Panaji, 7th October, 2021 (Asvina 15, 1943)

SERIES II No. 28

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture

—

Order

No. 1/8/15/2021-22/D.Agri/1010

Government is pleased to depute Shri Satyavan

K. Dessai, Agriculture Officer (extension) against

the post of the Secretary of the Goa Agricultural

Produce and Live Stock Marketing Board in the Pay

Scale of PB-III, Rs. 15,600-39,100+Rs. 4,800 which is

at Level-8 of 7th Pay Matrix.

The deputation of Shri Satyavan K. Dessai against

the post of the Secretary of the Goa Agricultural

Produce and Live Stock Marketing Board shall

initially for a period of two years with effect from

the date of taking over the charge and shall be

governed by the standard terms of the deputation

as contained in the O.M. No. 13/4/74-PER dated

12-02-1999 and amended from time to time.

He shall also hold the additional charge of the

post of the Agriculture Officer (extension) in

addition to this own duties, the post presently

handled by him at the Head Quarters until further

order.

He shall join his new place of posting with

immediate effect.

This is issued with the concurrence of

the Government vide Entry No. 6008/F dated

21-09-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary

(Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 21st September, 2021.

________

Order

No. 8/86/2021-22/D.Agri/1053

Read: Memorandum No. 1/3/16/2021-22/D.Agri/

/840 dated 24-08-2021.

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

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

545

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

On recommendation of the Goa Public Service

Commission as conveyed vide letter No. COM/I/5/

/2(1)/2020/191 dated 03-08-2021, the Governor of

Goa is pleased to appoint Shri Viraj Shaba Fatto

Dessai against the post of Mechanical Cultivation

Officer on regular basis to Group “B” Gazetted under

the Government of Goa, in the Level-7 of the Pay

Matrix in the 7th Pay Commission and post him at

the Mechanical Cultivation Office, Margao. The pay

will be fixed in accordance with the Central Civil

Service (Revised pay) Rules, 2016 with immediate

effect.

The candidate has been declared medically fit

by the Medical Board, Goa, Medical College,

Bambolim-Goa vide their letter No. 4/105/85-H/

/GMC/2021/408 dated 21-09-2021. The letter to

verify his character and antecedents has been sent

to the concerned District Magistrate, the same will

be communicated when received.

The candidate shall be on probation for a period

of two years with effect from the date of his joining.

The pay and allowances of the above candidate

shall be debited to the Budget Head: 2401–Crop

Husbandry, 00, 102–Foodgrain Crops, 02–Crop

Production & Input Management, 01–Salaries.

The above candidate shall join the duties within

the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of

this order.

His appointment shall be subject to the

verification of the genuineness of Education

qualification certificates and Caste certificate

(if applicable) which will have to be produced by

him within 03 months from the date of joining the

service.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary

(Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 28th September, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

546

Corrigendum

No. 1/22/112/2021-22/D.Agri/1028

Read: Order No. 1/22/112/2021-22/D.Agri/913

dated 07-09-2021.

The “Group” mentioned against the name of

Dr. Sameer Narayan Sawant, Subject Matter

Specialist (Animal Science) at para 1 of the above

referred order may be read as “ ‘A’ Gazetted” instead

of ‘B’ Gazetted.

The rest of the contents of the said order remain

unchanged.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nevil Alphonso, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary

(Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 24th September, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Order

No. 20/3/(11)/Elec/BOD/CDSC/RCS/CZ/20/1787

Read: Letter No. 13/600/2021/HSG/ARCS/CZ/181

dated 19-05-2021 received from the Asstt.

Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Central Zone,

Panaji-Goa to grant exemption to the

provision of Section 59(4) in terms of

Section 126A of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001 to Casa Del Sol

Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Opp.

Goa Marriot Resort, Miramar, Panaji-Goa.

In pursuance of the powers vested under

Section 126A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001, the Government of Goa hereby exempts Casa

Del Sol Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Opp. Goa

Marriot Resort, Miramar, Panaji-Goa from the

provisions of Section 59(4) of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001 so as to enable Casa Del

Sol Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Miramar,

Panaji-Goa to constitute its full fledged Board of

Directors.

The exemption so granted shall be valid for a

period of three months or until one vacant post of

the Board of Director is duly filled in whichever is

earlier.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Arvind B. Khutkar, Registrar & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Co-operative Societies).

Panaji, 22nd September, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Education, Art & Culture

Directorate of Archives & Archaeology

Notification

No. 5/138/Empanelment/2021-22/DAA-1294

Sub.: Empanelment of Private Portuguese Translators

Sanction of the Government is hereby conveyed to Empanel of following for the translation of various

documents from Portuguese of English and vice-versa. The Portuguese documents of this Directorate

shall be referred to the below mentioned Translators Empanelled by the Directorate of Archives &

Archaeology. Translations of the aforesaid Portuguese documents carried out by the following Translators

shall be solely considered for any legal matters.

No.

Name

Address

01/2021

Adv. Roque Orlando Costa

Near Babu Naik Bldg. Opp. Hayat Restaurant, Aquem

Alto-Margao 403601 Contact: 9818542579.

03/2021

Saadia Helena De S. A. Dias

H. No. 759, Dandevaddo Chinchinim, Salcete, Goa

Furtado

403715 Contact: 9420165901.

04/2021

Adv. Joaquim Jawaharlal

R-11, Marigold CHS Ltd. Chabdravaddo, Fatorda

Vivekananda Pinheiro

Margao-Goa 403602 Contact: 9404470294.

05/2021

Ruy Mascarenhas

Lotus Florists Pelican Building, Opp. Lohia Maidan

Margao Contact: 7517688026.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

547

07/2021

Adv. Mussa Aga

Plot No. 38, Sagar Co-op. Housing Society Pvt. Ltd.,

University Road, Dona Paula, Tiswadi, 403004

Contact: 9890606221.

08/2021

Adv. Alexandre J. P. Fernandes

H. No. E-220 Vaddy Merces, Santa Cruz, Tiswadi

Contact: 9405220354.

09/2021

Adv. Maria Helena Clotildes

St. Agostinho, Marod, Lane 3, St. Cruz, Ilhas-Goa

Fernandes

Contact: 9881404813.

10/2021

Maria Antonieta da Cruz

H. No. 160, Near St. Sebastian Chapel Fontainhas,

Fernandes

Panaji-Goa 403001 Contact: 9823132582.

13/2021

Mathias Xavier Vaz

H. No. 1023, First Ward, P. O. Santa Cruz, Tiswadi-Goa

14/2021

Ulhas K. Prabhudessai

H. No. 572/A, Taki-Xeldem, Quepem, Goa 403705

Contact: 9420594677/9545554677.

15/2021

Adv. Tolentino Antonio Colaco

H. No. 221, Avedem, Quineabhatt, Quepem-Goa

Contact: 9822389711.

16/2021

Adv. Ainoddin Aga

H. No. 197, Opp. Court, Valpoi-Goa 403506

Contact: 7304852077/9767349122.

18/2021

Aurobindo Jose Xavier Couto

H. No. 326, Edlen, Goncoi, Aldona, Bardez-Goa 403508

Contact: 899454597.

19/2021

Adv. Audrey E. Vales

Villa Viola, 137/B, Holy Cross-Colony, Chicalim, Goa

403711 Contact: 9823092542/8552884485.

The rate of the translation as approved by the Government and concurred by the Finance Department

vide their FMS No. 1400074760 dated 31-10-2020 is Rs. 1.75 (One rupee and seventy five paisa) per word

from the source text for the handwritten document and Rs. 1.25 (one rupee and twenty five paisa) per

word from the source text for the typed document upto the ceiling of Rs. 350 per page and the Portuguese

Translators empanelled by the Directorate of Archives & Archaeology shall be liable to contribute Rs. 35

(Rupees thirty five only) per page towards the state along with a copy of the translation of every document

done.

This order is issued with the approval of the Government vide U.O. No. 2820 dated 27th August, 2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Smt. Blossom Medeira, Director & ex officio Joint Secretary (Archives & Archaeology).

Panaji, 27th September, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Environment & Climate

Change

Order

No. 1-25-2010/STE-DIR/625

Read: Order No. 1-25-2010/STE-DIR/02 dated

02-04-2019.

In pursuance of Section 5 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as

“the said Act”), and in supersession of order read

above, the following officer is hereby appointed as

Public Information Officer (PIO), to deal with the

applications received from the public under the

said Act.

1. Head Clerk,

Public Information

(Department of Environ-

Officer (PIO).

ment & Climate Change

(DoECC)

2. The Director, DoECC, will be the First

Appellate Authority (FAA) under the said Act,

against the decision as far as Department is

concerned.

3. This order is issued in accordance to the

decision of the Department, conveyed vide their

order No. 85-1-2016/Envt/1455 dated 09-03-2020.

Dasharath M. Redkar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (DoE&CC).

Porvorim, 28th September, 2021.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

548

Order

No. 1-25-2010/STE-DIR/638

In pursuance of Section 5 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as

“the said Act”), and in supersession of the earlier

order No. 1-25-2010/STE-DIR/194 dated 09-06-2020

in this respect, the following officers are hereby

appointed as Public Information Officer (PIO) and

Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) for Goa

Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), to

deal with the applications received from the public

under the said Act.

1. Head Clerk,

Public Information

(Department of Environ-

Officer (PIO).

ment & Climate Change

(DoECC)

2. Lower Division Clerk,

Assistant Public

(Department of Environ-

Information Officer

ment & Climate Change

(APIO).

(DoECC)

2. The Member Secretary, GCZMA, will be the

First Appellate Authority (FAA) under the said Act,

against the decision of the PIO/APIO as far as the

GCZMA is concerned.

3. This order is issued in accordance to the

decision of the Goa Coastal Zone Management

Authority, conveyed vide their letter No. GCZMA/

/Work Order/19-20/01/149 dated 05-06-2020.

Dasharath M. Redkar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (DoE&CC).

Porvorim, 30th September, 2021.

______

Order

No. 1-13-05/06/STE-DIR/Part/643

In pursuance of Clause 5 of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as

“the said Act”), the following officers are hereby

appointed as Public Information Officer and

Assistant Public Information Officer in the Goa

State Pollution Control Board (GSPCB), to deal with

the applications received from the public under

the said Act.

Public Information Officer

Law Officer.

Assistant Public Information

Senior Law Officer.

Officer

The Public Information Officer shall be

responsible for preparation and publication of

information manual and its updating from time to

time as per the said Act.

The Assistant Public Information Officer shall

ensure that the applications received under the

said Act are scrutinized and submitted to the Public

Information Officer for decision so as to furnish the

relevant information to the applicant as per the

said Act, on issues pertaining to the Goa State

Pollution Control Board (GSPCB).

The Member Secretary, Goa State Pollution

Control Board (GSPCB), will be the first appellate

authority under this Act against the decision of the

Public Information Officer/Assistant Public

Information Officer as far as the Goa State Pollution

Control Board (GSPCB), is concerned.

This order is issued in accordance to the

correspondence/decision of the Goa State Pollution

Control Board (GSPCB).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dasharath M. Redkar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (DoE&CC).

Panaji, 30th September, 2021.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-Lab/Part-III/448

The following award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

19-08-2021 in Ref. No. IT/112/07 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.

Maya Pednekar, Under Secretary (Labour)

(Link).

Porvorim, 21st September, 2021.

______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Ms. Bela N. Naik, Hon’ble Presiding

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/112/07

Workmen,

Rep. by The National Worker’s

Union,

Tivim Industrial Estate,

Karaswada, Mapusa-Goa.

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

549

1. M/s Sunny Enterprises

(Contractor),

64, Cunchelim,

Mapusa-Goa.

… Employer/Party II(1)

2. M/s National Industrial

Corporation Limited Workers’

Union, Tivim Industrial Estate,

Karaswada,

Mapusa-Goa.

… Employer/Party II(2)

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

Palekar.

Employer/Party II(1) and Employer/Party II(2)

proceeding ex-parte.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 19th day of the month

of August of the year 2021)

By Order dated 12-11-2007, bearing No. 28/33/

/2005-LAB/1119, the Government of Goa in exercise

of powers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act),

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of M/s Sunny Enterprises,

contractor of M/s National Industrial

Corporation Limited, Tivim Industrial Estate,

Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa, in terminating the

services of the following 31 workmen with

effect from 26-12-2003, is legal and justified?

Sr.

Name

Designation

Experience

No.

01.

Keshav B.

Maintenance Work

2 ½ years

02.

Sanjay Naik

D. M. Operator

3 years

03.

Laximkant Naik

Operator

3 years

04.

Chandrashekar Parab

Blending work

3 years

05.

Nitin Parab

Outdoor duty

3 ½ years

06.

Rama Bagkar

Electrician

4 years

07.

Santosh Kalangutkar

D. M. Operator

3 years

08.

Umesh Parsekar

Helper

3 years

09.

Sangita Salgaonkar

Labelling work

4 years

10.

Anusuya Narse

Gum Machine Operator

4 years

11.

Rekha Amre

Labelling work

3 years

12.

Manisha Saterdekar

Labelling work

2 years

13.

Shital Pednekar

Labelling work

4 years

14.

Sharad Kambli

Labelling work

4 years

15.

Sharmila Satoskar

Labelling work

4 years

16.

Kanchan Bhishi

Labelling work

4 years

17.

Bhanudas Shivji

Ceiling Operator

3 ½ years

18.

Vijay Govekar

Brushing work

3 ½ years

19.

Amar Chodankar

Checking work

3 ½ years

20.

Asmita Ambekar

Checking work

3 ½ years

21.

Santoshi Korgaokar

Checking work

4 years

22.

Shaby Parab

Ceiling work

3 ½ years

23.

Naresh Parab

Filling Operator

3 ½ years

24.

Dhaktu Parsekar

Sealing Operator

4 ½ years

25.

Lawrence Dias

Sealing Operator

4 years

26.

Ravi Sawant

Office Boy

3 ½ years

27.

Devanand Pednekar

Driver

3 ½ years

28.

Selina

Sweeper

4 years

29.

Sadanand Naik

D. M. Operator

4 ½ years

30.

Sangita Kerkar

Bottle Washing

4 years

31.

Manju Ali

Helper

1 year

2) If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/112/2007 and registered AD notices were

issued to both the parties. Pursuant to service of

notices, Party I filed a Claim Statement at Exb. 23

and Party II filed a Written Statement at Exhibit 24.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that the

present reference refers to the dispute between them

and the Employer wherein 31 workmen were

dismissed from service after having worked for the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

550

period as mentioned in the column of their schedule

along with their names and designation. The said

workers were refused work by the Management of

National Industrial Corporation Limited deliberately

from 26-12-2003 and were told that their services

have been terminated without giving any reasons,

and that the workmen who have put in more than

4 years of continuous service without any break.

The Party II(2) is in the business of manufacturing

liquor products for defence personnel for the State

of Kerala and Tamil Nadu and the Factory is situated

at Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Bardez-Goa

and is in this business since more than 15 years.

4. The Party I states that the workers were

unionized themselves and this was intimated to

the Management of Party II(2) by letter dated

18-08-2003 and on 11-08-2003, a charter of demands

was served on the Management for better service

conditions and wage rise. The engagement of

Party I workmen through M/s Sunny Enterprises is

an act of fraud committed by M/s National Industrial

Corporation Limited to deprive the Party I of the

production available to them under the Labour

Legislations in connivance with M/s Sunny

Enterprises, and that the same was only a mode to

wriggle out from the clutches of the special

statutes, and that on commencement of the factory

production for about a year, the Party I were paid

wages directly by M/s National Industrial

Corporation Ltd. M/s Sunny Enterprises was

introduced after about a year and the appointment

of Contractor, M/s Sunny Enterprises and the

execution of the contract is sham and bogus

contractor which is appointed by M/s National

Industrial corporation Limited, Party II (2) namely

Sunny Enterprises, Party II (1) with the sole object

of depriving the Party I of the protection and of the

benefits that would flow to them as regular

employees of M/s National Industrial Corporation

Limited. The introduction of M/s Sunny Enterprises

as a Contractor is an artificial creation of an

intermediary between the Party I and M/s National

Industrial Corporation Limited with the sole object

of depriving the Party I of their legitimate rights

available to them under the Labour Laws and there

exists Employer--employee relationship between the

Party I and M/s National Industrial Corporation

Limited.

5. The Party I submits that the 31 workers who

are called as contract workers by the Management

under the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970 are not the contract workers of

Party II (1) as claimed by the Management but they

are all permanent and regular workmen of Party II

(2). All these workmen are working on main and

important production jobs continuously and their

jobs are perennial in nature and all these workmen

have completed more than 240 days of continuous

and uninterrupted service without any break in

service and some of them have even completed

more than 480 days and therefore the services of

the above workmen cannot be dispensed with

without resorting to Section 25-F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The main reason for removing

these workmen are mainly by way of victimization

as well as due to the formation of the Union by the

workmen and as the wages are meager and the

Employer was not paying the minimum wages to

some of the workers and hence they submitted the

charter of demand to the Management and in order

to get justice, the Union raised the dispute vide

Charter of Demands before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Mapusa-Goa and the matter was in

conciliation. The Party I further submits that on

receipt of the knowledge of the formation of the

Union, the Management started harassing the

workers who became the members of the Union

and from the next day, all the workmen who were

the members of the Union were not allowed to

resume the duty from 26-12-2003. That again the

refusal of employment to the said 31 workers who

were the members of the union, the Union raised

an industrial dispute as a protest before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mapusa wherein

the issue could not be resolved and the conciliation

ended in failure.

6. The Party I states that at the time of their

termination, the Charter of Demands of the workmen

were pending before the Appropriate Authority and

the Party II(2) has not obtained the permission of

the Appropriate Authority nor the application u/s

33 of the I. D. Act which was filed before the

Appropriate Authority. Party I states that the Party

II(2) has violated the provisions of Section 33 of the

I. D. Act as the matter of Charter of Demands is

pending before the Appropriate Authority and

therefore the termination without the approval of

this Tribunal is illegal, unjustified and bad in law

as the Employer has not followed the principles of

natural justice and as such their termination is

illegal and bad in law and hence, the Party I is

entitled to re-instatement with full back wages and

continuity of service. Hence, it is prayed that it

may be declared by this Tribunal that the

termination is bad, illegal, improper and unjustified

and to direct the Employer to reinstate all the above

workmen with full back wages and continuity in

service and award the cost as deemed fit.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

551

7. As against the above pleadings the Party II (1)

has not filed any Written Statement nor contested

the present reference and Written Statement has

been filed by Party II (2) and in the Written Statement

it is their objection that the present reference made

to this Tribunal is illegal, invalid and not

maintainable and needs to be rejected as at no

point of time either on 26-12-2003 or any other date,

the Company terminated the services of any of the

31 workmen which position according to them is

clear from the Order of Reference dated 12-11-2007

as there was no employer-employee relationship

between the Company and the above named

workmen at any point of time and therefore the

question of impleadment of the Company as a Party

to the present reference is itself illegal and bad in

law.

8. It is further stated that all the 31 workers were

at all times the employees of the Contractor and as

such, the employer-employee relationship existed

between

the

contractor

and

the

said

31 workmen and therefore the real dispute if any

is/was confined between the said contractor and

the said 31 workmen. The termination of the

services of the said 31 workmen w.e.f. 26-12-2003, if

any was carried out by the Contractor which is

clear from the Order of Reference dated 12-11-2007.

Therefore, this reference is to be adjudicated only

between the workmen and the Contractor and is

liable to be rejected against them.

9. The Party II(2) is a Company registered under

the Companies Act, 1956 having its Factory situated

at Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa-Goa

having its registered office at New Delhi and it is

engaged in the manufacture of Indian Made Foreign

Liquor (IMFL) and they are responsible for

distribution of the said products to the defence

forces of Government of India by the employment

of workers directly and indirectly i.e. to the

Contractors. It is stated that under Agreement dated

01-04-2000 arrived at between the Company on one

hand and the Contractor above named represented

by its Proprietor, Shri Sunil Narvekar on the other

hand, the Company had engaged the Contractor in

connection with the work of packing, bottling,

filling of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (I.M.F.L.)

loading and unloading of the products

manufactured by the Company on contract basis

for an initial period of 1 year commencing from

01-04-2000 to 31-03-2001. It is stated that as per the

terms and conditions of the said Agreement, the

said Agreement was extendable for a further period

depending upon the performance of the Contractor

and accordingly, after the expiry of the initial period

from 01-04-2000 to 31-03-2001, the said agreement

was renewed for the period of one year each from

01-04-2001 to 31-03-2002 and thereafter from

01-04-2002 to 31-03-2003 and lastly from 01-04-2003

to 31-03-2004. The other relevant agreed terms and

conditions of the said Agreement(s) were as under:

“… 2. That the Company shall reimburse to the

Contractor labour charges for Loading, Unloading,

Filling, Packing, Bottling etc. of IMFL as per the chart

enclosed herewith duly agreed upon by both the

parties.

3. That the Contractor shall provide sufficient

number of labourers and Supervisors for

expeditious loading and unloading of the

trucks at the Company premises at D-2/40,

Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa.

4. That the Contractor shall carry out the following

jobs:

a) Unloading of packing material including

empty bottles, Seals, Boxes, Mono-Cartons

and other materials from the trucks and

shifting them to the respective Stores.

b) Shifting of empty bottles from Bottle Store

to Bottle Washing Section.

c) Shifting of Cartons, Mono-Cartons, Seals,

Labels, Tapes and Adhesive etc. from the

Store to the Bottling Hall.

d) Shifting of packed boxes from the Bottling

Hall to the Finished Goods Godown.

e) Loading of packed cases in trucks for

dispatches.

f) Removal of broken glass bottles and other

wastage/breakage from the Washing

Section and Bottling Hall.

g) If there is no loading and unloading, the

labour may be utilized for house-keeping

and other jobs as required by the Company.

h) Washing of bottles.

i) Sealing of bottles.

j) Filling of bottles.

k) Labeling and carton packing.

5. That the Contractor agrees to provide extra

manpower of labourers if required to complete

the work in time.

7. That the Contractor will be responsible for

payment of wages and other Statutory Dues

including PF, ESI, BONUS, GRATUITY etc. to

all the persons employed by him for Loading,

Unloading, filling, packing and bottling

operations at the Company’s Unit at Tivim

Industrial Estate. Documentary evidence of

payment of statutory liabilities will be

submitted to the Company within the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

552

stipulated period. The Company will in no way,

be liable to pay any claim whatsoever other

than monthly bills for services rendered by the

Contractor as detailed above.

8. That the Contractor undertakes to get his

employees insured under the E.S.I. Act and also

undertake to pay minimum wages as notified

by the Government of Goa from time to time,

the contractor will get himself registered as per

Labour Laws applicable.

9. That the Contractor will get the necessary P.F.

number to ensure timely payment of employees

and Contractor’s contribution and will submit

the documents to the Company.

11. That it is specifically understood by both the

Parties that the agreement herein-above does

not create any right of the Contractor on any

property of the Company and/or any right on

the part of the employees of the Contractor to

claim any benefit or employment of the

Company. This agreement does not create any

relation of master and servant between the

Company and the Contractor’s employees.

18. That the Contractor shall observe all the

formalities and obligations required under

Central and State Government Act such as

Payment of Minimum Wages as applicable from

time to time, Contract Labour (Regulations and

Abolition) Act, 1970, Employees Provident Fund

Act, Food Adulteration Act, Standard Weight

& Measurement Act, Industrial Act and would

be responsible in case of any injury caused to

any workman of any damage to the company’s

plant due to his or her worker’s negligence.

19. That either Party may terminate this Agreement

by giving one months’ prior notice in writing

to the other Party without prejudice to the

rights arising out of this Agreement…”

10. The Party II (2) stated that pursuant to the

Agreement as aforesaid, the Contractor engaged

31 workmen above named in connection with the

work undertaken by him under the Agreement as

aforesaid and at all times the said 31 workmen

were working under the supervision and control of

the Contractor above named. It is further stated

that at times during the operation of the

Agreements, the salary of the said 31 workmen was

at all times paid and said 31 workmen were looked

after in all respect by the said Contractor. Party II

(2) further submitted that as is clear from the terms

and conditions of the Agreement dated 01-04-2000

and subsequent Agreements entered into between

the Parties as aforesaid, there was no privity of

contract or otherwise of whatever nature between

the Company and the said 31 workmen and/or the

Union. Party II (2) further stated that the Contractor

was covered under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act,

1948 and E. P. F. & M. P. Act, 1952 and was granted

Code numbers 32-2-78-95 and GOA/110397

respectively for complying with the provisions of

the said Acts in relations to the workers engaged

by him and accordingly the Contractor was

deducting and depositing the contributions under

the respective Acts in the respective code numbers

allotted to him.

11. The Party II(2) submitted that for the purpose

of carrying out the business activities efficiently

and with economy, by indirect employment i.e. by

or through a contractor, the Contractor had obtained

Registration Certificate under No. CLE/

/CL-R-441 from the Office of the Registering Officer

i.e. the Labour Commissioner at Panaji, Goa, as

required under the provisions of the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and

Rules thereunder. It is further submitted that the

Contractor had obtained requisite Licence under

No.CL/Goa-1250 from the Office of the Licensing

Officer, i.e. the Labour Commissioner at Panaji, Goa

as required under the provisions of the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and

Rules thereunder in respect of the engagement of

the said 31 workmen in the establishment of the

Company. It is stated that the Contractor had been

engaging the workmen, whose names are

mentioned in the Order of Reference from the date

of engagement as a contractor by the Company

under Agreement dated 01-04-2000 as aforesaid and

none of the said workmen had been in employment

with the Company at any time prior to the said

date.

12. The Party II (2) stated that, though, the

relationship between the Company and the

Contractor was that of Principal Employer and a

Contractor under the provisions of the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and

Rules thereunder, however for the purpose of

securing compliance by the Contractor of the terms

and conditions of the Licence in respect of the

workmen, the said relationship with sole

consideration of carrying out the contract work by

the Contractor with the workmen on mutually

agreed terms and conditions contained in the

Agreement dated 01-04-2000 arrived at between

the Parties and its subsequent renewals thereof.

13. The Party II (2) submitted that in the month

of June, 2003 i.e. during the tenure of the

Agreement, all the 31 workmen resorted to slowing

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

553

down production including the stoppage of

production from time to time and thereafter

unilaterally, arbitrarily and without any justification

resorted to illegal strike on and from 15-09-2003 to

29-09-2003. Further, thereafter all the 31 workers

slowed down the production by producing an

average of 250-300 cases instead of average

production of 800 cases, thereby causing heavy

financial losses to the Company and the said non-

production resulted in disruption in supply of goods

to the Canteen Stores Department which caused

huge losses to the Company besides suffering

damage to their reputation. It is further stated that

on account of slow down and strike and in order to

ensure that regular production activities were

carried on for maintaining regular supply of their

products, Company was constrained to engage a

new contractor – M/s Dynamic Personnel Bureau

for performing the same work as performed by the

said Contractor. They further submitted that on

account of the slow-down and strike and consequent

losses and shame to their reputation, the Company

was constrained to issue a letter/notice under No.

NICL/G/SS/701 dated 29-11-2003 to the Contractor,

inter alia giving him 30 days’ notice informing its

intention to terminate the Agreement dated

01-04-2003 as per clause 19 of the said Agreement.

14. The Party II(2) contended that thereafter, on

24-12-2003 i.e. during the notice period, all the said

31 workers suddenly and unilaterally stopped the

work of production and damaged the critical

machinery of the Company lying in the premises

before leaving the premises later that day in order

to completely stop the production activities and as

such there was no production from 24-12-2003

onwards. It is further stated that all the said 31

workers indulged in threatening and were

misbehaving with workers of the other Contractor

–M/s. Dynamic Personnel Bureau thereby

obstructing them from performing their duties. In

view of this, the Company addressed a letter/notice

dated 26-12-2003 to the Contractor, inter alia setting

out in detail the aforesaid illegal activities and

further informing that on account of illegal and

unlawful activities resorted by his workers, the

Company has suffered huge losses besides

irreparable damage to the reputation of the

Company and that in the said circumstances they

were left with no other alternative but to terminate

the Agreement dated 01-04-2003 in their interest

and accordingly required all the said 31 workers to

approach their Employer i.e. Contractor for further

instructions. In the circumstances, it is stated that

in view of termination of the said Agreement, there

was no question of the said 31 workers working

with the Company on and from 25-12-2003 onwards

and further stated that the Company is not aware

as to the action taken by the Contractor in relation

to his said 31 workmen subsequent to the

termination of Agreement dated 01-04-2003 by the

Company. Hence, it is prayed that the present

reference be rejected against them holding that

the workmen/Union are not entitled to any reliefs

as prayed.

15. Based on the above mentioned pleadings

my Learned Predecessor has framed the Issues at

Exh. 26 and pursuant to the amendment made to

the pleadings an additional issue came to be framed

at Exh. 34 by my Learned Predecessor and the

same are as follows:

(1) Whether the Party I proves that the termination

of the services of 31 workmen by Party II(1)

w.e.f. 26-12-2003 is illegal, unjustified and

malafide?

(2) Whether the Party I proves that the termination

of their services is in violation of Section 33 of

the Industrial Disputes Act?

(3) Whether the Party I proves that they are

entitled for reinstatement in services with full

back wages and continuity in services with all

other consequential benefits?

(4) Whether Party II(2) proves that the reference

is not maintainable as there is no Employer-

-Employee relationship between them and

Party I?

(5) What Order? What relief?

1) Additional issue:

(1) Whether the Party I proves that there exists

employer-employee relationship between the

Party I and Party II(2) since appointment of

Party II(1) as contractor is sham and bogus?

16. In the course of evidence, the Party I examined

its witness Shri Sadanand Naik and produced on

record a copy of letter dated 10-08-2003 addressed

to Party II(2) at Exh. 37, a copy of letter dated

11-08-2003 addressed to Party II(2) at Exh. 38, copy

of letter dated 10-09-2003 addressed to ALC,

Mapusa at Exh. 39, a copy of letter dated

10-09-2003 addressed to ALC, Mapusa at Exh. 40, a

copy of letter dated 10-09-2003 addressed to Party

II(2) at Exh.41, a copy of letter dated 16-09-2003

addressed to ALC at Exh. 42, a copy of letter dated

18-09-2003 addressed to ESI Corpn. at Exh. 43, a

copy of letter dated 18-09-2003 addressed to P. F.

Commissioner at Exh. 44, a copy of letter dated

24-09-2003 received from Party II(1) at Exh. 45, a

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

554

copy of letter dated 26-09-2003 received from Party

II(2) at Exh. 46, a copy of letter dated 30-09-2003

addressed to ALC, Mapusa at Exh. 47, a copy of

letter dated 30-09-2003 addressed to ALC, Mapusa

at Exh. 48, a copy of letter dated 08-10-2003

addressed to ALC, Mapusa at Exh. 49, a copy of

letter dated 09-11-2003 addressed to Party II(2) at

Exh. 50, a copy of letter dated 09-11-2003 addressed

to ALC at Exh. 51, a copy of letter dated 09-12-2003

received from Party II(2) at Exh. 52, a copy of letter

dated 26-12-2003 addressed to Party II(2) at Exh. 53,

a copy of letter dated 15-01-2004 addressed to ALC

at Exh. 54, a copy of letter dated 16-01-2004

addressed to ALC, Mapusa at Exh. 55, a copy of

letter dated 10-02-2004 from Labour Commissioner

to Party II(1) at Exh. 56, a copy of certificate of

registration of trade union dated 11-02-2004 at Exh.

57, copy of failure report of the conciliation

proceedings dated 28-06-2005 at Exh. 58, a copy of

order dated 12-11-2007 issued by the Under

Secretary (Labour) at Exh. 59, a copy of letter dated

25-06-2008 addressed to the Under Secretary

(Labour) at Exh. 60, a copy of letter dated 27-06-

2008

issued

Labour

Department

Exh. 61, copy of minutes report dated 29-09-2003 at

Exh. 62 and a copy of information report dated

11-03-2004 at Exh. 63.

Issue No. 1 & 2

… In the Negative.

Issue No. 3

… In the Negative.

Issue No. 4

… In the Affirmative.

Issue No. 5

… As per Final Order.

Addl. Issue No. 1 … Partly in the Affirmative.

and partly in the negative.

REASONS

Issue No. 1 & 2:

17. Issue No. 1 and 2 are discussed together as

they are covered under common evidence being

interconnected and also for the sake of convenience.

The Party I examined one workman Shri Sadanand

Naik in support of their case and he has mentioned

in his Affidavit-in-Evidence the detailed facts of

their case and in support of it he has produced

various documents from Exh. 37 to 63 and I have

perused all these documents in deciding the instant

case.

18. That according to this witness he was

employed with Party II i.e. the Employer, National

Industrial Corporation Limited as DM Operator even

before the commencement of the Factory operations

and along with him there were other 31 workers

including himself whose names he has mentioned

in his Affidavit in Evidence were employed with

the Party II whose designation and experience in

years are also mentioned in detail. He has stated

that all the 31 workers including himself were

refused work by Party II w.e.f. 26-12-2003 and they

were orally informed about the termination of their

services and no reasons were given for the

termination. Admittedly, the Factory of Party II is

situated at Tivim Industrial Estate which is

conducting its business operations for the past 19

years and it is in the business of manufacturing

liquor products for defence personnel of the State

of Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

19. The present order of reference dated

12-11-2007 refers to whether the action of

Party II(1), M/s Sunny Enterprises, the contractor of

M/s National Industrial Corporation Limited

situated at Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada,

Mapusa in terminating the services of 31 workmen

w.e.f. 26-12-2003 is legal and justified and based on

this the issue No. 1 and 2 which are framed are in

the nature of burden casted upon the Party I to

discharge the same.

20. Though according to this witness he was

employed by Party II(2) even before the

commencement of the factory operations but if one

goes to his cross-examination, it is very clear that

he has failed to discharge the burden of issue

No. 1 and 2. That in the opening line of his cross-

-examination Shri Sadanand Naik stated that he

was employed by Party II(2) as DM Operator in the

year 1999 or 2000, but admitted that he does not

have any Appointment Letter or Wage Slip issued

by Party II(2) to prove that he was employed by

Party II(2). This goes to show that this witness failed

to prove that he was employed or paid by

Party II(2).

21. Further he has stated that initially PF and

ESI contributions were deducted by Party II(2) and

thereafter the said amount was refunded by the

Company, but further admits that he does not have

any documents in support of this fact. Therefore,

from the own admission of this witness, it stands

proved that there is no document on record to prove

that he was appointed, paid by Party II(2) and the

PF and ESI contributions were deducted by Party

II(2). Further he stated that they never worked under

the Contractor, M/s Sunny Enterprises nor Sunny

Enterprises who is Party II(1) employed their services

and that they were orally informed by one Shri K.

T. Sunil and Suman of Party II(2) orally that their

services were terminated.

22. Now coming to the documents produced by

this witness, it is seen that none of these documents

from Exh. 37 to 63 shows that they were employed

by Party II(2) and the date of employment is not

reflected in any of the said documents. The first

document produced by this witness is the letter

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

555

dated 10-08-2003 addressed to Party II(2) wherein

Party II(2) has been informed that the workmen have

formed their local Union known as National

Industrial Corporation Limited Workers’ Union which

document is at Exh. 37. The next document is Exh.

38 which is a copy of letter made to Party II(2)

stating the charter of demands by the Union of

Party I. Exh. 39 is the copy of the letter dated

10-09-2003 made to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Mapusa-Goa by the Workers’ Union

stating the illegal and malafide lockout made by

the Party II(2). Exh. 40 is the copy of the letter dated

10-09-2003 made to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner by the workmen union and so also

Exh. 41 is the copy of the letter made to the Party

II(2) stating the illegal and unjustified lockout

resorted by Party II(2). None of these documents

mentions that the workmen were appointed by Party

II(2) but moreover in the Written Statement Party

II(2) has clearly mentioned that vide Agreement

dated 01-04-2000 arrived at between the Company

on one hand and the Contractor represented by its

proprietor Shri Sunil Narvekar on the other hand,

the Company had engaged the Contractor in

connection with the work of packing, bottling, filling

of IMFL, loading and unloading of the products

manufactured by the Company on contract basis

for an initial period of one year commencing from

01-04-2000 to 31-03-2001. This goes to show that

Party II(2) had entered into an agreement with Party

I in respect of the nature of the work to be handled

as mentioned above. Therefore, it does not lie in the

mouth of this witness to say that they were not

knowing about the said agreement arrived at

between the Party II(1) and Party II(2) which is dated

01-04-2000 and according to this witness their

services were terminated from 26-12-2003 which is

three years subsequent to the execution of the

agreement dated 01-04-2000 and it is also

mentioned in the Written Statement that this

agreement was renewed lastly from 01-04-2003 to

31-03-2004.

23. In the Written Statement the relevant terms

and conditions of the said Agreement are

mentioned in detail and this witness has mentioned

in the Claim Statement and so also in his Affidavit

in Evidence that they were informed orally about

their termination but has not specified who

informed them about the termination, but in his

cross-examination said Sadanand Naik has clearly

mentioned that Shri K. P. Sunil and Suman of Party

II(2) orally informed them that their services were

terminated.

24. In the Written Statement Party I has

mentioned that the said Agreement was made

between the Company, Party II(2) on one hand and

the Contractor represented by Shri Sunil Narvekar

on the other hand. Further reading the cross

examination, this witness was shown the minutes

of the discussion dated 29-09-2003 which document

is at Exh. 62 and he admitted his signature on the

same at point ‘A’ and clearly admitted by stating

that “it is true that it is mentioned in the para 1 of

the said minutes that the 23 workmen who were

on the rolls of the Contractor M/s Sunny Enterprises

shall report to their duties w.e.f. 30-09-2003 at

9.00 a.m. as usual and that the Union/workmen

agreed to report their duties as mentioned above”.

This goes to show that this witness along with the

other 23 workmen on the own admission of this

witness have admitted that all the 23 workmen

were on the rolls of the Contractor M/s Sunny

Enterprises who is Party II(1). Therefore, again the

allegations of this witness that the said contract is

bogus and sham cannot be accepted because he

has admitted that their names were on the rolls of

the Contractor M/s Sunny Enterprises. Said Sunny

Enterprises/Party II(1) who is a Contractor engaged

by Party II(2) and this fact was within the

knowledge of all the 23 workmen including this

witness as further he admitted in cross that he was

a part of the said 23 workmen. I have perused Exh.

62 which clearly shows that this is a document of

minutes of discussion held between M/s Sunny

Enterprises, contractor of M/s National Industrial

Corporation Ltd., Mapusa-Goa and their workmen

represented by the National Industrial Corporation

Limited Workers’ Union, Tivim Industrial Estate.

The contents of Exh. 62 are self-explanatory

wherein in clause 1 it is clearly mentioned that it

was agreed between the Parties that the 23

workmen who are on the rolls of the Contractor,

M/s Sunny Enterprises shall report to their duties

w.e.f. 30-09-2003 at 9.00 a.m. as usual. Therefore by

this document it is not proper and fair on the part

of the said workmen to say that they were refused

work from 30-09-2003 they were asked to report to

the duties.

25. Further it is the contention of this witness

that they were told that if they do not sign on the

said settlement, they will not be employed by the

Company. This defence taken by the workmen is

without the support of any documentary evidence

nor any witness has been examined to prove that

all the said 23 workmen were forced to sign on

Exh. 62/ the settlement. This witness has also

admitted that they did not file any complaint nor

made any letter that they were forced to sign the

minutes at Exh. 62 because, if any workman was

really forced on Exh. 62, it was quite natural on

their part to file any complaint to that effect which

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

556

is admittedly not done by any of the workmen for

the reasons best known to their knowledge. Though

again it is the allegation of Party I that the

Agreement of Party I through M/s Sunny Enterprises

is a fraud committed by Party II(2) and the

appointment of the Contractor M/s Sunny

Enterprises and the execution of the contract is

sham and bogus is also not proved by Party I and

moreover, he has admitted in cross-examination that

the workers did not raise any dispute alleging that

the contract between Party II(1) and Party (2) were

sham and bogus as the workers were never

employed by the Contractor. The very execution of

the settlement arrived at between all the Parties to

the present reference clearly proves and establishes

that all these workmen were employed by the

Contractor and therefore they have signed on the

said settlement and merely making an allegation

that the said contract between Party I and Party II

is a sham and bogus, is not maintainable as Exh. 62

proves that these workmen attended the said

meeting with the Contractor and were asked to

join to their duties w.e.f. 30-09-2003 and moreover,

the workmen have not raised any dispute alleging

that the contract between Party I and Party II is

sham and bogus. In fact, this witness has not

produced any documents to show that they were

employed by Party II(2). And as such, the execution

of the said contract made between Party I and Party

II was very much within the knowledge of the

workmen and therefore they attended the said

meeting vide Exh. 62.

26. It is also a burden casted by issue No. 2 that

the termination of their services is in violation of

Section 33 of the I. D. Act. By the above provision

of law, it is clear that during the pendency of any

conciliation proceedings before the Conciliation

Officer or before a Labour Court or a Tribunal in

respect of an industrial dispute no Employer shall

dismiss, discharge or punish any workmen for any

misconduct unless the express permission in

writing of the Authority before which the

proceeding is pending is obtained and in this case

Party I states that their termination is in violation

of Section 33 of the I. D. Act as the matter of Charter

of Demands is pending before the Appropriate

Authority and therefore the termination is without

the approval of this Tribunal and as such it is illegal,

unjustified and bad in law but in order to prove

this, this witness has not produced any documents

and moreover Exh. 58 is produced which is the

copy of the Failure Report of the conciliation

proceedings dated 28-06-2005. Admittedly, the

conciliation has failed and therefore the present

reference arose. This witness has produced copy of

the letter dated 11-08-2003 mentioning the Party

II(2) about their Charter of Demands but failed to

prove that they were employed by Party II(2) and

admittedly, their services were terminated on

26-12-2003.

27. There is no single document produced by

this witness to show his/their appointment was

made by Party II(2) and moreover, it was within

his/their knowledge about the execution of the

contract made by Party II(2) with Party II(1). And

even if one goes through the Order of Reference,

it is seen that the dispute referred to is for

adjudication regarding the legality and justification

of the action of M/s Sunny Enterprises, Contractor

of M/s National Industrial Corporation in

terminating services of 31 workmen w.e.f.

26-12-2003 which goes to show that the said

M/s Sunny enterprises is the contractor of

Party II(2) which is a Company and as such on

26-12-2003 there is no termination of 31 workmen

by the said Company. All the said 31 workmen

were the employees of the Contractor, therefore

the real dispute arises between the Contractor

Party II(1) and the workmen and there is no charter

of demands made to Party II(1). Hence, as per the

Agreement dated 01-04-2000 between Party I and

Party II the contractor engaged 31 workmen who

were working under the supervision and the

control of the said Contractor, Sunny Enterprises.

Hence, Party I failed to prove that the termination

of their services is in violation of Section 33 of the

I. D. Act and similarly failed to prove the burden

of issue No. 1 and accordingly issue No. 1 and 2

stands answered in the negative.

28. Learned Advocate Shri Vijay Palekar for

Party I has placed reliance on the authority reported

in Mapusa Municipal Council v/s Smt. Krupa

Hallikar & Ors. wherein our Hon’ble High Court has

held that where industrial dispute was pending in

Court, the termination of service of workmen without

obtaining approval of that Court is a breach of

mandatory provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the

I. D. Act and the petitioner cannot be allowed to

plead about the ignorance of law and further held

that there can be no justification whatsoever for the

petitioner terminating the services during the

pendency of the main industrial dispute without

applying for approval of the Court where the main

dispute was pending. As per this citation, it was

incumbent on part of the Party I to prove that their

services were terminated without obtaining the

approval of the Court and the Party I has failed to

prove the same either by way of any documentary

evidence nor examined any witness to that effect.

There is no dispute about the settled position of

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

557

law but the Party I has not led any sufficient

evidence and has merely made all the allegations

in air. The Party I himself failed to prove that they

were employed by Party II(2) and vide Exh. 62 it is

abundantly clear that the joint discussion was held

between all the Parties and there is nothing on

record to show that their services were terminated

illegally by the Contractor on the contrary, it is also

mentioned on Exh. 62 that the Management has

resorted to illegal and unjustified lockout w.e.f. 20-

09-2003 pursuant to which the settlement was

arrived at. It is also seen that the charter of demands

was submitted to Party II(2) by registered A/D

post/hand delivery which is dated 11-08-2003 at

Exh. 38 pursuant to which also the settlement has

taken place between the Parties. Exh. 45 refers to

the letter sent by the Contractor M/s Sunny

Enterprises to Party I about their illegal and

unauthorized strike from 15-09-2003 till date.

Issue No. 3

29. Since Party I failed to prove issue No. 1 and 2

they are certainly not entitled for reinstatement in

service with full back wages and continuity in

service with all other consequential benefits as

Party I did not lead any evidence to prove that they

were appointed by Party II(2) and it is

Party II(1) who illegally terminated their services.

Hence issue No. 3 stands answered in the negative.

Issue No. 4

30. It is the objection raised by Party II(2) that

the present reference is not maintainable as there

is no employer-employee relationship between

them as in the Written Statement Party II(2) states

that the said 31 workers were at all times the

employees of the Contractor and as such the

employer-employee relationship existed between

the Contractor and the said 31 workmen and as

such the real dispute if any, is/was confined

between the said contractor and the said 31

workmen. The termination of services of the 31

workmen w.e.f. 26-12-2003, if any, was carried out

by the Contractor and to my mind this itself is clear

from the order of reference dated 12-11-2007 which

clearly states that the action of Party II(1) i.e.

M/s Sunny Enterprises, Contractor of M/s Nation

Industrial Corporation Limited in terminating the

services of 31 workmen w.e.f. 26-12-2003 is legal

and justified. Therefore, the objections raised by

Party II(2) that the present reference is not

maintainable against them and that no employer-

-employee relationship between them and Party I

stands justified. Admittedly, the Party II(2) is a

Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956

having its Factory at Tivim Karaswada, Mapusa,

Goa and it is engaged in the business of supplying

IMFL to the defence forces of Government of India,

which is by employment of workers directly and

indirectly to the contractor who is Party II(1).

31. Further, the execution of the Agreement

dated 01-04-2000 arrived at between the Company

on one hand and the Contractor represented by its

Proprietor Shri Sunil Narvekar on the other hand,

the Company had engaged the Contractor in

connection with the work of packing, bottling and

filling of IMFL which Agreement stood renewed

lastly from 01-04-2003 to 31-03-2004. The various

terms and conditions of the said Agreement are

self-explanatory and are also within the knowledge

of all the said 31 workmen who even went further

to the extent of executing Exh. 62 which is the

document of minutes of discussion held between

the Management of Party II(2), Contractor of

Party II(2) and their workmen which is Party I. Vide

Exh. 62, the workmen had admitted and consented

that 23 workmen who are on the rolls of the

Contractor M/s Sunny Enterprises shall report to

their duties w.e.f. 30-09-2003, therefore when the

execution of Exh. 62 was within the knowledge of

Party I, there cannot be any employer-employee

relationship between Party I and Party II(2) as

admittedly, the relationship between the Company

and the Contractor was that of Principal Employer

and a Contractor under the provisions of the

Contract Labour Act for which purpose the

Contractor was engaged. It is also mentioned and

agreed in the said contract, that pursuant to the

said Agreement dated 01-04-2000 the Contractor

engaged 31 workmen whose names are mentioned

above in connection with the work undertaken by

him/Contractor under the Agreement and all the

said 31 workmen were under the supervision and

control of the Contractor i.e. Party II(1), hence from

the terms and conditions of the Agreement dated

01-04-2000 and subsequent agreements entered

into between the Parties above, it is abundantly

clear that there was no privity of contract of

whatsoever nature between the Company and the

31 workmen and the Union. To come within the

definition of ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a person has to

establish that there is a relationship of master and

servant or in other words ‘Employer-Employee’

relationship. Such relationship must be for a

consideration. The consideration may be paid in

cash or in kind and the workman concerned should

be engaged in an industry. The nomenclature and

the period of the appointment are also immaterial.

All that a person needs to establish is that, an

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

558

Employer-Employee relationship or a master and

servant relationship coupled with a consideration.

32. In the instant case, it can be easily seen that

there is no employer-employee relationship

between Party I and Party II(2) as to come within

this relationship, it is incumbent to show the nature

of the work allotted by the Employer, the master-

servant relationship and the details of the

workplace. In the authority of M/s Mukand Limited

and Ors v/s Dharmarajya Kamgar Karmachari

reported in 2018 III CLR 883 our Hon’ble High

Court has held that in every case the Court has to

consider the nature of the duties actually performed

by the persons engaged and the existence of right

to that effect and if these duties fall within the

description of the nature of the work described in

Section 2(s) of the I. D. Act, the person ought to be

considered as a ‘workman’ whatever his designation

while engaging him. It is also settled law that a

person to be a workman under the I. D. Act must be

employed to do the work of any categories such as

skilled, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or

supervisory etc. There is no such relationships

shown by Party II(2) and Party I precisely. Hence,

employer-employee relationship has not been

established between them.

33. Even otherwise from the cross-examination

of Party I, it is abundantly clear that he failed to

prove that he does not have any Appointment Letter

or Wage Slip issued by Party II(2) to prove that he

was employed by Party II(2). He even admitted that

the PF and ESI contributions were initially

deducted by Party II(2) and thereafter the said

amount was refunded by the Company. He has even

admitted the execution of Exh. 62 and further states

that he did not challenge of execution of Exh. 62.

He has even admitted that on Exh. 62, the 23

workmen who were on the rolls of the Contractor

M/s Sunny Enterprises shall report to their duties

w.e.f. 30-09-2003 at 9.00 a.m. Hence, Party I has

admitted vide Exh. 62 that they were working for

Party II(1) and it is mentioned on Exh. 62 that the

said 23 workmen were employed with the

Contractors M/s Sunny enterprises and due to non-

availability of alcohol the Management requested

the workers not to attend the duties and there is

also an admission that the names of the said 23

workers whose names were on the rolls of the

Contractor were directed to report to their duties.

The Applicant has admitted his signature on Exh.

62. Therefore, it is very much within the knowledge

of the workmen that they were employed by Party

II(1). Hence, from the above discussion and from

the evidence on record, it is clearly established

that the Party II(2) has succeeded in proving the

burden of issue No. 4 and as such the same is

answered in the affirmative.

Issue No. 5:

34. As per the final order.

Additional Issue No. 1:

35. Pursuant to the amendment carried out to

the pleadings by Party I workmen, the above

additional issue came to be framed wherein there

is a burden casted on Party I to prove that there

exists employer-employee relationship between

them and Party II(1)/Contractor. This additional

issue needs to be decided in two parts as Party I

has succeeded in proving that there exists

employer-employee relationship between them and

Party II(1) as Party I had admitted that they were

employed by the Contractor/Party II(1) vide

Exh. 62 and even from the evidence of Party I

workmen which I have discussed in detail while

deciding issue No. 4. Said issue No. 4 was answered

in the affirmative because there was no employer-

-employee relationship between Party II(2) and

Party I as Party I were employed by Party II(1)/

/Contractor. Hence, there exists employer-employee

relationship between Party I and Party II(1). Since

issue No. 4 is answered in the affirmative, the first

portion of the additional issue needs to be

answered in the affirmative.

36. As far as the second part of the additional

issue is concerned which refers to the appointment

of Party II(1) as a Contractor to be sham and bogus,

this part needs to be answered in the negative for

want of evidence. The Party I failed to prove in

what manner the appointment of Party II(1) as a

contractor was sham an bogus. Even in the cross-

-examination, Party I has admitted the execution

of Exh. 62 and even the execution of the Agreement

dated 01-04-2000 was within the knowledge of the

workmen. Party I has admitted that the said 23

workers were employed by the Contractor

M/s Sunny Enterprises and except mere allegations

there is absolutely no documentary or any oral

evidence to show in what manner the appointment

of the said Contractor/Party I was sham and bogus.

All the fats were within the knowledge of Party I

workmen and as such they were under the direct

employment of Party II(1). There is no challenge

from the workmen when Party II(2) engaged a

Contractor or a contract labour on 01-04-2000.

Hence, the execution of the Agreement of Contract

which was within the knowledge of the workmen

who were already working under the said

contractor, failed to prove that the said Agreement

of Contract was null and void. The workmen have

merely raise an objection that Party II(2) had no

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

559

permission or licence to engage a contract labour

when the said Agreement was already executed on

01-04-2000 and the workmen failed to show with

cogent documents that they were employed with

Party II(2) between the period December, 1999 to

December, 2002. Therefore, the termination of the

workmen by Party II(1) cannot be held to be illegal,

null and void and in violation of Section 33 of the

I. ED. Act. Hence, this part of the additional

issue stands answered in the negative and as such

this additional issue accordingly stands answered

partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative.

37. Learned Advocate Shri V. Palekar for the

Party I has placed reliance on the following

authorities:

(i) The Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd v/

s Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union in

Civil Appeal No(s) 8081-8082 and 8084 of 2011

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has given

the guidelines and the tests which are to be

applied to find out whether the person is an

employee or an independent Contractor in

finding out whether the contract labour

agreement is sham which was examined by

the Apex Court in the case of International

Airport Authority of India v/s International

Air Cargo Workers’ Union and Anr., 2009

(13) SCC 374 wherein it was held that “the

tests that are applied to find out whether a

person is an employee or an independent

contractor may not automatically apply in

finding out whether the contract labour

agreement is a sham, nominal and is a mere

camouflage. For example, if the contract is for

supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied

by the contractor will work under the directions,

supervision and control of the principal

employer but that would not make the worker

a direct employee of the principal employer, if

the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right

to regulate the employment is with the

contractor, and the ultimate supervision and

control lies with the contractor.

(ii) The Workmen of Best & Crompton Industries

Ltd., v/s The Management of Best &

Crompton Engineering Ltd., reported in 1985

1 LLJ 492; wherein the Apex Court has

discussed the provisions and definitions of

Section 2(2)(b) of the I. D. Act which states as

follows:

“that a workman shall be deemed to be employed

as contract labour in/or in connection with the

work of an establishment when he is hired in/

or in connection with such work by or through

Contractor, with or without the knowledge of

the Principal Employer” and further came to

the conclusion that if a workman is not hired

through a Contractor holding a valid license

under the Act, he would be a workman

employed by the Management itself and the

Management must be aware that the Contractor

had no valid license and that therefore, the

workman could not be contract labour within

the provisions of Section 2(2)(b) of the said Act.

(iii) ICM Enginiring Workers Union v/s Union of

India reported in 2000 7 AD(Del) 1037

wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed

the provisions of Section 7 of the I. D. Act that

every Principal Employer of an establishment

to which this Act applies has to make an

application to the registering officer for

registration of the establishment meaning

thereby, if the particular establishment wants

to engage contract labour and to such an

establishment the provisions of this Act applies,

it has to get itself registered with the

Registering Officer. Likewise, under Section 12

of the Act the Contractor, to whom this Act

applies, has to obtain a license from the

Licensing Officer under this Act and unless it

has taken such a license, contractor is not

permitted to undertake or execute any work

through contract labour. The non-observance

of Section 7 and/or 12 is penal and the erring

establishment or the contractor, as the case

may be, can be prosecuted.

38. I have perused all the above authorities in

deciding the present case and I am in total

agreement with the settled position of law but the

ratios applied in all the above cases are not at all

applicable to the facts of the present case for the

simple reason that the Party I has not led any

evidence to show that he was employed by

Party II(2). In fact he has admitted that that they

were working on the rolls of the Contractor of

M/s Sunny Enterprises/Contractor/Party II(1) and

the execution of the agreement of contract dated

01-04-2000 is also admitted by Party I and the same

was in operation with no challenge to it from any

of the workmen. Even there is no challenge to Exh.

62 therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the Party

I to say that that the said agreement of contract is

null and void and bad in law. The question of

challenging the legality of the said agreement does

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

560

not arise for want of evidence when the workmen

were already working for Party II(1).

ORDER

(i)

The action of M/s Sunny Enterprises,

Contractor of M/s National Limited, Tivim

Industrial Estate, Karaswada, Mapusa, Goa in

terminating the services of the 31 workmen

with effect from 26-12-2003 is legal and

justified.

(ii)

The workmen are not entitled for any relief.

(iii)

No Order as to cost.

(iv)

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Bela N. Naik)

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

Order

No. 5/1/2021-PER/2382

Read: 1) Order No. 5/1/2021-PER/1769 dated

16-07-2021.

2) Order No. 5/1/2021-PER/1799 dated

26-07-2021.

In continuation to the orders read in preamble,

the departmental training in respect of the

following officers is extended for a further period of

33 days from 09-09-2021 to 23-10-2021 as per the

schedule planned by the Goa Institute of Public

Administration and Rural Development, Ela,

Old-Goa:-

1. Shri Sohan Ashok Uskaikar.

2. Shri Gauresh Ashok Pilgaonkar.

3. Shri Shubham M. Naik.

4. Shri Ganesh K. Barve.

5. Shri Yogiraj P. Gosavi.

6. Smt. Ashwini A. Gauns Desai.

7. Shri Girish G. Sawant.

8. Shri Sitaram G. Sawal.

9. Shri Manohar Karekar.

The link arrangements issued vide order read in

preamble at Sr. No. (1) shall continue to operate

with respect to the officers at Sr. No. (1) & (2) above.

None of the above 09 officers drafted for

departmental training shall be sanctioned leave

during the training period except under

unavoidable circumstances. Absence from training

will have to be justified in writing.

Punctuality during the entire course, discipline

and decorum in the Institute during the training

period shall be maintained by the officers.

No errant behavior, on part of trainee, shall be

tolerated during the training and if such behavior

is noticed deemed fit action shall be initiated

against the trainee.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vishal Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 23rd September, 2021.

________

Order

No. 6/11/2010-PER (Part)/2417

Read:

Order No. 6/11/2010-PER (part)/2209A

dated 03-09-2021.

In continuation to the order read in the

preamble, the Government appoints the following

officers as Nodal Officers in the Office of the Chief

Electoral Officer with immediate effect for

performing the time bound election related works

in connection with forthcoming General Elections

to Goa State Legislative Assembly to be held in

February, 2022:-

Sr.

Name & designation

Subject assigned

No.

of the Nodal officer

to the Nodal officer

1. Shri Tushar T. Halarnkar

1) Nodal Officerfor

Deputy Director (Admn.),

Implementing of

Higher Education

MCC.

2) Nodal Officer for

Expenditure

Monitoring.

2. Smt. Nathine Araujo

Nodal Officer for

Under Secretary,

Observers.

Personnel-II.

3. Shri Pravind J. Gawas

Nodal Officer for

Vigilance Officer-IV

SVEEP (Systematic

Voter’s Education

& Electoral Partici-

pation).

The officers shall continue to hold their

respective charges alongwith the additional charge

of the Nodal Officer until further orders. The Nodal

Officers are appointed as per the proposal received

from the Office of the CEO.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

561

The officers shall continue to draw the salary from the post held by them during their tenure as Nodal

Officers.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.

Vishal Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 28th September, 2021.

—————

Order

No. 6/13/2016-PER/2408

On the recommendation of the Goa Service Board and with the approval of the Government, the transfer

and posting of the following Junior Scale Officers of Goa Civil Service is ordered in public interest:-

Sr.

Name and present posting

Posted as

No.

of the officer

Shri Rajesh Azgaonkar,

Deputy Collector & SDM, Pernem with additional

Deputy Collector & SDM-I, Bardez

charge of SLAO, Tillari Irrigation Project.

Shri Bala Korgaonkar,

Deputy Director (Admn.), Goa Medical College.

Assistant Director, HT&C

Shri Pravin Hire Parab,

Deputy Collector & SDM, Satari with additional charge

Deputy Director (Admn.),

of Forest Settlement Officer, North.

Goa Medical College

Shri Gurudas S. T. Dessai,

Deputy Collector & SDM-I, Bardez.

Deputy Collector & SDO, Tiswadi

Shri Eshant Sawant,

Deputy Collector & SDM, Tiswadi.

Under Secretary, Home-II

Shri Ajay Gaude,

Deputy Collector (Revenue), North.

Deputy Collector (DRO), North with

additional charge of Deputy Collector

(Revenue), North

Shri Ravishekhar Nipanikar,

Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies (Tech.).

Deputy Collector & SDO, Pernem holding

additional charge of SLAO, Tillari

Irrigation Project

Shri Joao B. Fernandes,

Chief Officer, Cuncolim Municipal Council with

Deputy Collector & SDO-II, Salcete

additional charge of Forest Settlement Officer, South

holding additional charge of SLAO,

upon retirement of Smt. Violet Gomes.

KRC & Administrator of Communidade,

South Zone

Smt. Sharmila Gaunkar,

Deputy Collector & SDO-II, Salcete with additional

Deputy Director (Admn.), Skill Develop-

charge of SLAO, KRC.

ment & Entrepreneurship holding

additional charge of Project Officer,

DRDA, North

10.

Smt. Pratima J. Braganza,

Deputy Director (Admn.), Skill Development &

Assistant Commissioner of

Entrepreneurship

Commercial Taxes

11.

Smt. Swati Dalvi,

Deputy Director of Panchayats (South).

Deputy Registrar, Goa Engineering

College, Farmagudi holding additional

charge of Member Secretary, Rajiv Kala

Mandir, Ponda

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 28

7TH OCTOBER, 2021

562

12.

Shri Pundalik Khorjuekar,

Deputy Registrar, Goa Engineering College, Farmagudi

Deputy Director (Admn.), Tribal Welfare

with additional charge of Member Secretary, Rajiv Kala

holding additional charge of Deputy

Mandir, Ponda.

Registrar of Co-op. Societies (Tech.).

13.

Smt. Sandra D’Souza,

Deputy Collector (DRO), North with additional charge of

Deputy Collector (LA), North

OSD, RERA.

14.

Shri Sagar Gaude,

Chief Officer, Ponda Municipal Council.

Deputy Collector & SDM, Sanguem

15.

Shri Raju Dessai,

Deputy Collector & SDM, Sanguem.

Deputy Director of Panchayats, South

16.

Shri Kedar Ashok Naik,

Joint Director, Information & Publicity with additional

Deputy Collector & SDM, Dharbandora

charge of Deputy Director (Admn.), Art & Culture.

17.

Shri Ramesh P. Naik,

Deputy Collector & SDM, Dharbandora.

Joint Director, Information and Publicity

holding additional charge of Deputy

Director (Admn.), Art & Culture

18.

Shri Pandurang T. Talgaonkar,

Deputy Director (Admn.), DFDA with additional charge

Deputy Director (Admn.), Agriculture

of General Manager GIDC.

19.

Shri Sohan Ashok Uskaikar,

Deputy Director (Admn.), Agriculture.

Deputy Director (Admn.), DFDA holding

additional charge of General Manager,

GIDC

20.

Smt. Maya Pednekar,

Deputy Director, Vigilance.

Under Secretary, Personnel-II holding

additional charge of Under Secretary,

ARD

21.

Smt. Nathine Stevea Araujo,

Under Secretary, Personnel-II.

Deputy Director, Vigilance

22.

Shri Chandrakant Shetkar,

Deputy Collector (LA), North with additional charge of

SLAO (PWD) and SLAO, National

SLAO (PWD) and SLAO, National Highway (NHAI).

Highway

23.

Dr. Geeta Nagvenkar,

Deputy Director (Admn.), PWD upon retirement of

Administrator of Communidade, Central

Shri A. V. Redkar with additional charge of Adminis-

Zone

trator of Communidade, Central Zone.

Shri Pritidas Gaonkar, Under Secretary (Home-I) shall hold the additional charge of Under Secretary

(Home-II).

Shri Shashank Thakur, Under Secretary, Goa State Information Commission shall hold the additional

charge of Project Officer, DRDA (North).

Smt. Amalia Pinto, Under Secretary (Industries & Labour) shall hold the additional charge of Under

Secretary, ARD.

Shri Tipanna Maddimani, Administrative Officer, Hospicio Hospital, Margao shall hold the additional

charge of Administrator of Communidade, South Zone.

Smt. Seema Salkar @ Veera Nayak, Deputy Collector (Elections), North shall hold the additional charge

of Deputy Director (Admn.), Tribal Welfare.

Shri Sachin Desai, OSD in Imagine Panaji Smart City Development Ltd. shall hold the additional charge

of Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes.

Shri Tulsidas S. Karanzalkar, Under Secretary (HT&C) shall hold the additional charge of Assistant

Director (HT&C).