Panaji, 24th February, 2022 (Phalguna 5, 1943)
SERIES II No. 48
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-2023
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Education, Art & Culture
Directorate of Higher Education
__
Certificate
No. ACAD III/GC/Filling of Post-Regular/98/2021/
/6988
Read: Order No. ACAD III/GC/Filling of Post
-Regular/98/2021/6142 dated 06-01-2022.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Ms. Nisha Vasantlal Kevat appointed to the post of
Assistant Professor in Botany (Group ‘A’ Gazetted)
at Government College of Arts, Science and
Commerce, Sanquelim under Directorate of Higher
Education vide above referred Order has been
verified by the Addl. District Magistrate, South Goa,
Margao-Goa and nothing adverse has been reported
against her at Police Stations in Goa.
H. B. Khedekar, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 17th February, 2022.
_______
Certificate
No. ACAD III/GC/Filling of Post-Regular/98/2021/
/6989
Read:
Order No. ACAD III/GC/Filling of Post
-Regular/98/2021/5269 dated 02-12-2021.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Ms. Arti Krishnanand Naik appointed to the post of
Assistant Professor in Chemistry (Physical) (Group
‘A’ Gazetted) at Government College of Arts, Science
and Commerce, Khandola under Directorate of
Higher Education vide above referred Order has
been verified by the Addl. Collector & ADM, North
Goa and nothing adverse has been reported against
her at Police Stations in Goa.
H. B. Khedekar, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 17th February, 2022.
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
1305
Certificate
No. ACAD III/GC/Filling of Post-Regular/98/2021/
/6990
Read: Order No. ACAD III/GC/Filling of Post
-Regular/98/2021/5688 dated 22-12-2021.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Ms. Anjali Mira De Maria Mascarenhas appointed to
the post of Assistant Professor in English (Group ‘A’
Gazetted) at Government College of Arts, Science
and Commerce, Sanquelim under Directorate of
Higher Education vide above referred Order has been
verified by the Addl. District Magistrate, South Goa,
Margao-Goa and nothing adverse has been reported
against her at Police Stations in Goa.
H. B. Khedekar, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 17th February, 2022.
_______
Certificate
No. ACAD III/GC/Filling of Post-Regular/98/2021/
/6991
Read: Order No. ACAD III/GC/Filling of Post
-Regular/98/2021/5270 dated 02-12-2021.
Certified that the character and antecedents of
Mr. Stephen Joaquim Fernandes appointed to the
post of Assistant Professor in Environmental Studies
(Group ‘A’ Gazetted) at Government College of Arts,
Science and Commerce, Sanquelim under
Directorate of Higher Education vide above referred
Order has been verified by the Addl. District
Magistrate, South Goa, Margao-Goa and nothing
adverse has been reported against him at Police
Stations in Goa.
H. B. Khedekar, Under Secretary (Higher
Education).
Porvorim, 17th February, 2022.
1306
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
Department of Environment & Climate
Change
__
Order
No. 1-25-2010-STE-DIR/1258
In pursuance of Section 5 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
“the said Act”) and in supersession of the earlier
Order No 1-13-05/06-STE-DIR/579 dated 01-09-2005
in this respect, the following officers are hereby
appointed as Public Information Office (PIO) and
Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) for
Department of Environment & Climate Change
(DoE&CC), to deal with the applications received
from the public under the said Act.
1. Head Clerk,
Public Information
(Dept. of
Officer (PIO).
Environment &
Climate Change)
2. Lower Division Clerk,
Assistant Public
(Dept. of Environment
Information
& Climate Change)
Officer (APIO).
The Director, Department of Environment &
Climate Change will be the First Appellate
Authority (FAA) under the said Act, against the
decision of the PIO/APIO as far as the Department
of Environment & Climate Change is concerned.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Dasharath M. Redkar, Director/ex officio Jt.
Secretary (DoE&CC).
Porvorim, 22nd February, 2022.
———uuu———
Goa Human Rights Commission
Office of the Goa Human Rights Commission
Before the Goa Human Rights Commission
Panaji-Goa
Proceeding No. 06/2021
Shri Ajit V. Naik,
R/o Ashiyana, D-3/S3,
Behind Galaxy Hospital,
Shelpe, Dhuler, Mapusa,
Bardez-Goa-403507
… Complainant.
V/s
1) The Collector,
North Goa District,
Panaji-Goa.
2) The Director,
Directorate of Accounts,
Panaji-Goa.
3) The Manager,
State Bank of India Link Branch,
Panaji-Goa
… Respondents.
Inquiry Report/Order
(30th August, 2021)
The Complaint dated 06-01-2021 was received in
this Commission from the Complainant, Shri Ajit V.
Naik in respect of non-payment of his pension and
retiral dues.
2. It is his case that he retired on superannuation
as an Awal Karkun, from the Office of Collector,
North Goa w.e.f. 31-01-2020 and yet after over 11
months, he has not been paid his retiral benefits.
3. On perusing the complaint, the Commission
by Order dated 13-01-2021, called for the report
from the Respondents.
4. The Respondent No. 1, the Collector of North
Goa District, filed their reply on 06-02-2021. They
stated that the pension case papers of the
Complainant had been submitted to the Respondent
No. 2, the Director, Directorate of Accounts, Panaji
by letter dated 25-09-2019 but were returned by
the Respondent No. 1 on 07-01-2020 with
observations.
5. They stated that the pay of the Complainant
was revised as per the Seventh CPC w.e.f.
01-01-2006 and due to lock down of Covid 19 w.e.f.
23-03-2020, the pay fixation was submitted to
Respondent No. 2 by letter dated 29-05-2020 for
approval.
6. The Respondent No. 2 again raised
observations and the Respondent No.1 immediately
revised the pay fixation statement by letter dated
06-10-2020 and they requested the Respondent
No. 2 to settle the revised pay on priority basis.
7. The Respondent No.1 further stated that the
Respondent No. 2 revised the pay fixation on
11-01-2021 and on the same day, the Order
sanctioning encashment of 300 days was issued by
the Respondent No. 1 and was submitted to the
Directorate of Accounts and the GPF bill of the
Complainant was cleared on 20-01-2021.
8. The Respondent No. 2, the Director, Directorate
of Accounts filed their reply on 24-02-2021, stating
that the pension case of the Complainant had been
forwarded by the Respondent No. 1 on 25-09-2019
and had been received by the Respondent No. 2 on
27-09-2019. They stated that the pension case was
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
1307
returned back to Respondent No. 1 on 07-01-2020
seeking necessary clarification and compliance from
the Respondent No. 1.
9. The Respondent No. 2 further stated that the
pension case was re-submitted on 04-02-2021 and
the same has been authorized for payment of
pension, and pensionary benefits by letter dated
23-02-2021 and PPO No. Goa-A/28024.
10. In respect of the release of provident fund
amount, the Respondent No. 2 stated that GPF final
payment application dated 3-08-2020 was received
on 14-08-2020 and was returned for observations by
letter dated 21-9-2020.
11. The Respondent No. 2 states that the GPF
application was re-submitted by the Respondent
No. 1 by letter dated 06-11-2020. The Respondent
No. 2 states that the final payment bill was passed
by the Respondent No. 2 on 20-01-2021. They stated
that the delay in finalization and settlement of
retirement benefits to the Complainant was not
caused by the Respondent No. 2 and prayed that
the proceedings be dropped.
12. During the course of proceedings, the
Respondent No. 1 filed further letter dated
24-02-2021, stating that the pension case of the
Complainant has been settled by the Respondent
No. 2 on 23-02-2021.
13. Subsequently, the Complainant filed his
further application dated 15-03-2021 before this
Commission, stating that his pension case remained
to be settled fully as no interest and compensation
is paid and also raised grievance that an amount of
Rs.1,41,468/- termed as amount overpaid has been
deducted from the retirement gratuity without any,
notice to him thereby preventing him from praying
for waiving the same, in accordance with the rulings
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Office
Memorandum dated 08-07-2008. At that stage, the
Respondent No. 3 was added, but have not filed
any reply.
14. On the copy of above application being served
on the Respondents, the Respondent No. 1 filed
their report on 16-04-2021. They stated that the
Office of the Respondent No. 1 was designated as
the District Disaster Management Authority to
Control the ongoing Covid 19 pandemic and the
officials were drafted for various tasks, as per the
guidelines issued by the Government and they could
complete the observations raised by the Directorate
of Accounts, as and when possible. They stated
that the queries raised by the Respondent No. 2
were further complied by the dealing hand visiting
personally, as time permitted and the delay of
settlement of the pension was unintentional.
15. In respect of the recovery due to extra
increment which was granted to the Complainant
in the year 1999, they stated that the Complainant
may make an application for reimbursement of
recoveries deducted from his gratuity which will
then be processed in terms of Office Memorandum
No.18/03/2015-Estt.(Pay-I) dated 02-03-2016, issued
by the Department of Personnel & Training,
Government of India.
16. Thereupon, the Complainant filed his
application dated 01-07-2021, stating that his
pension for the period from February, 2020 till April,
2021 has been credited to his Savings Bank Account
at SBI, Mapusa Branch and now is regularly paid in
his account.
He reiterated that no notice was given to him for
waiving the deduction of overpaid amount of
Rs. l,41,468/-. He also stated that the reasons given
for delay are not attributed to him and he claimed
interest on the delayed payments.
17. To the said application, the Respondent
No. 2 has filed their reply dated 03-08-2021. They
stated that due care is taken by the Respondent
No. 2 to settle pension cases in time and the pension
case was resubmitted after a period of more than
one year by the Respondent No. 1.
18. In respect of the deduction of the overpaid
amount of Rs. 1,41,468/ -, they stated that this was
sanctioned by the Respondent No. 1 in terms of
Rule 71 (2) and Rule 71 (3)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972.
19. In respect of the claim of the Complainant for
waiving of the recoveries of overpayment of pay
and allowances, they stated that the waiver is to
be initiated by the Respondent No. 1. In respect of
the interest claimed by the Complainant on the
GPF amount, the Respondent No. 2 states that the
interest is payable up to the period of six months
after superannuation and as the Complainant
retired on 31-01-2020, he is eligible for interest up
to August 2020, which has been already paid to
him in the GPF final payment bill.
20. The Commission heard the Complainant in
person and also heard Shri Swapnil Palini, LDC on
behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Ms. Siddha
Kuttikar, Accountant, on behalf of the Respondent
No. 2. None remained present for the Respondent
No. 3.
21. The Commission finds that the delay on the
part of the Respondent No. 1, in processing the
1308
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
pension papers, was not intentional and due to the
added responsibilities as the Respondent No. 1,
since March, 2020, has been functioning as the
District Disaster Management Authority, for control
of the ongoing Covid 19 pandemic. As such, the
Commission does not deem it necessary to award
interest on the delayed payment of the pension.
22. The Commission finds that there was no
deliberate delay on part of Respondent No. 1 in
submitting the pension case after clearing the
clarifications sought by Respondent No. 2. So also,
from the table submitted by Respondent No. 2, of
the “Date of receipt of the Claims” and “Date of
payment”, the Commission also finds that there
was no delay on part of Respondent No. 2.
23. However, in respect of the deduction of
Rs.1,41,468/- from the gratuity amount, the
Commission finds that the Respondent No. 1 had
not given any notice to the Complainant before the
deduction and deprived him of an opportunity to
make his representation thereon, thus violating his
human rights.
24. Accordingly, the Commission disposes of the
proceedings as under:
(a) The, Complainant is given liberty to make
an application to the Respondent No. 1 for
reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 1,41,468/-
recovered from his gratuity amount, on grounds
deemed fit, within 15 days from the date of the
receipt of this Order.
(b) The Commission recommends that upon
receipt of the said application the Respondent
No. 1 consider the same, in terms of the Office
Memorandum No. 18/ 03/2015-Estt. (Pay-I) dated
02-03-2016, issued by the Department of Personnel
& Training, Government of India and transcribed
and adopted by the Government of Goa by Office
Memorandum No. 8/7/2008 Fin(R&C), dated
07-03-2017.
Date:
30-08-2021.
Place: Panaji-Goa.
Sd/-
Sd/-
Sd/-
Justice U. V. Bakre Desmond D’Costa Pramod V. Kamat
Chairperson
Member
Member
Goa Human
Goa Human
Goa Human
Rights
Rights
Rights
Commission.
Commission.
Commission.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
1309
———uuu———
Department of Labour
__
Order
No. 28/06/2022-LAB/86
Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the
opinion that an industrial dispute exists between
the management of M/s. Sharada Enterprises,
Margao Industrial Estate, St. Jose de Areal, Margao,
Goa and it’s workmen, represented by the Goa
Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union, in respect
of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto
(hereinafter referred to as the “said dispute”);
And whereas, the Government of Goa considers
it expedient to refer the said dispute for
adjudication.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act
14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said
Act”), the Government of Goa hereby refers the
said dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II
of Goa at Panaj, Goa, constituted under Section 7(1)
of the said Act.
SCHEDULE
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Sharada Enterprises, Margao Industrial
Estate, St. Jose de Areal, Margao, Goa in
terminating the services of workmen shown
in Annexure-“A” upon closure of the
establishment, is legal and justified?
(2) If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled?”.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amalia O. F. Pinto, Under Secretary (Labour).
Porvorim, 18th February, 2022.
Annexure- “A”
Sr.
Name of the
Date of
No.
workman
termination
1. Rosario Vales
01-02-2020.
2. Shamba S. Gaonkar
01-02-2020.
3. Sanchana Undekar
01-02-2020.
4. Assumpta Castanha
01-02-2020.
5. Lidia Gomes
01-02-2020.
6. Caetana Gomes
01-02-2020.
7. Paulina Moura
01-02-2020.
8. Sharad Gaonkar
01-02-2020.
9. Lourenco Gomes
01-02-2020.
10.
Paulo Gomes
01-02-2020.
11.
Joaquim Manuel Correia
01-02-2020.
12.
Carmo Agnelo Travasso
01-02-2020.
_______
Notification
No. 28/2/2022-LAB/Part-I/77
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 11-01-2022 in case
No. Ref. IT/17/2010 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, 9th February, 2022.
______
IN THE LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/17/2010
Shri Kishore Tuyenkar,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union,
Velho Bldg, Panaji-Goa……
Workman/Party I.
V/s
M/s. G. K. B. Vision Ltd.,
Plot No. 27 and 28,
Pilerne Industrial Estate,
Pilerne, Bardez-Goa
… Employer/Party II.
Workman/Party I represented by Adv., Shri Suhas
Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv., Shri A. V.
Nigalye.
Panaji, Dated: 11-01-2022.
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 10-05-2010,
bearing No. 28/17/2010-LAB, referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of
Goa. The Government of Goa, vide it’s another order
1310
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
dated 09-02-2016, transferred the present dispute to
this Labour Court-II, Panaji - Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management
of M/s. GKB Vision Limited, Pilerne Industrial
Estate, Pilerne, Bardez, Goa, in dismissing the
service of its Workman, Shri Kishore Tuyenkar,
with effect from 24-12-2008, 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. IT/17/10 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 17-09-2010 at Exb-3. 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’) in the Progressive Oven Dept. as
‘Operator’. He stated that he was issued a charge-
sheet dated 27-08-2007 alleging certain acts of
misconducts. He stated that he filed his reply to the
said charge-sheet, denying each and every
allegations. He stated that however, the Employer
went ahead to conduct the enquiry against him. He
stated that an enquiry was setup against him by the
Employer by appointing Adv., Shri A. M. Gaikwad as
an Enquiry Officer to investigate into the acts of
misconduct. He stated that he was represented by
an Office Bearer of the union. On the contrary, the
Management was represented by Adv., A. Nigalye.
He stated that after the conclusion of the enquiry
the Employer dismissed him from service by its order
dated 24-12-2018. He stated that being aggrieved
by the dismissal order dated 24-12-2018, he raised
an industrial dispute before the office of the Labour
Commissioner, vide his letter dated 20-01-2009
demanding immediate reinstatement with full back
wages and continuity in service, which ended in
failure.
3. He contended that the ld. Enquiry Officer never
considered the objection raised by him and his
representative in the said enquiry. He submitted that
the ld. Enquiry Officer arbitrarily and mechanically
overruled his written objections and totally acted in
a biased and prejudicial manner in favour of the
Employer. He submitted that the findings given by
the ld. Enquiry Officer are non-reasoned findings in
a mechanical manner in favour of the management.
He submitted that no charge levelled against him in
the charge-sheet dated 27-08-2007 have been proved
beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the
findings given by the ld. Enquiry Officer are perverse
and are liable to be set aside and quashed. He
submitted that the ld. Enquiry Officer has acted as a
mere agent of the management who made a farce of
enquiry and conducted the enquiry in flagrant
violations of the principles of natural justice. He
submitted that the ld. Enquiry Officer completed the
said enquiry with undue haste, with biased and
prejudicial mind in favour of the management. He
submitted that he disputes and challenges the entire
enquiry proceedings conducted by the ld. Enquiry
Officer in respect of charge-sheet dated 27-08-2007.
He submitted that the ld. Enquiry Officer has
committed gross error of non-application of mind and
in favouring the management by stretching evidence
in favour of the management. He submitted that the
ld. Enquiry Officer has failed to discuss and analyze
the evidence as well as material of the defense and
merely stated that the misconduct levelled against
him stands proved. He submitted that no reason of
whatsoever nature has been given by the ld. Enquiry
Officer for not considering the evidence of the
defense. He submitted that the witness examined
by the management are managerial and supervisory
staff and as such their testimony cannot be believed.
He submitted that none of the workmen or co-worker
have been examined by the management as its
witness to prove their case. He submitted that the
findings given by ld. Enquiry Officer are not based
on evidence on record and that there is no direct
evidence against him. He submitted that his
dismissal from service smacks of malafides intended
to take revenge on him for his legitimate trade union
activities and for being an Office Bearer of the union.
He submitted that his dismissal from service is in
total violation of the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 and
the rules made thereunder. He submitted that after
termination of his services, the management has
recruited new workmen at his factory. He therefore,
submitted that his dismissal from service is illegal,
unjust, bad-in-law and therefore, entitled for
immediate reinstatement with full back wages and
continuity in service. Without prejudice to his
aforesaid contentions, he submitted that the
punishment meted out to him of dismissal from
service is too harsh and disproportionate considering
the nature of allegations leveled against him without
admitting that the allegations are proved in the
enquiry. He stated that presently, he is unemployed
and does not have any source of income. The
Workman therefore, prayed that the action of the
Employer in dismissing him from service w.e.f.
24-12-2008 be held as illegal, unjustified and bad-in-
law and he be reinstated in service with full back
wages, continuity in service and all other
consequential benefits thereof.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
1311
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on 15-10-10
at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way of its
preliminary objections, submitted that the dispute
raised by the Workman is without merits and as such
the reference is liable to be rejected. The Employer
submitted that the Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers Union on whose representation the
purported dispute is referred to this Hon’ble Tribunal
has no authority and locus standi to represent the
Workman and to espouse the dispute on his behalf.
5. The Employer stated that it is a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having
its registered office at Pilerne Industrial Estate,
Pilerne, Bardez-Goa. The Employer stated that it has
a factory, wherein it is engaged in the manufacture
of ophthalmic lenses. The Employer stated that it is
an export oriented unit in terms of manufacturing
license issued to it. The Employer admitted that the
Workman under reference has been employed by
them in its factory for manufacturing activities.
6. The Employer stated that on 22-08-2007, the
Workman was posted in a section of the factory
known as progressive department. The Employer
stated that at about 8. 40 hours on the said date, the
Workman left his workplace in the progressive
department without permission of his superiors. The
Employer stated that thereafter, he and other three
workmen led around 38 workers and barged in the
office of its General Manager, Mr. R. A. Prabhu without
any permission and gheroed him. The Employer
stated that he alongwith other three workmen, Shri
Surendra Tuyenkar, Vishnu Gaude and Shri Santosh
Parab were the leaders of the mob. The Employer
stated that he remained in the office of the General
Manager for over 15 minutes abandoning the work
allotted to him. The Employer stated that the
aforesaid acts being serious acts of misconduct, a
charge-sheet was served on the Workman detailing
the said charges. The Employer stated that the
Workman was therefore charged as follows “14 (3)
(c): Willful damage to or loss of Employers goods or
property, 14 (3) (h): Riotous or disorderly behaviour
during working hours at the establishment or any
act subversive of discipline”. The Employer stated
that the Workman was required to show-cause as to
why the disciplinary action should not be taken
against him for the aforesaid misconducts. The
Employer stated that the Workman submitted his
reply dated 28-08-2007 to the said charge-sheet. The
Employer stated that the explanation given by the
Workman in the said reply was not found to be
satisfactory.
7. The Employer stated that similar charge-sheets
were also issued to Shri Surendra Tuyenkar,
Shri Vishnu Gaude and Shri Santosh Parab. The
Employer stated that they also submitted identical
replies, which were not found satisfactory. The
Employer stated that thereafter, a joint domestic
enquiry was held into the charge-sheet issued to the
Workman and the other three workmen by appointing
Shri A. M. Gaikwad. The Employer stated that all the
four workmen participated in the enquiry. The
Employer stated that during the course of enquiry,
Shri Santosh Parab left the services. The Employer
stated that the Workman and the other two workmen
were represented in the enquiry by an Office Bearer
of the union, Shri Suhas Naik. The Employer stated
that their representative cross-examined
management witnesses and the Workman also
produced his own evidence. The Employer stated
that full opportunity was given to the Workman to
defend himself and the enquiry was held in
compliance with the principles of natural justice
and fair play. The Employer stated that on conclusion
of the evidence, the ld. Enquiry Officer submitted
his findings dated 08-12-2008, wherein he held that
the charges “riotous or disorderly behaviour during
working hours at the establishment or any act
subversive of discipline” is proved against the
Workman and Shri Surendra Tuyenkar and
Shri Vishnu Gaude.
8. The Employer stated that by show-cause notice
dated 10-12-2008, a copy of the said findings was
made available to the Workman and he was required
to show-cause as to why the said findings should not
be accepted. The Employer stated that by letter dated
16-12-2008, the Workman sought time for four weeks
to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice.
The Employer stated that by another show cause
notice dated 18-12-2008 signed by its director,
Shri Gaurav Gupta, they informed the Workman that
his request for granting time to submit his reply is
rejected and further informed him that he has
accepted the findings of the ld. Enquiry Officer dated
09-12-2008. The Employer stated that, by the said
show-cause notice, the Workman was informed that
Shri Gaurav Gupta has come to the tentative
conclusion to award the penalty of dismissal from
service to the Workman and he was given an
opportunity on the proposed penalty to make his
representation on the proposed penalty within four
days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The
Employer stated that the Workman submitted his
reply to the said show cause notice, by his letter dated
22-12-2008. The Employer stated that as the said reply
was not found to be satisfactory, the Employer
dismissed the Workman from service with immediate
1312
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
effect by order dated 24-12-2008. The Employer
submitted that the dismissal of the Workman from
service is just and legal as the Workman was involved
in a very serious misconduct of leading the workers
and gheroaing it’s General Manager.
9. The Employer submitted that the principles of
natural justice were duly complied with in the
enquiry wherein the Workman was represented by
an Office Bearer of a trade union. The Employer
submitted that the findings of the ld. Enquiry Officer
are based on the evidence and material on record of
the enquiry proceedings. The Employer submitted
that the said findings are perfectly fair and proper.
The Employer submitted that the charges of
misconduct proved against the Workman are very
grave and serious and such acts deserves the penalty
of dismissal from service. The Employer therefore,
submitted that its action in dismissing the Workman
from service is therefore, perfectly legal and justified.
10. Without prejudice to its contention, the
Employer submitted that in the event this Hon’ble
Tribunal holds for any reason whatsoever that the
said enquiry is not fair and proper or the findings of
ld. Enquiry Officer are not legal or not based on
evidence on record, they may be given an opportunity
to substitute the charges of misconduct alleged
against the Workman by producing appropriate
evidence in this Hon’ble Tribunal. The Employer
denied the overall case as pleaded by the Workman
and prayed for dismissal of the present reference.
11. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
08-12-2010 at Exb.6. The Workman, by way of his Re-
joinder, confirms and reiterates all the submissions
and averments made by him in his claim statement
to be true and correct and denies all the statements
and averments made by the Employer in the Written
Statement, which are contrary to the statements and
averments made by him. He submitted that the
charge-sheet was issued to him to take revenge for
his association with trade union of his choice and for
being an office bearer of the local committee and the
Workman. He stated that the Employer was bent
upon to harass and victimize him.
12. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, this Court framed the following issues on
11-03-2011 at Exb. 7.
1. Whether the Party-I/Union proves that the
domestic enquiry held against the Workman is
not fair, proper and impartial?
2. Whether the charges levelled against the
Workman are proved to the satisfaction of the
Tribunal by acceptable evidence?
3. Whether the Party-I/Union proves that the action
of the Party II in dismissing the services of the
Workman w.e.f. 24-12-2008 is illegal and
unjustified?
4. What relief? What order?
13. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1
:
In the Negative.
(b) Issue No. 2
:
Partly in the Affirmative
and Partly in the Negative.
(c) Issue No. 3
:
In the Affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4
:
As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of ld. Adv. Shri
Suhas Naik, appearing for the Workman as well as
ld. Adv., Shri A.V. Nigalye, appearing for the
Employer.
14. Ld. Adv., Shri Suhas Naik, representing the
union, during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman is represented by the
Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union. He
submitted that the Workman was in the employment
of the Employer. He submitted that by order dated
19-11-2019 passed in the findings on the preliminary
issue No. 1 and 2, this Hon’ble Court held that a free,
fair and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workman and that it is further held that except
the charge of misconduct wilful damage to or loss of
Employer’s goods or property, the charge of riotous
or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the
establishment or any act subversive of discipline
levelled against the Workman have been proved to
the satisfaction of this court by acceptable evidence.
He submitted that the charges of misconduct proved
against the Workman is not grave and serious. He
submitted that inspection report on record clearly
indicates the various irregularities of the Employer
including no proper rest room etc. He submitted that
the whole incident occurred on account of shortage
of bed sheets. He submitted that the Workman was
the Office Bearer of the local union committee. He
submitted that the allegations levelled against the
Workman is gheraoing, Mr. R. A. Prabhu, the General
Manager of the Employer by a group of around 38
workers. He submitted that there is nothing on record
that the Workman has used foul/abusive language.
He submitted that no bad words were used against
any of the authority by the workers. He submitted
that the Employer has however, selectively charge-
sheeted and subsequently dismissed the Office
Bearers of the local union committee including the
Workman under reference. He submitted that the
action taken by the Employer against the Workman
was to take revenge of their legitimate trade union
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
1313
activities and for being the Office Bearer of the union.
He submitted that the Employer has not taken any
action against the other workers who were involved
in gheraoing Mr. R. A. Prabhu. He submitted that the
punishment imposed upon the Workman is too harsh
and disproportionate to the proved misconduct. He
submitted that no responsible Employer would have
passed such dismissal order. He submitted that this
Hon’ble Court has every jurisdiction u/s 11-A of the
I.D. Act, 1947 to re-appraise the evidence and modify
the punishment awarded to the Workman. In support
of his oral contention, he relied upon a judgment of
Mahindra and Mahindra v/s. N.B. Narawade,
reported in 2005 (3) SCC 134 of Hon’ble Supreme
court of India. He submitted that the Workman is not
gainfully employed from the date of his dismissal and
does not have any source of income. He submitted
that though the evidence on record indicates that
the Workman owns a paddy field as well as a goods
carrier rickshaw, however, nothing is brought on
record to show as to how much he yields from paddy
fields as well as from the said rickshaw. The evidence
on record indicates that the workman is not
operating the rickshaw for want of business. He
therefore, prayed that the Workman be reinstated in
service with full back wages and continuity in service
along with all other consequential benefits. In
support of his oral contentions, he relied upon two
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, one in
the case of Rama Kant Misra V/s State Of U. P.
reported in AIR 1982 SC 1552 and another in the
case of Ved Prakash Gupta v/s. Delton Cable India (P)
Ltd., reported in 1984 AIR 914.
15. Per contra, Ld. Adv., Shri A.V. Nigalye,
representing the Employer during the course of his
oral arguments submitted that by order dated
19-11-2019 passed in the findings on the preliminary
issue No.1 and 2, this Hon’ble Court held that a free,
fair and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workman and that it is further held that except
the charge of misconduct wilful damage to or loss of
Employer’s goods or property, the charge of riotous
or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the
establishment or any act subversive of discipline
levelled against the Workman have been proved to
the satisfaction of this court by acceptable evidence.
He submitted that misconduct of gheraoing is a
serious misconduct. He submitted that the Workman
was an Office Bearer of the union and he got the
punishment he deserved. He submitted that the
punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon
the Workman is proportionate to the proved serious
misconduct of gheraoing the General Manager of the
Employer. Without prejudice to the aforesaid
contentions, he submitted that the Workman is not
entitled for reinstatement in service. He submitted
that the Workman was dismissed for loss of
confidence in him. He submitted that this Court is
empowered to mould the relief. He submitted that
the evidence on record indicates that the Workman
is having his own paddy fields as well as goods carrier
rickshaw. He submitted that self-employment is also
a gainful employment. In support of his oral
contentions, he relied upon the following judgments
of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
(a) In the case of Hombe Gowda Education Trust
and Anr v/s. State of Karnataka and Ors,
reported in 2006 1 SCC 430,
(b) In the case of Pravin Kumar v/s. Union of
India and Ors., reported in 2020 5 Supreme
149 and
(c) In the case of North East Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation v/s. M. Nagangouda,
reported in 2007 10 SCC 765
He therefore prayed that the reference be
answered as the action of the management of the
Employer in dismissing the Workman is legal and
justified and the Workman is not entitled to any relief.
I have carefully perused the entire records of the
present case. I have also carefully considered the oral
submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates
appearing for the respective parties.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 2
17. By order dated 19-11-2019, passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue No.1 and 2, I have
discussed and come to the conclusion that a free,
fair and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workman and that it is further held that except
the charge of misconduct, wilful damage to or loss of
Employer’s goods or property, the charge of riotous
or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the
establishment or any act subversive of discipline
levelled against the Workman have been proved to
the satisfaction of this court by acceptable evidence.
The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in the negative
and issue No. 2 is partly answered in the affirmative
and partly in the negative.
Issue No. 3
18. Ld. Adv., Shri A. V. Nigalye, representing the
Employer submitted that the services of the Work-
man have been dismissed on account of loss of confi-
dence in him. However, I do not find any pleadings of
the Employer to that effect nor produced on record
any evidence to substantiate the plea of loss of con-
fidence. Hence, submissions of ld. Adv., Shri A.V.
Nigalye that the services of the Workman have been
dismissed on account of loss of confidence in him is
without merits.
1314
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
19. Ld. Adv., Shri Suhas Naik representing the
union during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that this Hon’ble court has ample power
u/s 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 to reduce the punishment
and relied upon a judgment in the case of Mahindra
and Mahindra.
20. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (supra),
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held as under
“It is no doubt true that after introduction of section
11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount
of discretion is vested with labour court/industrial
tribunal in interfering with the quantum of
punishment awarded by the management, where
the concerned Workman is found guilty of
misconduct. The said area of discretion has been
very well defined by the various judgments of this
Court referred to herein above and it is certainly
not unlimited as has been observed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can
be exercised under Section 11-A is available only on
the existence of certain factors like punishment
being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct
so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the
existence of any mitigating circumstance which
requires the reduction of the sentence, or the past
misconduct of the Workman which may persuade
the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the
absence of any such factor existing, the labour court
cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the
power under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce
the punishment. As noticed here above at least in
two of the cases citied before us, i.e., Orissa Cement
Ltd. (supra) and New Shorrock Mills (supra), this
Court held: “punishment of dismissal for using of
abusive language cannot be held to be
disproportionate.” In this case all forums below have
held that the language used by the Workman is
such that it cannot be tolerated by any civilized
society. Use of such abusive language against a
superior officer, that too not once but twice, in the
presence of his subordinates cannot be termed to
be an indiscipline calling for lesser punishment in
the absence of any extenuating factor to herein
above.”
21. Ld. Adv., Shri A.V. Nigalye, representing the
Employer, relied upon a judgment of Hombe Gowda
Education Trust and Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in para 16 and 17 of its judgment has
held as under:
“16. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is akin to one under
Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. While
exercising such discretionary jurisdiction, no doubt
it is open to the Tribunal to substitute one
punishment by another; but it is also trite that the
Tribunal exercises a limited jurisdiction in this
behalf. The jurisdiction to interfere with the
quantum of punishment could be exercised only
when, inter alia, it is found to be grossly
disproportionate”.
17. This court has repeatedly, laid down the law
that such interference at the hands of the Tribunal
should be inter alia on arriving at a finding that no
reasonable person could inflict such punishment.
The Tribunal may further more exercises its
jurisdiction when relevant facts are not taken into
consideration by the management which would
have direct bearing on the question of quantum of
punishment.”
22.
Thus, from the aforesaid judgments of
Hon’ble Apex Court it is crystal clear that the Labour
Court has the jurisdiction and power to substitute
its measure of punishment in place of managerial
wisdom once it is satisfied that the order of discharge
or dismissal was not justified in the facts and
circumstances of the case. However the discretion
u/s 11-A is available only on the existence of certain
factors like punishment being disproportionate to
the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the
conscience of the court, or the existence of any
mitigating circumstances which require the
reduction of the sentence, or the past misconduct of
the workman.
23. Ld. Adv., Shri A.V. Nigalye representing the
Employer submitted that the punishment of
dismissal from services of the Workman is
proportionate to the proved misconduct and it does
not shock the conscience of the Court and relied upon
a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pravin Kumar.
24. In the case of Pravin Kumar (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 36 of its
judgment held as under:
“36. In our considered opinion, the appellant’s
contention that the punishment of dismissal was
disproportionate to the allegation of corruption, is
without merit. It is a settled legal proposition that
the Disciplinary Authority has wide discretion in
imposing punishment for a proved delinquency,
subject of course to principles of proportionality
and fair play. Such requirements emanate from
Article 14 itself, which prohibits State authorities
from treating varying degrees of misdeeds with the
same broad stroke. Determination of such
proportionality is a function of not only the action
or intention of the delinquent, but must also factor
the financial effect and societal implication of such
misconduct [Jameel v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2010) 12 SCC 532, 1416]. But unlike in criminal
cases, in matters of disciplinary proceedings Courts
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
1315
only interfere on grounds of proportionality when
they find that the punishment awarded is
inordinate to a high degree, or if the conscience of
the court itself is shocked. Thus, whereas
imposition of major penalty (like dismissal, removal,
or reduction in rank) would be discriminatory and
impermissible for trivial misdeeds; but for grave
offences there is a need to send a clear message of
deterrence to the society. Charges such as
corruption, misappropriation and gross
indiscipline are prime examples of the latter
category, and ought to be dealt with strictly”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid case is not applicable to the
case in hand as the facts of the case before the Hon’ble
Apex Court and the case in hand are totally different.
25. In the case of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“The punishment awarded to the appellant is
shockingly disproportionate regard being had to
the charge framed against him. No responsible
Employer would ever impose in employee, and
victimization or unfair labour practice could well
be inferred from the conduct of the management in
awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for
a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker or officer of
the management by the appellant within the
premises of the factory”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is applicable to the case in hand.
26. In the case of Rama Kant Misra (supra), before
the Hon’ble Apex Court, “The Respondent had
dismissed the services of the Appellant after having
found guilty of misconduct consisting of use of
indiscreet or abusive or threatening language without
taking into consideration the Appellant was working
with them for 14 years, without any blameworthy
conduct and that he was working as Secretary of the
Workmen’s Union”. While allowing the appeal, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “the Order of
Dismissal was not justified in the facts and
circumstances of the case and ordered for
reinstatement with all the benefits including the back
wages, but the two increments falling due from the
date of termination of the services of the Appellant be
withheld with future effect”.
27. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is applicable to the case in hand. Applying the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case
in hand, the charges of misconduct proved against
the Workman is riotous or disorderly behavior during
working hours at the establishment or any act
subversive of discipline and the charge of wilful
damage to or loss of Employer’s good or property has
not been proved. The allegations levelled against the
Workman that he led around 38 workers and barged
into the office of General Manager, Mr. R.A. Prabhu
and gheraoed him. However, there is nothing on
record that the Workman used bad words or foul
language or threatened etc. Hence, the misconduct
proved against the Workman is not grave and serious.
The Workman was in the employment of the
Employer from the year 2000–2001 as “Operator” in
Progress Oven Department. The Employer failed to
prove that the past records of the Workman is
blameworthy which constrained the Employer to
pass extreme penalty of dismissal from service. It is
pertinent to note that the Workman under reference
was the Office Bearer of the local committee union.
Further, although around 38 workers barged and
gheraoed Shri. R. A. Prabhu, the General Manager of
the Employer, neither any memo nor show-cause
notice, charge-sheet, warning or any disciplinary
enquiry were held against them except the Office
Bearer of the local committee union. It is pertinent to
note that there were shortage of bed sheets to the
workers. It is further noticed that the inspection
report of the Labour Inspector produced on record
clearly indicates that there were various
irregularities including proper rest room to be
provided to the workers. In the circumstances, this
court is of the opinion that the punishment of
dismissal from service of the Workman is shockingly
disproportionate to the proved misconduct of
disorderly behaviour during the working hours at
the establishment or any other act subversive of
discipline. The Workman could have been punished
for withholding two increments falling due from the
date of termination of the services of the Workman.
No responsible Employer would ever impose in like
circumstances the extreme punishment of dismissal
from service. The aforesaid act of dismissing the
services of the Workman under reference is an act of
victimization. Hence, it is held that the action of the
Employer in dismissing the services of the Workman
w.e.f. 24-12-2008 is illegal and unjustified. The issue
No. 3 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 4
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I have
discussed and come to the conclusion that the action
of the Employer in dismissing the services of the
Workman is illegal and unjustified.
28. Ld. Adv., Shri A.V. Nigalye, representing the
Employer submitted that the Workman owns a paddy
field of his family and that the Workman is gainfully
employed by way of self-employment and relied upon
the following judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court.
1316
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
29.In the case of North East Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in para 17 of its judgment held as under:
“17. On the said question, we are unable to accept
the reasoning of the Labour Court that the income
received by the respondent from agricultural
pursuits could not be equated with income from
gainful employment in any establishment in any
establishment. In our view, “gainful employment”
would also include self-employment where from
income is generated. Income either from
employment in an establishment or from self-
employment merely differentiates the sources from
which income is generated, the end use being the
same. Since the respondent was earning some
amount from his agricultural pursuits to maintain
himself, the Labour Court was not justified in
holding that merely because the respondent was
receiving agricultural income, he could not be
treated to be engaged in “gainful employment”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is not applicable to the case in hand. In the
instant case, the Workman owns a paddy field of his
family as well as goods carrier rickshaw. The
evidence on record indicates that the workman is
not operating the said rickshaw for want of business.
There is nothing on record to show that how much
income is derived either from the paddy fields owned
by the joint family of the workman or from the goods
carrier rickshaw. Taking into consideration, the
entire facts of the present case, I am of the opinion
that the Workman is entitled for reinstatement in
service with 20% of back wages along with
consequential benefits thereof.
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. GKB Vision Limited, Pilerne Industrial
Estate, Pilerne, Bardez, Goa, in dismissing the
service of its Workman, Shri Kishore Tuyenkar,
with effect from 24-12-2008, is illegal and
unjustified.
2. The management of M/s. GKB Vision Limited,
Pilerne Industrial Estate, Pilerne, Bardez, Goa,
is hereby directed to reinstate the Workman,
Shri Kishore Tuyenkar, in service with 20% of
back wages along with consequential benefits
thereof.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
Sd/-
(Suresh N. Naulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II.
Notification
No. 28/2/2022-LAB/Part-I/78
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 10-01-2022 in Case No.
Ref. IT/16//2010 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, 9th February, 2022.
______
LABOUR COURT-II
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
AT PANAJI
(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble
Presiding Officer)
Case No. Ref. IT/16/2010
Shri Surendra Tuyenkar,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union,
Velho Bldg, Panaji-Goa
…
Workman/Party I.
V/s
M/s. G.K.B. Vision Ltd.,
Plot No. 27 and 28,
Pilerne Industrial Estate,
Pilerne, Bardez-Goa
…
Employer/Party II.
Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri Suhas
Naik.
Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri A. V.
Nigalye.
Panaji, Dated: 10-01-2022.
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 11-05-2010,
bearing No. 28/16/2010-LAB, referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of
Goa. The Government of Goa, vide it’s another order
dated 09-02-2016, transferred the present dispute to
this Labour Court-II, Panaji - Goa.
“(1) Whether the action of the management of
M/s. GKB Vision Limited, Pilerne Industrial
Estate, Pilerne, Bardez, Goa, in dismissing
the service of its Workman, Shri. Surendra
Tuyenkar, with effect from 24-12-2008, is
legal and justified?
(2) If not, what relief the Workman is entitled to?”
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
1317
2. On receipt of the reference, a case was
registered under No. IT/16/10 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 17-08-2010 at Exb-3. 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’) in its workshop dept. as ‘Lathe
Operator’. He stated that he was issued a charge-
sheet dated 27-08-2007 alleging certain acts of
misconducts. He stated that he filed his reply to the
said charge-sheet, denying each and every
allegations. He stated that however, the Employer
went ahead to conduct the enquiry against him. He
stated that an enquiry was setup against him by the
Employer by appointing Adv. Shri A. M. Gaikwad as
an Enquiry Officer to investigate into the acts of
misconduct. He stated that he was represented by
an Office Bearer of the union. On the contrary, the
Management was represented by Adv. A. V. Nigalye.
He stated that ld. Enquiry Officer submitted his
findings after holding the enquiry. He stated that
thereafter, the Employer dismissed him from his
service by its order dated 24-12-2018. He submitted
that being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated
24-12-2018, he raised an industrial dispute before the
office of the Labour Commissioner, vide his letter
dated
20-01-2009
demanding
immediate
reinstatement with full back wages and continuity
in service, which ended in failure.
3. He contended that the ld. Enquiry Officer never
considered the objection raised by him and his
representative in the said enquiry. He submitted that
the ld. Enquiry Officer arbitrarily and mechanically
overruled his written objections and totally acted in
a biased and prejudicial manner in favour of the
Employer. He submitted that the findings given by
the ld. Enquiry Officer are non-reasoned findings in
a mechanical manner in favour of the management.
He submitted that no charge levelled against him in
the charge-sheet dated 27-08-2007 have been proved
beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the
findings given by the ld. Enquiry Officer are perverse
and are liable to be set aside and quashed. He
submitted that the ld. Enquiry Officer has acted as a
mere agent of the management who made a farce of
enquiry and conducted the enquiry in flagrant
violations of the principles of natural justice. He
submitted that the ld. Enquiry Officer completed
the said enquiry with undue haste, with biased and
prejudicial mind in favour of the management. He
submitted that he disputes and challenges the entire
enquiry proceedings conducted by the ld. Enquiry
Officer in respect of charge-sheet dated 27-08-2007.
He submitted that the ld. Enquiry Officer has
committed gross error of non-application of mind and
in favouring the management by stretching evidence
in favour of the management. He submitted that the
ld. Enquiry Officer has failed to discuss and analyze
the evidence as well as material of the defense and
merely stated that the misconduct levelled against
him stands proved. He submitted that no reason of
whatsoever nature has been given by the ld. Enquiry
Officer for not considering the evidence of the
defense. He submitted that the witness examined
by the management are managerial and supervisory
staff and as such their testimony cannot be believed.
He submitted that none of the workmen or co-worker
have been examined by the management as its
witness to prove their case. He submitted that the
findings given by ld. Enquiry Officer are not based
on evidence on record and that there is no direct
evidence against him. He submitted that his
dismissal from service smacks of malafides intended
to take revenge on him for his legitimate trade union
activities and for being an Office Bearer of the union.
He submitted that his dismissal from service is in
total violation of the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 and
the rules made thereunder. He submitted that after
termination of his services, the management has
recruited new workmen at his factory. He therefore,
submitted that his dismissal from service is illegal,
unjust, bad-in-law and therefore, entitled for
immediate reinstatement with full back wages and
continuity in service. Without prejudice to his
aforesaid contentions, he submitted that the
punishment meted out to him of dismissal from
service is too harsh and disproportionate considering
the nature of allegations leveled against him without
admitting that the allegations are proved in the
enquiry. He stated that presently, he is unemployed
and does not have any source of income. The
Workman therefore, prayed that the action of the
Employer in dismissing him from service w.e.f. 24-12-2008
be held as illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law and he
be reinstated in service with full back wages,
continuity in service and all other consequential
benefits thereof.
4. The Employer resisted the claim of the
Workman by filing its written statement on
15-10-10 at Exb. 5. The Employer, as and by way of its
preliminary objections, submitted that the dispute
raised by the Workman is without merits and as such
the reference is liable to be rejected. The Employer
submitted that the Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers Union on whose representation the
purported dispute is referred to this Hon’ble Tribunal
has no authority and locus standi to represent the
Workman and to espouse the dispute on his behalf.
1318
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
5. The Employer stated that it is a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having
its registered office at Pilerne Industrial Estate,
Pilerne, Bardez-Goa. The Employer stated that it has
a factory, wherein it is engaged in the manufacture
of ophthalmic lenses. The Employer stated that it is
an export oriented unit in terms of manufacturing
license issued to it. The Employer admitted that the
Workman under reference has been employed by
them in its factory for manufacturing activities.
6. The Employer stated that on 22-08-2007, the
Workman was posted in a section of the factory
known as progressive department. The Employer
stated that at about 8.40 hours on the said date, the
Workman left his workplace in the progressive
department without permission of his superiors. The
Employer stated that thereafter, he and other three
workmen led around 38 workers and barged in the
office of its General Manager, Mr. R. A. Prabhu
without any permission and gheroed him. The
Employer stated that he alongwith other three
workmen, Shri Kishore Tuyenkar, Vishnu Gaude and
Shri Santosh Parab were the leaders of the mob. The
Employer stated that he remained in the office of the
General Manager for over 15 minutes abandoning
the work allotted to him. The Employer stated that
the aforesaid acts being serious acts of misconduct,
a charge-sheet was served on the Workman detailing
the said charges. The Employer stated that the
Workman was therefore charged as follows “14 (3)
(c): Willful damage to or loss of Employers goods or
property, 14 (3) (h): Riotous or disorderly behaviour
during working hours at the establishment or any
act subversive of discipline”. The Employer stated
that the Workman was required to show-cause as to
why the disciplinary action should not be taken
against him for the aforesaid misconducts. The
Employer stated that the Workman submitted his
reply dated 28-08-2007 to the said charge-sheet. The
Employer stated that the explanation given by the
Workman in the said reply was not found to be
satisfactory.
7. The Employer stated that similar charge-sheets
were also issued to Shri Kishore Tuyenkar, Shri
Vishnu Gaude and Shri Santosh Parab. The Employer
stated that they also submitted identical replies,
which were not found satisfactory. The Employer
stated that thereafter, a joint domestic enquiry was
held into the charge-sheet issued to the Workman
and the other three workmen by appointing
Shri A. M. Gaikwad. The Employer stated that all the
four workmen participated in the enquiry. The
Employer stated that during the course of enquiry,
Shri Santosh Parab left the services. The Employer
stated that the Workman and the other two workmen
were represented in the enquiry by an Office Bearer
of the union, Shri Suhas Naik. The Employer stated
that their representative cross-examined
management witnesses and the Workman also
produced his own evidence. The Employer stated
that full opportunity was given to the Workman to
defend himself and the enquiry was held in
compliance with the principles of natural justice and
fair play. The Employer stated that on conclusion of
the evidence, the ld. Enquiry Officer submitted his
findings dated 08-12-2008, wherein he held that the
charges “riotous or disorderly behaviour during
working hours at the establishment or any act
subversive of discipline” is proved against the
Workman and Shri Kishore Tuyenkar and Shri Vishnu
Gaude.
8. The Employer stated that by show-cause notice
dated 10-12-2008, a copy of the said findings was
made available to the Workman and he was required
to show-cause as to why the said findings should not
be accepted. The Employer stated that by letter dated
16-12-2008, the Workman sought time for four weeks
to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice.
The Employer stated that by another show cause
notice dated 18-12-2008 signed by its director, Shri
Gaurav Gupta, they informed the Workman that his
request for granting time to submit his reply is
rejected and further informed him that he has
accepted the findings of the ld. Enquiry Officer dated
09-12-2008. The Employer stated that, by the said
show-cause notice, the Workman was informed that
Shri Gaurav Gupta has come to the tentative
conclusion to award the penalty of dismissal from
service to the Workman and he was given an
opportunity on the proposed penalty to make his
representation on the proposed penalty within four
days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The
Employer stated that the Workman submitted his
reply to the said show cause notice, by his letter dated
22-12-2008. The Employer stated that as the said reply
was not found to be satisfactory, the Employer
dismissed the Workman from service with immediate
effect by order dated 24-12-2008. The Employer
submitted that the dismissal of the Workman from
service is just and legal as the Workman was involved
in a very serious misconduct of leading the workers
and gheroaing it’s General Manager.
9. The Employer submitted that the principles of
natural justice were duly complied with in the
enquiry wherein the Workman was represented by
an Office Bearer of a trade union. The Employer
submitted that the findings of the ld. Enquiry Officer
are based on the evidence and material on record of
the enquiry proceedings. The Employer submitted
that the said findings are perfectly fair and proper.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
1319
The Employer submitted that the charges of
misconduct proved against the Workman are very
grave and serious and such acts deserves the penalty
of dismissal from service. The Employer therefore,
submitted that its action in dismissing the Workman
from service is therefore, perfectly legal and justified.
10.Without prejudice to its contention, the
Employer submitted that in the event this Hon’ble
Tribunal holds for any reason whatsoever that the
said enquiry is not fair and proper or the findings of
ld. Enquiry Officer are not legal or not based on
evidence on record, they may be given an opportunity
to substitute the charges of misconduct alleged
against the Workman by producing appropriate
evidence in this Hon’ble Tribunal. The Employer
denied the overall case as pleaded by the Workman
and prayed for dismissal of the present reference.
11. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on
08-12-2010 at Exb. 6. The Workman, by way of his Re-
joinder, confirms and reiterates all the submissions
and averments made by him in his claim statement
to be true and correct and denies all the statements
and averments made by the Employer in the Written
Statement, which are contrary to the statements and
averments made by him. He submitted that the
charge-sheet was issued to him to take revenge for
his association with trade union of his choice and for
being an office bearer of the local committee and the
Workman. He stated that the Employer was bent
upon to harass and victimize him.
12. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective
parties, the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court framed the following
issues on 12-01-2011 at Exb. 7.
1. Whether the Party-I/Union proves that the
domestic enquiry held against the Workman
is not fair, proper and impartial?
2. Whether the charges levelled against the
Workman are proved to the satisfaction of the
Tribunal by acceptable evidence?
3. Whether the Party-I/Union proves that the
action of the Party II in dismissing the services
of the Workman w.e.f. 24-12-2008 is illegal and
unjustified?
4. What relief? What order?
13. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as
under:
(a) Issue No. 1 :
In the Negative.
(b) Issue No. 2 :
Partly in the Affirmative
and Partly in the Negative.
(c) Issue No. 3 :
In the Affirmative.
(d) Issue No. 4 :
As per final order.
I have heard the oral arguments of ld. Adv.
Shri Suhas Naik, appearing for the Workman as well
as ld. Adv. Shri A.V. Nigalye, appearing for the
Employer.
14. Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas Naik, representing the
union, during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that the Workman is represented by the
Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union. He
submitted that the Workman was in the employment
of the Employer. He submitted that by order dated
19-11-2019 passed in the findings on the preliminary
issue No. 1 and 2, this Hon’ble Court held that a free,
fair and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workman and that it is further held that except
the charge of misconduct wilful damage to or loss of
Employer’s goods or property, the charge of riotous
or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the
establishment or any act subversive of discipline
levelled against the Workman have been proved to
the satisfaction of this court by acceptable evidence.
He submitted that the charges of misconduct proved
against the Workman is not grave and serious. He
submitted that inspection report on record clearly
indicates the various irregularities of the Employer
including no proper rest room etc. He submitted that
the whole incident occurred on account of shortage
of bed sheets. He submitted that the Workman was
the Office Bearer of the local union committee. He
submitted that the allegations levelled against the
Workman is gheraoing, Mr. R. A. Prabhu, the General
Manager of the Employer by a group of around 38
workers. He submitted that there is nothing on record
that the Workman has used foul/abusive language.
He submitted that no bad words were used against
any of the authority by the workers. He submitted
that the Employer has however, selectively charge-
sheeted and subsequently dismissed the Office
Bearers of the local union committee including the
Workman under reference. He submitted that the
action taken by the Employer against the Workman
was to take revenge of their legitimate trade union
activities and for being the Office Bearer of the union.
He submitted that the Employer has not taken any
action against the other workers who were involved
in gheraoing Mr. R. A. Prabhu. He submitted that the
punishment imposed upon the Workman is too harsh
and disproportionate to the proved misconduct. He
submitted that no responsible Employer would have
passed such dismissal order. He submitted that this
Hon’ble Court has every jurisdiction u/s 11-A of the
I.D. Act, 1947 to re-appraise the evidence and modify
the punishment awarded to the Workman. In support
of his oral contention, he relied upon a judgment of
Mahindra and Mahindra v/s. N.B. Narawade,
reported in 2005 (3) SCC 134 of Hon’ble Supreme
1320
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
Court of India. He submitted that the Workman is not
gainfully employed from the date of his dismissal and
does not have any source of income. He submitted
that though the evidence on record indicates that
the Workman owns a paddy field, however, nothing
is brought on record to show as to how much he yields
from paddy fields. He therefore, prayed that the
Workman be reinstated in service with full back
wages and continuity in service along with all other
consequential benefits. In support of his oral
contentions, he relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, one in the case of Rama Kant
Misra V/s State Of U. P. reported in AIR 1982 SC
1552 and another in the case of Ved Prakash Gupta
v/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., reported in 1984
AIR 914.
15. Per contra, Ld. Adv., Shri A.V. Nigalye,
representing the Employer during the course of his
oral arguments submitted that by order dated
19-11-2019 passed in the findings on the preliminary
issue No.1 and 2, this Hon’ble Court held that a free,
fair and proper enquiry has been conducted against
the Workman and that it is further held that except
the charge of misconduct wilful damage to or loss of
Employer’s goods or property, the charge of riotous
or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the
establishment or any act subversive of discipline
levelled against the Workman have been proved to
the satisfaction of this court by acceptable evidence.
He submitted that misconduct of gheraoing is a
serious misconduct. He submitted that the Workman
was an Office Bearer of the union and he got the
punishment he deserved. He submitted that the
punishment of dismissal from service imposed upon
the Workman is proportionate to the proved serious
misconduct of gheraoing the General Manager of the
Employer. Without prejudice to the aforesaid
contentions, he submitted that the Workman is not
entitled for reinstatement in service. He submitted
that the Workman was dismissed for loss of
confidence in him. He submitted that this Hon’ble
Court is empowered to mould the relief. He submitted
that the evidence on record indicates that the
Workman is having his own paddy fields. He
submitted that self-employment is also a gainful
employment. In support of his oral contentions, he
relied upon the following judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
(a)
In the case of Hombe Gowda Education
Trust and Anr v/s. State of Karnataka and
Ors, reported in 2006 1 SCC 430,
(b)
In the case of Pravin Kumar v/s. Union of
India and Ors., reported in 2020 5
Supreme 149 and
(c)
In the case of North East Karnataka Road
Transport
Corporation
v/s.
M.
Nagangouda, reported in 2007 10 SCC 765
He therefore prayed that the reference be
answered as the action of the management of the
Employer in dismissing the Workman is legal and
justified and the Workman is not entitled to any relief.
I have carefully perused the entire records of the
present case. I have also carefully considered the oral
submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates
appearing for the respective parties.
REASONS
Issue No. 1 and 2
16. By order dated 19-11-2019, passed in my
findings on the preliminary issue No.1 and 2,
I have discussed and come to the conclusion that a
free, fair and proper enquiry has been conducted
against the Workman and that it is further held that
except the charge of misconduct, wilful damage to
or loss of Employer’s goods or property, the charge of
riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours
at the establishment or any act subversive of
discipline levelled against the Workman have been
proved to the satisfaction of this court by acceptable
evidence. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in
the negative and issue No. 2 is partly answered in
the affirmative and partly in the negative.
Issue No. 3
17. Ld. Adv. Shri A. V. Nigalye, representing the
Employer submitted that the services of the Work-
man have been dismissed on account of loss of confi-
dence in him. However, I do not find any pleadings of
the Employer to that effect nor produced on record
any evidence to substantiate the plea of loss of con-
fidence. Hence, submissions of ld. Adv. Shri A.V.
Nigalye that the services of the Workman have been
dismissed on account of loss of confidence in him is
without merits.
18. Ld. Adv. Shri Suhas Naik representing the
union during the course of his oral arguments
submitted that this Hon’ble court has ample power
u/s 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 to reduce the punishment
and relied upon a judgment in the case of Mahindra
and Mahindra.
19. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (supra),
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held as under
“It is no doubt true that after introduction of section
11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, certain amount
of discretion is vested with labour court/industrial
tribunal in interfering with the quantum of
punishment awarded by the management, where
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
1321
the concerned Workman is found guilty of
misconduct. The said area of discretion has been
very well defined by the various judgments of this
Court referred to herein above and it is certainly
not unlimited as has been observed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. The discretion which can
be exercised under Section11-A is available only on
the existence of certain factors like punishment
being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct
so as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the
existence of any mitigating circumstance which
requires the reduction of the sentence, or the past
misconduct of the Workman which may persuade
the Labour Court to reduce the punishment. In the
absence of any such factor existing, the labour court
cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise the power
under Section 11-A of the Act and reduce the
punishment. As noticed here above at least in two
of the cases citied before us, i.e., Orissa Cement Ltd.
(supra) and New Shorrock Mills (supra), this Court
held: “punishment of dismissal for using of abusive
language cannot be held to be disproportionate.”
In this case all forums below have held that the
language used by the Workman is such that it
cannot be tolerated by any civilized society. Use of
such abusive language against a superior officer,
that too not once but twice, in the presence of his
subordinates cannot be termed to be an indiscipline
calling for lesser punishment in the absence of any
extenuating factor to herein above.”
20. Ld. Adv., Shri A.V. Nigalye, representing the
Employer, relied upon a judgment of Hombe Gowda
Education Trust and Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in para 16 and 17 of its judgment has
held as under:
“16. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is akin to one under
Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. While
exercising such discretionary jurisdiction, no doubt
it is open to the Tribunal to substitute one
punishment by another; but it is also trite that the
Tribunal exercises a limited jurisdiction in this
behalf. The jurisdiction to interfere with the
quantum of punishment could be exercised only
when, inter alia, it is found to be grossly
disproportionate”.
17. This court has repeatedly, laid down the law
that such interference at the hands of the Tribunal
should be inter alia on arriving at a finding that no
reasonable person could inflict such punishment.
The Tribunal may further more exercises its
jurisdiction when relevant facts are not taken into
consideration by the management which would
have direct bearing on the question of quantum of
punishment.”
21. Thus, from the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble
Apex Court it is crystal clear that the Labour Court
has the jurisdiction and power to substitute its
measure of punishment in place of managerial wisdom
once it is satisfied that the order of discharge or
dismissal was not justified in the facts and
circumstances of the case. However the discretion
u/s 11-A is available only on the existence of certain
factors like punishment being disproportionate to
the gravity of misconduct so as to disturb the
conscience of the court, or the existence of any
mitigating circumstances which require the
reduction of the sentence, or the past misconduct of
the workman.
22. Ld. Adv., Shri A.V. Nigalye representing the
Employer submitted that the punishment of
dismissal from services of the Workman is
proportionate to the proved misconduct and it does
not shock the conscience of the Court and relied upon
a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Pravin Kumar.
23. In the case of Pravin Kumar (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 36 of its
judgment held as under:
“36. In our considered opinion, the appellant’s
contention that the punishment of dismissal was
disproportionate to the allegation of corruption, is
without merit. It is a settled legal proposition that
the Disciplinary Authority has wide discretion in
imposing punishment for a proved delinquency,
subject of course to principles of proportionality
and fair play. Such requirements emanate from
Article 14 itself, which prohibits State authorities
from treating varying degrees of misdeeds with the
same broad stroke. Determination of such
proportionality is a function of not only the action
or intention of the delinquent, but must also factor
the financial effect and societal implication of such
misconduct [Jameel v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2010) 12 SCC 532, 1416]. But unlike in criminal
cases, in matters of disciplinary proceedings Courts
only interfere on grounds of proportionality when
they find that the punishment awarded is
inordinate to a high degree, or if the conscience of
the court itself is shocked. Thus, whereas
imposition of major penalty (like dismissal, removal,
or reduction in rank) would be discriminatory and
impermissible for trivial misdeeds; but for grave
offences there is a need to send a clear message of
deterrence to the society. Charges such as
corruption, misappropriation and gross
indiscipline are prime examples of the latter
category, and ought to be dealt with strictly”.
1322
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in its aforesaid case is not applicable to the
case in hand as the facts of the case before the
Hon’ble Apex Court and the case in hand are
totally different.
24. In the case of Ved Prakash Gupta (supra), the
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“The punishment awarded to the appellant is
shockingly disproportionate regard being had to
the charge framed against him. No responsible
Employer would ever impose in employee, and
victimization or unfair labour practice could well
be inferred from the conduct of the management in
awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for
a flimsy charge of abuse of some worker or officer of
the management by the appellant within the
premises of the factory”.
The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is applicable to the case in hand.
25. In the case of Rama Kant Misra (supra), before
the Hon’ble Apex Court, “The Respondent had
dismissed the services of the Appellant after having
found guilty of misconduct consisting of use of
indiscreet or abusive or threatening language without
taking into consideration the Appellant was working
with them for 14 years, without any blameworthy
conduct and that he was working as Secretary of the
Workmen’s Union”. While allowing the appeal, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “the Order of
Dismissal was not justified in the facts and
circumstances of the case and ordered for
reinstatement with all the benefits including the back
wages, but the two increments falling due from the
date of termination of the services of the Appellant be
withheld with future effect”.
26. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court is applicable to the case in hand. Applying the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case
in hand, the charges of misconduct proved against
the Workman is riotous or disorderly behavior during
working hours at the establishment or any act
subversive of discipline and the charge of wilful
damage to or loss of Employer’s good or property has
not been proved. The allegations levelled against the
Workman that he led around 38 workers and barged
into the office of General Manager, Mr. R. A. Prabhu
and gheraoed him. However, there is nothing on
record that the Workman used bad/abusive words or
foul language or threatened him etc. Hence, the
misconduct proved against the Workman is not grave
and serious. The Workman was in the employment of
the Employer from the year 2004 – 2005 as ‘Lathe
Operator’. The Employer failed to prove that the past
records of the Workman is blameworthy which
constrained the Employer to pass extreme penalty of
dismissal from service. It is pertinent to note that the
Workman under reference was the Office Bearer of
the local committee union. Further, although around
38 workers barged and gheraoed Shri. R. A. Prabhu,
the General Manager of the Employer, neither any
memo nor show-cause notice, charge-sheet, warning
or any disciplinary enquiry were held against them
except the Office Bearer of the local committee union.
It is pertinent to note that there were shortage of
bed sheets to the workers. It is further noticed that
the inspection report of the Labour Inspector
produced on record clearly indicates that there were
various irregularities including proper rest room to
be provided to the workers. In the circumstances,
this court is of the opinion that the punishment of
dismissal from service of the Workman is shockingly
disproportionate to the proved misconduct of
disorderly behaviour during the working hours at
the establishment or any other act subversive of
discipline. The Workman could have been punished
for withholding two increments falling due from the
date of termination of the services of the Workman.
No responsible Employer would ever impose in like
circumstances the extreme punishment of dismissal
from service. The aforesaid act of dismissing the
services of the Workman under reference is an act of
victimization. Hence, it is held that the action of the
Employer in dismissing the services of the Workman
w.e.f. 24-12-2008 is illegal and unjustified. The issue
No. 3 is therefore answered in the affirmative.
Issue No. 4
While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I have
discussed and come to the conclusion that the action
of the Employer in dismissing the services of the
Workman is illegal and unjustified.
26. Ld. Adv. Shri A.V. Nigalye, representing the
Employer submitted that the Workman owns a paddy
field of his family and that the Workman is gainfully
employed by way of self-employment and relied upon
the following judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court.
27. In the case of North East Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in para 17 of its judgment held as under:
“17. On the said question, we are unable to accept
the reasoning of the Labour Court that the income
received by the respondent from agricultural
pursuits could not be equated with income from
gainful employment in any establishment in any
establishment. In our view, “gainful employment”
would also include self-employment wherefrom
income is generated. Income either from
employment in an establishment or from self-
employment merely differentiates the sources from
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
1323
which income is generated, the end use being the
same. Since the respondent was earning some
amount from his agricultural pursuits to maintain
himself, the Labour Court was not justified in
holding that merely because the respondent was
receiving agricultural income, he could not be
treated to be engaged in “gainful employment”.
28. The evidence on record indicates that the
Workman owns a paddy field of his family. The
evidence on record indicates that the Workman is
having four wheeler driving license for private
vehicle. There is nothing on record to show that how
much income is derived from the paddy fields owned
by the joint family of the workman. Taking into
consideration, the entire facts of the present case, I
am of the opinion that the Workman is entitled for
reinstatement in service with 40% of back wages
along with consequential benefits thereof.
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. GKB Vision Limited, Pilerne Industrial
Estate, Pilerne, Bardez, Goa, in dismissing the
service of its Workman, Shri Surendra Tuyenkar,
with effect from 24-12-2008, is illegal and
unjustified.
2. The management of M/s. GKB Vision Limited,
Pilerne Industrial Estate, Pilerne, Bardez, Goa,
is hereby directed to reinstate the Workman,
Shri Surendra Tuyenkar, in service with 40% of
back wages along with consequential benefits
thereof.
3. No order as to costs.
Inform the Government accordingly.
(Suresh N. Narulkar),
Presiding Officer,
Labour Court-II .
———uuu———
Department of Law & Judiciary
Law (Establishment) Division
__
Notification
No. 6/28/92/LD(Misc-I)(Estt)/Misc-I (M.S.)/174
On recommendations of the Hon’ble the Chief
Justice, High Court of Bombay and the Hon’ble
Patron-in-Chief of Goa State Legal Services
Authority, the Government is pleased to nominate
Hon’ble Shri Justice M. S. Sonak, as Executive
Chairman of the Goa State Legal Services Authority.
By order and in the name of the Governor
of Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt).
Porvorim, 16th February, 2022.
–––––––
Notification
No. 12/18/2015-LD(Estt.) (P.F.I)/201
The Notification No. X(Gen)-1603/2022/253 dated
14-02-2022 which have been issued by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay original and Appellate
sides, is hereby published for general information of
the public.
By order and in the name of the Governor of
Goa.
Amir Y. Parab, Under Secretary (Law-Estt.).
Porvorim, 23rd February, 2022.
_____
Notification by the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay Original and Appellate Sides
No. X(Gen)-1603/2022/253
In partial modifications of the Notification
No. X(Gen)-1603/2021/1722 dated 13th December,
2021 and Notice dated 6th February, 2022, the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been pleased to
declare the day 26th February, 2022 (4th Saturday)
as Court working day for the Principal Seat of the
High Court of Bombay and its Benches at Nagpur
& Aurangabad and the High Court of Bombay at
Goa, Porvorim-Goa in lieu of holiday already declared
on 7th February, 2022.
High Court of Judicature
Sd/-
at Bombay
(M. W. Chandwani),
Dated: 14th February, 2022.
Registrar General.
———uuu———
Department of Personnel
__
Order
No. 7/3/2022-PER/379
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa
Public Service Commission vide its letter No. COM/
/II/11/27(4)/2020/502 dated 28-01-2022, the
Government of Goa is pleased to order the promotion
1324
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 48
24TH FEBRUARY, 2022
www.goaprintingpress.gov.in
Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,
Government Printing Press,
Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.
PRICE–Rs. 20.00
PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—380/150—2/2022.
of Shri Pramod B. Badami, Superintending Engineer (Civil) to the post of Chief Engineer (WR), (Group “A”
Gazetted) (Goa General Service) in the Water Resources Department on regular basis in the pay scale of
Level-14 of the pay matrix with immediate effect.
The pay and allowances of officer on promotion shall be fixed as per C.C.S.(RP) Rules, 2016 and debited
to the Budget Head controlled by the Water Resources Department.
The officer shall exercise the option for fixation of pay within one month from the date of this Order
in terms of F.R. 22(I)(a)(1).
This issues with the approval of Election Commission of India vide letter No. 5-13-2021/(Per-151)/ELEC/
3718 dated 17-02-2022.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Vishal C. Kundaikar, Under Secretary (Personnel-II)/Link).
Porvorim, 18th February, 2022.
———uuu———
Department of Public Works
Office of the Principal Chief Engineer
__
Order
No. 14-17/PCE/PWD/EO/2021-22/244
Ref:
1. Memorandum No.14-17-98/PCE-EO/186 dated 22-12-2006.
2. Amendment No. 14-17-98/PCE-EO/222 dated 19-02-2007.
3. Amendment No. 14-17-98/PCE-EO/49 dated 04-06-2007.
4. Amendment No. 14-17-98/PCE-PWD-EO/04 dated 18-04-2012.
5. Amendment No. T-27/PWD/MEU/2016-17/05 dated 31-05-2017.
6. Amendment No. T-27/PWD/MEU/2016-17/41 dated 16-10-2017.
In pursuance of sub-section (1) & (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter called
the “said Act”), the following officers are designated State Public Information Officers and Assistant
State Public Information Officers for Public Works Department, for carrying out the function prescribed
under the said Act in partial modification to the Orders stated in parable.
Sr.
Name of
Designated as
Designated as
No.
Office
SPIO
ASPIO
1.
Office of CE-I/CE-II/CE (NH, R&B)
Engineering Officer
Assistant Surveyor
for Technical matters
of Works, CE-I/CE-II/
/CE (NH, R&B).
By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa.
Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer & ex officio Addl. Secretary (PWD).
Panaji, 10th February, 2022.
..