Panaji, 20th January, 2022 (Pausa 30, 1943)

SERIES II No. 43

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. /RNP/GOA/32/2021-23

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services

Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services

Notification

No. 8-1(93)/Part(Govt)/2021-22/6168

Read: Order No. 8-1(93)/2017-18/6640 dated 08-02-2018 of the Internal Complaints Committee.

In pursuance to Section 4 (1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition

and Redressal) Rules, 2013, the Government of Goa is pleased to notify the reconstituted Internal Complaint

Committee for North and South Goa comprising of following members.

North Goa

Dr. Veena Kumar, Assistant Director

—

Presiding Officer.

Dr. Prakash Korgaonkar, Assistant Director

—

Member.

Dr. (Mrs.) Priya Dalal, Veterinary Officer

—

Member.

Mrs. Monica Fernandes, Upper Division Clerk

—

Member.

Mrs. Sushanti Tilve, Upper Division Clerk

—

Member.

Mrs. Auda Viegas (NGO Representative)

—

Member.

South Goa

Dr. Manik Patil, Veterinary Officer

—

Presiding Officer.

Dr. Natasha Coutinho, Veterinary Officer

—

Member.

Dr. Ransley Caldeira, Veterinary Officer

—

Member.

Mrs. Glenita Fernandes, Veterinary Assistant

—

Member

Miss Gokuli Gangali, Veterinary Assistant

—

Member.

Mrs. Auda Viegas (NGO Representative)

—

Member.

A consolidated amount of Rs. 1500/- shall be paid per member towards sitting fees/day for Non

Government Organizations only.

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

1005

Note:- There are three Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 42 dated 13-01-2022 as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 13-01-2022 from pages 991 to 992 regarding Notifications from Goa Legislature

Secretariat & Department of General Administration.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 17-01-2022 from pages 993 to 996 regarding Direction and Notification from

Department of Elections.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 18-01-2022 from pages 997 to 1004 regarding Notifications from Department

of Elections.

1006

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

This issues with the approval of the Government

vide U.O. No.7521 dated 12-11-2021 and Finance

(Exp.) Department vide U.O. No.1400083565 dated

29-11-2021.

This Order supersedes the earlier issued aforesaid

Order.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Agostinho Misquita, Director & ex officio

Jt. Secretary (AH).

Panaji, 17th January, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Labour

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-I/562

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 20-10-2021 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/12/2013 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, 16th November, 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/12/2013

Shri Maruti B. Raut,

H. No. 84/4-1, Krupas,

Nageshi, Bandora,

Ponda-Goa

….. Workman/Party-I

V/s

M/s. Gomantak Private Ltd.,

Gomantak Bhavan,

St. Inez, Panaji-Goa

…. Employer/Party-II

Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri A. Sathe.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri A.

Palekar.

Panaji, Dated: 20-10-2021.

AWARD

1. 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), the

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

bearing No. 28/31/2015-Lab/595, referred the

following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial

Tribunal of Goa, at Panaji, Goa. The Hon’ble

Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Panaji, Goa in turn assigned the present

reference for its adjudication to this Labour Court-

II, vide its order dated 17-04-2013.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Gomantak Private Limited, Gomantak

Bhavan, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa, in refusing

employment to it’s Workman Shri Maruti B.

Raut, Sub-Editor with effect from 01-07-2012,

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/12/2013 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

22-07-2013 at Exb. 7. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that he was

appointed as a ‘Sub-Editor’ by the Employer/

Party-II (for short ‘Employer’). He stated that he was

deliberately harassed so that he shall resign from

the services of the Employer. He stated that the

Employer would be able to avoid the payments of

various dues and arrears over the years, which the

Employer is liable to pay to him.

3. He stated that in the beginning of June, 2012,

his salary for the month of May, 2012 for four days

was unduly deducted without any reasons. He

stated that he therefore, addressed a letter dated

08-06-2012 to the Manager, Mr. Subhash Naik and

requested him to provide written clarification

regarding deduction in salary for four days from

the salary of May, 2012. He stated that the Manager

received the said letter and asked him to approach

the Executive Editor, Shri Suresh Naik for

clarification being his superior boss. He stated that

instead of giving details for the deduction of his

salary, the Executive Editor threatened him of

unpleasant situation. He stated that he was further

threatened that he would be transferred and thrown

out of Goa if he insist for the clarification.

4. He stated that on 15-06-2012, the Employer

issued him a transfer order to Delhi office of the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1007

Sakal Papers Limited revengefully. He stated that

when he pointed out that he cannot be transferred

to any other Company, the letter was taken back.

He stated that after changing the same to

Gomantak Delhi office was given to him and he

was ordered to report at Delhi office. He stated that

the said transfer order did not disclose any address

of the Delhi office of the Employer. He stated that

the transfer on deputation is nothing but refusal of

employment to harass him and the same is illegal,

unjustified and bad-in-law. He stated that the said

transfer order was made with malicious intentions

and to harass him.

5. He stated that he thereafter, approached the

Manager and Executive Editor to discuss about the

absence of address in the transfer order, but

however, did not disclose the address to him. He

stated that on 01-07-2012, he went to the office and

was highly shocked to see that he was not allowed

to enter the office premises by security personnel.

He stated that he was told that this is done to

follow the orders of the management. He submitted

that the Employer has admitted in its reply dated

26-09-2012 that they have no office at Delhi. He

stated that the Employer is a company registered

in the State of Goa and the daily Sakal is not the

company held by the Employer. He submitted that

the Employer has relied upon a memorandum of

understanding entered between the Employer and

the Sakal Paper Limited and has urged that they

have agreed to use offices of each other and to

make employees of each other to sit in those offices.

He submitted that the two companies are having

distinct legal entities in law.

6. He stated that the Employer is involved in

illegal activities such as marking absent while on

duty or on leave, making non-permissible salary

deductions without informing the employees. He

stated that the management is harassing him over

the period of seventeen years since the time he

was transferred to its Belgaum office in March, 1997.

He stated that he was promised to be promoted as

Bureau Chief and work as Bureau Chief, but as he

insisted to fulfil the promise, the Employer started

his harassment. He stated that he was transferred

to the Ponda office of the Employer. He stated that

he worked as Bureau Chief, but again promotion

was denied to him. He stated that thereafter as a

result of computerization, contract between the

Employer and its employees, he was asked to work

in the Corlim office of the Employer alongwith the

editorial staff brought from the Panaji office. He

stated that while a vehicle was arranged for the

other staff, he was not provided with any such

facility nor given travelling/conveyance expenses

which could clearly be described as unfair labour

practice. He stated that again all the editorial staff

of the Corlim office was brought back in Panaji

office, only to add to his woes that he was asked to

work in its Panaji office instead of Ponda office. He

stated that he was made to suffer by deliberately

forcing him to work in very inconvenient duty hours

as a result of which his family life was disturbed

badly. He stated that to cause him more loss and

mental torture, illegal and undue salary cuts were

made from his salaries, thereby flouting Payment of

Wages Act.

7. He stated that as he stuck to his demands and

tried to sustain all the pressures of the management

of the Employer, they came out with a new trick to

send him to a distant place like Delhi so that he

would not be able to follow his demands. He stated

that he is demanding the salary and arrears as per

the post of Bureau Chief from the date 01-03-1997

which he was promised to be promoted as and

worked as. He stated that he was demanding the

arrears which he was liable to get towards

travelling/conveyance from Ponda-Corlim-Ponda

from the time of computerization agreement to

10-07-2005 and from Ponda-Panaji-Ponda from

11-07-2005 onwards. He stated that he is demanding

arrears, which the Employer is liable to pay towards

the extra hours he had spent in travelling and on

inconvenient duty hours, which Executive Editor/

management forced him to spent with the intention

to harass him. He stated that he is demanding the

computer allowance (Rs. 550/- per month) with

interest from July, 2002 as he had shifted from Ponda

to Corlim only because of computerization

agreement. He stated that the alleged transfer order

was issued by the person having no authority under

law and as such the same is not binding on him.

However, under the illegal transfer orders, his

services are affected and the Employer is

prohibiting him from joining his duty and therefore

there is a violation of civil rights and also violation

of rights to life guaranteed under the Constitution

of India and on this count only the alleged transfer

order are liable to be declared as null and void. He

stated that the Employer has no jurisdiction and

right under law to issue such transfer order and

therefore the transfer order is nothing but the

illegal ways adopted by the Employer to terminate

his services without following the procedure as

required under the law. The Workman therefore

prayed that the letter issued by the Employer on

15-06-2012 and the documents supplied to him by

the Employer before Asstt. Labour Commissioner

on 26-09-2012 with their reply may be declared as

illegal, not operative and not binding and that the

1008

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

Employer be directed to allow him to join his duties

with continuity in service with immediate effect.

He prayed that the Employer be directed to pay to

him all the dues of salary, allowances, increments

and all the legal dues such as PF, Gratuity, Bonus,

LTA, leaves etc. with penalty and cost and that the

Employer be directed to pay to him all the dues and

arrears towards the wage difference as per the post

of Bureau Chief from 01-03-1997, travelling/

conveyance for Ponda-Corlim-Ponda (since

computerization to 10-07-2005), and for Ponda-Panaji-

Ponda (from 11-7-2005 onwards), extra hours forced

to spend on travelling and in inconvenient duty

hours intended for harassment, overtime and

computer allowance. He further prayed that the

Employer also be directed to pay to him the amount

of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) towards

the harassment, mental torture and agony, anxiety

and loss the Employer caused to him and the

sufferings and hardship caused to him alongwith

his family members since last year and another

Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs only) on the

same count for over the time period of 16 years. He

also prayed that the Employer be directed to pay

the unduly and illegally deducted salary to him

and may direct an investigation to find out the role

of Executive Editor and Unit Manager in the entire

matter of harassment and initiate appropriate legal

action against them. He finally prayed that the

Employer be directed not to harass him and any

further order to secure the ends of justice.

8. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman by filing its Written Statement on

07-10-2013 at Exb. 10. The Employer, as and by way

of its preliminary objections, submitted that the

claim of the Workman is false, frivolous, untenable,

bad-in-law and deserves to be dismissed and that

the cause of action is manipulated and fabricated.

The Employer submitted that there is no illegal and

unjustified refusal of employment to the Workman.

The Employer submitted that the Workman has

failed to join his duties on his transfer on deputation

as per the terms and conditions of service of the

Workman and as such there is no cause of action to

raise the industrial dispute on flimsy and false

grounds as it is engaged in the business of

newspaper industry and is running its business at

different locations on the basis of understanding

between allied companies. The Employer submitted

that the issue of transfer order does not come under

the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Employer submitted that the Workman has

supressed material facts from this Hon’ble Tribunal

and has approached the Tribunal with a false story

and has come out with distorted statements. The

Employer submitted that the Workman was duty

bound as per the terms and conditions of his

appointment, to attend to such other duties as may

be assigned to him from time to time by them. The

Employer submitted that as per clause 18 of the

general terms and conditions of service of the

Workman, an employee is liable to be transferred or

loaned at their option anywhere in India, in any of

the existing or its future establishment including

transfer from one shift to another and/or from one

department to another. The Employer submitted

that the Workman has been transferred to its

Gomantak Delhi office and that the Workman ought

not to have any grievance about the same as there

has not been any change in the service conditions

as Workman is entitled to all the benefits. The

Employer submitted that non-joining of service by

the Workman at the place of transfer is subversive

of discipline and is a grave misconduct as the

Workman has abandoned his services. The Employer

submitted that the Workman is therefore liable for

disciplinary action as services and its day to day

running has also been affected due to absence of

the Workman. The Employer submitted that the

relief claimed by the Workman are beyond the scope

of the reference and cannot be adjudicated upon

by this Hon’ble Tribunal. The Employer submitted

that neither the Party I is a ‘Workman’ as envisaged

under the Industrial Disputes Act nor there exist

an ‘industrial dispute’ as defined under the I.D.

Act, 1947. The Employer submitted that the matter

pertains to transfer of an employee and there is no

refusal of employment as alleged. The Employer

submitted that the Workman has not joined his

services and has abandoned his employment and

that the alleged dispute is raised only with an

intention to seek illegal benefits.

9. Without prejudice to the above, the Employer

stated that it is a company engaged in the business

of newspaper industry and is running its business

at different locations for which it has understanding

with other allied companies, as it is not financially

feasible to establish a new office at every place and

own the same. The Employer stated that the

Workman was appointed as ‘trainee Sub-Editor’ on

05-11-1992. The Employer stated that the Workman

was indulged in various acts which are against the

terms of his service and which act amounts to gross

misconduct. The Employer stated that the Workman

was warned by its superior on several occasions on

account of his failure to perform his duties. The

Employer stated that neither they have avoided to

make the payments of dues and arrears as alleged

by the Workman nor they are liable to pay any

amounts to the Workman as he was paid as per the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1009

work done by him. The Employer stated that the

management has adopted the policy of “no work,

no pay” which was known to him.

10. The Employer admitted that vide order dated

15-06-2012, the Employer issued transfer order

bearing reference No. HRM/2012 to the Workman.

However, it is denied that, according to the said

transfer order, the Workman was revengefully

transferred to its Gomantak Delhi office of Sakal

Papers Limited as alleged by the Workman. The

Employer stated that it has the right to transfer its

employees from one department to another or from

one part of the establishment to another or from

one branch to another is incidental to its managerial

functions and it is inherent power of the

management which has several branches. The

Employer submitted that transfer was as per the

terms and conditions of service of the Workman.

The Employer stated that in any case they were not

to take the Workman in confidence as transfer is its

managerial and administrative function. The

Employer stated that as per the terms and

conditions of service of the Workman, more

particularly clause 18 states that “TRANSFER: An

employee is liable to be transferred or loaned, at

the option of the company anywhere in India, in

any of the existing or future establishments of the

Company in the CHOWGULE GROUP, including

transfer from one shift to another and/or from one

department to another and that the employees, shall,

however, have no right to claim transfer. On transfer

to a different establishment or company, the existing

total salary of an employee, excluding local and

charged allowances etc., will be protected and the

terms of conditions of service in all other respects

as leave, provident fund, gratuity, bonus, holidays,

working hours, deductions etc. will be applicable

from time to time in establishments to which the

employee is transferred. The seniority of an

employee or transfer will be fixed by taking into

account his past service in the category”. The

Employer stated that it is well within the precincts

of the said clause and the Workman is bound by

same. The Employer stated that the Workman was

informed its address of its Delhi office vide letter

dated 01-07-2012, but till date the Workman has

failed to report to his duties at Gomantak Delhi

office and that the said Workman has remained

absent from the duties without leave or without

any intimation to the management w.e.f. 01-07-2012

till date and as such the Workman has filed the

present false case to cover disciplinary action which

may commence due to failure of the Workman to

join service at Gomantak Delhi office. The Employer

stated that the employee was duty bound and in

addition to the duties of the post, to attend to such

other duties as may be assigned to him from time

to time by his superior, in order to make his services

generally useful to them.

11. The Employer stated that neither the

designation of the Workman was changed nor

remuneration paid was changed or altered. The

Employer stated that there was binding

memorandum of understanding dated 22-03-2007

between Sakal Papers Ltd. and themselves. The

Employer stated that they have agreed to use offices

of each other and to make employees of each other

to sit in those offices. The Employer admitted that

the said two companies are having distinct legal

entities in law. The Employer stated that there is a

general terms and conditions of service in that

clause No. 15 states that Absence – an employee

shall not on any pretext, absent himself from duty

and/or leave headquarters or his recorded place of

residence for purpose of duty without having first

obtained permission from proper authorizes or in

case of emergency, without intimating to the

authorizes concern in the speediest manner, reasons

for and period of absence and/or for leaving the

head- quarters/residence without prior permission.

An employee absenting from duty for three days or

more on grounds of sickness or physical disability

shall not be permitted to resume duty, except with

a certificate of fitness from the company’s medical

officer. The company may, at its own discretion, ask

an employee to produce a fitness certificate from

the company’s medical officer before reporting for

duty in even cases where the sickness or physical

disability is less than three days. If an employee is

availing medical assistance from the company’s

medical officer, he shall produce a certificate in

proof of sickness from the medical officer, unless

sickness occurs at a different place where the

employee has gone with prior permission to leave

the headquarters, the fitness certificate shall,

however, be obtained from the company’s medical

officer only. An employee absenting from duty, or

overstaying leave previously sanctioned for a period

of 10 days without intimation in the speediest

manner to and permission from the leave

sanctioning authority shall lose his employment.

The Employer therefore denied that the alleged

transfer order are liable to be declared as null and

void and that it has not removed the Workman from

the work but he has failed to join his duty. The

Employer therefore, prayed that an award be passed

holding that the reference is not maintainable by

disallowing the claims of the Workman.

1010

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

12. Thereafter, the Workman filed his Re-joinder

on 07-10-2013 at Exb. 13. The Workman, by way of

his Re-joinder, reiterates and confirms all the

submissions and averments made by him in his

Claim Statement to be true and correct and denies

all the statements and averments made by the

Employer in its Written Statement which are

contrary and inconsistent with the statements and

averments made by him. He submitted that he has

been denied employment illegally and unjustifiably

on the ground of alleged transfer. He stated that

the alleged transfer was for one year from

01-07-2012 to 30-06-2013 and after the said period

he filed the joining application, however, he was

not permitted to join his duties and there is wilful

refusal of employment. He submitted that the said

unfair transfer order was issued with an intension

to avoid payment of various dues and arrears that

the Employer is liable to pay him and to take

revenge against him.

13. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

parties hereinabove, this Court framed the following

issues on 18-10-2013 at Exb. 14.

1. Whether the Employer proves that there does

not exist an ‘industrial dispute’ within the

meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947?

2. Whether the Employer proves that the present

order of reference is not maintainable in view

of allegations made in para a, b, c, d, e, f, g and

h of the Written Statement?

3. Whether the Party I proves that he is a

‘Workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

4. Whether the Party I proves that the action of

the management of the Employer in refusing

him employment with effect from 01-07-2012

is illegal and unjustified?

5. Whether the Workman is entitled to any relief?

6. What Order? What Award?

14. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as

under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the negative.

(b) Issue No. 2

In the negative.

In the affirmative.

(d) Issue No. 4

In the affirmative.

(e) Issue No. 5 and 6 :

As per final order.

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

A. Sathe, appearing for the Workman as well as Ld.

Adv. Shri Amit Palekar appearing for the Employer.

The Workman also filed its synopsis of written

arguments.

15. Ld. Adv. Shri A. Sathe, appearing for the

Workman submitted that the Employer is a

newspaper industry having its office at St. Inez,

Panaji-Goa. He submitted that the Workman was

appointed as ‘Sub-Editor’ by the Employer in the

year 1992. He submitted that the Workman was

deliberately harassed by the Employer so that he

shall resign from the services of the Employer. He

submitted that four days salary for the month of

May, 2012 was illegally deducted by the Employer.

He submitted that when the Workman sought

clarification, he was threatened of unpleasant

situation. He submitted that the Workman was

issued a transfer on deputation, vide order dated

15-06-2012 transferring his services at Sakal Papers

Ltd. He submitted that the said transfer order on

deputation to Sakal Papers have been issued to him

to harass him with oblique and malafide motive. He

submitted that the Employer does not have its own

office at New Delhi nor they could transfer him to

New Delhi. He submitted that the said transfer on

deputation order issued to the Workman is illegal,

unjustified and bad-in-law as the Workman did not

consent for the same. He submitted that as the

Workman protested the said transfer on deputation

order, he was refused the employment w.e.f.

01-07-2012. He submitted that the said refusal of

employment to the Workman by the Employer w.e.f.

01-07-2012 is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law and

amounts to illegal retrenchment of services of the

Workman. He submitted that the Employer

challenged the present reference on the ground

that the Party I is not a ‘Workman’ as defined u/s

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

dispute raised by him is not an ‘industrial dispute’

as defined u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. He

submitted that at the time of refusal of employment,

he was designated as ‘Sub-Editor’ in the Newspaper

industry of the Employer. He submitted that section

2 (f) of the Working Journalist and Other Newspaper

Employees

(Conditions

Service)

and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 defines the term

Working Journalist which includes the Sub-Editor.

He submitted that as per Section 3 of the said Act

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applicable to

Working Journalists. He submitted that he is

therefore a Workman as defined u/s. 2 (s) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 and that the present dispute raised by

him against the Employer pertaining to his non-

employment w.e.f. 01-07-2012 is an ‘industrial

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

I.D. Act, 1947 and as such this Court has every

jurisdiction to adjudicate the present reference,

referred by the Appropriate Government. He

submitted that the Workman is unemployed from

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1011

the date of his illegal refusal from service w.e.f.

01-07-2012 till date. He submitted that the Workman

is therefore entitled for reinstatement with full back

wages and consequential benefits thereof. He

submitted that the Workman is also entitled for

compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the

harassment, mental torture and sufferings caused

to him and Rs. 32,00,000/- on the same count over

the time period of 16 years. He submitted that the

Workman is also entitled for his unduly and illegally

deducted salary and direct an investigation to find

out the role of the Executive Editor and Unit

Manager in the entire matter of harassment and

appropriate legal action against them. In support of

his oral contentions, he relied upon two judgments

of Hon’ble Apex Court, one in the case of Kendriya

Vidyalaya Sanghtan & Anr. v/s. S.C. Sharma

reported in 2005 (104) FLR 863, and another in the

case of Jabir Singh v/s. Haryana State Agriculture

Marketing Board and Anr., reported in 2009 III

CLR pg. 628.

16. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Shri Amit Palekar,

representing the Employer, during the course of his

oral arguments, submitted that the Employer is

engaged in the business of Newspaper Industry

having its office at St. Inez, Panaji-Goa. He submitted

that the Employer is running its business at different

locations on the basis of understanding between

Allied Companies. He submitted that the Employer

is having its offices in the State of Goa. He submitted

that the Party I was appointed as ‘Trainee Sub-

Editor’ on 05-11-1992. He submitted that the Party

I is indulged in various acts which are against the

terms of his service and which acts amounts to

misconducts. He submitted that the Party I was

warned by its superior on several occasions on

account of his failure to perform his duties. He

submitted that neither the Party I is a ‘Workman’ as

defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947 nor the present

dispute raised by him is an ‘industrial dispute’

within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act,

1947. He submitted that the Employer has signed

an MOU on 22-03-2007 with Sakal Papers Ltd. He

submitted that by the said MOU, they have agreed

to use offices of each other and to make employees

of each other to sit in those offices. He submitted

that the Party I was duty bound as per the terms

and conditions of his appointment, to attend to

such other duties as may be assigned to him by

them. He submitted that the Party I has signed the

general terms and conditions of service at the time

of his appointment. He submitted that as per clause

18 of the said general terms and conditions of

service, the Party I is liable to be transferred or

loaned at their option anywhere in India, in any of

the existing or its future establishment including

transfer from one shift to another and/or from one

department to another. He submitted that the Party

I has been transferred to its Gomantak Delhi office

and the Party I ought not to have any grievance

about the same as there has not been any change

in the service conditions as he is entitled to all the

benefits. He submitted that the non-joining of

service by the Party I at the place of transfer is

subversive of discipline and is a grave misconduct

as the Party I has abandoned his services. He

submitted that the transfer order issued to the Party

I was as per his service conditions and it is a

managerial and administrative function. He

submitted that the transfer order issued to the Party

I is well within the precincts of the said clause 18

and the Workman is bound by the same. He

submitted that the Party I was informed by its Delhi

office vide letter dated 01-07-2012 but till date the

Party I has failed to report to his duty as Gomantak

Delhi office. He submitted that the Party I has

remained absent from duty without leave or without

any intimation to the management w.e.f. 01-07-2012

till date and as such the Party I has filed the present

false case to cover disciplinary action which may

commence due to failure to join service at Gomantak

Delhi office. He submitted that the transfer order

issued to the Party I is just, fair and proper. He

submitted that there is no illegal refusal of

employment to the Party I w.e.f. 01-07-2012 or any

other date. He therefore, prayed that the present

reference be dismissed with cost.

I have carefully perused the entire records of the

present case including the synopsis of written

arguments filed by the Workman. I have also

carefully considered the submissions made across

the bar by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the

respective parties and is of the opinion as under:

REASONS

Issue No. 3:

I am deciding the issue No. 3 prior to the issue

No. 1 and 2 as the issue No. 3 goes to the very root

jurisdiction of this Court.

17. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary

objections, submitted that the Party I is not a

‘Workman’ within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of

the I.D. Act, 1947. The Party I is therefore required

to prove that he falls within the meaning of section

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

1947 which defines the term “Workman” and it

reads as under:

“Section 2 (s), “Workman” means any person

(including an apprentice) employed in any industry

1012

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire

or reward, whether the terms of employment be

expressed or implied and for the purposes of any

proceedings under this act in relation to an

industrial dispute, includes any such person who

has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in

connection with or a consequence of that dispute

or dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has laid

to that dispute, but does not include any such

person:

(1) who is subject to the AIR Force Act, 1950

(45 of 1950) or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of

1950) or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) or

(2) who is employed in the police service or as an

Officer or other employee of a prison or

(3) who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity

(4) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity

draws wages exceeding Rs. 1,600/- per

mensem or exercises either by the nature of

the duties attached to the office or by reason

of the powers vested in him, functions mainly

of a managerial nature.”

Thus, the ‘Workman’ means any person employed

in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,

technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work

for hire or reward. It is now a well settled principle

of law that whether a person concerned is a

‘Workman’ or not within the meaning of Section

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

predominant nature of duties and responsibilities

performed by him at the time of termination of his

services.

18. In the case in hand, the Party I was designated

as ‘Sub-Editor’ at the time of refusal of his

employment w.e.f. 01-07-2012. As per the Wage

Board Recommendations constituted under the

Working Journalist and Other Newspaper

Employees

(Conditions

Service)

and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (Exb. 81), the

post of the Party I i.e. ‘Sub-Editor’ comes under

group V. The said Wage Board Recommendations

defines the job of Sub-Editor as “Sub-Editor or Sr.

Reporter means a person who receives, selects,

shortens, summarizers, elaborates, translates, edits

and headlines news items of all descriptions and

may do some or all of these functions. The sole

witness of the Employer, Shri Dayanand

Prabhugaonkar, its Unit Manager in his cross-

examination admitted that the Bureau Chief is a

senior post to that of Sub-Editor. The said sole

witness of the Employer has not stated in his

affidavit in evidence that the Party I is not a

‘Workman’ as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947

nor put suggestions to the Workman to that effect.

Thus, the predominant duties and responsibilities

as Sub-Editor is clerical in nature.

19. Even otherwise, undisputedly, the Employer

is engaged in the business of Newspaper Industry.

The Party I was employed as Sub-Editor at the time

of termination of his employment. The Employer

and the Party I is governed by the Working

Journalist and Other Newspaper Employees

(Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the

said Act. The term “Working Journalist” has been

defined u/s 2 (f) of the said Act and it reads as

under:

‘Working Journalist’ means a person whose

principle avocation is that of a journalist and [who

is employed as such, either whole-time or part-

time, in relation to, one or more newspaper

establishments], and includes an editor, a leader-

writer, news-editor, Sub-Editor, feature-writer,

copy-tester, reporter, correspondent, cartoonist,

news photographer and proof-reader, but does

not include any such person who:-

(i) is employed mainly in managerial or

administrative capacity, or

(ii) being employed in a supervisory capacity,

performs, either by the nature of the duties

attached to his office or by reason of the

powers vested in him, functions mainly of a

managerial nature;

20. Similarly, Section 3 of the said Act provides

for applications for provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 and

it reads as under:

S. 3 Act of 1947 to apply to working Journalist:

(1) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, as in force for the time being, shall, subject

to the modification specified in sub-section (2),

apply to, or in relation to, working journalists

as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen

within the meaning of that Act.

(2) Section 25F of the aforesaid Act, in its

application to working journalists, shall be

construed as if in clause (a) thereof, for the

period of notice referred to therein in relation

to the retrenchment of a Workman, the following

periods of notice in relation to the retrenchment

of a working journalist had been substituted,

namely:-

(a) six months, in the case of an editor, and

(b) three months, in the case of any other

working journalist.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1013

21. The Party I, being designated as Sub-Editor

at the time of refusal of his employment is a working

journalist as per the said Act and that the provisions

of I.D. Act, 1947 as in force for the time being, shall,

subject to the modification specified in sub-section

(2), apply to, or in relation to, working journalists as

they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the

meaning of that Act. Hence, it is held that the Party

I being Sub-Editor was performing the clerical

duties and as such he is a ‘Workman’ within the

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

issue No. 3 is therefore, answered in the affirmative.

Issue No. 1:

22. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary

objections, submitted that there is no ‘industrial

dispute’ as envisaged u/s 2 (k) of the I.D. Act and

as such the reference is not maintainable. The

burden to prove the aforesaid allegation is therefore

on the Employer.

While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I

have discussed and come to the conclusion that

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

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

23. 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 persons.”

Thus, any dispute or difference between the

Employer and Employer, or between the Employer

and its workmen, or between the Workman and

Workman which is connected with the employment

or non-employment or the terms of employment or

with the conditions of labour, of any persons.

24. In the instant case, the Party I is a ‘Workman’

as defined u/s 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is not in

dispute that the Party II is an Employer as defined

u/s 2 (g) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as such the present

dispute raised by the Workman against the

Employer pertaining to his non-employment w.e.f.

01-07-2012 is an ‘industrial dispute’ within the

meaning of section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947 and as

such this Court has every jurisdiction to adjudicate

the present reference issued by the Government of

Goa. Hence, it is held that the Employer failed to

prove that there does not exist an industrial dispute

within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the I.D. Act,

1947. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in the

negative.

Issue No. 4:

I am deciding the issue No. 4 prior to the issue

No. 2, as the answer to the said issue No. 4 are

relevant to the issue No. 2.

25. The Workman alleged that he has been

illegally refused employment by the Employer w.e.f.

01-07-2012. The burden to prove the said fact is on

him.

26. The evidence on record indicates that the

services of the Workman were transferred on

deputation by the Employer to Delhi initially for 12

months i.e. up to 30-06-2013, vide its transfer order

dated 15-06-2012 at Exb. 49. By the said transfer

order at Exb. 49, the Workman was instructed to

report to Executive Editor and that as per the need

of the organization, he has to report and interact

with other key officers, seniors, peers at various

levels in the organization for achieving the

organizational goals. The Workman replied to the

said letter of the Employer, vide its letter dated

26-06-2012 at Exb. 50. By the said letter at Exb. 50,

the Workman showed his inability to join his posting

at New Delhi. Vide its letter dated 30-06-2012 (Exb.

51), the Employer brought to the notice of the

Workman, clause No. 18 of his appointment letter,

which states that “you are liable to be transferred

or loaned, at the option of the company anywhere

in India, in any of the existing or future

establishment of the Company, including transfer

from one shift to another and or from one department

to another”. The Workman was further informed by

the Employer that in exercise of the said clause,

they have effected the transfer order to Delhi office

and therefore, there was no question of exercising

any option by the Workman and he was required to

abide by the orders/instructions as per letter dated

15-06-2012 at Exb. 49. Vide his letter dated

03-07-2012 at Exb. 54-colly, the Workman informed

the Employer that initially, he was issued a letter

stating that the management has decided to depute

his services at Sakal Delhi office and that when he

told the Employer that cannot be transferred to

Sakal Delhi office, the said letter was taken back

and after changing the same, he was issued a letter

deputing his services at Gomantak Delhi office. By

the said letter, the Workman requested the

Employer to supply all the documents to him

pertaining to which the said deputation offer letter

has been issued to him to enable him to exercise

his option either to accept the said offer of

deputation for better prospects or not. The evidence

on record indicates that neither the Employer have

its own office at Delhi nor produced on record any

document to substantiate its plea that the Employer

1014

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

has signed MOU dated 22-03-2007 with the Sakal

Group of Companies to use its office by each other

and to make employees of each other to sit in those

offices. The sole witness of the Employer Shri

Prabhugaonkar in his cross-examination admits that

there is no proper address of the Delhi office of the

Employer in the letter of transfer of deputation

issued to the Workman at Exb. 49. The evidence on

record indicates that the Employer i.e. Gomantak

Private Limited and Sakal Group of Companies are

two distinct and separate entities in the eyes of

law and they have not amalgamated with each

other.

27. The Workman was issued an appointment

letter dated nil which is on record at Exb. 75. Clause

18 of the said appointment letter at Exb. 75 pertains

to the transfer and it reads as under:

“18. TRANSFER: An employee is liable to be

transferred or loaned at their option anywhere

in India, in any of the existing or its future

establishment including transfer from one shift

to another and/or from one department to

another. The employee, shall, however, have no

right to claim transfer.”

The term ‘transfer’ and ‘transfer on deputation’

are two different terms and have different meanings.

28. In the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v/s.

Inder Singh and Ors, reported in 1997 (8) SCC

372, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 18 of its

judgment held as under:

“18. The concept of ‘deputation’ is well

understood in service law and has a recognised

meaning. “Deputation” has a different

cannotation in service law and the dictionary

meaning of the word ‘deputation’ is of no help.

In simple words ‘deputation’ means service

outside the cadre or outside the parent

department. Deputation is deputing or

transferring an employee to a post outside his

cadre, that is to say, to another department on

a temporary basis. After the expiry period of

deputation the employee has to come back to his

parent department to occupy the same position

unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion

in his parent department as per the Recruitment

Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal

field of deployment or not is decided by the

authority who controls the service or post from

which the employee is transferred. There can be

no deputation without the consent of the person

so deputed and he would, therefore, know his

rights and privileges in the deputation post. The

law on deputation and repatriation is quite

settled as we have also seen in various judgments

which we have referred to above. There is no

escape for respondents now to go back to their

parent departments and working there as

Constables or Head Constables as the case may

be”.

29. In the case of Prasar Bharti and Ors., v/s.

Amarjeet Singh and Ors, reported in JT 2007 (3)

SC 89, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed

as under:

19. There exists a distinction between “transfer”

and “deputation”. “Deputation” connotes service

outside the cadre or outside the parent

department in which an employee is serving.

“Transfer”, however, is limited to equivalent post

in the same cadre and in the same department.

Whereas deputation would be a temporary

phenomenon, transfer being antithesis must

exhibit the opposite indications.”

30. In the case of Abdul Aziz K. v/s. The

Managing Director, KSRTC Banglore of Hon’ble

High Court of Karnataka observed as under:

“Transfer on deputation from one corporation to

another amounts to change of Employer. Such being

the position, transfer on deputation cannot be

compelled on an employee of a corporation or cannot

be effected without his/her consent”.

31. In the case of Umapaty Choudhari v/s. State

of Bihar and Anr, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 659,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:

“Deputation can be appropriately defined as an

assignment of the deputations (another word

for an employee) than one office or department.

More known as the lending authority or parent

body, to a different organisation on department

also commonly known as borrowing authority.

The importance of deployment by deputation is

recognised in the interest of the public to meet

the predicament of the public service. Deputation

as a concept is one that is of a consensual nature,

which requires the decision of a voluntarily

nature of an Employer to lend the services of the

officer working under him, and there must be an

acceptance that follows voluntarily by the

Employer who is borrowing such service. The

officer must also have given his consent to

proceed with such deputation or not”.

Thus, it is crystal clear that the term ‘transfer’ is

altogether different than the ‘transfer on

deputation’. The transfer is normally a managerial

and administrative function and it does not require

the consent of an employee. On the contrary, the

term ‘transfer on deputation’ is normally to a

different organization/Employer and it requires the

acceptance or consent of the employee.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1015

32. In the instant case, the Workman signed the

general terms and conditions of service at Exb. 75

at the time of joining in the services of the Employer.

As per the said general terms and conditions of

service at Exb. 75, there exists a clause No. 18 for

transfer. The said general terms and conditions of

service signed by the Workman at Exb. 75 does not

contain any provisions for ‘transfer on deputation’.

As stated hereinabove, the term ‘transfer’ and

transfer on deputation’ have two different meanings

in service law. The former can be effected without

consent within the same cadre and same

department. Whereas the later can be effected with

the consent of the employee outside the cadre and

out of the present department. The sole witness of

the Employer, Mr. Prabhugaonkar admits that the

Employer does not have its own office in Delhi and

that the property known as 5/15, INS Building, Rafi

Marg, New Delhi belongs to Sakal Group of

Companies. The Employer also failed to produce on

record alleged MOU dated 22-03-2007, which Sakal

Group of Companies to use its office by each other

and to make employees of each other to sit in those

offices. The said transfer clause is also not

applicable to the case in hand in view of the

explanation given hereinabove. As the Workman

was issued a letter of transfer on deputation, he

has every right either to accept or reject the said

offer of deputation made to him. The Employer had

not obtained the consent of the Workman before

issuing the transfer on deputation on 15-06-2012 at

Exb. 49. The said transfer on deputation of the

Workman deputing his services at Delhi office at

Exb. 49 is illegal, unjustified and non-est in the

eyes of law.

33. By email dated 01-07-2012 at Exb. 52, the

Workman informed the Employer that when he

went to resume his duty at the Employer’s office at

Panaji on 01-07-2012, he was illegally stopped from

entering the office and resuming his duties by

security personnel. Vide his letter dated 02-07-2012

at Exb. 53, the Workman also informed the Employer

about illegal refusal to him w.e.f. 01-07-2012. The

sole witness of the Employer admits that the

Workman, vide its letter dated 01-07-2013 (Exb.

58-colly), requested the Employer to accommodate

him in its Panaji office and that the Employer, vide

its letter dated 02-07-2013 instructed the Workman

that he may report for duty at Delhi office where he

has been transferred on deputation despite of lapse

of period.

34. The evidence on record indicates that the

Workman was refused the employment w.e.f.

01-07-2012, when he had gone to resume his duty

on the same day. The said refusal of employment to

the Workman by the Employer w.e.f. 01-07-2012 is

illegal and unjustified as the same was issued

without the consent of the Workman. The said illegal

refusal of employment to the Workman amounts to

termination of services of the Workman by way of

illegal retrenchment. There is nothing on record to

show that the Employer had complied with Section

25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 or Section 3 (2) of the said

Act. Hence, it is held that the Workman proves that

the action of the management of the Employer in

refusing the employment w.e.f. 01-07-2012 is illegal

and unjustified. The issue No. 4 is therefore

answered in the affirmative.

Issue No. 2:

35. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary

objections, submitted that the present order of

reference is not maintainable as the claim of the

Workman is false, frivolous untenable, bad-in-law

and deserves to be dismissed, that there is no cause

of action for the Workman to file the present claim

and that the cause of action is manipulated and

fabricated, that there is no illegal and unjustified

refusal of employment to the Workman, that the

Workman has failed to join his duties on his transfer

on deputation as per the terms and conditions of

service of the Workman and as such there is no

cause of action to raise the industrial dispute on

flimsy and false grounds as it is engaged in the

business of newspaper industry and is running its

business at different locations on the basis of

understanding between allied companies, that the

issue of transfer order does not come under the

purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, that

the Workman has supressed material facts from this

Hon’ble Tribunal and has approached the Tribunal

with a false story and has come out with distorted

statements, that the Workman was duty bound as

per the terms and conditions of his appointment, to

attend to such other duties as may be assigned to

him from time to time by them and that as per the

general terms and conditions of service of the

Workman as per clause 18, an employee is liable to

be transferred or loaned at their option anywhere

in India, in any of the existing or its future

establishment including transfer from one shift to

another and/or from one department to another and

that the Workman has been transferred to its

Gomantak Delhi office and the Workman ought not

to have any grievance about the same as there has

not been any change in the service conditions as

Workman is entitled to all the benefits, that non-

joining of service by the Workman at the place of

transfer is subversive of discipline and is a grave

misconduct as the Workman has abandoned his

services, that the Workman is therefore liable for

1016

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

disciplinary action in services and its day to day

running has also been affected due to absence of

the Workman, that the relief claimed by the

Workman are beyond the scope of the reference

and cannot be adjudicated upon by this Hon’ble

Tribunal, that the Party I is not a ‘Workman’ as

envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act and

that there is no ‘industrial dispute’, that the matter

pertains to transfer of an employee and there is no

refusal of employment as alleged, that the Workman

has not joined his services and has abandoned his

employment and that the alleged dispute is raised

only with an intention to seek illegal benefits.

36. While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

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

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

deciding the issue No. 1, hereinabove, I have

discussed and come to the conclusion that the

present dispute raised by the Workman is an

‘industrial dispute’ within the meaning of Section

2 (k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. While deciding the issue

No. 4 hereinabove, I have also discussed and come

to the conclusion that the action of the management

of the Employer in refusing the employment to the

Workman w.e.f. 01-07-2012 is illegal and unjustified.

In view of above, I do not find any merits in any of

the preliminary objections raised by the Employer

in its Written Statement filed in the present

proceedings. Hence, it is held that the Employer

failed to prove that the present order of reference

is not maintainable in view of allegations made in

para a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h of the Written Statement.

The issue No. 2 is therefore answered in the

negative.

Issue No. 5:

37. While deciding the issue No. 4 hereinabove,

I have discussed and come to the conclusion that

the Workman proved that the action of the

management of the Employer in refusing the

employment w.e.f. 01-07-2012 is illegal and

unjustified.

Ld. Adv. Shri Sathe submitted that the services

of the Workman has been illegally retrenched and

therefore he is entitled for reinstatement in service

with full back wages and consequential benefits

thereof and relied upon the following two

judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court.

38. In the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan

& Ors V/s S. C. Sharma reported in 2005 – LLR –

275 (S. C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that held that “where the Employee has not shown

that he was not gainfully employed during the period

of operation of the termination order. Has also neither

pleaded nor placed any material in that regard he

would not be entitled for back wages. For entitlement

of back wages on reinstatement of an employee, the

employee has to show that he was not gainfully

employed. The initial burden is on him. After and if

he places materials in that regard, the Employer can

bring on record materials to rebut the claim.”

39. In the case of Jabir Singh v/s. Haryana State

Agriculture Marketing Board and Anr., reported

in 2009 III CLR pg. 628 of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India, it has held that “it is true that earlier

view of this Court articulated in many decisions

reflected the legal position that if the termination of

an employee was found to be illegal, the relief of

reinstatement with full back wages would ordinarily

follow. However, in recent past, there has been a shift

in the legal position and in long line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief by

way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a

given fact situation even though the termination of

an employee is in contravention to the prescribed

procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement

has been held to meet the ends of justice”.

40. In the recent case of Deepali Gundu Surwase

v/s. Kranti Junior Vidhyalaya, reported in (2013)

10 SCC 324,the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in

para 22 of its judgment held as under:

“22. The very idea of restoring an employee to

the position which he held before dismissal or

removal or termination of service implies that

the employee will be put in the same position in

which he would have been but for the illegal

action taken by the employer. The injury suffered

by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is

otherwise terminated from service cannot easily

be measured in terms of money. With the passing

of an order which has the effect of severing the

Employer employee relationship, the latter’s

source of income gets dried up. Not only the

concerned employee, but his entire family suffers

grave adversities. They are deprived of the source

of sustenance. The children are deprived of

nutritious food and all opportunities of education

and advancement in life. At times, the family has

to borrow from the relatives and other

acquaintance to avoid starvation. These

suffering continue till the competent

adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the

action taken by the employer. The reinstatement

of such an employee, which is preceded by a

finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial

body or court that the action taken by the

Employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1017

provisions or the principles of natural justice,

entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If

the Employer wants to deny back wages to the

employee or contest his entitlement to get

consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to

specifically plead and prove that during the

intervening period the employee was gainfully

employed and was getting the same emoluments.

Denial of back wages to an employee, who has

suffered due to an illegal act of the Employer

would amount to indirectly punishing the

concerned employee and rewarding the Employer

by relieving him of the obligation to pay back

wages including the emoluments.”

41. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in its aforesaid judgments is well settled and

binds a precedent upon me. In the case in hand,

the evidence on record indicates that the age of

the Workman is 52 years. The Workman pleaded

and stated on oath that he is unemployed from the

date of his illegal refusal of service. The Workman

is therefore directed to be reinstated in service

with full back wages and consequential benefits

thereof. The Workman also prayed for other reliefs

such as other dues and arrears, compensation of Rs.

10 lakhs towards harassment, mental torture etc.,

Rs. 32 lakhs towards harassment, illegal deductions

etc., which are beyond the scope of the terms of

reference and as such the Workman is not entitled

for the same.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

1. It is held that the action of the management

of M/s. Gomantak Private Limited, Gomantak

Bhavan, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa, in refusing

employment to its Workman Shri Maruti B.

Raut, Sub-Editor with effect from 01-07-2012,

is illegal and unjustified.

2. It is held that M/s. Gomantak Private Limited,

Gomantak Bhavan, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa, is

hereby directed to reinstate the Workman, Shri

Maruti B. Raut, Sub-Editor, alongwith full back

wages and consequential benefits thereof.

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-IV/574

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 08-11-2021 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/17/2018 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, 19th November, 2021.

______

THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/17/2018

Shri Pascoal Soares,

R/o. H. No. 4/189-A,

Agar Vaddo, Calangute,

Bardez-Goa

….. Workman/Party-I

V/s

The Secretary,

Village Panchayat of Calangute,

Calangute, Bardez-Goa …. Employer/Party-II

Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri Pronoy

Kamat.

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

Patkar.

Panaji, Dated: 08-11-2021.

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 10-09-2018,

bearing No. 28-21-2018-LAB/616 referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this Labour

Court, Panaji, Goa.

“(1) Whether the severance of Employer-Employee

relationship between the Village Panchayat of

Calangute and Shri Pascoal A. Soares, Head of

the Demolition Squad and in-charge of the

Cattle Pound, with effect from 31-08-2017,

amounts to termination of services or

retirement on superannuation?

(2) If so, what relief the Workman is entitled to?”

1018

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was

registered under No. LC-II/IT/17/18 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

05-12-2018 at Exb. 6. The facts of the case in brief

as pleaded by the Workman are that he was

employed by the Employer/Party II (for short,

‘Employer’) as ‘Head of the Demolition Squad” from

16-02-2006 on payment of monthly salary of

Rs. 10,000/-. He stated that his services had been

illegally terminated by the Employer in the year

2007. He stated that he, therefore, raised an

industrial dispute which was ended in failure. He

stated that in the said proceedings, the Employer

admitted its mistakes and settled the said dispute.

He stated that accordingly, an award dated 09-07-2008

was passed by the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal.

3. He stated that he was continuously working

with the Employer. He stated that however,

suddenly after change of Panchayat body in June,

2017, the new Panchayat body issued him a show-

cause notice dated 31-07-2017. He stated that it

was alleged that a complaint was filed by one, Mr.

Sunil Kavlekar against him and he was asked to

reply to the same. He stated that since a copy of

the complaint was not furnished to him, he

requested the Employer to give him a copy of the

said complaint by his letter dated 04-08-2017. He

stated that the said complaint allegedly filed by

Mr. Sunil Kavlekar is fake as no person by the said

name exist in Calangute. He stated that without

considering his request, the Employer issued an

order dated 31-08-2017 thereby terminating his

services. He stated that in the said order, it is

mentioned that his services are terminated

considering existing staff available in the

Panchayat and that his reply is unsatisfactory.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Employer in

illegally terminating his services, he raised an

industrial dispute before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner which ended in failure.

4. He contended that his termination of services

is illegal and against the provision of law. He

submitted that the reasons given by the Employer

are false and that he was not given opportunity to

file reply. He submitted that the award dated

09-07-2008 under which settlement is arrived has

not been considered by the Employer. He submitted

that the termination of his services have caused

irreparable loss and prejudice. He submitted that

the termination order is malafide and stigmatic. He

submitted that the Employer had already appointed

Mr. Salis Fernandes on the post held by him and

there was no approval obtained u/s 115 of the Goa

Panchayat Raj Act. He submitted that the resolution

as well as show-cause notice issued to him does

not mention the said section. He submitted that

the Employer has not given valid reasons in

terminating his services and has taken a different

stand before the conciliation proceedings held

before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner. He

submitted that the reasons sought to be now given

by the Employer for the termination of his services

are illegal. He submitted that the Employer violated

the principles of natural justice in terminating his

services and as such the termination of his services

are arbitrary, illegal and malafide. The Workman

therefore, prayed that the Employer be directed to

reinstate him in service with full back wages.

5. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman by filing its written statement dated

06-02-2019 at Exb. 9. The Employer, as and by way

of its preliminary objections, submitted that the

Party I do not come within the purview of industrial

disputes Act, that the Workman was born on

17-05-1945 (73 years) old and as such his

appointment at the age of 61 years on 16-02-2006 is

illegal and in violation of the basic guidelines laid

down by the order of the Government, that as the

appointment order of the Party I, being illegal, no

right is created in him and the present proceedings

is required to be dismissed. Without prejudice to

its aforesaid contention, the Employer submitted

that the appointment order of the Party I was not

approved by the order of the Government. The

Employer stated that as the appointment order of

the Party I is to the non-existing post, he has no

right to raise any claim and the same is required to

be rejected, that the order passed by the Employer

by invoking Section 115 (3) of the Goa Panchayat

Raj Act, 1994 and Section 115 (4) of the said Act

provides for appeal and as such the present claim

is not maintainable. The Employer submitted that

the present claim of the Party I is intending to

make back door entry, which is legally prohibited

and that by approaching this Hon’ble Court, the

Party I cannot obtain any order which is not legally

maintainable by suppressing his age in the claim

petition.

6. Without prejudice to its aforesaid contention,

the Employer stated that neither the Party I is a

‘Workman’ nor it is an ‘Employer’ for the reasons

stated in the foregoing paragraph. The Employer

submitted that the settlement which is illegal and

bad-in-law, does not create any right in either of

the party. The Employer stated that in fact, the

previous Panchayat body has acted illegally and

contrary to law, being hand in gloves with the Party I.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1019

The Employer stated that now the Party I cannot

blame the present Panchayat body for acting within

purview of law. The Employer submitted that the

Party I did not file any reply after giving him

required opportunity as he was aware that he has

no right to continue in service. The Employer stated

that the Party I was appointed without following

any procedure of law and the basic guidelines laid

down by the order of the Government. The Employer

stated that the illegal appointment of the Party I

has resulted into payment of ex-chequers money,

who is not entitled either for appointment or for

receiving any money. The Employer stated that it is

a public body and cannot make such payments for

illegal appointments. The Employer stated that they

are entitled to recover the same from the Party I.

The Employer submitted that this Hon’ble Court

has no jurisdiction and as such further question of

conducting enquiry or leading evidence does not

arise. The Employer denied the overall case as

pleaded by the Party I and prayed for dismissal of

the claim of the Party I.

7. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on

07-03-2019 at Exb. 10. The Workman, by way of his

re-joinder, confirms and reiterates all the

submissions and averments made by him in his

claim statement to be true and correct and denies

all the statements and averments made by the

Employer in its written statement, which are

contrary to the statements and averments made by

him.

8. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective

Parties, this Hon’ble Labour Court II has framed the

following issues on 26-03-2019 at Exb. 11.

1. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the action of the Employer in severance of

Employer employee relationship between the

Employer and himself w.e.f. 31-08-2017

amounts to termination of services or

retirement on superannuation?

2. Whether the Workman/Party I proves that

the action of the Employer in terminating

his services w.e.f. 31-08-2017 is illegal and

unjustified?

3. Whether the Employer/Party II proves that

the reference is not maintainable in view of

the preliminary objections raised in para (1)

to (7) of the written statement?

4. Whether the Workmanis entitled for any

relief?

5. What Order? What Award?

9. Thereafter, the Party I filed his affidavit in

evidence and case was fixed for further examination-

in-chief as well as cross-examination of the Party I.

On 24-09-2021, Ld. Adv. Ms. P. Gawandi as well as

Ld. Adv. Shri P. Naik appeared for the Workman and

the Employer respectively. Both the representatives

orally submitted that they are trying to settle the

matter amicably and sought time. Accordingly, on

08-11-2021 Ld. Adv. Ms. P. Gawandi as well as Ld.

Adv. Shri S. Patkar appeared for the Workman and

the Employer respectively and submitted that they

have settled the matter amicably between the

parties hereinabove and prayed for disposing off

the reference as consent award. The parties have

produced on record a copy of the terms of settlement

duly signed by both the parties along with their

respective representatives which is on record at

Exb. 19. The terms of settlement as settled between

the parties are reproduced herewith.

(a) The Party No. I and Party No. II has arrived

at amicable settlement and Party No. I has

decided to withdraw the suit based on the

said amicable settlement.

(b) The Party No. I has approached Party No. II

to consider his case on ground of compassion

as he is old and is unable to carry out any

work, however, he has to look after himself

and his family.

request made by the Party No. I in the

meeting held on 13-10-2021 vide Resolution

No. IX J (80) and has resolved that the Party

No. II shall pay the Party No. I a sum of Rs.

2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) on ground

of compassion subject to the condition that

the Party No. I shall withdraw the present

case and shall not file any further case on

Party No. II for reinstatement and/or wages.

The copy of resolution is annexed as

“Annexure A”.

(d) The Party No. I has decided to accept said

sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only)

and has decided to withdraw the present

case and undertakes that he shall not file

any case for reinstatement and/or wages. The

copy of the cheque is annexed as “Annexure

B”.

(e) Both the parties declared that they have

arrived at amicable settlement based on free

will without any force or coercion.

(f) The present consent terms are full and final

and no party is entitled to open the same on

any ground whatsoever.

I have carefully perused the said terms of

1020

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

settlement at Exb. 19 signed by and between the

parties hereinabove. The said terms of settlement

are 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. It is held that the reference as to whether the

severance of Employer-Employee relationship

between the Village Panchayat of Calangute

and Shri Pascoal A. Soares, Head of the

Demolition Squad and in-charge of the Cattle

Pound, with effect from 31-08-2017, amounts to

termination of services or retirement on

superannuation, does not survive.

2. In view of settlement arrived at between the

parties hereinabove, Shri Pascoal Soares is

granted the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards

full and final settlement of his claim.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,

Labour Court.

_______

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-II/575

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on

08-11-2021 in Ref. No. IT/55/2016 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, 19th November, 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/55/2016

Workmen,

Rep. by the President,

Cidade-de-Goa Hotel Employees Union,

C/o Hotel Cidade de Goa,

Vaiguinim Beach,

Dona Paula-Goa

… Workmen/Party I

V/s

1. The General Manager,

M/s. Hotel Cidade de Goa,

Vaiguinim Beach,

Dona Paula-Goa

… Employer/Party II(1)

2. M/s. Indian Hotels Company Ltd.,

Vaiguinim Beach,

Dona Paula-Goa

… Party II(2)

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Rep. Shri P.

Gaonkar.

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

G. K. Sardessai along with Adv. Ms. N. Gaonkar.

Party II(2) is represented by Ld. Adv. P. J. Kamat.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 8th day of the month of

November of the year 2021)

By Order dated 11-11-2016, bearing No. 28/2/

/2016-LAB/797, 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.

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Hotel Cidade de Goa, Vaiguinim Beach,

Goa in not conceding the following demands

raised by the Cidade de Goa Hotel Employees’

Union, vide their letter dated 26-06-2012, is legal

and justified?

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

Demand No. 1: Pay Scales:

Grades:

I - 3500-100-4000-110-4550-120-5150-130-5800-

240-6500-150-7250- 160-8050.

II - 3650-110-4200-120-4800-130-5450-140-6150-

150-6900-160-7700-170-8550.

III - 3800-120-4400-130-5050-140-5750-150-6500-

160-7300-170-8150-180-9050.

IV - 3950-130-4600-140-5300-150-6050-160-6850-

170-7700-180-8600-190-9550.

V - 4100-140-4800-150-5550-160-6350-170-7200-

180-8100-190-9050-200-10050.

VI - 4250-150-5125-160-5925-170-6775-180-7675-

190-8625-200-9625-210-10675.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1021

VII - 4400-160-5200-170-6050-180-6950-190-7900-

200-8900-210-9950-220-11050.

VIII - 4550-170-5400-180-6300-190-7250-200-8250-

210-9300-220-10400-230-11550.

IX - 4700-180-5600-190-6550-200-7550-210-8600-

220-9700-230-10850-240-12050.

X - 4900-190-5850-200-6850-210-7900-220-9000-

230-10150-240-11350-250-12600.

Demand No. 2: Flat Rise:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

given the flat rise at the rate mentioned below:

Grade: I, II & III

Rs. 2000/-

Grade: IV, V and VI

Rs. 2100/-

Grade: VII, VIII & IX :

Rs. 2200/-

The above amounts should be added to the

existing basic and thereafter filled in the revised

pay scale in the higher stage.

Demand No. 3: Seniority Increments:

Union demands that the workmen should be

given Seniority increments as mentioned below:

Service upto 3 years

: One increment.

Service from 3 yrs. to 7 yrs.

: Two increments.

Service from 7 yrs. to 10 yrs.

: Three increments.

Service from 10 yrs. to 15 yrs. : Four increments.

Service from 15 yrs. to 20 yrs. : Five increments.

Service from 20 yrs. to 25 yrs. : Six increments.

Service from 25 yrs. to 30 yrs. : Seven increments.

Service above 39 years

:Eight increments.

Demand No. 4: Variable Dearness Allowance:

Union demands that the VDA shall be paid as

applicable to the employees of Goa Tourism

Development Corporation i.e. 100% neutralization

beyond 121 Points of AICPI Series – 2001.

Demand No. 5: House Rent Allowance:

Union demands that the HRA should be paid at

the revised rate of 30% of Basic and Dearness

Allowance, as the cost of accommodation is very

high in Goa due to Tourist State.

Demand No. 6: Children Education Allowance:

Union demands that all workmen shall be paid

Education Allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per

month, to meet the expenses of education of their

children.

Demand No. 7: Conveyance Allowance:

Union demands that an amount of Rs. 800/- shall

be added to the existing Conveyance Allowance.

Demand No. 8: Transport facility:

Union demands that the free transport facility

should be provided to those workmen who are

presently not provided with this facility.

Demand No. 9: Paid Holiday:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

granted paid holidays @ 16 days per year.

Demand No. 10: Leave:

Union demands that all the workers should be

given leave on following basis:

(A) Earned Leave: Union demands that all the

workmen should be given Earned Leave @

35 days E.L. per year with accumulation upto

120 days and leave shall be allowed to take

10 times in a year.

(B) Casual Leave: Union demands that all the

workmen should be given Casual Leave at

the rate of 12 days per year with encashment

facility.

workmen should be given Sick Leave @ 15

days per year and accumulation upto 60 days.

Demand No. 11: Leave Travel Assistance:

Union demands that LTA should be paid at the

revised rate of one month gross wages with

minimum of four Earned days leave. The amount

shall be paid one week before the commencement

of leave.

Demand No. 12: Promotion Policy:

Union demands that separate promotion policy

should be promulgated in consultation with the

Union.

Demand No. 13: Loan:

Union demands that interest free loan of

Rs. 200000/- should be granted for House-repair and

construction of House. And Rs. 50000/- to meet the

expenses towards the purchase of household

articles or marriage of self or his/her family member,

Scooter, etc.

Demand No. 14: Gifts:

Union demands that the workmen should be

given service award as mentioned below:

Service upto 5 years gift worth Rs. 3500/- with

service certificate.

Service from 5 yrs. to 10 yrs. gift worth

Rs. 5000/- with service certificate.

Service from 10 yrs. to 20 yrs. Gift worth

Rs. 7500/- with service certificate.

1022

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

Service above 20 yrs. Gift worth Rs. 10000/- with

certificate.

Union further demands that those workmen retire

shall be given 20 gram gold chain.

Demand No. 15: Festival Allowance:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

paid Festival Allowance @ Rs. 5000/- once in a year

at the time of festival to meet the additional

expenses incurred by him for such festival.

Demand No.16: Employment next to kin:

Union demands that the kin of the workmen who

died or retired shall be given employment in the

Company.

Demand No. 17: Bonus/Ex-gratia:

Union demands that all the workers shall be paid

Bonus/Ex-gratia @ 30% of gross wages every year

before Diwali festival.

Demand No. 18: Up gradation:

Union demands that those employees could not

get higher grade such employees should be

upgraded in higher grades as and when they

complete 5 years in one grade.

Demand No. 19: Brake Shift Allowance:

Union demands that all the workmen who are

working in brake shifts shall be paid brake shift

allowance @ Rs. 2500/- per month.

Demand No. 20: Fixed Dearness Allowance:

Union demands that an amount of Rs. 1000/- shall

be added in existing FDA.

Demand No. 21: Payment of Gratuity:

Union demands that all the workmen who have

worked for more than 5 years of service shall be

paid Gratuity @ 30 days wages per year of service.

Demand No. 22: Period of Settlement:

Union demands that the period of this settlement

shall be for three years i.e. 1st February, 2011 to

31st January, 2014.

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

negative, then, to what relief the workmen are

entitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/55/2016 and registered AD notices were issued

to both the Parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a Claim Statement at Exb. 4 and Party

II filed its Written Statement at Exhibit 5.

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

Employer started running the present Hotel

establishment from 1982 and it has continuously

been in the business since then. The Cidade de

Goa Hotel Employees Union/the Union is a

registered Trade Union under the Trade Union’s

Act, 1926. The Union has been espousing the cause

of the workmen and negotiating the terms of

services with the Employer since last many years.

The first Wage Settlement between the Union and

the Employer was entered into on 20-08-1984 and

the last one was signed on 23-12-2004 and

thereafter there have been no Wage Settlements in

the establishment as the Employer/Party II had

refused consistently to negotiate any terms of

service with the Union. The last Wage Settlement

expired on 31-01-2008 and since then the Employer

did not make any efforts to negotiate the terms of

service with the Union even though there was

inflation. The Union accordingly preferred a Charter

of Demand dated 21-08-2008 which eventually came

before this Tribunal as IT/28/2009 and my Learned

Predecessor by way of final Award dated

29-09-2015 partially granted only few demands

raised by the Union. This final Award has been

stayed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa

vide its Order dated 16-07-2015 in Writ Petition No.

486/2015. The last Charter of Demand dated

21-01-2008 only covered the period from 01-02-2008

to 31-01-2011 and the practice in the establishment

since the first Wage Settlement was to enter into

Wage Settlements for a period of three years and

revise them thereafter and accordingly the Union

had raised the present Charter of Demand dated

26-06-2012 covering the period 01-12-2011 to

31-01-2014 as per the long standing practice and

custom prevailing in the present establishment. In

the said Charter of Demand the Party I has made a

case for revision of wages, allowances and other

demands as the present wages of the workers in all

the grades are at a level below the minimum wages

and this was done so as to bring out at least a fair

wage level.

4. The Applicant states that the Hotel

establishments maintained by the Employers in

the State of Goa are paying higher wages and the

working conditions these establishment are also

better than the Employer of the present case and

as such the Applicant has further mentioned in

detail in Para 19 with the individual demands as

listed in the Charter of demands upto Para 19 to 58

of the Claim Statement and the same are as follows:

19. The Union deals with the individual demands

as listed in the charter of demands dated

26-06-2012 hereinafter.

Demand No. 1: Pay Scales:

20. The last revision in Pay Scale was done w.e.f.

01-08-2000 in the settlement dated 21-05-2001. In

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1023

that settlement the duration of the revised Pay Scale

was not fixed and thus it was open for revision

after the duration of that settlement. In the next

settlement (and the last settlement between the

parties) dated 23-12-2004 there was no revision to

the Pay Scales. This Hon’ble Tribunal in its Final

Award dated 29-01-2015 has rejected the revision

of Pay Scales purely for lack of evidence. Thus the

Pay Scales in the establishment have remained

stagnant from 01-08-2000 till date i.e. for about 17

years and continue to remain so.

21. Since the pay scale/basic wages have

remained unchanged since long the actual wages

and the purchasing power of the workmen’s pay

packet has considerably deteriorated.

22. Pay Scales denote the ‘basic wages’ each

workman in every category (Grade) is entitled to

and therefore is the most important component of

the pay packet. The Pay Scale also includes the

annual increment the workmen are entitled to in

their Grade.

23. In the establishment ‘overtime’ being

dependent on the Basic Wages (as apparent from

the Last settlement dated 23-12-2004) the

importance of Basic Wages/Pay Scales is obvious

and need not be restated.

24. The basic paid to the workmen in the region

by the other hotels GTDC, Taj Hotels, Majorda Beach

Resort etc. are much higher than what is paid to

the concerned workmen in the present reference.

At present the Basic Wage constitutes hardly 30%

of the total salary inclusive of allowances and hence

the workmen of the company are justified in seeking

revision in the pay scales so as to bring them on

par with the conditions prevailing in the region.

Demand No. 2: Flat Rise:

25. In the last two settlements there has been no

flat rise given by the Employer. The Industrial

Tribunal in its Final Award dated 29-01-2015 also

had rejected the Union’s demand for a Flat Rise.

26. Since the Pay Scale has remained static

naturally its purchasing power has reduced. Over

time inflation cuts into the basic wages and reduces

its ability to bear any extra burden. Flat Rise helps

to infuse stability in a workmen’s pay packet by

trying to bring the purchasing power of his package

back to normalcy.

Demand No. 3: Seniority Increments:

27. Every wage adjudication must not be merely

an attempt to increase the wages of all the

employees on an average basis, but rather must be

a holistic approach where wages in all grades must

reflect the number of years put in service by the

employees.

28. Loyalty as indicated from the length of service

must be one of the many considerations that must

be kept in mind of the Hon’ble Tribunal during

fixation of wages.

29. The Seniority Increments sought for by the

Union is in the light of the fact that the employees

who have put in a grater length of service with the

Employer must be given a better pay packet than

new joiners. Right now the difference between

newcomers and workers working since long is

disparate and this must be removed and the gap

between their wages must be fixed. This disparity

has caused greater discomfort between the workers.

Demand No. 4 and No. 20: Revision in Variable

Dearness Allowance (VDA) and Fixed Dearness

Allowance (FDA):

30. VDA is the most important component

currently in the pay packet of the workers of the

establishment. It is only the VDA component that

helps the workers to reduce the effect of inflation

on their salaries. The Union maintains that the

present VDA levels are no longer sufficient to bear

the brunt of inflation and need to be revised.

31. In Settlement dated 21-05-2001 the rate of

VDA was revised from Rs. 1.25/- per point increase

in AICPI (1960=100) to Rs. 1.30/- per point increase.

Thus there was a revision of a meager Rs. 0.05/-

paise in the rate of VDA. Thereafter in the

settlement dated 23-12-2004 there was no revision

to the VDA.

32. This Hon’ble Tribunal in its Final Award dated

29-01-2015 also has given a very meagre increase in

the rate of VDA. This Hon’ble Tribunal has revised

the rate of VDA to Rs. 1.40/- i.e. a mere increase of

Rs. 0.10/- paise. However as the Final Award dated

29-01-2015 was stayed by the Hon’ble High Court.

33. The Exponential increase in the AICPI in

additions to other factors by themselves justify the

revision in VDA and a grant of 100% neutralization

of the same. This principle of 100% neutralizations

has already been accepted by another employer,

namely GTDC, operating in the same industry as

well as region.

34. The Fixed Dearness Allowance is also to be

paid on similar lines i.e to bear the brunt of inflation

and hence the demand of the rise.

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

35. The existing HRA given to the workers vary

with their Grades. In settlement dated 21.05.2001

all workmen were granted Rs. 115/- flat increase in

1024

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

HRA, and subsequently in the settlement dated

23-12-2004 all workers were granted a flat increase

of Rs. 150/- in HRA. This Hon’ble Tribunal has

granted an increase of Rs. 250/- in its Final Award

dated 29-01-2015, which has been stayed.

36. The real problem with the present rate of

HRA is that it is constant and does not increase at

all. The cost of Housing having exponentially

increased even today the employee in Grade I gets

HRA of Rs. 690/- and the employee in Grade IX gets

Rs. 800/-. It is a matter of common knowledge that

no housing accommodation will be available at that

meager rate. Therefore the concept of HRA as it

should be has lost its value in the present

establishment.

37. HRA must truly reflect, at least to some

extent, the actual cost of accommodation in the

State of Goa and the flat rates of HRA as seen in the

previous settlements and the Final Award dated

29-01-2015 must be seen in that light.

38. Once HRA is made to be given as a

percentage of Basic + VDA then it will truly take

care of the inflationary housing cost in the State

and hence the demand.

Demand No. 6: Children Education Allowance:

39. The Employer has never made any provision

to support the children of the employees and hence

this demand was made in the last two charter of

demands.

40. The industrial law concept of ‘minimum wage’

includes a certain measure of education costs as

laid down by various judgments of the Supreme

Court. Thus it is imperative that while considering

the fixation of wages of its revision a certain

provision must be made for allowances towards

children education.

41. The Hon’ble Tribunal in its Final Award dated

21-09-2015 has granted a meager sum of Rs. 300/-

per month towards Children Education Allowance.

With the advance in information technology the

needs of children towards their education have

increased and become more costly. Use of computers

in School projects and the cost to printout the

information as well as other stationary has to be

borne by the parents. These needs have become

the most basic necessities for the children today

and hence the minimum requirement for the

workmen’s family.

42. The social welfare basis of this claim cannot

be overlooked and this demand must be favorably

considered.

Demand No. 7 & 8: Conveyance Allowance and

Transport Facility:

43. Travelling Costs and also costs of fuel have

always been increasing. Most of the employees

travel using the local buses and spend a

considerable amount of money on the bus fare.

44. The Conveyance Allowance has not increased

much since the last two settlements and this

Hon’ble Tribunal granted a meager increased of

Rs. 250/- in the travelling allowance by way of its

Final Award dated 29-01-2015.

45. The cost incurred on travel by the workmen

can also be offset by the Employer providing free

transport facilities. The latter would also cut down

the cost to the company considerably.

Demand No. 9, 10 and 11: Paid Holidays, Leave and

Leave Travel Allowance:

46. These demands have never even discussed

by the employer in the past. Paid holidays, leaves

and allowance such a LTA form a part and parcel

of the concept of job satisfaction in the

establishment.

47. Other Employers are giving 16 paid holidays

per year in contrast to the 9 paid holidays presently

given to the workmen by the Employer.

48. Leaves are important to allow employees to

remain efficient for the entire year and are an import

part of job satisfaction. To reiterate the Tribunal’s

endeavor must not be restricted to whether the

wages must be increased or not but also it must

undertake a holistic valuation of the conditions of

service in the establishment.

Demand No. 12 and 18 Promotion Policy and

Upgradation:

49. At present there is no promotion policy in

the establishment. If the workers are expected to

put in long years of service they must be guaranteed

some career development without which the zeal

to work towards progress might not be there.

Therefore the Tribunal must direct that the

Employer to formulate a promotion policy in

consultation with the Union.

50. Upgradation to the nest grade after certain

years of service can also contribute to the

satisfaction quotient of the employee and his career

and personal growth.

Demand No. 13, 14, 15 and 18: Loans, Gifts, Festival

Allowance Employment to kin:

51. These demands reflect the different aspects

that the Hon’ble Tribunal must consider to improve

the conditions of service of the workmen in the

establishment.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1025

52. It is a matter of common knowledge that

getting a loan from a bank is very difficult for

workers with meager salaries and therefore for

them to meet various needs of life like housing,

marriages etc Loans from the Employer become

imperative.

53. Although termed as Gifts, the Union has

actually demanded service Awards which enhance

the spirit of the employees and inspires them to do

more and efficient work with dedication to the

employer.

54. Festivals are an import aspect of very Indian’s

life and therefore the demand. Due to the diversity

of cultures and religions many festivals are

celebrated throughout the year and the Employer

must contribute to the welfare of the Worker’s

families.

55. Worker families with only one earning

requires sum assurance that after the death of the

members the Employer will provide some assistance.

It is in this light that the demand for employment

for next to kin has been made. This demand has to

be seen in the light of the social welfare of the

workmen’s family.

Demand No. 17 and 21: Bonus/Ex Gratia and Gratuity:

56. Both these demands are justified as they form

part and parcel of the concept of social welfare of

the workmen. Without these payments it is difficult

to keep the spirits of the workers lifted and there

will be an eventual drop in their efficiency.

57. Working ion shift, that too with differential

timings has an adverse effect not only on the health

of the workers but their finances. Workers are called

in for some hours and then given a break and then

again called after come hours to work.

58. These practice although impermissible under

the law is prevalent in the establishment which

cause great mental and physical strain to the

workers and hence must be accordingly

compensated.

5. It is therefore prayed that this Tribunal may

answer the reference in favour of the Workmen and

grant all their demands raised by the Union on

behalf of the workers and any other reliefs as

deemed fit.

6. In response, the Party II filed their Written

Statement resisting the same which is at Exhibit 5.

In the Written Statement the Party II has raised

objections that the charter of demand dated

26-06-2012 referred for adjudication pursuant to the

present reference is illegal, incompetent and not

justified and as such the same needs to be

dismissed on the grounds as mentioned in the

Written Statement.

7. It is further stated that admittedly, the last

Settlement dated 23-12-2004 between the Parties

was effective for a period of 4 & ½ years i.e. from

01-08-2003 to 31-01-2008. It is further stated that in

the last Charter of Demands dated 21-01-2008, the

demand was made by Party I that period of

Settlement should be for a period of 3 years i.e. from

01-02-2008 till 31-01-2011, which said demand

granted by the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal vide its

Final Award dated 29-01-2015 passed in reference

No. IT/28/2009. It is stated admittedly that the said

Award has been challenged by Party II by filing

Writ Petition No. 486/2015 (and also by Party I by

filing Writ Petition No. 540/2015) before the Hon’ble

High Court of Bombay at Panaji and further that the

operation of the said entire Award dated

29-10-2015 has been stayed by the Hon’ble High

Court vide Interim Order dated 16-07-2015 passed

in the said Writ petition No. 486/2015, which said

factual position has been admitted by the Party I in

Para 7 of the Claim Statement.

8. It is stated and submitted that one of the

ground of challenge raised by the Party II to the

said Award dated 29-10-2015 in their Writ Petition

No. 486/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court is that

considering the position that the last Settlement

dated 23-12-2004 between the Parties was effective

for a period of 4 & ½ years i.e. from 01-08-2003 to

31-01-2008, the Award ought to have been held to

be operative for a said period of 4 & ½ years i.e.

from 01-02-2008 to 31-07-2012 or in any event the

same ought to have been held to be effective

prospectively.

9. It is further stated that since the issue of period

of operation of the Award is a subject matter of

challenge in the Writ Petition No. 486/2015 filed by

Party I as aforesaid, question of adjudicating Charter

of Demands dated 26-06-2012 submitted by the Party

I to Party II allegedly for the period from 01-02-2011

to 31-01-2014 by this Industrial Tribunal does not

arise until and unless the Writ Petition No.

486/2015 is finally decided by the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay at Panaji specifying the period of

operation of the said Award dated 29-01-2015.

10. The Party II states that right from the

commencement of Hotel business in the year 1982,

both the Parties had entered into various industrial

settlements.

11. It is further stated that the last settlement

dated 23-12-2004 between the Parties was effective

for a period of 4 years i.e. from 01-08-2003 upto

31-01-2008 and before the expiry of the said

1026

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

Settlement dated 23-12-2004, the Party I had served

a Charter of Demands on the Party II under letter

dated 21-01-2008 pursuant to which meetings were

held between the representatives of the Party II

and the Office bearers of the Party I at various

times but the matter could not be settled and as

such the Party I raised an industrial dispute before

the Labour Commissioner at Panaji-Goa/the

conciliation proceedings which also failed as no

settlement could be arrived at and these

proceedings ended in failure and the Conciliation

Officer sent his report of failure of conciliation

proceedings dated 11-05-2009 to the Government

of Goa which thereafter referred the dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal bearing reference No.

IT/28/2009 which was decided by this Tribunal by

partly allowing the same by granting some of the

demands and rejecting other demands raised by

Party I and during the pendency of the said dispute,

the Party I raised a fresh Charter of Demands dated

26-06-2012 purportedly for the period of three years

from 01-02-2011 to 31-01-2014. It is stated that

submitting fresh Charter of Demand dated

26-06-2012 by Party I on Party II was illegal and bad

in law as much as dispute pertaining to the earlier

Charter of demands dated 21-01-2008 which was

pending before this Tribunal in reference No.

IT/28/2009.

12. It is further stated that the demands

submitted by the Union are/were beyond the

financial capacity of the Party II and on account of

non-settlement of the said demands by the Party II,

the Party I raised the industrial dispute vide their

letter dated 09-04-2015 before the Asst. Labour

Commissioner at Panaji seeking his intervention in

the matter.

13. It is stated that upon receipt of the said letter,

Party II submitted their reply dated 22-05-2015, inter

alia, submitting that raising/submitting fresh

Charter of Demands dated 26-06-2012 by Party I on

party II was illegal, bad in law in as much as dispute

pertaining to the earlier Charter of Demands dated

21-01-2008 was pending before this Industrial

Tribunal and further that they had challenged the

said Award dated 29-01-2015 by filing Writ Petition

before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Panaji,

whereunder they had challenged the period of

operation of the Award and therefore question of

considering the Charter of Demands dated

26-06-2012 raised by the Party I did not arise at all.

It is further stated that as the dispute could not be

resolved/settled, the same ended in failure and the

Conciliation Officer sent his report of failure of

conciliation proceedings under No. IRM/CON/(12)/

/2015/6053 dated 03-11-2015 to the Government of

Goa, which thereafter vide Order of Reference under

No. 28/2/2016-lab/797 dated 11-11-2016 referred the

dispute pertaining to the said Charter of Demands

dated 26-06-2012 for adjudication to this Tribunal

by the present reference.

14. The Party II has also raised objections

regarding the legality and justification of the said

Charter of Demands dated 26-06-2012 raised by the

Party I on them by mentioning the pay scale which

were framed with the sole intention that there

should not be any need to restructure or revise the

same at least for next 25 years and also keeping in

mind the prospects of the Hotel establishment

including itself in the next 10 to 15 years. That in

respect of the Charter of Demand dated 12-08-2000,

the member workers of the Party I were granted

fitment and flat-basic rise as Seniority Increments,

Dearness Allowance, HRA, Travelling Allowance,

etc. In terms of the said settlement dated

21-05-2001 w.e.f. 01-08-2000 and thereafter the

arrears of benefits were also paid. The Charter of

Demands dated 26-06-2012 submitted by the Party

I is beyond the financial capacity of the Party II in

as much as the Party II would not be in a position

to bear the additional financial burden that would

be imposed on them by accepting the Charter of

Demands. The Party II has been granting and

providing to all its workmen every year several

benefits and the total salary/wage bill of the entire

workforce is high as compared to the amount of

revenue receipts by the Party II. They also provide

loans to the needy workmen and Party II has also

obtained personal accident policy in respect of the

workmen and is paying premium every year. They

also supply free food to the workmen and provide

subsidized transport facility and those workmen

who are out coverage of ESI Act, 1948, the party II

has been providing medical allowance every year.

The Party II has been granting performance based

increments to the eligible workmen in addition to

the statutory increments.

14. It is further stated that Party II has been

extending the benefits to its workmen and has

incurred substantial expenses every year which are

required to be taken into account while considering

the Charter of Demands raised by the Party I as the

Party I has not taken into consideration the

monetary value by making the said Charter of

Demands. The Party II has nearly employed 500

workers whereas only 73 permanent workers are

the members of the Party I and if the demands

made by Party I are granted, then there would be

further demand from other workers.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1027

15. It is further stated that though the Party II

being a Company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 has about 3600 shareholders

and though the Party II started its hotel

establishment in the year 1982, however, for 23 long

years, shareholders were not awarded and the first

dividend was paid to the shareholders only in the

year 2005, even though the Party II had entered

into 7 settlements with the Party I during the said

period since its inception and any revision without

considering the shareholders will not be in the

interest of the Party II and its shareholders’

investment and industry as a whole. Hence, it is

therefore prayed that the reference may be rejected

by holding that the workmen are not entitled to

any relief as prayed.

16. In the Rejoinder at Exhibit 5A the Party I

denied the case put forth by Party II in their Written

Statement.

17. Based on the above mentioned pleadings my

Learned Predecessor has framed the Issues at Exh.

7 which are as follows:

ISSUES

1. Whether the Party I proves that the Charter

of Demands raised by it vide their letter dated

26-06-2012 against the Party II are legal and

justified?

2. Whether the Party II proves that the reference

of the dispute regarding the Charter of

Demands dated 26-06-2-12 during the period

of operation of the earlier Award dated

29-01-2015 in respect of the same demands

is illegal and bad in law?

3. What relief? What Award?

During the present proceedings an application

dated 13-10-2021 for an Award in terms of

settlement came to be filed by all the Parties to the

present reference stating that they have arrived at

a settlement under Section 2(p) read with Section

18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is

at Exh. 29 Colly and that they do not wish to

continue with the reference and prayed that an

award be passed in terms of said settlement dated

23-09-2021.

11. The above application has been signed by

the President of Party I/Union, Mr. Joaquim Gomes,

Working President Shri Puti Goankar and other

Committee Member, so also the representative of

Party II, Mrs. Neeta Brid, General Manager and Mr.

Dileep Verlekar, Consultant and agreed upon the

terms mentioned below:

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1) Terms of Settlement under the Award dated

29-01-2015, in Reference No. IT/28/2009

A. Ex-Gratia payment of Rs. 5000/-:

It has been mutually agreed between both the

Parties that the payment of difference between

Rs. 1450/- per month per worker awarded by the

Tribunal and the increase of Rs. 1125/- given by the

Management is fully complied with by the

Management. However, regarding the difference

which has arisen in the manner of payment, it has

been mutually agreed between the parties that a

onetime payment of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five

thousand only) to be paid to such workmen as

mentioned in Annexure A, who had received less

than the awarded amount.

The above term of the settlement is in

modification/variation of the award dated

29-01-2015 under reference No. IT/28/2009 and shall

be in terms of the order passed in the consent

terms to be filed in writ petitions namely 486/2015

and Writ Petition No. 540/2015 before the High Court

of Bombay at Goa.

In view of the above, the parties mutually agree

that the above payment is towards full and final

settlement of the charter of demand dated

21-10-2008 and in compliance of the Award dated

29-01-2015 under reference No. IT/28/2009 in the

matter of revision of wages. It is further agreed

between the Parties that such ex-gratia payment

shall not be subject to any deductions under Labour

Laws for the time being in force.

Further, the parties shall enter into a consent

terms on the basis of aforesaid mentioned terms

and the same shall be filed before the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay at Goa for order in terms of

settlement.

B. Compensation for unionised workmen who

retired/superannuated on attaining the then

superannuated age of 55 years:

It has been mutually agreed between the parties

that the workmen listed in Annexure B attached

herewith in respect of whom the Industrial Tribunal

has revised the age of retirement as 58 years and

who had retired/superannuated at the age of 55

years shall be entitled to the benefits in the

following manner:

The Workmen who are not engaged by the

Company either as temporary or FTC or Retainer

after superannuating at the age of 55 years shall be

paid compensation/ex-gratia equivalent to 50% of

the gross wages drawn by them at the time of

1028

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

retirement/superannuation that the Workmen

would have been otherwise entitled to if they had

continued to be in regular employment till the age

of 58. This compensation/ex-gratia shall be paid for

the remaining period till they reach 58 years of age

or death whichever is earlier.

(For the purpose of determining 58 years of age,

the actual date on which the workmen completes

58 years shall only be considered).

The above term of the settlement is in

modification/variation of the award dated

29-01-2015 under reference No. IT/28/2009 and shall

be in terms of the order passed in the consent

terms to be filed in writ petitions namely 486/2015

and Writ Petition No. 540/2015 before the High Court

of Bombay at Goa.

In view of the above, the Parties mutually agree

that the above payment is towards full and final

settlement of the charter of demand dated

21-01-2008 and in compliance of the Award dated

29-01-2015 under reference No. IT/28/2009 in the

matter of revision of wages. It is further agreed

between the parties that such ex-gratia payment

shall not be subject to any deductions under Labour

Laws for the time being in force.

Further, the parties shall enter into a consent

terms on the basis of aforesaid mentioned terms

and the same shall be filed before the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay at Goa for Order in terms of

settlement.

2) Settlement of charter of demand dated 24th

June, 2012 pending before the Industrial Tribunal

It has been mutually agreed between the parties

that the permanent Workmen who are members of

the Union and who were on the rolls of the Company

as on 1st February, 2011 and continue to be on rolls

of the Company as on date of signing of the

settlement shall before the period from 01-02-2011

to 31-01-2014 be paid Rs. 1450/- per month ex-gratia

as indicated in Annexure C of this Settlement.

(Formula Rs. 1450 x 36 x 3 on actual attendance

base). It is further agreed between the parties that

such ex-gratia payment shall not be subject to any

deductions under Labour Laws for the time being

in force. Annexure C is attached herewith.

In view of the above, the parties mutually agree

that the said payment is towards full and final

settlement of the charter of demand dated

24-06-2012 and all such demands raised therein in

the proceedings under Reference Number IT/55/

/2016 pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Panaji,

Goa. Further, the parties shall file an application

before the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Panaji, Goa

for Award in terms of Settlement. It is further agreed

between the parties that such ex-gratia payment

shall not be subject to any deductions under Labour

Laws for the time being in force.

Further:

(i) Those eligible Workmen as above who have

superannuated or died/expired during the

course of their employment shall be eligible

to receive the above mentioned ex-gratia.

(ii) It has been mutually agreed between the

parties that those permanent Workmen and

members of the Union who have resigned from

the services between 31st January, 2011 and

the date of signing this Settlement or who

have submitted resignation and are under

notice period shall not be eligible for the

ex-gratia payment mentioned above.

3) Benefits of wage revision & other terms &

conditions of service for the period 1st February,

2014 to 31st January, 2017 and 1st February, 2017 to

till 31st January, 2020

A. Period from 1st February, 2014 to 31st January,

2017: It has been mutually agreed between

the parties that the permanent Workmen who

are members of the Union and who were on

the rolls of the Company as on 1st February,

2014 and continues to be rolls of the Company

as on date of signing of the settlement shall

before the period 01-02-2014 to 31-01-2017 be

paid Rs. 1500/- per month ex-gratia as

indicated in Annexure D of this settlement.

Annexure D is attached herewith.

(Formula Rs. 1500 x 36 x 2 on actual attendance

base). It is further agreed between the parties

that such ex-gratia payment shall not be

subject to any deductions under Labour Laws

for the time being in force.

B. Period from 1st February, 2017 to 31st January,

2020: The operating period of this revision

shall be 1st February, 2017 to 31st January,

2020 and for this period the permanent

Workmen who are members of the Union and

who were on the rolls of the Company on 1st

February, 2017 and continued to be on the

rolls on the Company on the date of signing

this settlement shall be paid Rs. 1600/- per

month as ex-gratia as mentioned in Annexure

E. Annexure E is attached herewith. (Formula

Rs. 1600 x 36 x 1 on actual attendance base).

It is further agreed between the Parties that

such ex-gratia payment shall not be subject

to any deductions under Labour Laws for the

time being in force.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1029

(i) Those eligible Workmen as above who have

superannuated or died/expired during the

course of their employment shall be eligible

to receive the above mentioned ex-gratia.

(ii) It has been mutually agreed between the

parties that those permanent Workmen and

members of the Union who have resigned

from the services between 31st January,

2011 and the date of signing this Settlement

or who have submitted resignation and are

under notice period shall not be eligible for

the ex-gratia payment mentioned above.

In view of payments received as above, the Union

agrees not to raise any demand in respect of the

period from 1st February, 2014 till 31st January,

2020 involving financial liabilities or otherwise on

the Management. This will be treated as full and

final settlement of all demands for the said period

from 1st February, 2014 to 31st January, 2020.

4) Wage revision for three years period from 2020

to 2023

Union has requested the Management that as all

pending matters are amicably settled, the wage

revision for the period from 2020 to 2023 should

also be settled in the larger interest.

Since the Hotel had closed its operations from

April, 2020 till October, 2020 due to Covid-19

Pandemic and consequent lockdown/Government

imposed restrictions and salaries were not paid for

the period from May, 2020 to October, 2020, it has

been mutually agreed that the terms of this

settlement shall be for a period of three years

commencing from 1st November, 2020 (i.e. the date

on which the Hotel restarted operations) till 31st

October, 2023. Accordingly, it is further agreed

between the parties that from the period from May,

2020 to October, 2020 the workmen shall not raise

any claim over the above compensation paid for

the said period and such compensation shall not

be subject to deductions.

A. Period of Settlement and Applicability:

This settlement shall be operative for a period of

three years from 1st November, 2020 to 31st October,

2023 and applicable to only those permanent

Workmen who are members of the Union and who

were on the permanent rolls of the company as of

1st November, 2020 and continued to be on the

rolls of the Company as on the date of signing this

settlement and as mentioned in Annexure F,

attached herewith.

B. Grades and Scales:

It has been mutually agreed between both the

parties that Grades and Scales shall be revised as

under:

GRADE SCALE

825-115-1400-125-2025-135-2700-145-3425-

155-4200-165-5025-175-5900-185-6825.

II.

1025-125-1650-135-2325-145-3050-155-3825-

165-4650-175-5525-185-6450-195-7425

III.

1225-135-1900-145-2625-155-3400-165-4225-

175-5100-185-6025-195-7000-205-8025.

IV.

1425-145-2150-155-2925-165-3750-175-4625-

185-5550-195-6525-205-7550-215-8625.

1625-155-2400-165-3225-175-1400-185-5025-

195-6000-205-7025-215-8100-225-9225.

VI.

1825-165-2650-175-3525-185-4450-195-5425-

205-6450-215-7525-225-8650-235-9825.

VII.

2025-175-2900-185-3825-195-4800-205-5825-

215-6900-225-8025-235-9200-245-10425-255-

11700-265-13025.

VIII.

2225-185-3150-195-4125-205-5150-215-6225-

225-7350-235-8525-245-9750-265-12350-275-

13725.

C. Restructuring wage:

It has been mutually agreed between both the

parties that the gross wages as on 31st October,

2020 shall be arrived at after adding the monthly

ex-gratia payment as referred to in Clause 2 (Rs.

1450/-), 3A (Rs. 1500/-) Workman to the maximum of

Rs. 4550/-. It is further agreed between the parties

that to the total gross amount thus arrived at shall

be added a sum of Rs. 1600/- and the total

cumulative amount shall be paid in the manner

provided hereunder:

a) Basic: It has been mutually agreed between

the parties that 40% of the Gross wages less VDA

shall be treated as the new Basic and fitted into

respected Grade and Scale of each employee…

The next annual increment shall be due on 1st

April 2022.

b) Fixed Dearness Allowance: It has been

mutually agreed between the parties that out of

the balance Gross wage (less new Basic and VDA)

Rs. 2500/- shall be the new FDA.

c) House Rent Allowance and Children’s

Education Allowance: It has been further mutually

agreed between the parties that the balance

Cross salary (less new Basic, FDA and VDA) shall

be divided between HRA and children’s

Education Allowance in equal proportion.

d) Variable Dearness Allowance: It has been

mutually agreed between the parties that till

1030

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

31-10-2023, the VDA shall follow ALL INDIA

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR INDUSTRIAL

WORKERS 1960=100 base in the following

manner:

CPI Index 1960=100 neutralised at 1672 points

From

Rate

Total

Amount

per Point

Points

Payable

1673

3026

1.3

1353

1758.0

3027

8000

1.4

4512

8001

10000

1.5

2500

10001

1.6

and above

The Index Average per quarter and payable

quarter shall be as follows:

Index for Quarter

Payable for the Quarter

Jan - March

July - Sept

April - June

Oct - Dec

July - Sept

Jan- March

Oct - Dec

April - June

5) National & festival holidays

It has been mutually agreed between the parties

the Workmen shall be entitled to the following

National and Festival Holidays.

1. Republic Day.

2. Good Friday.

3. Labour Day.

4. Independence Day.

5. Ganesh Chaturthi (First Day).

6. Gandhi Jayanti.

7. St. Francis Fest.

8. Goa Liberation Day.

9. Christmas Day.

In addition to above Holidays workmen can avail

of two Restricted Holidays of their choice.

6) Overtime Payment: It has been mutually agreed

between the parties that the existing practice of

paying Overtime shall continue unaltered.

7) Leave: It has been mutually agreed between

the parties that the existing confirmed employees

shall be eligible for following leave

A. Privilege leave 27 days per year provided he

has put in 240 days attendance in a calendar

year.

B. Maximum balance as per prevailing practice.

C. Casual leave 07 days per calendar year non-

cumulative.

D. Sick leave 10 days for those employees who

are out of ESIC coverage. Maximum balance

20 days.

8) Gratutity: It has been mutually agreed

between the parties that the present practice of

payment of Gratuity shall continue for all existing

workmen as referred in Annexure F.

9) Loan: It has been mutually agreed between

the parties that he present practice of advancing

Rs. 10,000/- as interest free loan for repair of house,

purchase of land for residential purpose and for

marriage shall continue, subject however to the

condition that the benefit shall be restricted to

maximum of twenty applicants per year. However

the decision of the Management shall be final.

10) Compensation in case of accidental death of

employee while on duty: It has been mutually agreed

between the parties that all permanent employees

shall contribute one day’s basic wage and

Management shall match with equal amount and

pay the same to legal heir of the deceased

employees.

11) Accident on duty: It has been mutually agreed

between the parties that the existing practice of

giving/arranging first aid through company’s doctor

or Government/private hospital shall be continued.

12) Staff day: It has been mutually agreed

between the parties that the practice of giving a

gift of Rs. 1500/- value each to those Workmen who

have completed ten years of service in the Company

shall be continued.

13) Applicability:

A. The settlement shall be applicable to all the

permanent Workmen who are members of

the Union as referred in Annexure A, B, C, D,

E and F and who are on the rolls of the

settlement.

B. It has been agreed that the benefit of this

settlement shall not be extended to workmen

who have raised individual dispute against

the Company. However all efforts will be

made to amicably settle these matters in

consultation with the Union/concerned

individual workman.

C. The workmen availing the benefits under this

settlement shall contribute 7.5% of the total

arrears to the Union signatory to this

settlement. The said amount shall be

recovered from the arrears arising from this

settlement. The terms & conditions of serve

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1031

and other benefits/privileges incorporated

the earlier settlements and not varied by this

settlement or by any law for the time being

in force shall continue as if specifically

provided in this settlement.

14) Period of settlement: This settlement shall be

binding for three years period commencing from

1st November, 2020 and ending on 31st October,

2023 and shall continue to remain in force and

binding thereafter until it is terminated in the

manner envisaged under Section 19 of the Industrial

dispute Act 1947.

15) Payments of arrears:

A. The revised salary shall be incorporated in

September, 2021 salary and the arrears from

1st November, 2020 to 31st August, 2021 shall

be paid on or before 30th June, 2022.

B. The arrears arising out of this settlement

shall be paid in installments as follows:

i. The Payment as per Annexure A and 50%

of the amount as mentioned in Annexure

B shall be paid on or before 30th

September, 2021.

ii. The remaining 50% of Annexure B and

50% of the payment as per Annexure C

shall be paid two days before Diwali 2021.

iii. Balance 50% of payment as per Annexure

C and 50% of Annexure D shall be paid

during Christmas 2021.

iv. The remaining 50% of the Payment as per

Annexure D and 50% of Annexure E shall

be paid on or before 25th March, 2022.

v. Balance 50% of payment as per Annexure

E shall be paid on or before 31st May,

2022.

The Tax applicable as per Income Tax Act will

be calculated and deducted at source while paying

each installment or monthly salary as done in the

past.

16) Miscellaneous:

A. As agreed, the Signatory Union has obtained

approval of the members to sign the present

settlement at the General Body Meeting held

on 25-08-2021 and the resolution so passed

in the General Body Meeting has been

handed over to the company Management.

B. It has been mutually agreed by the parties

that this Settlement is in full and final

settlement of all the demands raised by the

Union and workmen in their Charter of

Demands dated 21-01-2008, and the

consequent Award dated 29-01-2015 of

Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. IT/28/

/2009 and the consequent Writ Petition

number 486/2015 and 540/2015 pending

before in the High Court of Bombay at Goa,

and the Charter of Demands dated

24-06-2012 being currently adjudicated in

reference Number IT/55/2016 before the

Industrial Tribunal, Panaji.

C. In view of the present settlement, both the

parties agree to jointly file consent terms on

the basis of the terms mentioned in Clause

(1) above in Writ Petition No. 486/2015 and

Writ Petition No. 540/2015 pending before

the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa for

order in terms of settlement.

D. In view of the present settlement, both the

parties agree to jointly file an application on

the basis of the terms mentioned in Clause

(2) above before the Industrial Tribunal,

Panaji-Goa in Reference No. IT/55/2016 with

a prayer for an award in terms of the

settlement.

E. It has been further mutually agreed by the

parties that, in the view of the above

mentioned amicable settlement arrived

between the parties:

i. The Union agrees not to pursue reference

IT/37/2013 in the matter of service charges

presently pending before the Industrial

Tribunal Panaji-Goa and the parties further

agree to file an application before the

industrial Tribunal, Panaji for an award in

terms of settlement.

ii. The Management agrees that the

Management shall pay the Union/

workmen out of the aggregate amount of

Rs. 11,29,200 which is deposited before

the High Court of Bombay at Goa vide

cheque bearing No. 464017 dated

10-10-2020 drawn on IDBI Bank, Panaji Goa,

in Writ Petition 918/2019 an amount

Rs. 94,062/- (8.33% towards ex-gratia and

the concerned workmen shall be entitled

to withdraw the said amount by making

an application before the High Court of

Bombay at Goa.

Both parties agree to sign an application for

award in terms of settlement/consent terms

covering-clauses 16(A), 16(B), 16(C), 16 (D), and 16

(E) which will be signed simultaneously with the

signing of this terms of settlement for submitting

to the Court/Appropriate authorities for obtaining

the appropriate orders.

1032

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

F. The Union agrees that in view of the above,

during the period of the settlement,

workmen/Union shall not raise any demands

involving any financial or any other liability

on the Company.

G. The Union and the Workmen agree to

maintain industrial peace and harmony

during the subsistence of the settlement and

shall not resort to any direct actions, and

shall take recourse to the machinery provided

under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

H. All such workmen who wish to avail the

benefits under this settlements with all its

terms and conditions incorporated therein

shall have to give specific individual

declaration as enclosed hereto as Annexure

G within 10 days of the date of the settlement

that the terms of this settlement are

acceptable and binding upon him/her.

He/she would have to further declare that

the settlement is in full and final settlement

of all the demands made by him/her or by

and Union on his/her behalf and agree not to

raise or pursue any demand raised by

him/her or any Union on his/her behalf on

any items covered by the settlement. The

workmen referred to in the annexure A, B, C,

D, E and F of the settlement shall make a

contribution @ 7.5% of the arrears received

by them to the Union who is signatory to

this settlement and the management agree

to deduct the said amount at source from

the arrears payable to the workmen under

the settlement and transfer the said amount

to bank account of the Union.

I. The terms and conditions of service and other

benefits/privileges incorporated in the earlier

settlements or any written understanding

between the parties and not varied by this

settlement or by any law from time to time

in force shall continue as if specifically

provided in this settlement.

J. It has been agreed mutually to submit jointly

copies of this settlement to The Labour

Commissioner Panaji for Registration under

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

12. I have gone through the application dated

13-10-2021 along with the Memorandum of

Settlement at Exh. 29 Colly filed by both the Parties,

which in my view, are just and fair and in the interest

of both the Workmen/Party I as well as Employer/

/Party II and hence, the same are accepted.

In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The reference at the instance of both the

Parties stands disposed off in view of the

application dated 13-10-2021 at Exhibit 29

Colly.

(ii) Consequently, the benefits of the Settlement

shall be extended to the workmen of Party II.

(iii) No order as to costs.

(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Bela N. Naik),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

_______

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/Part-III/576

The following Award passed by the Industrial

and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 08-11-2021 in

Ref. No. IT/37/2013 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, 19th November, 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/37/2013

Workmen,

Rep. by the President,

Cidade-de-Goa Hotel Employees Union,

C/o Hotel Cidade de Goa,

Vaiguinim Beach,

Dona Paula-Goa …

Workmen/Party I

V/s

1. M/s Hotel Cidade de Goa,

Unit of Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd.,

Vaiguinim Beach,

Dona Paula-Goa

…

Employer/Party II (1)

2. M/s Indian Hotels Company Ltd.,

Vaiguinim Beach,

Dona Paula-Goa … Party II (2)

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1033

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Rep. Shri P.

Gaonkar.

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

K. Sardessai along with Adv. Ms. N. Gaonkar.

Party II (2) is represented by Ld. Adv. P. J. Kamat.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 8th day of the month of

November of the year 2021)

By Order dated 18-09-2013, bearing No. 28/41/

/2013-Lab/635, the Government of Goa in exercise of

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

Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘The Act’), has referred

the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication.

“(1) Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Hotel Cidade de Goa, Vaiguinim Beach, Goa

in reducing the service charges payable to the

employees by making the deductions towards

the labour charges and breakage, with effect from

April, 2009, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/37/2013 and registered AD notices were issued

to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,

Party I filed a claim statement at Exb. 4 and Party II

filed its Written Statement at Exhibit 5.

3. The Party II is engaged in the Hotel business

and is one of the oldest hotel in the State of Goa having

reputation in business worldwide. The Party I states

that the Hotel Cidade de Goa is a 5 Star Hotel having

huge business and financially very strong and has

made huge profits in the last consecutive three years.

The Cidade de Goa Hotel Employees Union is a

registered Union and is recognized by the Party II

since its registration and since the formation of the

Union, the Party II was signing the settlements with

the Union and the last settlement was signed on

23-12-2004 for the period commencing from

01-08-2003 and the settlement dated 23-12-2004 was

to be expired on 31-01-2008 and hence the Union

submitted the fresh charter of demands dated

21-01-2008, but the Party II inspite of having sound

financial position did not accept the charter of

demands and the Party II refused to give reasonable

rights and hence raised an industrial dispute before

the Labour Commissioner, Panaji vide their letter

dated 31-10-2008. The Party I states that as the

workmen have resolved to refer the dispute of charter

of demands for adjudication, the Employer got

annoyed and started withdrawing some of the

facilities such as the Management started paying

less charges after deducting the amount from the

service charges and when the workers came to know

about the illegal deduction from their service

charges, they approached the Union and raised the

issue of deduction before the Manager-HR.

4. The Party I further states no positive steps were

taken by the Manager-HR and as such the workmen

made written representation dated 03-06-2009 to

their Food and Beverage Manager. This issue was

also not resolved by the Management and no reply

was also received from the Management nor the

deductions were stopped and as such the Union vide

their letter dated 16-12-2009 raised an industrial

dispute before the Dy. Labour Commissioner for

intervention. The Asst. Labour Commissioner on

various occasions called both the Parties to settle

the matter but the Party II Management acted in an

adamant attitude and as such the conciliation failed.

Upon receipt of the Failure Report the dispute was

referred and hence vide letter dated 18-09-2013, the

Government of Goa was pleased to refer the present

dispute to this Tribunal which is as stated above.

Hence, it is therefore prayed by the Party I that they

are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the Statement

of Claim.

5. In response, the Party II filed their detailed reply

denying the case put forth by the Party I and states

that the order of reference dated 18-09-2013 is illegal,

bad in law, null and void and not maintainable and

the present reference needs to be rejected and they

have raised their objections in the Written Statement

to that effect. It is stated that the Claim Statement

has been signed by Mr. Joaquim Gomes purporting

to be the President of the said Union is not a

competent authority to sign the Claim Statement.

6. It is further stated that there was no agreement

or understanding with the Union or its workmen for

payment of the amount of service charges collected

by the Company as the Union/workmen had no

existing right to claim the entire amount of service

charges collected by the Management or any portion

thereof and the said payment was entirely at the sole

discretion of the Company. It is also stated that there

was no agreement or understanding with the Union

or its workmen regarding the various heads of

deduction which was towards breakages of crockery

and cutlery and labour charges to be made from the

amount of service charges collected by the Company

and therefore the workmen had no existing right to

claim that they were entitled to the entire amount of

service charges collected by the Management

without any deduction whatsoever. It is also stated

that right from the commencement of hotel business

1034

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

in 1982, the Company and the Union have entered

into various industrial settlements. However, the

Management of the Company never agreed for

payment of “service charges” or its quantum to its

workmen under any of all the settlements with the

Union at any point of time till date.

7. That under the charter of demand dated

12-08-2000 submitted by the Union, the Union had,

for the first time made demand under Item No.10 for

payment of service charges but this demand was

dropped in the settlement dated 21-05-2001 effective

from the period from 01-08-2000 to 31-07-2003. The

union thereafter in their further charter of demands

dated 30-07-2003 at Item No. 10 made demand for

payment of service charges as mentioned in detail in

the Written Statement.

8. It is further stated that the payment,

disbursement of portion of the amount collected by

way of service charges from the bills of the customers

by the Management of the Company to the workmen

was neither in terms of contract of employment,

either express or implied entered into with the said

workmen or in any terms of settlement, Award or any

understanding with the Union and the said payment

was entirely at the sole discretion of the Management

of the Company.

9. That in the month of April, 2009 it was decided

by the Management of the Company to deduct

expenses incurred towards the engagement of

Outdoor Caterer employees together with the cost

of transport and cost of providing meals, uniform to

the said employees and being aggrieved by this

decision the workers from F&B Department made a

representation dated 19-08-2009 objecting to this

decision of the Management and requesting them to

stop the payment done to ODC Staff and labourers

from the amount of service charges collected by the

Management w.e.f. April, 2009. The Management did

not agree to this demand and as such the Union made

a complaint/representation to the Labour

Commissioner dated 16-12-2009. The Management

of the Company sent their detailed reply dated

13-05-2010 and thereafter the meeting was held

before the Conciliation Officer and Asst. Labour

Commissioner at Panaji on 06-03-2013 and the matter

could not be resolved and the conciliation

proceedings ended in failure. The Failure Report

dated 19-06-2013 was forwarded to the Secretary

(Labour), Government of Goa and thereafter the

matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Party II therefore prays that the reference may

be rejected holding that the Union is not entitled for

any reliefs prayed for or to any other reliefs.

10. In the Rejoinder at Exhibit 6 the Party I denied

the case put forth by Party II in the Written Statement.

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

its witness Shri Joaquim Gomes and produced on

record a copy of letter of Union dated 24-08-2009 at

Exh. 19, a copy of letter of Union to Dy. Labour

Commissioner dated 16-12-2009 at Exh. 20, a copy of

notice of Asst. Labour Commissioner dated

12-02-2010 at Exh. 21, a copy of letter dated 13-05-2010

of the Employer to Asst. Labour Commissioner at Exh.

22, a copy of reply of Union dated 28-06-2010 to the

Management letter dated 13-05-2010 at Exh. 23, copy

of Minutes of meeting dated 06-02-2013 at Exh. 24, a

copy of failure report dated 19-06-2013 at Exh. 25, a

copy of letter dated 19-08-2009 at Exh. 26, a copy of

list of tips collection for the month of Oct., Dec., 2009

and Jan 2010 as made by the A/c Dept. at Exh. 26A

Colly, a copy of calculation of service charges and

tips collected for the month of Jan, 2008 of Joaquim

Gomes at Exh. 27 Colly, a copy of calculation of service

charges for the month of July and Oct, 2009 at Exh. 28

Colly, a copy of calculation of service charges for the

month of Oct, 2011 at Exh. 29, a copy of calculation of

service charges for the month of April, 2012 at Exh.

30, a copy of calculation of service charges for the

month of April and Dec, 2013 at Exh. 31 Colly, a copy

of calculation of service charges for the month of

March, 2014 at Exh. 32, a copy of General Ledger

Report from 01-04-2012 to 31-05-2012 and from

01-04-2013 to 30-06-2013 at Exh. 33 Colly and a copy

of IDS Sheet of 2014 at Exh. 34 Colly. During cross-

examination by Adv. G. B. Kamat for Party II (1) a copy

of letter dated 28-06-2010 addressed by the Union to

the Assistant Labour Commissioner is taken on

record and marked as Exh. 35.

12. That during the pendency of the present

proceedings an application for intervention came to

be filed at Exh. 36 by the Party I/Workmen for

impleading Indian Hotels Company Limited as a Party

to the present proceedings and my Learned

Predecessor vide Order dated 23-09-2019 granted the

said application and as such M/s Indian Hotels

Company Limited is Party II (2) in the present case.

13. Written Statement came to be filed by Party II

(2) which is at Exh. 42 and Rejoinder to this Written

Statement of Party II (2) came to be filed by the Party

I/Workmen which is at Exh. 43.

14. During the present proceedings an application

dated 13-10-2021 for an Award in terms of settlement

came to be filed by all the Parties to the present

reference stating that they have arrived at a

settlement under Section 2 (p) read with Section 18

(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is at

Exh. 49 Colly stating that they do not wish to continue

with the reference and prayed that an award be

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1035

passed in terms of said settlement dated 23-09-2021.

15. The above application has been signed by the

President of Party I/Union, Mr. Joaquim Gomes,

Working President Shri Puti Goankar and other

Committee Member, so also the representative of

Party II, Mrs. Neeta Brid, General Manager and Mr.

Dileep Verlekar, Consultant and agreed upon the

terms mentioned below:

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1) TERMS OF SETTLEMENT UNDER THE AWARD

DATED 29-01-2015, IN REFERENCE NO. IT/28/2009

A. EX-GRATIA PAYMENT OF Rs. 5000/-.

It has been mutually agreed between both the

Parties that the payment of difference between Rs. 1,450/-

per month per worker awarded by the Tribunal and

the increase of Rs. 1,125/- given by the Management

is fully complied with by the Management. However,

regarding the difference which has arisen in the

manner of payment, it has been mutually agreed

between the parties that a onetime payment of Rs. 5,000/-

(Rupees Five thousand only) to be paid to such

workmen as mentioned in Annexure A, who had

received less than the awarded amount.

The above terms of the settlement is in

modification/variation of the award dated 29-01-2015

under reference No. IT/28/2009 and shall be in terms

of the order passed in the consent terms to be filed in

Writ Petitions namely 486/2015 and Writ Petition

No. 540/2015 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

In view of the above, the parties mutually agree

that the above payment is towards full and final

settlement of the charter of demand dated 21-10-2008

and in compliance of the Award dated 29-01-2015

under reference No. IT/28/2009 in the matter of

revision of wages. It is further agreed between the

Parties that such ex-gratia payment shall not be

subject to any deductions under Labour Laws for the

time being in force.

Further, the parties shall enter into a consent terms

on the basis of aforesaid mentioned terms and the

same shall be filed before the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay at Goa for order in terms of settlement.

B. COMPENSATION FOR UNIONISED WORKMEN

WHO RETIRED/SUPERANNUATED ON ATTAINING

THE THEN SUPERANNUATED AGE OF 55 YEARS.

It has been mutually agreed between the parties

that the workmen listed in Annexure B attached

herewith in respect of whom the Industrial Tribunal

has revised the age of retirement as 58 years and

who had retired/superannuated at the age of 55

years shall be entitled to the benefits in the following

manner:

The Workmen who are not engaged by the

Company either as temporary or FTC or Retainer after

superannuating at the age of 55 years shall be paid

compensation/ex-gratia equivalent to 50% of the

gross wages drawn by them at the time of retirement/

superannuation that the Workmen would have been

otherwise entitled to if they had continued to be in

regular employment till the age of 58. This

compensation/ex-gratia shall be paid for the

remaining period till they reach 58 years of age or

death whichever is earlier.

(For the purpose of determining 58 years of age,

the actual date on which the workmen completes 58

years shall only be considered).

The above term of the settlement is in

modification/variation of the award dated 29-01-2015

under reference No. IT/28/2009 and shall be in terms

of the order passed in the consent terms to be filed in

Writ Petitions namely 486/2015 and Writ Petition

No. 540/2015 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

In view of the above, the Parties mutually agree

that the above payment is towards full and final

settlement of the charter of demand dated 21-01-2008

and in compliance of the Award dated 29-01-2015

under reference No. IT/28/2009 in the matter of

revision of wages. It is further agreed between the

parties that such ex-gratia payment shall not be

subject to any deductions under Labour Laws for the

time being in force.

Further, the parties shall enter into a consent terms

on the basis of aforesaid mentioned terms and the

same shall be filed before the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay at Goa for Order in terms of settlement.

2) SETTLEMENT OF CHARTER OF DEMAND

DATED 24th JUNE, 2012 PENDING BEFORE THE

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL.

It has been mutually agreed between the parties

that the permanent Workmen who are members of

the Union and who were on the rolls of the Company

as on 1st February, 2011 and continue to be on rolls of

the Company as on date of signing of the settlement

shall before the period from 01-02-2011 to 31-01-2014

be paid Rs. 1450/- per month ex-gratia as indicated

in Annexure C of this Settlement. (Formula Rs.

1450x36x3 on actual attendance base). It is further

agreed between the parties that such ex-gratia

payment shall not be subject to any deductions under

Labour Laws for the time being in force. Annexure C

is attached herewith.

In view of the above, the parties mutually agree

that the said payment is towards full and final

settlement of the charter of demand dated 24-06-2012

and all such demands raised therein in the

proceedings under Reference Number IT/55/2016

1036

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Panaji, Goa.

Further, the parties shall file an application before

the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal, Panaji, Goa for Award

in terms of Settlement. It is further agreed between

the parties that such ex-gratia payment shall not be

subject to any deductions under Labour Laws for the

time being in force.

Further:

(i) Those eligible Workmen as above who have

superannuated or died/expired during the

course of their employment shall be eligible

to receive the above mentioned ex-gratia.

(ii) It has been mutually agreed between the

parties that those permanent Workmen and

members of the Union who have resigned from

the services between 31st January, 2011 and

the date of signing this Settlement or who

have submitted resignation and are under

notice period shall not be eligible for the

ex-gratia payment mentioned above.

3) BENEFITS OF WAGE REVISION & OTHER

TERMS & CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FOR THE

PERIOD 1st FEBRUARY, 2014 TO 31st JANUARY,

2017 AND 1st FEBRUARY, 2017 TO TILL 31st

JANUARY, 2020

A. Period from 1st February, 2014 to 31st January,

2017: It has been mutually agreed between the

parties that the permanent Workmen who are

members of the Union and who were on the rolls

of the Company as on 1st February, 2014 and

continues to be rolls of the Company as on date

of signing of the settlement shall before the

period 01-02-2014 to 31-01-2017 be paid Rs.

1500/- per month ex-gratia as indicated in

Annexure D of this settlement. Annexure D is

attached herewith.

(Formula Rs. 1500x36x2 on actual attendance

base). It is further agreed between the parties

that such ex-gratia payment shall not be subject

to any deductions under Labour Laws for the

time being in force.

B. Period from 1st February, 2017 to 31st January,

2020: The operating period of this revision shall

be 1st February, 2017 to 31st January, 2020 and

for this period the permanent Workmen who

are members of the Union and who were on the

rolls of the Company on 1st February, 2017 and

continued to be on the rolls on the Company on

the date of signing this settlement shall be paid

Rs.1600/- per month as ex-gratia as mentioned

in Annexure E. Annexure E is attached

herewith. (Formula Rs. 1600x36x1 on actual

attendance base) It is further agreed between

the Parties that such ex-gratia payment shall

not be subject to any deductions under Labour

Laws for the time being in force.

(i) Those eligible Workmen as above who have

superannuated or died/expired during the

course of their employment shall be eligible to

receive the above mentioned ex-gratia.

(ii) It has been mutually agreed between the parties

that those permanent Workmen and members

of the Union who have resigned from the

services between 31st January, 2011 and the

date of signing this Settlement or who have

submitted resignation and are under notice

period shall not be eligible for the ex-gratia

payment mentioned above.

In view of payments received as above, the Union

agrees not to raise any demand in respect of the

period from 1st February, 2014 till 31st January, 2020

involving financial liabilities or otherwise on the

Management. This will be treated as full and final

settlement of all demands for the said period from

1st February, 2014 to 31st January, 2020.

4) WAGE REVISION FOR THREE YEARS PERIOD

FROM 2020 TO 2023.

Union has requested the Management that as all

pending matters are amicably settled, the wage

revision for the period from 2020 to 2023 should also

be settled in the larger interest.

Since the Hotel had closed its operations from

April, 2020 till October, 2020 due to Covid-19

Pandemic and consequent lockdown/Government

imposed restrictions and salaries were not paid for

the period from May, 2020 to October, 2020, it has

been mutually agreed that the terms of this

settlement shall be for a period of three years

commencing from 1st November, 2020 (i.e. the date

on which the Hotel restarted operations) till 31st

October, 2023. Accordingly, it is further agreed

between the parties that from the period from May,

2020 to October, 2020 the workmen shall not raise

any claim over the above compensation paid for the

said period and such compensation shall not be

subject to deductions.

A. Period of Settlement and Applicability:

This settlement shall be operative for a period of

three years from 1st November, 2020 to 31st October,

2023 and applicable to only those permanent

Workmen who are members of the Union and who

were on the permanent rolls of the company as of 1st

November, 2020 and continued to be on the rolls of

the Company as on the date of signing this settlement

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1037

and as mentioned in Annexure F, attached herewith.

B. Grades and Scales:

It has been mutually agreed between both the

parties that Grades and Scales shall be revised as

under:

GRADE SCALE

825-115-1400-125-2025-135-2700-145-3425-

155-4200-165-5025-175-5900-185-6825.

II.

1025-125-1650-135-2325-145-3050-155-3825-

165-4650-175-5525-185-6450-195-7425.

III.

1225-135-1900-145-2625-155-3400-165-4225-

175-5100-185-6025-195-7000-205-8025.

IV.

1425-145-2150-155-2925-165-3750-175-4625-

185-5550-195-6525-205-7550-215-8625.

1625-155-2400-165-3225-175-1400-185-5025-

195-6000-205-7025-215-8100-225-9225.

VI.

1825-165-2650-175-3525-185-4450-195-5425-

205-6450-215-7525-225-8650-235-9825.

VII.

2025-175-2900-185-3825-195-4800-205-5825-

215-6900-225-8025-235-9200-245-10425-255-

11700-265-13025.

VIII.

2225-185-3150-195-4125-205-5150-215-6225-

225-7350-235-8525-245-9750-265-12350-275-

13725.

C. Restructuring wage:

It has been mutually agreed between both the

parties that the gross wages as on 31st October, 2020

shall be arrived at after adding the monthly ex-gratia

payment as referred to in Clause 2 (Rs. 1450/-), 3A

(Rs. 1500/-) Workman to the maximum of Rs. 4550/-. It

is further agreed between the parties that to the total

gross amount thus arrived at shall be added a sum of

Rs. 1600/- and the total cumulative amount shall be

paid in the manner provided hereunder:

a) BASIC: It has been mutually agreed between

the parties that 40% of the Gross wages less VDA

shall be treated as the new Basic and fitted into

respected Grade and Scale of each employee… The

next annual increment shall be due on 1st April, 2022.

b) FIXED DEARNESS ALLOWANCE: It has been

mutually agreed between the parties that out of the

balance Gross wage (less new Basic and VDA)

Rs. 2500/- shall be the new FDA.

c) HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE AND CHILDREN’S

EDUCTIOAN ALLOWANCE: It has been further

mutually agreed between the parties that the

balance Cross salary (less new Basic, FDA and VDA)

shall be divided between HRA and children’s

Education Allowance in equal proportion.

d) VARIABLE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE: It has

been mutually agreed between the parties that till

31-10-2023, the VDA shall follow ALL INDIA

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR INDUSTRIAL

WORKERS 1960=100 base in the following manner:

CPI INDEX 1960=100 NEUTRALISED AT 1672

POINTS

From

Rate

Total

Amount

per Point

Points

Payable

1673

3026

1.3

1353

1758.0

3027

8000

1.4

4512

8001

10000

1.5

2500

10001

1.6

and above

The Index Average per quarter and payable

quarter shall be as follows:

Index for Quarter

Payable for the Quarter

Jan - March

July - Sept

April - June

Oct - Dec

July - Sept

Jan - March

Oct - Dec

April - June

5) NATIONAL & FESTIVAL HOLIDAYS:

It has been mutually agreed between the parties

the Workmen shall be entitled to the following

National and Festival Holidays.

1. REPUBLIC DAY

2. GOOD FRIDAY

3. LABOUR DAY

4. INDEPENDENCE DAY

5. GANESH CHATURTHI (FIRST DAY)

6. GANDHI JAYANTI

7. ST FRANCIS FEST

8. GOA LIBRATION DAY

9. CHRISMAS DAY

In addition to above Holidays workmen can avail

of two Restricted Holidays of their choice.

6) OVERTIME PAYMENT: It has been mutually

agreed between the parties that the existing practice

of paying Overtime shall continue unaltered.

7) LEAVE: It has been mutually agreed between

the parties that the existing Confirmed Employees

shall be eligible for following leave

A. Privilege leave 27 days per year provided he

has put in 240 days attendance in a calendar year.

1038

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

B. Maximum balance as per prevailing practice.

C. Casual leave 07 days per calendar year non-

cumulative.

D. Sick leave 10 days for those employees who

are out of ESIC coverage. Maximum balance

20 days.

8) GRATUTITY: It has been mutually agreed

between the parties that the present practice of

payment of Gratuity shall continue for all existing

workmen as referred in Annexure F.

9) LOAN: It has been mutually agreed between

the parties that he present practice of advancing Rs.

10,000/- as interest free loan for repair of house,

purchase of land for residential purpose and for

marriage shall continue, subject however to the

condition that the benefit shall be restricted to

maximum of twenty applicants per year. However

the decision of the Management shall be final.

10) COMPENSATION IN CASE OF ACCIDENTAL

DEATH OF EMPLOYEE WHILE ON DUTY: It has been

mutually agreed between the parties that all

permanent employees shall contribute one day’s

basic wage and Management shall match with equal

amount and pay the same to legal heir of the deceased

employees.

11) ACCIDENT ON DUTY: It has been mutually

agreed between the parties that the existing practice

of giving/arranging first aid through company’s

doctor or Government/private hospital shall be

continued.

12) STAFF DAY: It has been mutually agreed

between the parties that the practice of giving a gift

of Rs. 1500/- value each to those Workmen who have

completed ten years of service in the Company shall

be continued.

13) APPLICABILITY:

A. The settlement shall be applicable to all the

permanent Workmen who are members of the

Union as referred in Annexure A, B, C, D, E and

F and who are on the rolls of the settlement.

B. It has been agreed that he benefit of this

settlement shall not be extended to workmen

who have raised individual dispute against the

Company. However all efforts will be made to

amicably settle these matters in consultation

with the Union/concerned individual

workman.

C. The workmen availing the benefits under this

settlement shall contribute 7.5% of the total

arrears to the Union signatory to this

settlement. The said amount shall be recovered

from the arrears arising from this settlement.

The terms & conditions of serve and other

benefits/privileges incorporated the earlier

settlements and not varied by this settlement

or by any law for the time being in force shall

continue as if specifically provided in this

settlement.

14) PERIOD OF SETTLEMENT: This settlement

shall be binding for three years period commencing

from 1st November, 2020 and ending on 31st October,

2023 and shall continue to remain in force and

binding thereafter until it is terminated in the manner

envisaged under section 19 of the Industrial dispute

Act 1947.

15) PAYMENTS OF ARREARS:

A. The revised salary shall be incorporated in

September, 2021 salary and the arrears from

1st November, 2020 to 31st August, 2021 shall

be paid on or before 30th June, 2022.

B. The arrears arising out of this settlement shall

be paid in installments as follows:

i. The Payment as per Annexure A and 50%

of the amount as mentioned in Annexure

B shall be paid on or before 30th

September, 2021.

ii. The remaining 50% of Annexure B and

50% of the payment as per Annexure C

shall be paid two days before Diwali 2021.

iii. Balance 50% of payment as per Annexure

C and 50% of Annexure D shall be paid

during Christmas 2021.

iv. The remaining 50% of the Payment as per

Annexure D and 50% of Annexure E shall

be paid on or before 25th March, 2022.

v. Balance 50% of payment as per Annexure

E shall be paid on or before 31st May,

2022.

The Tax applicable as per Income Tax Act will be

calculated and deducted at source while paying each

instalment or monthly salary as done in the past.

16) MISCELLANEOUS:

A. As agreed, the Signatory Union has obtained

approval of the members to sign the present

settlement at the General Body Meeting held

on 25-08-2021 and the resolution so passed in

the General Body Meeting has been handed

over to the company Management.

B. It has been mutually agreed by the parties

that this Settlement is in full and final

settlement of all the demands raised by the

Union and workmen in their Charter of

Demands dated 21-01-2008, and the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1039

consequent Award dated 29-01-2015 of

Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. It/28/2009

and the consequent Writ Petition number 486/

/2015 and 540/2015 pending before in the High

Court of Bombay at Goa, and the Charter of

Demands dated 24-06-2012 being currently

adjudicated in reference Number IT/55/2016

before the Industrial Tribunal, Panaji.

C. In view of the present settlement, both the

parties agree to jointly file consent terms on

the basis of the terms mentioned in Clause (1)

above in Writ Petition No. 486/2015 and Writ

Petition No. 540/2015 pending before the

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa for order

in terms of settlement.

D. In view of the present settlement, both the

parties agree to jointly file an application on

the basis of the terms mentioned in Clause (2)

above before the Industrial Tribunal, Panaji-

Goa in Reference No. IT/55/2016 with a prayer

for an award in terms of the settlement.

E. It has been further mutually agreed by the

parties that, in the view of the above

mentioned amicable settlement arrived

between the parties:

i. The Union agrees not to pursue reference IT/

/37/2013 in the matter of service charges

presently pending before the Industrial

Tribunal Panaji Goa and the parties further

agree to file an application before the

Industrial Tribunal, Panaji for an award in terms

of settlement.

ii. The Management agrees that the Management

shall pay the Union/workmen out of the

aggregate amount of Rs. 11,29,200 which is

deposited before the High Court of Bombay at

Goa vide cheque bearing No. 464017 dated

10-10-2020 drawn on IDBI Bank, Panaji Goa, in

Writ Petition 918/2019 an amount Rs. 94,062/-

(8.33% towards ex-gratia and the concerned

workmen shall be entitled to withdraw the said

amount by making an application before the

High Court of Bombay at Goa.

Both parties agree to sign an application for

award in terms of settlement/consent terms

covering-clauses 16 (A), 16 (B), 16 (C), 16 (D),

and 16 (E) which will be singed simultaneously

with the signing of this terms of settlement for

submitting to the Court/Appropriate

authorities for obtaining the appropriate

orders.

F. The Union agrees that in view of the above,

during the period of the settlement, workmen/

/Union shall not raise any demands involving

any financial or any other liability on the

Company.

G. The Union and the Workmen agree to maintain

industrial peace and harmony during the

subsistence of the settlement and shall not

resort to any direct actions, and shall take

recourse to the machinery provided under the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

H. All such workmen who wish to avail the

benefits under this settlements with all its

terms and conditions incorporated therein

shall have to give specific individual

declaration as enclosed hereto as Annexure G

within 10 days of the date of the settlement

that the terms of this settlement are acceptable

and binding upon him/her. He/she would have

to further declare that the settlement is in full

and final settlement of all the demands made

by him/her or by and Union on his/her behalf

and agree not to raise or pursue any demand

raised by him/her or any Union on his/her

behalf on any items covered by the settlement.

The workmen referred to in the annexure A, B,

C, D, E and F of the settlement shall make a

contribution @7.5% of the arrears received by

them to the Union who is signatory to this

settlement and the management agree to

deduct the said amount at source from the

arrears payable to the workmen under the

settlement and transfer the said amount to

bank account of the Union.

I. The terms and conditions of service and other

benefits/privileges incorporated in the earlier

settlements or any written understanding

between the parties and not varied by this

settlement or by any law from time to time in

force shall continue as if specifically provided

in this settlement.

J. It has been agreed mutually to submit jointly

copies of this settlement to The Labour

Commissioner Panaji for Registration under

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

16. I have gone through the application dated

13-10-2021 along with the Memorandum of

Settlement at Exh. 49 Colly filed by both the Parties,

which in my view, are just and fair and in the interest

of both the Workmen/Party I as well as Employer/

/Party II and hence, the same are accepted.

In view of above, I pass the following:

1040

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

ORDER

(i) The reference at the instance of both the

Parties stands disposed off in view of the

application dated 13-10-2021 at Exhibit 49

Colly.

(ii) Consequently, the benefits of the Settlement

shall be extended to the workmen of Party II.

(iii) No order as to costs.

(iv) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Bela N. Naik),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal and

Labour Court.

_______

Notification

No. 28/2/2021-LAB/603

The following Award passed by the Labour

Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 10-11-2021 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/06/17 is hereby published as required

under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 7th December, 2021.

______

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/IT/06/17

Shri Adil Ismail Shaikh,

R/o. GRB Colony,

CF-10, Nr. Karmali School,

Head Land Sada,

Mormugao – Goa.

….. Workman/Party-I

V/s

The Mormugao Municipal Council,

Vasco da Gama, Goa.

…. Employer/Party-II

Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri S. Naik.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri. V.

Pednekar.

Panaji, dated: 10-11-2021

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 07-04-2017,

bearing No. 28/48/2016-LAB/218, referred the

following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour

Court-II, Panaji, Goa.

“(1) Whether the action of the Mormugao

Municipal Council, Vasco da Gama, in

terminating the services of Shri Adil Ismail

Shaikh, with effect from 01-10-2012, 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/06/2017 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 26-07-2017 at Exhibit-6. The

facts of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workman

are that on 06-03-2011, he had filed an application

for the post of ‘Watchman’ to the Chief Officer of the

Employer/Party–II (for short “Employer”). He stated

that he was called for interview on 11-08-2011 at 2.30

p.m. He stated that he was also issued a call letter

dated 07-10-2011 calling for interview alongwith

documents. He stated that out of two interviews held,

in the first interview, he scored 30 out of 30 marks

and in the second interview, he secured 49 marks

out of 50. He stated that he was selected for the post

of ‘Watchman’ as per minutes dated 13-10-2011. He

stated that before the aforesaid interview, Smt.

Suchita Shirodkar and Milind Chopdekar demanded

a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- to pay to the Councilors and

other staff of the Employer. He stated that he made

available the said amount by taking loan from VPK

Urban Co-op. Credit Society, Mardol, Goa and gold

loan from Muthoot Finance Corporation Ltd. by

keeping gold ornaments. He stated that he was

offered an appointment letter dated 14-10-2011 by

the Chief Officer of the Employer.

3. He stated that he was issued a show cause notice

dated 15-05-2012. He stated that he replied to the

said show cause notice by his letter dated

21-05-2012. He stated that he was also issued another

show-cause notice dated 04-06-2012. He stated that

he replied to the said show cause notice by his letter

dated 05-06-2012. He stated that the said notices

were pertaining to the forged document produced

by him at the time of his appointment for the post of

watchman i.e. school leaving certificate of

Government High School, Baina, Vasco, Goa. He

stated that in his reply to the said show cause notices,

he clearly mentioned how he had produced the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1041

documents. He stated that vide letter dated

21-06-2012, he was informed that the Employer has

decided to hold enquiry under Rule 14 of Central Civil

Service (classification, control and appeal) Rules,

1965. He stated that he filed his reply to the aforesaid

memorandum, vide his letter dated 30-07-2012. He

stated that vide letter dated 31-07-2012, the

Employer issued a memorandum for appointment of

Enquiry Officer in order to conduct departmental

enquiry on 07-08-2012 at 11.30 a.m. before the Ld.

Enquiry Officer, Shri Premanand Y. Naik, the Ex

Officer of the Employer. He stated that vide letter

dated 07-08-2012, the Employer issued another

Memorandum for enquiry and appointment of legal

practitioner/Government Servant for cross-

examination of witness and the said request was

rejected by the Employer. He stated that vide letter

dated 10-08-2012, the Employer issued an order of

appointment of presenting officer, Shri Gauresh

Parsekar. He stated that the Ld. Enquiry Officer

recorded the statements of the witnesses. He stated

that at the time of recording the evidence, he had

informed Ld. Enquiry Officer to write the name of the

person, who had taken the money and the same was

rejected by Ld. Enquiry Officer. He stated that the

said act of Ld. Enquiry Officer created doubt in his

mind and that he started to change the topic. He

stated that Ld. Enquiry Officer passed the order

without giving him any opportunity to cross-examine

the witness. He stated that he has also filed a

complaint against Ld. Enquiry Officer before the

Director of Municipal Administration, Panaji-Goa,

vide his letter dated 05-09-2012 and the same is

pending. He stated that through his reliable sources,

he came to know that the above certificates was

issued by Mr. Nitin Chopdekar through one person,

namely Mr. Peter, who was working with the

Employer/Municipality. He stated that the said

Mr. Peter is also close to Nitin Chopdekar and Suchita

Shirodkar. He stated that he had filed complaint

before all the Government authorities, but till date,

they had not taken any action against the said

persons nor collected any enquiry against the said

persons since they are influential and some ministers

and MLAs are involved with them. The Workman

therefore prayed for an order directing them to

reinstate him in the services of the Employer as

Watchman with full back wages from the date of his

suspension till date.

4. The Employer resisted the claim of the

Workman, by filing its written statement on

19-01-2018 at Exb.13. The Employer submitted that

the claim of the Workman is not tenable as the

Workman has produced forged documents in order

to seek employment and that the present claim has

been filed only to harass them.

The Employer stated that as per the recruitment

rules, the post of watchman is required to be filled

by direct recruitment. The Employer stated that

the educational qualification required for the post

of watchman is standard VIII. The Employer stated

that they had published a notice dated 22-09-2011

in the local newspaper calling for the applications

for the different posts. The Employer stated that in

pursuance to the said advertisement published in

the local newspaper, the Workman had submitted

an application for the post of watchman. The

Employer stated that the Workman was called for

an interview alongwith the documents. The

Employer stated that the interview was conducted

in the presence of Smt. Suchita Shirodkar, the then

Chairman of the Employer and Shri Meghnath Parab,

the then Chief Officer of the Employer. The

Employer stated that as per the records, the

Workman had scored 49 out of 50 and based on the

marks and the other documents which are required

to be produced, he was selected for the post of

watchman. The Employer stated that the

departmental selection committee held on

13-10-2011 alongwith the mark sheet of the

candidate appeared for interview for the post of

watchman duly signed by the members. The

Employer stated that the Workman was offered an

employment after taking on record all the requisite

documents produced by him. The Employer stated

that the Workman was appointed as a ‘watchman’

after his medical examination.

5. The Employer stated that one Mr. Kumar Naik,

vide his letter dated 02-05-2012 alleged that the

Workman never studied in the Government High

School, Baina, Vasco da Gama, Goa and that the

documents submitted by him are forged documents.

The Employer stated that the said Mr. Kumar Naik

submitted the xerox copy of the general register of

the school. The Employer stated that based on the

said letter, the Employer sent a show cause notice

dated 15-05-2012 to the Workman. The Employer

stated that a notice was also sent to the Head Master

of the Government High School, Baina. The Employer

stated that they received a letter from the

Government High School, Baina, vide its letter dated

24-05-2012 stating that the registration

No. 3940 was not of the Workman but it was one

Padma Mahableshwar Raikar. The Employer stated

that Head Master of the said Government High

School further stated that the school leaving

certificate was issued to the said Padma

Mahableshwar Raikar and not to the Workman. The

Employer stated that vide another show cause notice

dated 04-06-2012 sent to the Workman, he was asked

to explain in writing within 48 hours from the date of

1042

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

receipt of the said notice as to why he shall not be

removed from the services as per clause No. 4 of offer

of appointment letter dated 14-10-2011. The

Employer stated that vide his reply dated 05-06-2012,

the Workman replied to the aforesaid show cause

notice denying the allegations and requested to

cancel the said show cause notice and allow him to

work. The Employer stated that in its council meeting

held on 21-06-2012, they resolved to initiate action

against the Workman. The Employer stated that

accordingly a memorandum was issued to the

Workman. The Employer stated that the Workman

replied to the aforesaid memorandum, vide his reply

dated 30-07-2012.

6. The Employer stated that they had appointed

Shri Premand Y. Naik, OSD as an Enquiry Officer to

conduct the enquiry. The Employer stated that notice

was sent to the Workman, however, he adopted all

the means to delay the enquiry. The Employer stated

that the Workman was filing various applications

before the Ld. Enquiry Officer to delay the

proceedings. The Employer stated that the Workman

has made allegations against the Ld. Enquiry Officer

that he has not followed the proper procedure in

properly conducting the enquiry and that the trial

has been conducted under political pressure etc. The

Employer stated that the Workman was represented

by Shri Gauresh Ramesh Parsekar, LDC in the

departmental enquiry. The Employer stated that they

have followed proper procedure as per law. The

Employer stated that after following due process of

law and giving opportunities to the Workman, Ld.

Enquiry Officer submitted his report along with his

findings. The Employer stated that the said report

was placed before its council and it was unanimously

decided to terminate the services of the Workman

with immediate effect. The Employer stated that

accordingly the services of the Workman were

terminated. The Employer stated that the Workman

started filing complaints before various authorities

and alleging the Councilors, Chairperson that they

obtained the forged document through one Mr. Peter,

who is close to its Councilors. The Employer stated

that after being frustrated, the Workman also put

allegations on ministers and MLA. The Employer

stated that the said allegations are absolutely false

and baseless. The Employer stated that Ld. Enquiry

Officer has conducted a fair trial by giving

opportunities to the Workman without any pressure

from any Councilors, MLA, Minister or any person.

The Employer stated that in order to save himself

from the forgery committed by him, the Workman has

been filing false complaints before various

Government authorities like Goa Human Rights

Commission, Director of Municipal Administration,

Vasco Police, Crime Branch, Director General of

Police, Central Bureau of Investigation and also to

the Chief Minister of Goa. The Employer stated that

they have already filed an FIR at the Vasco Police for

the forgery committed by the Workman. The

Employer denied the overall case as pleaded by the

Workman and prayed for dismissal of the claim

statement with cost.

7. Thereafter, an opportunity was given to the

Workman to file his re-joinder if any to the written

statement of the Employer. The Workman has

however, failed to file his re-joinder by remaining

absent.

8. This court framed the following issues on

18-12-2018 at Exb.14. The said issues were up-dated

on 17-08-2021 at Exb.16. Among the said issues, Issue

No.1 and 2 have been treated as preliminary issues.

1. Whether a free, fair and proper enquiry was

conducted against the Workman?

2. Whether the charges of misconduct levelled

against the workman 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/Party II in terminating

his services w.e.f. 01-10-2012 is illegal and

unjustified?

4. Whether the Workman/Party I is entitled to

any relief?

5. What Order? What Award?

9. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1

: In the Negative.

(b) Issue No. 2

: In the Negative.

(d) Issue No. 4 & 5 : As per final order.

10.

In the case of V.N.S. Engineering Services

v/s. Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu and

Anr., reported in 1987 II LLN 968, the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay has held that “there is nothing in

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that indicates a

departure from the general rule that he, who

approaches a court for relief, should prove his case i.e.

the obligation to lead evidence to establish an

allegation. The test being that he, who does not lead

evidence, must fail. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

further held that the provisions of Rule-10-B of the I.D.

(Central Rules), 1957 which requires the party raising

a dispute to file a statement of demands relating only

to the issue in the order of reference for adjudication

within 15 days from the receipt of the order of reference

and forward copies to the opposite party involved,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

1043

clearly indicates that the party who raises the

industrial disputes, is bound to prove the contention

raised by him and an Industrial Tribunal or Labour

Court would be erring in placing the burden of proof

on the other party to the dispute”.

11. In the case of Airtech Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of

U.P. & Ors., reported in 1984 (49) FLR 38, the Hon’ble

High Court of Allahabad has held that “the matter

can be looked at from another angle, which party will

fail if the evidence is not led before the Labour Court

in proceedings in a reference made to it for adjudication

by the State Government? The obvious answer is that

the Workman will fail. Here the reference was made by

the State Government at the instance of the Workman

and for the benefit of the Workman. In the absence of

any evidence led by or on behalf of the Workman, the

reference is bound to be answered by the court against

the Workman. In such a situation it is not necessary

for the Employers to lead any evidence at all. This

matter was dealt with by the Supreme Court in

Shankar Chaudhart v/s. Britania Biscuits Co. Ltd. in

paragraph 30th Court held that the Labour Court or

Industrial Tribunal have all the trappings of a court.

In paragraph 31 it held that any party appearing

before a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal ‘Must’

make a claim or demur the claim of the other side and

when there is burden upon it to prove or establish the

fact so as to invite a decision in its favour, it has to

lead evidence. The obligation to lead evidence to

establish an allegation made by a party is on the party

making the allegation. The test would be, who would

fail if no evidence is led. It must seek an opportunity to

lead evidence”.

12.In the case of V.K. Raj Industries v/s Labour

Court (I) and Ors. reported in the year 1981 (29)

FLR, 194 of Allahabad High Court has held that the

proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal are

judicial in nature, even though the Indian Evidence

Act, is not applicable to the proceeding before the

Industrial Court, but the principle underlying the

said Act are applicable. The High Court has held that

“it is well settled that if a party challenges the validity

of an order and if no evidence is produced, the party

invoking the jurisdiction must fail. The High Court

has also held that if the Workman fails to appear or to

file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute

referred by the Government cannot be answered in

favour of the Workman and he will not be entitled any

relief”.

13.

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High

Courts in its respective case are still holds good.

Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble High

Courts, in the instant case, the order of reference has

been issued by the Government of Goa at the

instance of the Workman, who has raised the present

dispute pertaining to his termination of services w.e.f.

01-01-2012 by the Employer by contending to be

illegal and unjustified. The Workman appeared before

this court and filed his pleadings, setting up the

grounds of challenge to his alleged illegal

termination of service. The Employer resisted the

claim of the Workman as by contending that the

Workman has submitted forged documents and

therefore his services have been terminated by

following due procedure of law. This court also

framed certain issues, based on the pleadings filed

by the respective parties. It was therefore incumbent

upon the Workman to prove his case by leading

material evidence either oral or documentary.

Thereafter, the Workman filed his affidavit in

evidence in support of his case. The Workman has

however failed to remain present for his further

examination in chief as well as cross-examination.

Consequently, the Workman failed to prove that the

termination of his services by the Employer w.e.f.

01-10-2012 is illegal and unjustified. Thus, in the

absence of any evidence on record, it is held that the

action of the Employer in terminating the services

of Shri Adil Ismail Shaikh, with effect from

01-10-2012, is legal and justified. The Workman is

therefore not entitled to any relief as sought by him.

The issue No. 1 to issue No. 4 are 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 the Mormugao

Municipal Council, Vasco da Gama, in

terminating the services of Shri Adil Ismail

Shaikh, with effect from 01-10-2012, is legal and

justified.

2. The Workman Shri Adil Ismail Shaikh,

Watchman 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. 2-2-2020-LD (Estt)/62

Read: (1) Order No. 2-2-2020-LD(Estt.)/2077 dated

07-10-2021;

1044

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 43

20TH JANUARY, 2022

(i) Addendum No. 2-2-2020-LD(Estt.)/2501

dated 14-12-2021.

(2) Order No. 2-2-2020-LD(Estt.)/2272 dated

09-11-2021;

(ii) Corrigendum No. 2-2-2020-LD(Estt.)/2570

dated 23-12-2021.

In the above read Order (2), the following lines

shall be added in the 2nd Para in the fifth line after

the seventh word, the words, “The Officers

promoted on regular basis to the post of District

Registrar are entitled to pay and allowances from

the date of accepting the promotion in relaxation

to F. R. 17 (1).”

All the remaining contents of the said Order

shall remain unchanged.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).

Porvorim, 13th January, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Planning

Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation

Order

No. DPSE/ADMN/DEL-POW/2022/96

Ref: Order No. DPSE/ADMN/DEL-POW/2016/945 dated 13-05-2021.

In supersession of above read order, the department of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation, Porvorim is

please to re-constitute a “Swacch Bharat” Committee to maintain cleanliness in and around the premises

and as a supervisory mechanism, as given below:

Dr. Y. Durga Prasad, Director

—

Chairman.

Shri Digambar V. Kalapurkar, Dy. Director

—

Vice-Chairman.

Kum. Neumani M. Rodrigues, Dy. Director

—

Member Secretary.

Smt. Gail A. Azavedo, Research Assistant

—

Nodal Officer.

Smt. Margarita Esteves, Research Assistant

—

Member.

Smt. Sara M.C. Fernandes, Head Clerk

—

Member.

Shri Alex Fernandes, Data Entry Operator

—

Member.

Shri Mahesh Pilgaonkar, Statistical Assistant

—

Member.

Shri Rajesh Veluskar, Statistical Assistant

—

Member.

10.

Smt. Priyanka Nayak, Investigator

—

Member.

Dr. Y. Durga Prasad, Director (Planning).

Porvorim, 14th January, 2022.

_______

Notification

No. DPSE/ADMN/DEL-POW/2022/100

Sub.: No. DPSE/ADMN/DEL-POW/2016/951 dated 29-09-2020.

In supersession of above referred Notification regarding appointment of Assistant Public Information

Officer, APIO-II, the undersigned conveys to re-designate the appointment of the Officer on promotion as

Assistant Public Information Officer II under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as follows:

Sr.

Name & the contact

Designated authority

Remarks

No.

details of the Officers

under RTI Act, 2005

Ms. Neumani M. Rodrigues, Dy. Director

Assistant Public Information

For all other matters.

Ph. 0832-2417437/Fax: 0832-2417437

Officer-II

Email: [email protected]

Dr. Y. Durga Prasad, Director (Planning).

Porvorim, 14th January, 2022.