.L.N 57].

22. Among the aforesaid judgments, the

principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

its case of Mahendra Nissan Allwyns Ltd. (supra)

is applicable to the case in hand. In the instant

case, the misconducts proved against the Workman

are grave and serious in nature. The Workman was

in the services of the Employer for around 8 years.

There is no mitigating circumstances by which

the Workman is entitled for lesser punishment than

his dismissal from service. In my considered opinion,

the punishment imposed upon the Workman of

dismissal from service is just, fair and proper and

proportionate to the proved misconduct. Hence, it

is held that Workman failed to prove that the action

of the Employer in dismissing him from service

w.e.f. 30-04-2014 is illegal and unjustified. The issue

No. 3 is therefore answered in the negative.

23. Issue No. 4:

The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary

objections, submitted that the reference filed by

the Workman is bad-in-law, that the present

dispute raised by the Workman is not an ‘industrial

dispute’ as defined under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, that there is non-application of mind by

the Appropriate Government while referring the

present dispute and that the Workman was held

guilty of the charges levelled against him by the

Enquiry Officer, post an enquiry which was

conducted in strict adherence to the principles of

natural justice after giving an ample opportunities

to the Workman of being heard and for leading

evidence. The burden was cast on the Employer to

prove its aforesaid allegation.

24. The term ‘industrial dispute’ has been defined

u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and it means “any

dispute or difference between employers and

employers, or between employers and workmen, or

between workmen and workmen, which is connected

with the employment or non-employment or the terms

of employment or with the conditions of labour, of

any person.” In the case in hand, it is not in dispute

that the Party I is a ‘Workman’ within the meaning

of Sec. 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and the Party II is

an Employer within the meaning of Section 2 (j) of

the I.D. Act, 1947. Consequently, the present

dispute raised by the Workman pertaining to his

non-employment w.e.f. 30-04-2014 is an ‘industrial

dispute’ within the meaning of Sec. 2 (k) of the I.D.

Act, 1947.

Hence, I do not find any merits in the

submissions of the Employer that the reference is

not maintainable in law. It is therefore, held that

the Employer failed to prove that the present order

of reference issued by the Government of Goa is

bad-in-law and not maintainable. The issue No. 4

is therefore answered in the negative.

25. Issue No. 5:

While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the action of the Employer in dismissing him from

service w.e.f. 30-04-2014 is legal and justified.

The Workman is therefore not entitled to any relief.

The issue No. 5 is therefore answered in the

negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action the management

of M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Plot

No. 128-139 & 324-326, Kundaim Industrial

Estate, Kundaim, Goa, in dismissing

Shri Vishwas Tari, Workman Grade B, with

effect from 30-04-2014, is legal and justified.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

197

It is held that the Workman, Shri Vishwas

Tari, is not entitled to any relief.

No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-II/216

The following award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 24-03-2021 in Case

No. Ref. LC-II/IT/15/15 is hereby published as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 29th April, 2021.

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/15/15

Shri Mohan Gaunekar,

Rep. by the General Secretary,

Cadila Healthcare

Employees Union,

Kundaim, Ponda-Goa.

… Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.,

Kundaim Industrial Estate,

Kundaim-Goa.

… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party-I represented by Shri Subhash Naik

Jeorge.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri M.S.

Bandodkar.

Panaji, Dated: 24-03-2021

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause

Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) the

Government of Goa, by Order dated 14-07-2015,

bearing No. 28/39/2015-Lab/707 referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this Labour

Court-II, Panaji, Goa.

“(1)

Whether the action of M/s. Cadila

Healthcare Limited, Plot No. 203 to 213,

Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa,

in dismissing from service Shri Mohan

Gaunekar, Operator, with effect from

24-12-2014, is legal and justified?

(2)

If not, what relief the Workman is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/15/15 and registered

A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance

to the said notice, the Parties put in their

appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short

‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on

03-11-2015 at Exb-4. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/

/Party II (for short, “Employer”) is a pharmaceutical

company engaged in the production of tablets/

/capsules exported all over the world as well as

sold in domestic market. He stated that the workers

of the Employer are member of a trade union namely

Cadila Health Care Employees Union. He stated

that he was employed with the Employer since the

year 1991. He stated that initially he was working

as a temporary worker. He stated that on and from

01-08-1993, he was issued a letter of appointment

as its permanent workman and designated as ‘Store

Attendant’ under its erstwhile nomenclature

German Remedies Ltd. He stated that he was

confirmed in the service with effect from

01-02-1994 by its letter dated 01-02-1994.

3. He stated that he was issued a charge-sheet

dated 07-05-2014 alleging unauthorized absence

from duty since 16-04-2014. He stated that he

replied to the charge-sheet vide his reply dated

29-04-2014 justifying his absence which was found

to be unsatisfactory. He stated that vide his letter

dated 21-04-2011, he had assured them of not

repeating the unauthorized absence. He stated that

by the said charge-sheet, the Employer stated that

in spite of giving earlier warnings to him vide its

letter dated 14-05-2011, 03-08-2012 and 10-10-2013,

he continued to remain absent from his duties. He

was therefore, charged with wilful insubordination

or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order

or (of) a superior, habitual absences without leave

and absence without leave for more than fifteen

consecutive days without sufficient ground or

proper or satisfactory explanation, habitual breach

of Standing Order and law applicable to the

Establishment and rules made there under,

commission of any act subversive of discipline or

good behavior on the premises of the establishment

or any place outside the premises, poor or

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

198

unsatisfactory workmanship. He stated that he had

replied to the said charge-sheet dated 07-05-2014,

vide his letter dated 09-05-2014 denying the

allegations levelled in the charge-sheet. He stated

that however, the Employer, having not been

satisfied with his reply, conducted an enquiry as

per the provisions of Certified Standing Orders. He

stated that Adv. Shri S.K. Manjrekar was appointed

as an Enquiry Officer. He stated that said Shri S. K.

Manjrekar conducted an enquiry and submitted

his findings dated 01-10-2014. He stated that

thereafter the Employer issued to him a show-cause

notice dated 09-10-2014 enclosing there with a

copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer dated

01-10-2014 and sought comments from him on the

findings of the Enquiry Officer. He stated that he

replied to the above said show-cause notice dated

09-10-2014, vide his letter dated 23-10-2014. He

stated that thereafter, the Employer issued to him

a dismissal order dated 24-12-2014, thereby

dismissing him from service with immediate effect.

He stated that aggrieved by the wrongful action

of the Employer, he addressed a letter dated

03-01-2015 to the Employer demanding

reinstatement in service with full back wages and

continuity in service. He stated that, as the

Employer did not accept his demand, he raised an

industrial dispute before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner, Ponda, which ended in failure.

4. The Workman contended that the action of

the Employer in terminating his services is totally

vindictive, illegal and unjustified. He submitted

that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon

him is highly disproportionate even assuming and

without admitting that the allegations of

unauthorized absenteeism is proved. He submitted

that the enquiry conducted against him is in

violation of the principles of natural justice as well

as in violation of the provisions of the Certified

Standing Orders. He submitted that the allegations

levelled against him in the charge-sheet dated

07-05-2014 were vague. He submitted that the

findings dated 01-10-2014 given by the Enquiry

Officer are perverse and not based on evidence on

record. He submitted that the charges of

absenteeism levelled against him have not been

proved in the enquiry at all. He submitted that the

punishment of dismissal imposed upon him is

highly unjust and disproportionate to the proved

misconduct. He submitted that the findings given

by the Enquiry Officer are biased and in mechanical

manner in favour of the Employer. He submitted

that since the date of his wrongful termination, he

is unemployed. He submitted that he was drawing

a monthly salary of Rs. 27,000/- at the time of

termination of his services. The Workman therefore

prayed for reinstatement in service with full back

wages and continuity in service with cost.

5. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement on

17-12-2015 at Exb. 5. The Employer submitted that

the Workman was remaining unauthorizedly absent

from duty without permission and information of

his superior, therefore he was issued letters dated

08-04-2014 and 25-04-2014. The Employer stated

that the Workman replied to the said letters, vide

his reply dated 29-04-2014. The Employer stated

that however, even thereafter, the Workman

continued to remain unauthorizedly absent. The

Employer stated that the Workman was issued a

charge-sheet dated 07-05-2014. The Employer

stated that the Workman filed his reply to the said

charge-sheet vide his reply dated 09-05-2014. The

Employer stated that since the reply was not found

to be satisfactory, the Employer decided to conduct

a fair and proper enquiry into the said charge-

-sheet dated 07-05-2014 by following the principles

of natural justice as per its Certified Standing

Orders. The Employer stated that, it has held a fair

and proper enquiry by following the principles of

natural justice and the findings are based on and

are arising out of the evidence on record. The

Employer stated that since the charges levelled in

the charge-sheet are found proved against the

Workman, he was issued a show-cause notice dated

09-10-2014. The Employer stated that the Workman

filed reply to the said show-cause notice vide his

reply dated 23-10-2014. The Employer stated that,

having regards to the other past records, it

dismissed the Workman from the services vide

dismissal letter dated 24-12-2014. The Employer

therefore submits that the said termination is fully

legal and justified and the Workman is not entitled

to any relief as prayed by him. The Employer stated

that in any event if this Hon’ble Court comes to the

conclusion that the enquiry was not conducted

properly or in a fair and proper manner, or that the

findings are perverse and/or are not based on the

evidence, it crave leave to adduce additional

evidence to justify its case of dismissal. The

Employer submitted that the union has no locus

standi to raise the dispute on behalf of the

Workman. The Employer denied the overall case as

pleaded by the Workman and prayed for dismissal

of the present reference.

6. Thereafter, the union filed its rejoinder on

07-01-2016 at Exb. 06. The Workman, by way of his

Re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all his

submissions, averments and statements made in

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

199

his Claim Statement to be true and correct and

denies all the statements, averments and

submissions made by the Employer in its Written

Statement, which are contrary to its Statement and

averments made in its Claim Statement.

7. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

parties, this court framed the following issues at

Exb. 9.

1. Whether a fair, proper and impartial enquiry

was conducted against the Workman/Party I

in respect of charge-sheet dated 07-05-2014

in accordance with the principles of natural

justice?

2. Whether the charges of misconduct leveled

against the Workman/Party I vide charge

sheet dated 07-05-2014 have been proved to

the satisfaction of this court by acceptable

evidence?

3. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that the

action of the Employer in dismissing him from

services w.e.f. 24-12-2014 is illegal and

unjustified?

4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the entire reference is bad-in-law and not

maintainable in view of the reasons

mentioned in para A to F of the written

statement?

5. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to

any relief?

6. What Order? What award?

8. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under

(a) Issue No. 1

: In the Affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

: Partly in the Affirmative and

partly in the Negative.

: In the Negative.

(d) Issue No. 4

: In the Affirmative.

(e) Issue No. 5 & 6 : As per final order.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Rep.

Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge, appearing for the

Workman as well as Ld. Adv. Shri M.S. Bandodkar,

appearing for the Employer.

9. Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge,

representing the Workman, during the course of

his oral arguments submitted that by order dated

23-08-2018, this Hon’ble Court has given findings

on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2 by ordering

that a fair, proper and impartial enquiry was

conducted against the Workman in accordance

with the principles of natural justice in respect of

charge-sheet dated 07-05-2014 and that the

charges of misconduct levelled against the

Workman have been proved to the satisfaction of

this court by the acceptable evidence to the extent

of charges of misconduct namely willful

insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and

reasonable order of superior, habitual breach of

standing order and law applicable to the

establishment and rules made thereunder,

commission of any act subversive of discipline and

obtaining or trying to obtain leave under false

pretext and the other charges i.e. the charge of

habitual absence without leave and absence

without leave for more than 15 consecutive days

without sufficient ground or proper or satisfactory

explanation, habitual breach of standing order and

law applicable to the establishment and rules made

thereunder, and poor and unsatisfactory

workmanship have not been proved to the

satisfaction of this court by an acceptable

evidence. He submitted that the workman

remained unauthorizedly absent since 16-04-2014

till 07-05-2014. He submitted that the Workman

cannot be punished for his past misconduct. He

submitted that para 2 and 3 of the charge-sheet

dated 07-04-2014 has not been proved in the

enquiry held against the Workman. Hence, no

punishment can be imposed. He submitted that

the Workman could not attend duties due to reason

beyond his control and his absenteeism was not

willful and hence, the Employer cannot dismiss

him from service. He submitted that the

punishment imposed on the Workman is shockingly

disproportionate to the proved misconduct. He

submitted that the Workman is unemployed from

the date of his dismissal from service and as such

he is entitled for reinstatement in service with full

back wages and consequential benefits thereof. In

support of his contention, he relied upon two

judgments, one is of Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Krushnakant B. Parmar v/s. Union of India

and Anr., reported in 2012I CLR 753 and another

in the case of Gujrat State Road Transport v/s.

Maganlal Bhikhabhai Raval, reported in (2003) 4

GLR 3575 of Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat.

10. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri M.S. Bandodkar,

representing the Employer submitted that by order

dated 23-08-2018, this Hon’ble Court has given

findings on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2 by

ordering that a fair, proper and impartial enquiry

was conducted against the Workman in accordance

with the principles of natural justice in respect of

charge-sheet dated 07-05-2014 and that the

charges of misconduct levelled against the

Workman have been proved to the satisfaction of

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

200

this court by the acceptable evidence to the extent

of charges of misconduct namely willful

insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and

reasonable order of superior, habitual breach of

standing order and law applicable to the

establishment and rules made thereunder,

commission of any act subversive of discipline and

obtaining or trying to obtain leave under false

pretext and the other charges i.e. the charge of

habitual absence without leave and absence

without leave for more than 15 consecutive days

without sufficient ground or proper or satisfactory

explanation, habitual breach of standing order and

law applicable to the establishment and rules made

thereunder, and poor and unsatisfactory

workmanship have not been proved to the

satisfaction of this court by an acceptable

evidence. He submitted that the workman

remained unauthorizedly absent since 16-04-2014

till 07-05-2014.

11. He submitted that in the past, the Workman

was issued a show cause notice dated 31-12-2009

pertaining to his absenteeism without intimation

from duty from 25-11-2009 till issuing the said letter.

He submitted that by letter dated 18-01-2010, the

Workman admitted the said fact as stated in the

show cause notice dated 31-12-2009 and apologized

for his acts of misconducts. He submitted that the

Workman as well as the union had assured the

management not to repeat the said misconduct in

future. He submitted that vide another show-cause

notice dated 13-04-2010, the Workman was directed

to explain in writing within 48 hours from the

receipt of the said notice as to why the disciplinary

action should not be taken against him for his

unauthorized absence from 18-03-2010 till issuance

of the said notice. He further submitted that in

pursuance to the said show-cause notice dated

13-04-2010, the union, vide its letter dated

05-06-2010 addressed to the Employer admitted the

misconduct of the Workman and again assured the

management that the Workman would not remain

absent unauthorizedly and that the union will not

interfere in case of any future misconduct on the

part of the Workman. He submitted that the

Workman, vide its letter dated 09-06-2010, admitted

his mistakes and assured the management that he

will be regular and punctual in his duties

henceforth. He submitted that the Workman was

issued a charge-sheet dated 19-02-2011 alleging

the misconduct of habitual absence without

leave and absence without leave for more than

15 consecutive days without sufficient ground and

proper and satisfactory explanation, habitual

breach of standing orders and law applicable to

the establishment and rules made thereunder and

commission of any act subversive of discipline or

good behaviour. He submitted that the enquiry

was held in respect of the said charge-sheet dated

19-02-2011 by appointing Shri A.M. Gaikwad as

Enquiry Officer. He submitted that the Enquiry

Officer, Shri A. M. Gaikwad, submitted his findings

dated 28-03-2011, holding that the charges levelled

against the Workman as stated therein have been

proved. He submitted that the Workman was also

issued final show-cause notice dated 13-04-2011

on the proposed punishment of dismissal. He

submitted that in pursuance to the said show-cause

notice dated 13-04-2011, the Workman filed his

reply dated 21-04-2011. He submitted that vide

letter dated 14-05-2011 addressed to the Workman,

the management informed the Workman that his

explanation is found to be unsatisfactory and that

taking into consideration the gravity of his

misconduct, the management could have dismissed

him from their services, however, to give him a

final opportunity to improve his behaviour, it was

decided to take a lenient view this time and

lighter punishment of two days suspension

w.e.f. 16-05-2011 to 17-05-2011 was imposed upon

him and he was cautioned that his future behaviour

would be observed and monitored in the future

and if they observe that there is no improvement

in his behaviour, strict disciplinary action would

be taken against him. He submitted that vide letter

dated 03-08-2012, the management had issued a

show-cause notice to the Workman for his

absenteeism without intimation. He submitted that

vide his letter dated 09-08-2012, he had replied to

the show-cause notice dated 03-08-2012 and

undertook not to repeat his mistake. He submitted

that vide show-cause notice dated 22-09-2012, the

Workman was directed to explain his unauthorized

absenteeism from 03-09-2012 till issuance of the

said show-cause notice. He submitted that the

Employer, vide its show-cause notice dated

05-02-2013 directed the Workman to explain his

absenteeism from duty without intimation since

06-12-2013 till issuance of the said show-cause

notice. He submitted that by letter dated

27-02-2013 addressed to the Employer, the Workman

tried to justify his absenteeism without intimation

by stating that he is suffering from infertility

problem and is undergoing treatment for the same

and that his neighbour created some problem. He

submitted that the Employer, vide its letter dated

10-10-2013, advised the Workman to improve his

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

201

unauthorized absenteeism from duty without prior

permission by pointing out his unauthorized

absence from 04-04-2013 till 09-10-2013 for a period

of 27 days and his absenteeism is a misconduct

and sudden unauthorized absenteeism is

disrupting the production plant and causing loss

to them. He submitted that thus the past records

of the Workman is full of misconducts of habitual

unauthorized absenteeism. He submitted that the

management, having proved the grave and serious

misconduct on the part of the Workman and

considering his past record, dismissed the

Workman from services vide its order dated

24-12-2014. He submitted that the punishment of

dismissal imposed on the Workman is proportionate

to the proved misconduct taking into account his

past record. He therefore submitted that the action

of the Employer in dismissing the services of the

Workman w.e.f. 24-12-2014 is just and legal and the

reference be answered accordingly. In support of

his oral contention, Ld. Adv. M. S. Bandodkar relied

upon judgment in the case of P. M. Raju v/s. P.O.

Labour Court, Madurai and Anr., reported in 2002

LLR 220 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

I have carefully perused the entire records of

the present case. I have also carefully considered

the legal submissions advanced by Ld. Rep.

Shri Subhash Naik as well as Ld. Adv. Shri M.S.

Bandodkar and is of the considered opinion as

under.

REASONS

12. Issue No. 1 and 2:

By order dated 23-08-2018 passed in my findings

on the preliminary issue No. 1 and 2, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that a fair,

proper and impartial enquiry was conducted

against the Workman in accordance with the

principles of natural justice in respect of charge-

-sheet dated 07-05-2014 and that the charges of

misconduct levelled against the Workman have

been proved to the satisfaction of this court by the

acceptable evidence to the extent of charges of

misconduct namely willful insubordination or

disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of

superior, habitual breach of standing order and

law applicable to the establishment and rules made

thereunder, commission of any act subversive of

discipline and obtaining or trying to obtain leave

under false pretext and the other charges i.e. the

charge of habitual absence without leave and

absence without leave for more than 15 consecutive

days without sufficient ground or proper or

satisfactory explanation, habitual breach of

standing order and law applicable to the

establishment and rules made thereunder, and poor

and unsatisfactory workmanship have not been

proved to the satisfaction of this court by an

acceptable evidence. The issue No. 1 is therefore

answered in the affirmative and issue No. 2 is partly

answered in the affirmative and partly in the

negative.

13. Issue No. 3 and 4:

The Workman filed his statement of claim in the

present matter which is on record at Exb. 4. It

appears from the claim statement of the Workman

on record that he challenged his dismissal from

service mainly on the ground that the enquiry

conducted against him is in violation of principles

of natural justice as well as in violation of the

Certified Standing Orders, proving of the charges

of misconduct levelled against him and punishment

imposed upon him is highly unjust and

disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

14. While deciding the issue No. 1 herein above,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

a fair, proper and impartial enquiry was conducted

against the Workman in accordance with the

principles of natural justice in respect of charge-

sheet dated 07-05-2014. Similarly, while deciding

the issue No. 2 herein above, I have discussed and

come to the conclusion that the charges of

misconduct levelled against the Workman have

been proved to the satisfaction of this court by the

acceptable evidence to the extent of charges of

misconduct namely willful insubordination or

disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of

superior, habitual breach of standing order and

law applicable to the establishment and rules made

thereunder, commission of any act subversive of

discipline and obtaining or trying to obtain leave

under false pretext and the other charges i.e. the

charge of habitual absence without leave and

absence without leave for more than 15 consecutive

days without sufficient ground or proper or

satisfactory explanation, habitual breach of

standing order and law applicable to the

establishment and rules made thereunder, and poor

and unsatisfactory workmanship have not been

proved to the satisfaction of this court by an

acceptable evidence.

15. The evidence on record indicates that in the

past, the Workman was issued a show cause notice

dated 31-12-2009 pertaining to his absenteeism

from duty from 25-11-2009 till issuing the said letter

without intimation. The evidence on record

indicates that by letter dated 18-01-2010, the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

202

Workman admitted the said fact as stated in the

show cause notice dated 31-12-2009 and apologized

for his acts of misconducts. The evidence on record

indicates that the Workman as well as the union

had assured the management not to repeat the

said misconduct in future. The evidence on record

indicates that vide another show-cause notice

dated 13-04-2010, the Workman was directed to

explain in writing within 48 hours from the receipt

of the said notice as to why the disciplinary action

should not be taken against him for his

unauthorized absence from 18-03-2010 till issuance

of the said notice. The evidence on record indicates

that in pursuance to the said show-cause notice

dated 13-04-2010, the union, vide its letter dated

05-06-2010 addressed to the Employer, admitted

the misconduct of the Workman and again assured

the management the Workman would not remain

absent unauthorizedly and that the union would

not interfere, in case of any future misconduct on

the part of the Workman. The evidence on record

indicates that the Workman, vide its letter dated

09-06-2010, admitted his mistakes and assured the

management that he will be regular and punctual

in his duties henceforth. The evidence on record

indicates that the Workman was issued a charge-

-sheet dated 19-02-2011 alleging the misconduct

of habitual absence without leave and absence

without leave for more than 15 consecutive days

without sufficient ground and proper and

satisfactory explanation, habitual breach of

standing orders and law applicable to the

establishment and rules made thereunder and

commission of any act subversive of discipline or

good behaviour. The evidence on record indicates

that the enquiry was held in respect of the said

charge-sheet dated 19-02-2011 by appointing Shri

A.M. Gaikwad as Enquiry Officer. The evidence on

record indicates that the Enquiry Officer, Shri A.M.

Gaikwad, submitted his findings dated 28-03-2011,

holding that the charges levelled against the

Workman as stated therein have been proved. The

evidence on record indicates that the Workman

was also issued final show-cause notice dated

13-04-2011 on the proposed punishment of

dismissal. The evidence on record indicates that in

pursuance to the said show-cause notice dated

13-04-2011, the Workman filed his reply dated

21-04-2011. The evidence on record indicates that

vide letter dated 14-05-2011 addressed to the

Workman, the management informed the Workman

that his explanation is found to be unsatisfactory

and that taking into consideration the gravity of

his misconduct, the management could have

dismissed him from their services, however, to give

him a final opportunity to improve his behaviour,

it was decided to take a lenient view this time and

lighter punishment of two days suspension w.e.f.

16-05-2011 to 17-05-2011 was imposed upon him

and he was cautioned that his future behaviour

would be observed and monitored in future and if

they observe that there is no improvement in his

behaviour, strict disciplinary action would be taken

against him. The evidence on record indicates

that vide letter dated 03-08-2012, the management

had issued a show-cause notice to the Workman

for his absenteeism without intimation. The

evidence on record indicates that vide his letter

dated 09-08-2012, he had replied to the show-cause

notice dated 03-08-2012 and he undertook not to

repeat his mistake. The evidence on record

indicates that vide show-cause notice dated

22-09-2012, the Workman was directed to explain

his unauthorized absenteeism from 03-09-2012 till

issuance of the said show-cause notice. The

evidence on record indicates that the Employer,

vide its show-cause notice dated 05-02-2013,

directed the Workman to explain his absenteeism

from duty without intimation since 06-12-2013 till

issuance of the said show-cause notice. The

evidence on record indicates that by letter dated

27-02-2013 addressed to the Employer, the Workman

tried to justify his absenteeism without intimation

by stating that he is suffering from infertility

problem and is undergoing treatment for the same

and that his neighbour created some problem. The

evidence on record indicates that the Employer,

vide its letter dated 10-10-2013, advised the

Workman to improve his unauthorized absenteeism

from duty without prior permission by pointing

out his unauthorized absence from 04-04-2013 till

09-10-2013 for a period of 27 days and his

absenteeism is a misconduct and sudden

unauthorized absent is disrupting the production

plant and causing loss to them. The evidence on

record thus indicates that the past records of the

Workman is full of blemished misconducts of

habitual unauthorized absenteeism.

16. In the case of Kamalakant B. Parmar (supra),

the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the dismissal

order of the Employer on the ground that there

was no clear findings in the enquiry report that

the employee’s absence was willful by observing

as under:

“18. Absence from duty without any application

or prior permission may amounts to

unauthorized absence, but it does not always

mean wilful, there may be different eventuality

due to which an employee may abstain from

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

203

duty including compelling circumstances

beyond his control like illness, accident,

hospitalization etc. but in such cases, the

employee cannot be held guilty of failure of

devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of

a Government servant”.

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court is not applicable to the case in hand as the

unauthorized absence of the Workman is habitual.

17. Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik, representing

the Workman submitted that the Employer cannot

dismiss the Workman on the basis of his past

records and relied upon a judgment of Gujrat State

Road Transport(Supra). In the said case, the

Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat observed as under:

“This past record of service is evidently not

material on record as visualized in the proviso

to Section 11A. Therefore, the question is,

would the Tribunal have come to the same

conclusion, viz., that the order or removal is

justified had it not looked into the past record

of the petitioner. Suffice it to state that from

the manner in which the award has been

passed, it is easy to see that a lot of emphasis

has been placed on the past record of service

of the petitioner. The approach of the Industrial

Tribunal was clearly wrong only on the basis

of the appreciation of the material on record

and not by taking into consideration the past

record of service of the petitioner. In this view

of matter, the award dated April 3, 1987, passed

by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 141 of 1986 is

set aside and the matter is remanded to the

Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration in

accordance with the provisions of Section 11A

of the Industrial Disputes Act especially the

proviso to the said Section, by taking into

consideration only the material on record and

not the past record of service of the petitioner.

The Labour Court may consider the matter

and pass an award within two months from

the date of receipt of this order.

12. Therefore, there is no substance in this

petition and the same is rejected at the

threshold. No order as to costs.”

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court of Gujrat is not applicable to the case in

hand as the facts of the present case are totally

different.

18. In the case of P. M. Raju (supra), the Hon’ble

High Court of Madras in para 14 of its judgment

held as under:

“14. As stated above and also as seen from the

past records, as adverted to, in the award of

the Labour Court, it cannot be considered that

the petitioner is a person not habitually

absenting himself from duty in spite of

imposition of minor punishments on five earlier

occasions and in spite of issuance of charge

memo. The Labour court found as a matter of

fact the petitioner is guilty of unauthorized

and unjustified absence. Such a finding of fact

cannot be easily brushed aside or interfered

with, particularly, in the facts and

circumstances of the case. The discretion vested

under S.11A is not meant to be equated to

charity as held by R. Jayasimhababu, J. in

1998 (1) LLN 710 referred supra and the

finding of the Labour Court cannot be

interfered with by this court unless it is

perverse or based on no evidence, while

exercising the power under Art. 226 of the

Constitution of India, which position requires

no authority. For all the above said reasons, I

am of the clear view that the writ petition

deserves no merits and it has to be dismissed.”

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Court of Madras is applicable to the case in hand.

19. The Workman is governed by Certified

Standing Order (CSO). Clause 49 (i) of the CSO

provides for disciplinary action and reads as

“a workman found guilty of any misconduct may

be awarded the following punishment namely:

warning or censure or imposition of fine subject to

or in accordance with the provisions of payment of

wages Act, suspension without wages and/or other

benefits by an order in writing for a period not

exceeding 15 days, withholding one or more

increments, reduction to lower post or time scale

or to a lower stage in the same time scale,

discharging from service and removal or dismissal

from service without notice or wages in lieu of

such notice. Clause 49 (iii) of the CSO provides

that no order of dismissal under Clause i (f) and

i (g) supra shall be made, except after holding

departmental enquiry against the workman

concerned in respect of the alleged misconducts

in the manner set forth in sub-clause (iv) below.

Clause 49 (vii) of the CSO provides that in awarding

punishment under standing orders, the manager

shall take into consideration the gravity of

misconduct, and/or the previous records of the

workman and/or any other extenuating and/or

aggravating circumstance that may exist.

20. In the case in hand, the misconduct proved

against the Workman are willful insubordination

or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order

of superior, habitual breach of standing order and

law applicable to the establishment and rules made

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

204

thereunder, commission of any act subversive of

discipline and obtaining or trying to obtain leave

under false pretext. The Employer also referred the

past misconduct of the workman in a charge-sheet

dated 07-05-2014 as well as final show-cause notice

dated 09-10-2014 (Exb.13-cross) issued to the

Workman. In the past, the Workman was also found

guilty of misconduct for habitual misconduct

without leave and absence without leave for more

than 15 consecutive days without sufficient ground

and proper and satisfactory explanation etc. Thus,

taking into consideration the gravity of proved

charges of misconduct as well as previous records

of the Workman and the extenuating factors, the

punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon

him is just, fair and proper and proportionate to

the proved misconduct. Hence, it is held that the

Workman failed to prove that the action of the

Employer in dismissing him from service with effect

from 24-12-2014 is illegal and unjustified. The issue

No. 3 is therefore answered in the negative and

issue No. 4 is answered in the affirmative.

21. Issue No. 5:

While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the Workman failed to prove that the action of the

Employer in dismissing him from service w.e.f.

24-12-2014 is illegal and unjustified. The Workman

is therefore not entitled to any relief. The issue

No. 5 is therefore answered in the negative.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action of M/s. Cadila

Healthcare Limited, Plot No. 203 to 213,

Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa, in

dismissing from service Shri Mohan Gaunekar,

Operator, with effect from 24-12-2014, is legal

and justified.

2. It is held that the Workman, Shri Mohan

Gaunekar, is not entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

________

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-II/215

The following award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 30-03-2021 in Case

No. Ref. LC-II/IT/01/2021 is hereby published as

required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disptues

Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 29th April, 2021.

______

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/01/2021

Shri Shrikant B. Sarnaik,

R/o. H. No.195, Ambegal,

Pale, Bicholim-Goa.

… Workman/Party-I

V/s

M/s. Vaibhavi Shipping Pvt. Ltd.,

Shop No. 5 to 13, 1st floor,

Opp. KTC Bus stand, Mundvel,

Vasco-da-Gama, Goa.

… Employer/Party-II

Party-I/Workman present in person.

Party-II/Employer represented by Adv. Shri Firoz

Khilji.

Panaji, dated: 30-03-2021

AWARD

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by

Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of

1947) the Government of Goa, by Order dated

29-01-2021, bearing No. 28/24/2020-LAB/43 referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this

Labour Court-II, Panaji-Goa.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Vaibhavi Shipping Private Limited,

Karma Express, Shop No. 5 to 13, 1st Floor,

Opp. KTC Bus Stand, Mundvel, Vasco-da-

-Gama, in refusing employment to Shri

Shrikant B. Sarnaik, Sukani, with effect from

01-06-2012, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/01/2021 and

registered A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In

pursuance to the notice, both the Parties remained

absent. This court has however, received two

letters, one from the Employer/Party II (for short,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

205

“Employer”) and another from the Workman/

/Party-I (for short ‘Workman’) which are exhibited

as Exb. 3 and Exb. 5 respectively, intimating the

settlement signed by them. Both the said letters

are supported by a copy of memorandum of

settlement dated 05-02-2021 duly signed between

the parties hereinabove and executed before

Smt. Varsha N. Valvoikar, Advocate and Notary for

South Goa. Both the parties prayed for the

withdrawal of the reference hereinabove, in terms

of the settlement signed by them. The terms of

settlement signed between the parties hereinabove

are reproduced hereunder:

1. It is agreed between the employer and the

employee that the management of

M/s. Vaibhavi Shipping Pvt. Limited

(Employer), Vasco-da-Gama, Goa shall pay a

sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and

fifty thousand only) to Shri Shrikant Bhanu

Sarnaik (Employee) towards full and final

settlement of legal dues (i.e. Retrenchment

compensation/gratuity/bonus/balance

wages/leave encashment etc. benefits) for the

entire period of his employment (w.e.f. 1997

to 2012) with the Employer.

2. The Employer agreed to pay the settlement

amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs

fifty thousand only) to the employee in 5 Nos.

of monthly installments as under:

(i) First installment: On the date of execution

of this agreement by cheque No. 001378

dated 05-02-2021 for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-

(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only)

in favour of employee drawn on ICICI

Bank, Vasco Branch by the Employer

(subject to realization).

(ii) Second

installment:

Cheque

No. 001379 dated 01-03-2021 for a sum of

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

in favour of employee drawn on ICICI

Bank, Vasco Branch by the Employer

(subject to realization).

(iii) Third installment: By Cheque No. 001380

dated 01-04-2021 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) in favour of

the employee drawn on ICICI Bank, Vasco

Branch by the Employer (subject to

realization).

(iv) Fourth installment: By Cheque No. 001381

dated 01-05-2021 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) in favour of

the employee drawn on ICICI Bank, Vasco

Branch by the Employer (subject to

realization).

(v) Fifth installment: By Cheque No. 001382

dated 01-06-2021 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) in favour of

the employee drawn on ICICI Bank, Vasco

Branch by the Employer (subject to

realization).

3. Employee will forgo all his claims in respect

of said legal dues including re-employment,

reinstatement with back wages, etc. in all

respects after execution of this settlement

and shall not claim any thing over and above

the amount being paid under this settlement.

All his other claims are treated to be

withdrawn and forgone.

4. The present settlement shall be treated as a

settlement under Section 18 of the Industrial

Disputes Act and company shall be at liberty

to file the same before the authorities

concerned and the employee shall, forthwith

intimate the concerned authorities including

the Office of Appropriate Government and

the Labour Court-II, Panaji, Goa regarding

the resolution of all his claims & disputes

vide this settlement by way of written

communication with a copy marked to the

Company.

5. The employees shall fully co-operate and

assist the Company incase any reference or

litigation has been initiated by the

concerned authorities before Labour Court

or any other forum, inorder to withdraw the

same pursuant to amicable resolution of all

his claims & disputes under this settlement.

6. It is agreed by and between the Company

and the employee that this Agreement shall

be valid subject to realization of aforesaid

post-dated cheques in terms of Clause 2

above.

7. That all the complaints, claims and disputes

made by the employee shall be treated as

withdrawn, forthwith and the Company may

place this settlement agreement before the

authorities concerned to close any

proceedings initiated on the complaint of the

employee.

8. On execution of this Settlement, the

employee shall waive all its claims (past,

present and future) against the Company of

whatsoever nature. This Settlement shall

supersede all other agreements, contracts,

employment terms, etc. between the parties.

I have carefully perused the said terms of

settlement at Exb. 3 and Exb. 5 respectively signed

by and between the Employer and the Workman

hereinabove. The said terms of settlement are

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

206

beneficial to both the parties. Hence, I consented

for the same. Since the dispute under reference is

settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute

under present reference, does not survive.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. In view of the amicable settlement between

the Parties, it is held that the reference as

to whether the action of M/s. Vaibhavi

Shipping Private Limited, Karma Express,

Shop No. 5 to 13, 1st Floor, Opp. KTC Bus

Stand, Mundvel, Vasco-da-Gama, in refusing

employment to Shri Shrikant B. Sarnaik,

Sukani, with effect from 01-06-2012, is legal

and justified, does not survive.

2. The Workman, Shrikant B. Sarnaik, is not

entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court-II.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

—

Addendum

No. 2-3-2020-LD (Estt.)/1024

Read: (i) Order No. 2-3-2020-LD (Estt.)/1772 dated

03-11-2020.

(ii) Corrigendum No. 2-3-2020-LD (Estt.)/366

dated 15-02-2021.

(iii) Addendum No. 2-3-2020-LD (Estt.)/

/574 dated 09-03-2021.

In the above read Order, the following lines shall

be added to the 3rd para in the 6th line after fourth

word:-

“The officers promoted on regular basis to Civil

Registrar-cum-Sub Registrar are entitled for pay and

allowances from the date of accepting the

promotion in relaxation to F.R. 17 (1).

Shri Piedade Dias, Civil Registrar-cum-Sub

Registrar will draw salary against the post of Joint

Civil Registrar-cum-Sub Registrar, District Registrar,

South w.e.f. 04-11-2020 to 13-11-2020 i.e. from the

date of acceptance till the date prior to joining the

post of Civil Registrar-cum-Sub Registrar, Sanguem.”

All the remaining contents in the above read

Order shall remain unchanged.

This issues in supersession to Addendum

No. 2-3-2020-LD (Estt.)/574 dated 09-03-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 19th May, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Panchayati Raj and

Community Development

Directorate of Panchayats

Corrigendum

No. 15/2/DP/EST/AE-Promotion/2018/3369

Read:1. Order No. 15/2/DP/EST/AE-Promotion/2018/

/3153 dated 18-06-2019, of this Directorate.

2. Order No. 15/2/DP/EST/AE-Promotion/2018/

/5639 dated 20-08-2020, of this Directorate.

In the above referred Order at Sr. No. 2, Para

No. 8 be deleted and read as under:

“Now, therefore, based on recommendations of

the DPC held on 14-05-2019 conveyed by GPSC vide

its letter No COM/II/11/69(1)/16/69 dated

15-05-2019, subsequent letter of GPSC vide

No. COM/II/11/69(1)/16 dated 16-07-2020 and

approval dated 08-08-2020 of the Government and

in partial modification of the Order read in

preamble, the Governor of Goa is pleased to

promote, appoint and fix the pay of Shri Sandeep

Apule, Junior Engineer promoted to Assistant

Engineer, Group ‘B’ Gazetted on regular basis in

Pay Matrix Level 7 under the seventh pay

commission w.e.f. 18-06-2019 with consequential

monetary benefits and place him in the promotion

order read in the preamble in the following order:”

Sr.

Name of officer and position

No.

in promotion order

1. Smt. Vaidehi D. Shirodkar.

2. Shri Sandeep G. Apule.

3. Shri Ashish D. Patnekar.

4. Shri Vasant H. Parab.

5. Smt. Saloni Zarapkar.

6. Shri Ajit A. Jog.

7. Shri Marvando J. Mascarenhas.

8. Shri Saeesh S. Parab.

Other contents of the said order remains

unchanged.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Siddhi Halarnakar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Panchayats).

Panaji, 25th May, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

207

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 4/3/2015-PER/1219

Read:

(i) Order No. 7/3/92-PER dated 30-06-2015.

(ii) Order No. 7/3/92-PER/2154 dated

19-07-2017.

Sanction of the Government is hereby conveyed

for pay fixation of Dr. Santosh V. Desai, Dy. Director

of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services in the

Pay Scale of Rs. 15600-39100 + Grade pay of

Rs. 7600/- for holding the post of Director of Animal

Husbandry & Veterinary Services on officiating

basis in terms of F.R. 49(i) with effect from

01-07-2015 to 18-07-2017.

This issues with the concurrence of Finance

(R&C) Department, vide their U.O. No. 1400023415

dated 10-04-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 18th May, 2021.

________

Order

No. 15/2/2020-PER/1215

On the recommendations of Goa Services Board,

the Governor of Goa is pleased to transfer the

following officers in the Cadre of Mamlatdar/Joint

Mamlatdar/Assistant Director of Civil Supplies in

public interest with immediate effect:-

Sr.

Name

Present

Posted

No.

posting

1. Shri Ranjeet

Awaiting

Jt. Mamlatdar-II,

R. Salgaonkar

posting

Pernem.

2. Kum. Maria G.

Awaiting

Jt. Mamlatdar-I,

Cynthia Gomes

posting

Bardez with

additional charge

of Jt. Mamlatdar-VI,

Bardez.

3. Smt. Seema S.S.

Awaiting

Jt. Mamlatdar-III,

Gudekar

posting

Ponda.

4. Smt. Janavi

Jt. Mam-

Jt. Mamlatdar-I,

Kalekar

latdar-III,

Sanguem with

Ponda

additional charge

of Jt. Mamlatdar-II,

Sanguem.

5. Kum. Ana Rita

Jt. Mam-

Jt. Mamlatdar-V,

Maria Paes

latdar-I,

Salcete.

Sanguem

with addi-

tional

charge of

Jt. Mam-

latdar-II,

Sanguem

6. Smt. Maria

Awaiting

Jt. Mamlatdar-III,

D’Costa e

posting

Mormugao with

Fernandes

additional charge

of Jt. Mamlatdar-II,

Mormugao.

The Officers shall complete handing over and

taking over process with immediate effect and

submit compliance.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 18th May, 2021.

________

Order

No. 6/13/2017-PER/1269

On the recommendation of the Goa Services

Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order the

transfer and posting of the following Officers of

Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with

immediate effect:-

Sr.

Name and present

Posted as

No.

posting of the officer

1. Smt. Anju S. Kerkar,

Joint Secretary (GA).

Director (Admn.), Water

Resources Department

2. Ms. Biju R. Naik,

Director (Admn.),

Joint Secretary (GA)

Water Resources

Department.

The Officers shall complete handing over and

taking over process with immediate effect and

submit compliance.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim 26th May, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

208

Order

No. 6/13/2017-PER/1143

The Governor of Goa is pleased to post the

following officers, in public interest, with immediate

effect for better management of the COVID crisis:

1. Smt. Ankita Anand, IAS, Director, IT and CEO

Start Up Promotion Cell in addition to her

regular duties is posted as Additional

Collector, North Goa, in addition to existing

Additional Collectors.

2. Shri Mekala Chaitanya Prasad, IAS, Special

Secretary (Home, Vigilance & Personnel) in

addition to his regular duties is posted as

Additional Collector, South Goa, in addition to

existing Additional Collectors.

3. Shri Narayan Gad, M.D., GHRSSIDC in addition

to his regular duties is posted as Additional

Collector, North Goa, in addition to existing

Additional Collectors.

4. Shri Kuldeep Arolkar, Deputy Director (Admn.),

Electricity Department, in addition to his

existing duties, is posted as OSD to Collector,

North Goa for COVID related duties.

5. Shri Dipak Desai, Director, Skill Development &

Entrepreneurship in addition to his existing

duties, is posted as OSD to Collector, South Goa

for COVID related duties.

6. Shri Johnson B. Fernandes, Director of

Settlement and Land Records, in addition to

his existing duties, is posted as OSD to

Collector, South Goa for COVID related duties.

7. Shri Ashutosh Apte, State Registrar-cum-Head

of Notary Services, in addition to his existing

duties, is posted as OSD to Collector, South Goa

for COVID related duties.

8. Shri Arvind Khutkar, Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, in addition to his existing duties is

posted as OSD to Collector, North Goa for

COVID related duties.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim 04th May, 2021.

________

Order

No. 6/10/2017-PER/Part/1243

Read: Order No. 6/11/2019-PER/1160 dated

10-05-2021.

In pursuance to Promotion Order dated

10-05-2021 read in the preamble and on the

recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the

Governor of Goa is pleased to transfer and post

Shri Francisco X. L. Ferrao, Senior Scale Officer of

Goa Civil Service as General Manager, Tool Room

Training Centre, Kundaim with immediate effect in

public interest, thereby relieving Smt. Darshana

Narulkar, General Manager (DIC), Directorate of

Industries, Trade and Commerce of the additional

charge.

Shri Ferrao shall continue to hold the charge of

the post of Forest Settlement Officer, South,

Quepem until further orders.

Shri Ferrao shall draw salary against the vacant

post of “Leave & Training Reserve” and shall be

governed by the standard terms of deputation as

amended from time to time.

The officers shall complete handing over and

taking over process with immediate effect and

submit compliance.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 10th May, 2021.

_________

Order

No. 6/13/2017-PER/1242

Read: Order No. 6/13/2017-PER/851 dated

30-03-2021.

The posting of Smt. Laura Britto e Madre de

Deus, Secretary, State Police Complaints Authority

as Secretary, Goa Rehabilitation Board and of

Smt. Irene Vitoria Sequeira, Secretary, Goa

Rehabilitation Board as Secretary, State Police

Complaints Authority indicated at Sr. No. 10 and

Sr. No. 13 respectively, in the order read in preamble

shall be kept in abeyance until further orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 21st May, 2021.

________

Notification

No. 7/3/2019-PER/1268

Read: 1. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/2347

dated 06-10-2020.

2. Notification No. 7/21/2017-PER/299

dated 29-01-2021.

3. Notification No. 7/21/2017-PER/302

dated 29-01-2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

209

4. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/685

dated 09-03-2021.

5. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/730

dated 15-03-2021.

6. Notification No. 7/3/2019-PER/1191

dated 12-05-2021.

In partial modification to the Notification read in

preamble, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order

the allocation of work/Departments amongst the

Secretaries to the Government as follows, with

immediate effect:

Sr.

Name and

Department

No.

designation

1. Shri P. S. Reddy, IAS

1. Ports.

(2003), Commissioner-

2. River Navigation.

-cum-Secretary (Ports)

3. Fisheries.

4. Archeology.

5. Archives.

6. Legal Metrology.

2. Shri Chokha Ram Garg,

1. Law & Judiciary

IAS (2008), Secretary

and Legislative

(Law & Judiciary and

Affairs.

Legislative Affairs)

2. Skill Development

& Entrepreneur-

ship.

3. Co-operation.

3. Shri Ravi Dhawan, IAS

1. Health.

(2011), Secretary (Health) 2. M.D. & CEO,

Imagine Panaji

Smart City Develop-

ment Ltd.

4. Shri Y. V. V. J. Rajasekhar, 1. General Adminis-

IAS (2012), Secretary

tration.

(General Administration) 2. Social Welfare.

3. Women & Child

Development.

4. Protocol.

5. Museum.

6. Goa Gazetter.

7. Printing &

Stationery.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim 26th May, 2021.

________

Corrigendum

No. 5/2/2017-PER/1149

Read: Transfer Order No. 5/2/2017-PER/1136 dated

03-05-2021.

In the order referred to in the preamble, the post

mentioned at Sr. No. 3 against the name of

Shri Sachin Desai be read as ‘OSD in Imagine Panaji

Smart City Development Ltd. (IPSCDL)’ with

additional charge of OSD, RERA’ instead of ‘Assistant

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes with additional

charge of OSD in Imagine Panaji Smart City

Development Ltd. (IPSCDL)’.

Further, the words ‘with additional charge of

Deputy Collector (DRO), South’ against the name of

Shri Ramesh Gaonkar at Sr. No. 5 shall be deleted.

Also, the post mentioned at Sr. No. 8 against the

name of Shri P. A. Parab shall be corrected to read

as ‘Deputy Director-III, Mines’ instead of ‘Deputy

Director (Admn.), Mines.

The other contents of the Order remain

unchanged.

Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 04th May, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Power

Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer

—

Order

No. CEE/Estt./CGRF/22-03-10/Recruit/585

In pursuance to the approval conveyed by the

Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission (JERC)

vide letter No. JERC/E-50II/2/2020-E/31 dated

09-04-2021, Government is pleased to appoint

Shri Ashley L. C. Noronha to the post of

“Chairperson” on the Consumer Grievances

Redressal Forum (CGRF), Government of Goa under

the provisions of Joint Electricity Regulatory

Commission for the State of Goa V/s Establishment

of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers)

Regulation, 2009, and the amendments made

thereunder.

2. His period of appointment will be of 03 years

effective from the date he assumes the duty or till

he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.

3. His headquarter shall be at Vidyut Bhavan,

Vasco-Goa.

4. He shall draw a consolidated remuneration

of Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand

only) under the Budget Head “2801—Power,

80—General,

800—Other

Expenditure.

04—Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum,

01—Salaries (Non Plan)”.

5. In case of travel outside headquarters on duty,

TA/DA shall be admissible as per entitlement.

6. The appointee shall be liable for removal from

office in accordance with the provisions of

regulations of CGRF/JERC.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

210

7. He should report to the office of the Consumer

Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF), Vidyut

Bhavan, Vasco-Goa by 31-05-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Raghuvir G. Keni, Chief Electrical Engineer & ex

officio Addl. Secretary.

Panaji, 20th May, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

Order

No. 4/14/2002-II/PHD/Vol.I/939

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/

/II/11/30(2)/95/42 dated 06-05-2021, Government is

pleased to promote Dr. Anant Sadanand Ramani,

Assistant Professor to the post of Associate

Professor in the Department of Surgery in Goa

Medical College and Hospital, Bambolim on regular

basis in the Level 11 of Pay Matrix and other

allowances to be fixed as per rules with immediate

effect.

The promotion is made against the vacancy

occurred due to promotion of Dr. Rajesh Patil,

Associate Professor in Surgery, Goa Medical College

to the post of Professor in the Department of

Surgery, Goa Medical College, Bambolim-Goa vide

Order No. 4/14/2002-II/PHD/Vol. I/938 dated

18-05-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 18th May, 2021.

______

Order

No. 23/20/2014-I/PHD/Part IV(a)/1097

Government is pleased to constitute the Task

Force/Steering Committee for formulation and

implementation of a strategy to tackle the possible

third wave of COVID-19 pandemic in the State

consisting of the following:-

1. Dr. Pramod Sawant,

— Chairman.

Chief Minister

2. Shri Vishwajit Rane,

— Vice Chairman/

Minister for Health

/Member.

3. Shri Parimal Rai, IAS,

— Member.

Chief Secretary

4. Shri Sanjay Kumar, IAS,

— Member.

Secretary (Revenue)

5. Shri Ravi Dhawan, IAS,

— Member.

Secretary (Health)

6. Dr. Jose D’Sa,

— Member.

Director of Health Services

7. Dr. Shivanand Bandekar,

— Member.

Dean, Goa Medical College

8. Dr. M. P. Silveira,

— Member.

HOD-Paediatrics,

Goa Medical College

9. Dr. Utkarsh Betodkar,

— Member.

State Epidemiologist,

Directorate of Health Services

10. Dr. Ira Almeida,

— Member.

Senior Paediatrician,

North Goa District Hospital

11. Dr. Vinayak Buvaji,

— Member.

President, IMA-

-Goa Chapter

12. Dr. Narayan S. Usgaonkar, — Member.

Senior Paediatrician

13. Dr. Shekhar Salkar

— Member.

14. Dr. Shivanand Gauns,

— Member.

CIAP Executive Member

15. Dr. Jagdish Kakodkar,

— Member

HOD-PSM, Goa Medical

Secretary.

College

The above Committee shall meet weekly.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vikas S. N. Gaunekar, Additional Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 21st May, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Transport

Directorate of Transport

Notification

No. D.Tpt/5/9-2004-Tpt/Part-I/2021/1329

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section (2) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) and in supersession

of earlier notification No. 5/9/2004-TPT/139 dated

09-09-2005 published in the Official Gazette, Series

II No. 25 dated 22-09-2005, the Government of Goa,

with the concurrence of High Court Bombay

conveyed vide letter No. A. 1239/2021/847 dated

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

211

10th May, 2021 hereby constitutes North Goa

Transport Appellate Tribunal and South Goa

Transport Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction

over North Goa and South Goa Districts respectively

and further nominates District and Session Judge

North Goa District (Panaji) to preside over North

Goa Transport Appellate Tribunal and nominates

District and Session Judge South Goa District

(Margao) to preside over South Goa Transport

Appellate Tribunal, in addition to their duties as

District Judges.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Rajan Satardekar, Director & ex officio Additional

Secretary (Transport).

Panaji, 27th May, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Urban Development

(Municipal Administration)

—

Order

No. 14/DMA/STAT/IC4CC/2020-21/490

The Government of Goa through Imagine Panaji

Smart City Development Limited (IPSCDL) has

constituted an Apex Committee for Non-Motorized

Transport (NMT) to oversee NMT development in

the City. The Committee shall review and monitor

the development of a Cycling Plan and NMT Policy

for Panaji City.

The composition of the Apex Committee will be

as follows:

1. The Secretary (Transport)

— Chairman.

2. The Director, Directorate of

— Member.

Transport

3. The Superintendent of Police,

— Member.

Traffic (North Goa)

4. The Principal Chief Engineer,

— Member.

PWD

5. The Chief Town Planner, Town — Member.

& Country Planning Department

6. The Commissioner, Corporation — Member.

of the City of Panaji

7. The Managing Director,

— Member.

Kadamba Transport Corporation

Ltd., Representative of Chairman

KTC

8. The Chairman, Greater Panaji

— Member.

Planning and Development

Authority

9. MD & CEO, Imagine Panaji

— Member-

Smart City Development

-Convener.

Limited (IPSCDL)

Member, Panaji Urban

Living Lab

Member of Non-Governmental

Organization (NGO)

The Chairman, Goa Chamber

of Commerce & Industry

The Chairman, Youth Hostel’s

Association of India

President, Panaji Municipal

Market Tenants Association

The above order is issued with the approval

of the Government vide U.O. No. 1369/F dated

24-02-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director & ex officio

Addl. Secretary (Municipal Administration/Urban

Development).

Panaji, 26th May, 2021.

Special

invitees from

the area/

/organization

as and when

required by

IPSCDL

________

Directorate of Municipal Administration/Urban Development

—

Notification

No. 10/671/2015-DMA/488

The Government has constituted a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in the name and style of Imagine

Panaji Smart City Development Limited (IPSCDL) for operationalizing the Smart City Projects with

Board of Directors (BoD) vide Notification No. 10/671/2015-DMA/658 dated 9th June, 2016, Notification

No. 10/671/2015-DMA/2170 dated 26th October, 2017, Notification No. 10/671/2015-DMA/3683

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

212

dated 08th March, 2019, Notification No. 10/671/2015-DMA/4858 dated 14th October, 2020, Notification

No. 10/671/2015-DMA/4830 dated 14th January, 2021, Notification No. 10/671/2015-DMA/5282 dated

16th February, 2021 and Notification No. 10/671/2015-DMA/170 dated 19th April, 2021. The Government

of Goa hereby re-constitutes the Board of IPSCDL with ex officio members as per designation given in

column (2) in Table A below and non-ex officio members as given in Table B below:

TABLE A

Sr.

Designation

Name

IPSCDL Board

No.

designation

Chief Secretary, Government of Goa

Shri Parimal Rai, IAS

Chairman.

Secretary (Finance), Government of Goa

Shri Puneet Kumar Goel, IAS

Director.

Secretary (Urban Development),

Dr. Tariq Thomas, IAS

Director.

Government of Goa

Collector, North Goa

Shri Ajit Roy, IAS

Director.

Director/Addl. Secretary (Urban Development),

Shri Gurudas P. Pilarnekar

Director.

Government of Goa

Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Panaji

Shri Agnelo A. J. Fernandes

Director.

Principal Chief Engineer, PWD,

Shri Uttam Parsekar

Director.

Government of Goa

TABLE B

Sr.

Name

IPSCDL Board

No.

designation

Shri Ravi Dhawan, IAS

Managing Director &

CEO, IPSCDL.

Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, Director (Estate-II), Ministry of Housing

Director.

& Urban Affairs, Government of India

Shri Antanasio Monserrate, MLA, Panaji Constituency

Director.

Shri Rohit Joe Monserrate, Mayor, Corporation of the City of Panaji

Director.

The Department of Urban Development/Directorate of Municipal Administration will issue notifications

reconstituting the board in respect of Ex-Officio Members of the Board as and when there is a change

of the incumbents holdings the posts and for the other members as per Government order from time to

time.

This is issued in supersession of all earlier Notifications issued in this regard.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director & ex officio Addl. Secretary (Municipal Administration/Urban

Development).

Panaji, 26th May, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

213

Department of Water Resources

—

Order

No. 3/25-15/90/CE-WR/ADM-I/150

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide confidential letter

No. COM/II/11/27(1)/2018/47 dated 17-05-2021, Government is pleased to order the promotion of the

following Assistant Engineers/Assistant Surveyor of Works (Civil) of the Water Resources Department,

Government of Goa to the post of Executive Engineers/Surveyor of Works/Engineering Officer (Civil)

Group-A Gazetted in Water Resources Department on regular basis in the Pay Scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100

+Grade Pay Rs. 6,600/- (Level-11 of 7th Pay Commission) with immediate effect and post them against the

place indicated below:-

Sr.

Name of the Officer

Present designation

Designation and

Remarks

No.

and place of posting

new place of posting

Shri Chimeta D.

Surveyor of Works, on

Surveyor of Works, O/o

Regular promotion.

Narayan

officiating basis in the

Superintending Engineer,

office of Superintending

Circle-II, WRD, Karaswada,

Engineer, Circle-II, WRD,

Goa

Karaswada-Goa

Shri Azad S. Vernekar

Executive Engineer, on

Executive Engineer, O/o

Regular promotion.

officiating basis, O/o

Executive Engineer, Works

Executive Engineer,

Div.-VII, WRD, Dhargal-Goa

Works Div-VII, WRD,

Dhargal-Goa, on

officiating basis

Shri Ghantkar

Surveyor of Works, O/o

Engineering Officer, O/o

Regular promotion.

Shantaram B.

Superintending Engineer,

Chief Engineer, WRD,

Central Planning Organi-

Porvorim-Goa with

sation, WRD, Porvorim-

additional charge of Surveyor

-Goa on officiating basis

Works, O/o Superintending

with additional charge

Engineer, Central Planning

of Engineering Officer,

Organisation, WRD,

O/o Chief Engineer, WRD,

Porvorim-Goa

The above Officers shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining as specified

in Column No. 9 of the Recruitment Rules notified in the Official Gazette, Extraordinary, Series I No. 28

dated 11-10-2001.

This is issued vide Government approval No. 3016/F dated 20-05-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Sd/-, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (WR).

Porvorim, 21st May, 2021.

_________

Order

No. 3/25-15/90/CE-WR/ADM-I/151

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide confidential letter

No. COM/II/11/27(3)/2020/48 dated 17-05-2021, Government is pleased to order the promotion of the

following Junior Engineer (Mechanical/Electrical), Water Resources Department, Government of Goa to

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 10

3RD JUNE, 2021

214

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 48.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—73/150–6/2021.

the post of Assistant Engineer/Assistant Surveyor of Works (Mechanical/Electrical), Group-B Gazetted in

Water Resources Department on regular basis in the Pay Scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800 + Grade

Pay Rs. 4,600/- (Level 7 as per 7th Pay Commission) with immediate effect and post him against the place

indicated below:-

Sr.

Name of the Officer

Present designation

Designation and

Remarks

No.

and place of posting

new place of posting

Shri Sawant Anil P.

Junior Engineer

Assistant Engineer, O/o

Regular promotion.

(Mechanical),

Assistant Engineer,

Sub-Division-III,

Sub-Division III, WD XIII,

Works Division-II,

Margao-Goa

WRD, Ponda-Goa

The above Officer shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining as specified

in Column No. 9 of the Recruitment Rules notified in the Official Gazette, Extraordinary, Series I No. 28

dated 11-10-2001.

This is issued vide Government approval No. 3015/F dated 20-05-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Sd/-, Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (WR).

Porvorim, 21st May, 2021.