Panaji, 4th August, 2022 (Sravana 13, 1944)

SERIES II No. 18

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-2023

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs

–––

Order

No. DCS/ADCS/CC/Appoint/99/2022-23/1469

In exercise of powers conferred under the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (35 of 2019)

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Consumer

Protection (Qualification for Appointment, Method

of Recruitment, Procedure of Appointment, Term

of Office, Resignation and Removal of the President

and Members of the State Commission and District

Commission) Rules, 2020 the State Government is

pleased to appoint Adv. Varsha V. Wadiker alias

Mrs. Varsha R. Bale as the Member of the Goa State

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji-

Goa on full-time basis w.e.f. 01-08-2022 (b.n.) on the

recommendation of the Selection Committee.

1. A Member of the State Commission shall hold

the office for a term of four years or up to the

age of 65 years whichever is earlier as per the

provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,

2019.

2. A Member of the State Commission shall

receive a pay equivalent to the pay at

minimum of the scale of pay of an Additional

1737

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

Note:- There are four Extraordinary issues to the Official

Gazette, Series II No. 17 dated 28-07-2022 as

follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 28-07-2022 from pages 1709

to 1714 regarding Notification from Goa State

Election Commission.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 29-07-2022 from

pages 1715 to 1720 regarding Notification

from Department of Panchayati Raj and

Community Development.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 30-07-2022 from

pages 1721 to 1722 regarding Corrigendums

from Goa State Election Commission.

(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 02-08-2022 from

pages 1723 to 1736 regarding Circulars from

Department of Finance.

Secretary of the State Government and other

allowances as are admissible to such officer.

3. The pay of a person appointed as Member, who

is in receipt of any pension, shall be reduced

by the gross amount of pension drawn by him.

4. The expenditure on account of his salary shall

be debitable to the Budget Head Demand

No. 70, “3456—Civil Supplies; 001—Director

and Administration; 04—Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission (Non-Plan); 01—Salaries”.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Gopal A. Parsekar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs).

Panaji, 1st August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

–––

Order

No. 19/33/94/TS/RCS (Vol.I)/1338

Read: 1)

Letter No. 1/RO/Elc/BOD/GSCMPO/851

dated 20-06-2022;

Proceedings of election to the office

bearers dated 18-07-2022.

1738

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

Whereas, elections to the new Board of Directors

of the Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers Union

Ltd., Curti, Ponda, Goa (hereafter referred to as ‘Goa

Dairy’) were held in accordance with provisions of

Section 66 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001 read with the Goa Co-operative Societies Rules,

2003 and the results were declared in Form

‘ELECTION 17’ on 20-06-2022.

And whereas, the elections to the Office bearers

i.e. Chairman of the Goa Dairy was held on

18-07-2022 in accordance with Section 66(6) of the

Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001.

And whereas, the Byelaws of Goa Dairy provides

for a Board of Directors of 15 members, out of which

12 are elected, 1 Nominee of Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, 1 Nominee of National Dairy

Development Board and Managing Director of Goa

State Co-operative Milk Producer’s Union Ltd.

Now, therefore, I, the undersigned Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, Government of Goa, in

accordance with Clause 19.1.2 of the Byelaws of

Goa Dairy, do hereby nominate the Assistant

Registrar of Co-operative Societies incharge of

Ponda Zone, having office at Sahakar Bhavan, Curti,

Ponda, Goa as a member (RCS Nominee) on the

Board of Directors of the Goa State Co-operative

Milk Producers Union Ltd., Curti, Ponda, Goa with

immediate effect.

He/she shall ensure that the interest of the

Government of Goa and the Goa Dairy is protected

while functioning as nominated Director on the

Board of the Goa Dairy.

This order shall come into force with immediate

effect.

Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar (Co-operative

Societies).

Panaji, 25th July, 2022.

————

Order

No. 3-1-Ts-II/SZ/2017/RCS Vol. I/1365

Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TS II/

/PZ/2017/RCS/Suppl. 5306 dated 10-02-2022;

Office Memorandum No. 3/6/Urban Credit/

/TS-II/PZ/2017/RCS/833 dated 17-06-2020;

This Office Order No. 3/1/Urban Credit/

/TS-II/SZ/2017/Vol. I dated 17-05-2021;

Letter No. SUCCS/22-23/ARCS/247 dated

19-07-2022.

Whereas, vide Order at reference No. 3 above

issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in

exercise of the powers conferred upon him by

Notification at reference No. 1 above issued by the

Government by exercising the powers under Section

126A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001

(Goa Act No. 36 of 2001), the General Manager of the

Sahakar Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,

Vasco-Da-Gama was authorized to act as Recovery

Officer/Sale Officer in relation to recovery of debts

and to attach and sell the property of defaulters or

to execute any decree by attachment and sale of

property and execution of all recovery orders of

decree holder viz. The Sahakar Urban Co-operative

Credit Society Ltd; Vasco-Da-Gama passed by the

Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ABN/EXE

or the Nominee of Registrar, as provided under

Section 91D of the said Act.

And whereas, said appointment was initially for

a period of one year from 17-05-2021 to 16-05-2022.

And whereas, vide letter dated 19-07-2022 at

reference No. 4 above, Chairman of the

administrative committee of The Sahakar Urban

Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Vasco-Da-Gama,

has requested for extending said authorization for

further period of one year.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred upon undersigned under Section 123 B

read with Notification dated 10-02-2020 at

reference No.1 above, the appointment and

authorization of said Recovery Officer/Sale Officer

is hereby further extended for a period of one year

with retrospective effect from 17-05-2022 to

16-05-2023.

All the terms and conditions mentioned in the

Order referred to at Sr. No. 3 above shall continue

to apply.

The undersigned reserves the right to withdraw

this Order at any stage without assigning any

reasons.

Given under the Seal of this Office.

Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar of Co-operative

Societies & ex officio Joint Secretary (Co-operation).

Panaji, 27th July, 2022.

————

Order

No. 50/3/418/SSCHS/BOD/Elec/SZ/RCS/21/1366

Read:

Letter No. 17/109/88/ARSZ/HSG/792 dated

27-06-2022 received from Assistant Registrar

of Co-operative Societies, South Zone,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1739

Margao, Goa to grant exemption from

Section 59(4) of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001 to Shripad Shreevallabh

Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Reg.

No. HSG (a)-209/GOA dated 01-12-1987),

Camarshete, Curtorim, Salcete, Goa.

Whereas, the Society Shripad Shreevallabh

Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Camarshete,

Curtorim, Salcete, Goa was registered on 01-12-1987

under registration No. HSG(a)-209/GOA and is

having a total membership of 38 as on

31-03-2021 (hereafter referred as “said Society”).

And whereas, the elections to the Board of

Director of said Society were held by ARCS/AEO,

South Zone, Margao for the term 2022-2027 for filling

up of total 07 posts and the election result was

declared on 21-03-2022 in Form “Election-9” i.e.

result of uncontested election thereby returning

candidates to the 05 posts i.e. 04 from General

Category and 01 from Women Category, while

02 posts i.e. 01 from Women Category and 01 from

SC/ST Category remained vacant.

And whereas, the Assistant Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, South Zone, Margao vide

letter referred above requested to grant exemption

from Section 59 (4) of the Goa Co-operative Societies

Act, 2001 to said Society for filling up these 2 vacant

posts. Said proposal was examined in terms of

Circular No. 15-11-2017/RCS/2470 dated 01-08-2019

and was found to be eligible for such exemption.

In view of above facts and in exercise of the

powers vested under Section 126A of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (Goa Act No. 36 of

2001), the Government of Goa is pleased to exempt

said Society from the applicability of provisions of

sub-section (4) of Section 59 for the term 2022-2027.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar of Co-operative

Societies & ex officio Joint Secretary (Co-operation.).

Panaji, 28th July, 2022.

————

Order

No. 11/1/Kharedi Vikri/TSII/QZ/2019/RCS/1377

Read: 1)

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

21-04-2017.

Circular No. 6-13-81/EST/RCS/Part V./5833

dated 06-03-2020;

Letter No. ARCS/QZ/RS nominee/2012/153

dated 18-06-2020.

Order No. 11/1/Kharedi Vikri/TS-II/ QZ/

/RCS/1446 dated 09-08-2020.

Letter No. AD/B/078/22-23 dated

30-04-2022.

Whereas, vide order at reference No. 1 above

issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

u/s. 86 (1) of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001 read with Rule 116 (1) of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Rules, 2003, Adv. Dilip S. Gaonkar, A-306,

3rd floor, Pereira Plaza, Opposite to Hospicio

Hospital, Margao, Goa was appointed as the

Registrars Nominee for deciding the disputes arising

in any of the Co-operative Societies referred to him

by the Registrars of Co-operative Societies/Asst.

Registrars of Co-operative Societies.

And whereas, vide letter at reference No. 3 above,

the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Quepem Zone, Quepem-Goa has submitted request

of Adarsh Krishi Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Saustha

Maryadit (Reg. No. 6-APS-(a)-1 South Goa/93) for

appointment of Adv. Dilip S. Gaonkar as dedicated

Registrar’s Nominee for their Society. The Registrar

of Co-operative Societies, in excise of power

conferred u/s. 123 (B) of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001 read with Circular at ref. No. 2

above, appointed Adv. Dilip S. Gaonkar as the

dedicated Registrar’s Nominee authorizing him to

entertain and decide all the disputes submitted to

him by the said Society, without referring to this

office. The initial period of authorization was for 1

year from 04-08-2020 to 03-08-2021.

And whereas, the Adarsh Krishi Sahakari Kharedi

Vikri Saustha Maryadit vide letter at ref. No. 5

above has requested for extension of said

authorization for a further period of one year from

04-08-2021 to 03-08-2022.

Now therefore, in exercise of powers conferred

under Section 123B of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001, I, the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies hereby extend the authorization of

Adv. Dilip S. Gaonkar as dedicated Registrar’s

Nominee for the Adarsh Krishi Sahakari Kharedi

Vikri Saustha Maryadit for a further period of 1 year

with retrospective effect from 04-08-2021 to

03-08-2022.

The other terms and conditions mentioned in

the Order referred to at Sr. No. 4 above shall

continue to remain in force.

The Registrar reserves the right to withdraw this

Order at any stage without assigning any reason

thereof.

Given under the seal of this office.

Vishant. S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar of Co-operative

Societies & ex officio Joint Secretary (Co-operation),

Panaji, 28th July, 2022.

1740

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

Sub.:- Declaration of Results of Election in respect of the Board of Directors of the Goa State

Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa.

FORM “ELECTION-17”

[See Rule 105(1)]

Form of declaration of result and publication of names of

Members of the Board of Directors

(Result of Election)

Election to the Board of Director of the “Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Curti,

Ponda–Goa, for the period 2022-2027.

Sr.

Name of

Representative

Number of valid votes

No.

the Candidate

polled by the Candidate

01. Arolkar Nauso Mahadev

Shree Bhagwati Sapteshwar

Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Vyavsayik

Saunstha Ltd., Mandrem, Pernem-Goa

02. Bhatikar Chandrakant Siddhu

Shree Mallikarjun Sahakari Dudh

Vyavsayik Saunstha Ltd., Bhati,

Sanguem-Goa

03. Desai Ajay Laxmikant

Bhandiwade Sahakari Dudh

Vyavsayik Saunstha Maryadit,

Bandiwade, Ponda-Goa

04. Desai Anup Kalidas

Priol Gosavardhan Sahakari Dudh

Vyavasayik Saunstha Maryadit,

Priol-Goa

05. Desai Bhagirathi Datta

Shree Shantadurga Mhahila

Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Saunstha

Maryadit, Advalpal,

Bicholim, Goa

06. Desai Dhananjay Nandaba

Shree Kamdhenu Dugdh Utpadak

Sahakari Saustha Maryadit, Advoi,

Valpoi, Sattari, Goa

07. Desai Sandip Ganpat

Jai Bhawani Sahakari Dudh

Vyavasayik Saunstha Ltd., Sancorda,

Dharbandora-Goa

08. Dessai Baburao Shrikant Fatto

Kakoda Sahakari Dudh Utpadak

Vyavasayik Saunstha Maryadit,

Bansai, Kakoda, Goa

09. Dessai Vithoba Datta

Shantadurga Sahakari Dudh

Vyavasaik Saunstha Ltd., Cuncolim Bazar,

Cuncolim, Salcete-Goa

10. Dhauskar Sudhir Uttam

Shree Sateri Dudh Utpadak

Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit,

Ibrampur, Pedne-Goa

11. Faldessai Dayanand Fachad

Mahadev Sahakari Dudh

Vyavsayik Saunstha Maryadit,

Pirla, Quepem-Goa

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1741

12. Faldessai Rajesh Krishna

Somnath Sahakari Dudgdh

Utpadak Vyavsayik Saunstha

Maryadit, Adnem, Quepem-Goa

13. Faldessai Ravindra Uttam

Mallikarjun Sahakari Dudh Utpadak

Vyavsayik, Saunstha Maryadit,

Kavre, Quepem-Goa

14. Falo Babu Deu

Shree Paravdeshwar Dudh Utpadak

Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit,

Keri, Sattari-Goa

15. Fernandes Manguesh Caitano

Seraulim Sahakari Dudh Vyavasayik

Saustha Maryadit,

Seraulim, Salcete-Goa

16. Furtado Aselmo

Orlim Dudh Utpadak Sahakari

Saunstha Maryadit, Orlim, Salcete-Goa

17. Gaonkar Vijaykant Vithoba

Shree Mahamaya Dudh Utapadak

Sahakari Saunstha, Maryadit, Jackem,

Netravalim, Sanguem, Goa

18. Jalmi Prakash Bhiku

Devanand Vijaya Sahakari

Dugdh Vyavsayik Society,

Kunkaly, Ponda-Goa

19. Malik Nilesh Prabhakar

Nandini Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak

Saunstha Maryadit, Kasarpal, Ladfe-Goa

20. Naik Govind Ladu

Pirna Sahakari Dugdh Vyavasayik

Saustha Ltd., Pirna, Bardez-Goa

21. Naik Shrikant Pandurang

Pragati Sahakari Dudh

Utpadak Saunstha Maryadit,

Kapileshwari, Kavale, Ponda-Goa

22. Parab Adinath Anant

Shree Bhumika Sahakari Dudh

Utpadak Saunstha Maryadit, Sal Assnora,

Bicholim-Goa

23. Parab Gurudas Keshav

Menkurem Dudh Utapadak

Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit,

Menkurem, Bicholim-Goa

24. Parab Gurudas Shantaram

Abhinav Sahakari Dudh Vyavasayik

Saunstha Maryadit, Bandharwada,

Bicholim-Goa

25. Parab Madan Krishna

Shri Mauli Dudh Utpadak

Sahakari Saustha Maryadit,

Virnoda-Goa

26. Parab Vaibhav Mohan

Amthane Sahakari Dudh Utpadak

Saunstha Maryadit, Amthane,

Bicholim-Goa

27. Patil Sandesh Kanta

Shree Ranganath Sateri Sahakari

Dudh Saunstha Ltd., Vaghon,

Dabal, Sanguem-Goa

28. Pednekar Shivanand Bablo

Shree Rudreshwar Dudh Utpadak

Sahakari Society Maryadit,

Harvalem-Goa

29. Prabhu Uday Anand

Somnath Mahalaxmi Sahakari

Dudh Utpadak Saunstha Maryadit,

Kodar, Ponda-Goa

1742

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

30. Prabhu Vikas Vishwanath

Shree Gananath Sahakari Dudh

Vyavsayik Saunstha Maryadit

Nirankal, Ponda-Goa

31. Prabhugaonkar Nitin Vishwanath

Tribhuvan Sahakari Dudh

Vyavasayik Saunstha Maryadit,

Mardol-Goa

32. Sahakari Madhav Atmaram

Kapila Sahakari Dudh Utpadak

Vyavasayik Saustha Maryadit,

Curti, Ponda-Goa

33. Sardesai Deepaji Hirbarao Rane

Kumbharkhan Dudh Utpadak

Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit,

Kumbharkhan, Pissurlem, Sattari-Goa

34. Sawant Dnyneshwar Kushta

Shree Shampurush Dudh Utpadak

Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit, Sarvan,

Bicholim-Goa

35. Shirodkar Durgesh Madhukar

Shree Sateri Sahakari Dudh

Vyavsayik Saunstha Maryadit,

Santemol Raia, Salcete-Goa

36. Siddhaye Pramod Vasudev

Shree Nanoda Dudgdh Utpadak

Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit,

Nanoda, Bicholim-Goa

37. Sinari Ulhas Pandurang

Janata Utkarsh Sahakari

Dudh Vyavasayik Society Ltd.,

Amona, Marcela-Goa

38. Sukthankar Vishwas Sitaram

Shree Shantadurga Sahakari Dudh

Utpadak Vyavasayik Saunstha

Maryadit, Kumbharjuva, Marcel-Goa

Total No. valid votes

159

Total No. of invalid votes

Total No. of Tendered votes

Given under my hand and seal of this office on 20-06-2022.

Raju Magdum, Returning Officer for Election to the BOD’s of the Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers

Union Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa.

Ponda, 20th June, 2022.

—–––––—

I, declare that the following 12 Directors have been duly elected on the Board of Director’s of the Goa

State Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa, for the term 2022-2027:

Name/s

Address/ses

1) Sinari Ulhas Pandurang

Janata Utkarsh Sahakari Dudh

Vyavasayik Society Ltd.,

Amona, Marcela-Goa

2) Faldessai Rajesh Krishna

Somnath Sahakari Dudgdh

Utpadak Vyavsayik Saunstha

Maryadit, Adnem, Quepem-Goa

3) Dessai Vithoba Datta

Shantadurga Sahakari Dudh

Vyavasaik Saunstha Ltd.,

Cuncolim Bazar, Cuncolim,

Salcete-Goa

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1743

4) Gaonkar Vijaykant Vithoba

Shree Mahamaya Dudh

Utapadak Sahakari Saunstha

Maryadit, Jackem, Netravalim,

Sanguem-Goa

5) Parab Gurudas Keshav

Menkurem Dudh Utapadak

Sahakari Saunstha Maryadit,

Menkurem, Bicholim-Goa

6) Sahakari Madhav Atmaram

Kapila Sahakari Dudh Utpadak

Vyavasayik Saustha Maryadit,

Curti, Ponda-Goa

7) Dessai Baburao Shrikant Fatto

Kakoda Sahakari Dudh

Utpadak Vyavasayik Saunstha

Maryadit, Bansai, Kakoda-Goa

8) Prabhu Uday Anand

Somnath Mahalaxmi Sahakari

Dudh Utpadak Saunstha

Maryadit, Kodar, Ponda-Goa

9) Prabhugaonkar Nitin Vishwanath

Tribhuvan Sahakari Dudh

Vyavasayik Saunstha

Maryadit, Mardol-Goa

10) Falo Babu Deu

Shree Paravdeshwar Dudh

Utpadak Sahakari Saunstha

Maryadit, Keri, Sattari-Goa

11) Desai Anup Kalidas

Priol Gosavardhan Sahakari

Dudh Vyavasayik Saunstha

Maryadit, Priol-Goa

12)Naik Shrikant Pandurang

Pragati Sahakari Dudh

Utpadak Saunstha Maryadit,

Kapileshwari, Kavale, Ponda-Goa

Given under my hand and seal of this office on 20-06-2022.

Raju Magdum, Returning Officer for Elections to the BOD’s of the Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers

Union Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa.

Ponda, 20th June, 2022.

—–––––—

FORM – IV

In pursuance of power conferred by clause sub-section 6 of Section 66 of the Goa Co-operative Societies

Act, 2001, declare the election of office bearers as follows:

Election of office bearer of the “Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa”.

Sr.

Name of

Address of

For the

No.

the Candidate

Candidate

post of

01. Shri Rajesh K. Fal Dessai

Somnath Sahakari Dudh Utpadak

Chairman.

Vyavsayik Saunstha Maryadit,

Adnem, Quepem-Goa

Sd/- Signature of the Presiding Officer.

Ponda, 18th July, 2022.

Name/s

Address/ses

1744

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

Office of the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative

Societies

–––

Order

No. 20-192-1999/ARSZ/Credit/862

Read:

Order No. 20-192/1999/ARSZ/Credit/

/2304 dated 15-01-2020.

Order No. 20-192/1999/ARSZ/Credit/837

dated 04-07-2022.

(Under Section 67A of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001)

Wheras, vide order referred to at Sr. No. 1 above,

three-member Committee of Administrators

(including one Government official) was appointed

to look after the affairs of the Visionaries Urban

Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Loutolim, Salcete, Goa

(hereinafter referred to as “the said society”).

And whereas, vide the above referred order, the

Committee of Administrators appointed therein

were required to immediately take over the

complete charge of the said society in order to look

after its day-to-day affairs.

Accordingly, the Committee of Administrators

had assumed the partial charge of the said society.

However, the Committee of Administrators

expressed their reluctance to take over the

complete charge of the records of the said society

since the records were incomplete due to non-

finalisation of audit for the year 2018-19.

Further, this office had time-to-time directed the

Committee of Administrators to take over the

complete charge of the society in order to resolve

the issues of the depositors. So also, in order to

resolve the issue, Ex-Chairperson, Smt. Gracy Vaz

was called on by this office for discussion in the

matter on various occasions, however, she neither

turn-up nor showed any interest to co-operate in

the matter. She was also issued directions vide

several letters by this office in the matter to extend

co-operation to the Committee of Administrators,

however she did not comply with the instructions

issued. Therefore, due to failure on the part of

Committee of Administrators to take over the

complete charge of the said society, the purpose for

which the said Committee of Administrators was

appointed is defeated.

And whereas, several meetings were held with

the Committee of Administrators and statutory

auditor, Shri Anup Borkar, Chartered Accountants

(appointed under Section 74(4) of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001) including a

meeting in the presence of Shri Videsh Shirodkar,

Police Inspector, Economic Offences Cell, Panaji,

Goa. In every such meeting it was concluded that

in order to resolve the issue it is inevitable for the

Committee of Administrators to take over the

complete charge of books and records of the said

society after preparing inventory of existing

records. During the meetings, Shri Anup Borkar and

Shri Videsh Shirodkar had also expressed their

willingness to offer guidance and technical support

to the Committee of Administrators in order to take

over the complete charge of the said society.

And wheras, in order to facilitate the Committee

of Administrators to take over the complete charge

of the said society, this office deployed three officials

to assist the Committee of Administrators to take

over the complete charge of the said Society by

following the process of preparing inventory of the

existing records of the said Society.

And whereas, in spite of the all the directions,

assistance, guidance and moral as well as technical

support as mentioned above, the Committee of

Administrators showed reluctance to take over the

complete charge of the said Society as a result of

which the matter is not yet resolved and the overall

position of the said Society is feared to be further

deteriorated.

And whereas, in the meantime, the depositors

vide their letter dated 02-05-2022 suggested to

appoint Smt. Joyce Veyona Dias on the Committee

of Administrators in place of Shri Myron Jude

Fernandes.

And whereas, now in order to overcome the

presentstalemate that is prevailing due to above

facts and lack of co-operation, it is felt necessary to

re-constitute the Committee of Administrators by

appointing Government official as the Chairman on

the said Committee of Administrators.

Therefore, in view of above facts and the reasons

stated herein, and in exercise of the powers vested

in me under Section 67A of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001 and in partial modification of

the Order dated 04-07-2022 at reference No. 2

above, I, Suraj S. Ghaisas, Assistant Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, South Zone, Margao, Goa do

hereby appoint the following Committee of

Administrators (CoA) to manage the affairs of the

Visionaries Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.,

Loutolim, Salcete, Goa with immediate effect.

1) Shri Subhash D. Gawas

— Chairman.

2) Smt. Maria Vanda Gomes

— Member.

3) Smt. Joyce Veyona Dias

— Member.

The term of the above committee shall be for

initial period of six months. The aforesaid Committee

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1745

shall immediately take over the complete charge of

the assets, books and records of the said society by

preparing an inventory. The said committee shall

be under the control of this Authority and obey all

such instructions/directions issued by this

Authority from time-to-time.

Given under the seal of this Office.

Suraj Ghaisas, Asst. Registrar, South Zone

(Co-operative Societies).

Margao, 7th July, 2022.

————

Order

No. 20-192-1999/ARSZ/Credit/982

Read: 1)

Order No. 20-192/1999/ARSZ/Credit/2304

dated 15-01-2020.

Order No. 20-192/1999/ARSZ/Credit/837

dated 04-07-2022.

Order No. 20-192/1999/ARSZ/Credit/862

dated 07-07-2022.

Letter dated 28-07-2022 received from Shri

Subhash D. Gawas,

Under Section 67A of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001

Whereas, vide order referred to at Sr. No. 1 above,

three-member Committee of Administrators

(including one Government official) was appointed

to look after the affairs of the Visionaries Urban

Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., Loutolim, Salcete, Goa

(hereinafter referred to as “the said society”).

And whereas, vide the above referred order, the

Committee of Administrators appointed therein

were required to immediately take over the

complete charge of the said society in order to look

after its day-to-day affairs.

However, the Committee of Administrators

expressed their reluctance to take over the complete

charge of the records of the said society since the

records were incomplete due to non-finalisation of

audit for the year 2018-19.

Further, this office had time-to-time directed the

Committee of Administrators to take over the

complete charge of the society in order to resolve

the issues of the depositors. So also, in order to

resolve the issue, Ex-Chairperson, Smt. Gracy Vaz

was called on by this office for discussion in the

matter on various occasions, however, she neither

turn-up nor showed any interest to co-operate in

the matter. She was also issued directions vide

several letters by this office in the matter to extend

co-operation to the Committee of Administrators,

however she did not comply with the instructions

issued. Therefore, due to failure on the part of

Committee of Administrators to take over the

complete charge of the said society, the purpose for

which the said Committee of Administrators was

appointed is defeated.

And whereas, several meetings were held with

the Committee of Administrators and statutory

auditor, Shri Anup Borkar, Chartered Accountants

(appointed under Section 74(4) of the Goa

Co-operative Societies Act, 2001) including a

meeting in the presence of Shri Videsh Shirodkar,

Police Inspector, Economic Offences Cell, Panaji,

Goa. In every such meeting it was concluded that

in order to resolve the issue it is inevitable for the

Committee of Administrators to take over the

complete charge of books and records of the said

society after preparing inventory of existing records.

During the meetings, Shri Anup Borkar and Shri

Videsh Shirodkar had also expressed their

willingness to offer guidance and technical support

to the Committee of Administrators in order to take

over the complete charge of the said society.

And whereas, in order to facilitate the Committee

of Administrators to take over the complete charge

of the said society, this office deployed three officials

to assist the Committee of Administrators to take

over the complete charge of the said Society by

following the process of preparing inventory of the

existing records of the said Society.

And whereas, in spite of the all the directions,

assistance, guidance and moral as well as technical

support as mentioned above, the Committee of

Administrators showed reluctance to take over the

complete charge of the said society as a result of

which the matter is not yet resolved and the overall

position of the said society is feared to be further

deteriorated.

And whereas, in view of facts cited above, the

order referred to at Sr. No. 2 above was partially

modified vide order referred to at Sr. No. 3 above

thereby appointing Shri Subhash D. Gawas,

Sr. Auditor, as the Chairman of the Committee of

Administrators.

And whereas, the said Shri Subhash D. Gawas,

vide his letter referred to at Sr. No. 4 above informed

this office that he is presently posted at O/o Asst.

Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Bicholim Zone,

Sankhalim, Goa where he is been assigned to

conduct the re-audit of Maharashtra V.K.S.S. Society

Ltd., Gokulwadi, Sankhalim, Goa for the years

2016-17 and 2017-18 and also regular audit of said

society for further years 2018-19 to 2019-20. He

further expressed his difficulty for taking over the

charge of the visionaries Urban Co-op. Credit Society

1746

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

Ltd., Loutolim, Salcete, Goa and requested to delete

his name from the said Committee of Administrators.

And whereas, in view of above facts and in view

of verbal suggestion received from Mrs. Maria Vanda

Gomes (one of the member of the Committee of

Administrators vide order referred to at Sr. No. 1, 2

& 3 above) that, the Government officials be

appointed on the Committee of Administrators,

it is felt appropriate to appoint the Committee of

Administrators consisting of Government officials

instead including members of the said society

therein.

And whereas, in view of above and in order to

overcome the present situation that has been

occurred due to above facts, it is felt necessary to

re-constitute the Committee of Administrators by

appointing Government officials on the said

Committee.

Therefore, in view of above facts and the reasons

stated therein and in exercise of the powers vested

in me under Section 67A of the Goa Co-operative

Societies Act, 2001 and in supersession of all orders

referred to hereinabove, I, Suraj S. Ghaisas, Asst.

Registrar of Co-op. Societies, South Zone, Margao,

Goa do hereby appoint the following Committee of

Administrators (CoA) to manage the affairs of the

Visionaries Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd.,

Loutolim, Salcete, Goa with immediate effect.

1) Shri Shriram T. Narvekar —

Chairman.

2) Shri Suresh Rivonkar

—

Member.

3) Shri Pramod Pendse

—

Member.

The term of the above Committee shall be for

initial period of six months. The aforesaid Committee

shall immediately take over the complete charge of

the assets, books and records of the said society.

The said committee shall be under the control of

this Authority and obey all such instructions/

/directions issued by this Authority from time-to-

-time.

The handing over and taking over of assets,

books and records of the said society shall take

place immediately in terms of Section 123A of the

Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 failing which

action as provided under Section 123A(3) shall be

initiated.

Suraj Ghaisas, Asst. Registrar, South Zone (Co-op.

Societies).

Margao, 28th July, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Home

Office of the Director General of Police

–––

Order

No. ES-I(A)/Transfer of P. P./6591/2022

On the recommendation of the Police Establishment Board, the below mentioned Dy. Superintendent

of Police are hereby transferred and posted at the places indicated against their names with immediate

effect:-

Sr.

Designation &

From

No.

Name

Dy. SP, Sunita Sawant

Dy. SP (Security), Panaji

Dy. SP (ACB/Vigilance).

Dy. SP, Sucheta B. Dessai

Dy. SP (ACB/Vigilance)

Dy. SP, GRP B Coy.

Dy. SP, Edwin M.S. Colaco

Dy. SP, GPR B Coy

Dy. Commandant, 1st IRBn

(Addl. charge of GPWS).

S. M. Prabhudessai, Superintendent of Police, HQ.

Panaji, 15th July, 2022.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1747

Inspectorate of Factories & Boilers

–––

Notification

No. VI/FAC-3/(GOA/796)Part/2022-IFB/1426

In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso

to Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the

Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 63 of 1948)

(hereinafter called the “said Act”), the Government

of Goa hereby varies the limits laid down in said

Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the said

Act in respect of employment of women in the

factory, namely, M/s. Sanofi India Limited, Plot No.

L-121, Phase-III, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna,

Salcete, Goa, thereby authorising the employment

of women in the said factory between the hours of

7 p.m. and ·10 p.m., for a period of two years with

effect from the date of publication of this

notification in the Official Gazette.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vivek P. Marathe, Chief Inspector & ex officio Jt.

Secretary (Factories and Boilers).

Panaji, 27th July, 2022.

————

Notification

No. VI/FAC-3/(GOA/1308) Part/2022-IFB/1427

In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso

to Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the

Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act No. 63 of 1948)

(hereinafter called the “said Act”), the Government

of Goa hereby varies the limits laid down in said

Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the said

Act in respect of employment of women in the

factory, namely, M/s. Sanofi Healthcare India Private

Limited, Plot No. L-121, Phase-III, Verna Industrial

Estate, Verna, Salcete, Goa, thereby authorising the

employment of women in the said factory between

the hours of 7 p.m. and 10 p.m., for a period of two

years with effect from the date of publication of this

notification in the Official Gazette.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vivek P. Marathe, Chief Inspector & ex officio Jt.

Secretary (Factories and Boilers).

Panaji, 27th July, 2022.

Department of Labour

–––

Order

No. 28/12/2022-LAB/373

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion

that an industrial dispute exists between the

management of M/s. Goa State Co-operative

Marketing and Supply Federation Limited, Panaji,

Goa and it’s workman, Shri Madhu V. Khandeparker,

Manager, in respect of the matter specified in the

Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the “said

dispute”);

And whereas, the Government of Goa considers

it expedient to refer the said dispute for

adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14

of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”),

the Government of Goa hereby refers the said

dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II of

Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7(1) of

the said Act.

SCHEDULE

“(1)

Whether Shri Madhu V. Khandeparkar,

Manager, could be construed as “workman”

as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?

(2)

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

affirmative, then whether the action of the

management of M/s. Goa State Co-operative

Marketing and Supply Federation Limited,

Panaji, Goa, in terminating the services of

Shri Madhu V. Khandeparker, Manager, with

effect from 04-08-2020 is legal and justified?

(3)

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

then what relief the workman is entitled to?”.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 27th July, 2022.

————

Notification

No. 28/02/2022-LAB-Part-I/350

The following Award passed by the Industrial

Tribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on

04-07-2022 in Ref. No. IT/02/2018 is hereby

published as required under Section 17 of the

1748

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

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, 12th July, 2022.

—–––––—

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND

LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

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

Officer)

Ref. No. IT/02/2018

Workmen,

Rep. by General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Appts.,

Tisk, Ponda–Goa

……

Workmen/Party I.

V/s

1. M/s Qualpro Diagnostics System,

Division of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd.,

Verna Industrial Estate,

Verna, Salcete–Goa …… Employer/Party II (1).

2. Goa Trade & Commercial

Workers’ Union, Velho Bldg.,

Panaji–Goa.

…… Party II (2).

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Representative

Shri P. Gaonkar.

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

Bandodkar.

Party II (2) represented by Adv. Suhaas Naik.

A W A R D

(Delivered on this the 4th day of the month

of July of the year 2022)

By Order dated 29/01/2018, bearing No. 28/31/

/2017-LAB/82, 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 Qualpro Diagnostics System, Division of Tulip

Diagnostics (P) Limited, Verna Industrial Estate,

Verna – Goa in not conceding the following demands

raised by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vide their

letter dated 28/11/2016, is legal and justified?

Charter of Demands

Demand No. 1: PAY SCALES:

Grades:

3575-160-4375-180-5275-200-6275-220-

7375-240-8575-260-9875-280-11275.

II-3:

4050-185-4975-205-6000-225-7125-245-

8350-265-9675-285-11100-305-12625.

III-2: 4500-200-5500-220-6600-240-7800-260-

9100-280-10500-300-12000-320-13600.

IV-1:

5075-235-6250-260-7550-285-8975-310-

10525-225-12200-360-14000-385-15925.

Demand No. 2: Flat Rise:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

given the flat rise at the rate of Rs. 4000/- in the

Basic.

Fitment: The above amounts should be added to

the existing basic and thereafter 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 up to 3 years

: One Increment

Service from 3 years

: Two Increments.

to 7 years

Service from 7 years

: Three Increments

to 10 years

Service from 10 years

: Four increments

to 15 years

Service from 15 years

: Five Increments

to 20 years

Service above 20 years : Six Increments

Demand No. 4: Varaible Dearness Allowance:

Union demands that the VDA shall be paid at

the revised rate of Rs. 3/- per point rise beyond

4500 points of AICPI (1960) the computation of VDA

shall be made quarterly based as per existing

system.

Demand No. 5: House Rent Allowance:

Union demands that HRA should be paid at the

revised rate of 30% of Basic, as the cost of

accommodation is very high in Goa due to Tourist

State.

Demand No. 6: Education Allowance:

The Union demands that Education Allowance

shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 2500/- per

month.

Demand No. 7: Conveyance Allowance:

Union demands that all workmen shall be paid

conveyance allowance @ revised rate of Rs. 2500/-

per month.

Demand No. 8: Paid Holidays:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

granted paid holidays at rate 12 days per year.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1749

Demand No. 9: 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 at

the rate 35 days E.L. per year with accum-

ulation up to 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 15 days per year with encash-

ment facility.

(C)

Sick Leave: Union demands that those

workmen covered under ESIC should be

given Sick Leave at the rate of 15 days per

year. And those workmen outside the

purview of ESIC shall be given 15 days Sick

Leave per year with accumulation up to 75

days.

Demand No. 10: Leave Travel Assistance:

Union demands that LTA should be paid at the

revised by adding Rs. 5000/- per annum to the

existing LTA, with minimum of four days Earned

Leave. The amount shall be paid one week before

the commencement of leave.

Demand No. 11: Medical Reimbursement:

Union demands that those workmen who are

outside the purview of the ESIC, shall be reimbursed

full medical expenses incurred by him for self and

his family including dependent father and mother.

Demand No. 12: Loan:

Union demands that existing loan shall be

increased to Rs. 300000/- towards house repair and

construction of House and towards the purchase of

household articles or marriage of self or his/her

family member, purchase of vehicle etc.

Demand No. 13: Bonus/Exgratia:

Union demands that all the workers shall be paid

Bonus/Ex-gratia at the rate of 20% of gross wages

(Basic, FDA & VDA) every year, before Diwali.

Demand No. 14: Shift Allowance:

Union demands that those workmen work in the

shifts shall be paid shift allowance as under: Second

Shift: Rs. 50/- per second shift. And Third Shift: Rs.

75/- per third shift.

Demand No. 15: Fixed Dearness Allowance:

Union demands that all the workers shall be

paid FDA @ revised rate of Rs. 1500/- per month.

Demand No. 16: Accident Benefits while on

duty and while coming for duty and while going

home from duty:

Union demands that those workmen who met

with accident while coming for duty and going

back from the duty shall be treated as accident

while on duty and they shall be given all the

benefits such as full wages and full medical

reimbursement to the concerned workman.

Demand No. 17: City Compensatory Allowance:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

paid CCA at the revised rate of Rs. 1000/- per month.

Demand No. 18: Meal Reimbursement:

Union demands that the workmen who will

continue from the First/General Shift to Second Shift

or Second Shift to General/First Shift shall be paid

Rs. 150/- per day per shift work.

Demand No. 19: Transport Facility:

Union demands that management shall provide

free transport facility in all shifts from the following

routes:

(a) Verna to Panaji and back.

(b) Verna to Margao and back.

(d) Verna to Ponda and back.

Demand No. 20: Centeen Facility: Union

demands that the management shall provide the

subsidies rate canteen facility in all the shifts.

Demand No. 21: Emergency Gate Pass: Union

demands that in case of emergency management

should give the gate pass to the worker to go out

of the factory.

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

negative, then, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registered

as IT/02/2018 and registered A/D notices were

issued to both the parties. Pursuant to service of

notices, Party I filed a Claim Statement at

Exhibit 4. Thereafter, the Party II(1) filed its Written

Statement which is at Exhibit 6.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present

reference is that the Employer/Party II is engaged

in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceutical/

/health industry, manufacturing Tests and other

products related to diagnostics and the Tulip

Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. is the Company which owns

the Employer/Party II along with other two

establishments namely Orchid Biomedical Systems

and Zephyr Bio-medicals and all these three Units

are engaged in the same business and are located

in the same premises. The Party I/Workmen Union

is a registered Trade Union operating in the State

of Goa and a Settlement dated 22/05/2014 was

entered into by the Party I with the workmen

represented by a Trade Union namely Bhartiya

Kamgar Sena (BKS) under Section 2(p) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1750

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

4. That on 28/11/2016 the Party I raised the

Charter of Demand and also giving Notice of

Intention to terminate the existing Settlement dated

22-05-2014 to which the Party II sent a reply on

20-06-2017 stating that the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh (GMS) could not have raised the Charter of

Demand since it does not have the majority and the

Goa Trade & Commercial Workers’ Union enjoyed

the majority. The Party I replied by letter dated

10/07/2017 and maintained that they could validly

raise the Charter of Demand and on 26/07/2017 the

Party II wrote to the Dy. Labour Commissioner in

response to Party I’s letter dated 10/07/2017. On

04/08/2017, the Party I wrote to the Party II

informing it about the additional workers who had

joined the GMS and the Party II was informed that

the total membership has increased to 126 and

therefore that the Union was the majority Union in

the establishment and request to sort out the

Charter of Demand which was pending. Inspite of

being the fact that the Party I represented majority

of the workers, the party II signed the settlement

dated 09/08/2017 u/s 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 with the Goa Trade & Commercial

Workers’ Union. It is stated that the Party I by its

letter dated 10/08/2017 to the Labour Commissioner

informed him about the unfair labour practices

implemented by the Party II by signing a settlement

by ignoring the majority Union and on 11/08/2017

the matter of charter of demands was admitted in

conciliation and the minutes of conciliation were

made. None participated in the conciliation

proceedings on behalf of the Party II. On

14/08/2017, the party I informed the Party II about

its election of the local committee along with

authorization for representation before the

authorities and another letter dated 14/08/2017 was

written to the Labour Commissioner by Party I

highlighting the various unfair labour practices

being implemented by the Party II. Thereafter on

09/10/2017, the Dy. Labour Commissioner gave his

Failure Report to the Government of Goa and hence

the present Order of reference.

5. It is stated that the All India Consumer Price

Index (AICPI) has been increasing exponentially

and this has caused a corresponding decrease in

the purchasing power of the pay packet of the

workers in the Party II establishment and the

upward increase of the AICPI itself warrants a

corresponding revision of wages. The present wages

of the workers are at a level below ‘minimum wages’

as understood under industrial juris prudence and

thus the wages are to be brought to a level of at

least a ‘fair wage’ and in the alternative to the

levels of ‘living wage’. In the relevant period, the

Party II has been in prime financial health showing

profits and thus would be in a position to bear an

additional burden imposed by way of revision of

wages in similar establishments maintained by

other Employers in the State of Goa are paying

higher wages and the conditions of service in these

establishments are way better than the Party II in

the present case.

6. It is further stated that a fair cross-section of

pay-scales, allowances and other emoluments in

the State of Goa clearly reflects better wage

structure along with allowances, other emoluments

and employee benefits. It is stated that the Union

shall make an endeavor to compare the Party II to

other establishments like the ones run by

M/s Indoco Remedies, M/s Geno Pharmaceuticals

and other companies to satisfy this Tribunal on the

‘industry’ component of the industry-cum-region

principle used in wage adjudication. Similarly, the

Union shall also rely upon other establishments in

the State of Goa to satisfy the ‘region’ component

of the industry-cum-region principle. It is further

stated that the Government Departments have the

benefit of Pay Commissions which study the wage

structure and the Government employees need not

fight for wage adjudication before any Court or

Tribunal and the employees of the private sector

and public sector corporations are however

dependent on their Employers and their willingness

to negotiate terms of service by way of collective

bargaining and that the Pay Commissions’ Report

give a deeper insight into how wages are fixed and

what is the minimum level of wages ought to be.

The Pay Commissions Report are therefore of

considerable relevance to wage adjudication in

private sector in so far as the first principles of

wage fixation are enumerated therein and the Union

shall rely on the latest VII Pay Commission Report

to press upon the first/basic principles of wage

fixation. The Union deals with the individual

demands as listed in the charter of demands. Hence,

it is prayed by the Party I Union that the reference

be decided in their favour by granting all the

demands raised by the Union on behalf of the

workers.

7. Written Statement came to be filed by

Party II(1) denying the case put forth by the Party

I and it is their objection that the entire reference

itself is bad in law and not maintainable as the

reference is not made on the entire Company and

on this ground itself the reference needs to be

rejected.

8. The Party II(1) states that they have signed

comprehensive settlement with Goa Trade and

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1751

Commercial Workers’ Union on their Charter of

Demands dated 22/02/2017, which is a majority

Union and the said settlement has been signed on

09/08/2017 and accepted by majority Union without

any exception by all the establishments of

Party II (1) situated at Verna Industrial Estate. The

Party II (1) which is Tulip Diagnostics P. Ltd. have

offered the said settlement signed under Section 2(p)

read with Rule 18 sub clause 1 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 to all the members of Party I and

some of the members of the Party I have accepted

the settlement without any reservations and

minority part of the Party I have not accepted the

said settlement. The Party I have not accepted the

settlement at that time and they are not giving the

productivity as agreed as per clause 19

“productivity” in the settlement. According to Party

II(1) it is the settled law that having accepted by

all the Industries that a settlement signed by the

majority Union has to be accepted by the minority

and the settlement cannot be weighed in the

golden scale and looked into very minutely. The

settlement is fair and reasonable and on this ground

alone, the Party I have to accept the said settlement

in toto without any reservations, which has been

offered to Party I immediately after signing of the

said settlement.

9. It is further the case of the Party II(1) that the

word ‘division’ is mentioned only because of the

sales and marketing requirements and the

establishment do not work separately. The

establishment does not have separate balance

sheets and there is only one balance sheet of all

the establishments, i.e. Tulip Diagnostics P. Ltd. and

all the establishments as mentioned by Party I as

divisions are not financially independent and they

are all together. The establishments of the same

Company i.e. Tulip Diagnostics P. Ltd. and it has

signed the settlement along with all its

establishments at Verna which is called as ‘division’

by Party I. That the Orchid Biomedical System,

Qualpro Diagnostics and Zephyr Biomedicals are

not divisions of Tulip Diagnostics P. Ltd. but they

are part and parcel of Tulip Diagnostic P. Ltd.

financially or otherwise and therefore demand

purporting to be on the division of Tulip Diagnostics

P. Ltd. cannot be raised and as such the said demand

is bad in law. The firms like Orchid Biomedical

System, Qualpro Diagnostics, Zephyr Biomedicals,

Coral Clinical Systems were partnership concerns

merged by virtue of law in Tulip Diagnostic Pvt.

Ltd. from the closure of business hours on

30/01/2017 and as such from 31/01/2017 there are

no divisions and there is only one Company known

as Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. It is also their

objection that the Union has no locus standi as the

person on whose behalf the dispute has been raised

are not members of the said Union nor have the

workers as claimed by them have issued any

Resolution seeking to raise the demand before the

Management and on this ground also the demand

needs to be rejected.

10. The Party II(1) further states that it has a

majority Union namely Goa Trade and Commercial

Workers’ Union with whom the Party II(1) have

signed the comprehensive settlement dated

09/08/2017 arising out of the Charter of Demand

dated 22/02/2017 covering all the demands as given

by the Party II(2) and the same settlement was

offered to the so called members of the Party I

however, the Party I refused to accept the

settlement. The Party I is trying to discriminate

between the workmen and is creating industrial

relation problems giving high hopes to the minority

workmen who according to the said Union are

members of the said Union. It is further stated that

by virtue of law, the Party I is trying to discriminate

between the workmen and is creating industrial

relations problems giving high hopes to the

minority of workmen who according to the said

Union are members of the said Union and this

Tribunal having regard to judgment of the Apex

Court including judgment on industry cum region

principles capacity to pay comparable concerns

ought not to grant anything to the workmen and

on that ground alone the reference ought to be

rejected.

11. The Party II(1) states that the Tulip

Diagnostics (P) Ltd. is a diagnostic company which

is involved in manufacturing and market of in-vitro

diagnostics reagents, kits and instruments and the

Company is not pharmaceutical company as

mentioned by the party I. The Party II(1) states that

7 manufacturing Units in Goa are located at Verna

Industrial Estate and all of them are within a radius

of 1-3 kms. All their products are in-vitro use in

pathological laboratories to diagnose a disease. One

step test or Elisa is a principle based on which

various tests/products are manufactured for various

application and infectious diseases or Parasitology

has a wide range of products which differ from

each other in terms of their applications which are

used in pathological laboratories.

12.The Party II(1) states that originally the

workers were represented by Bharatiya Kamgar Sena

and Tulip Group of Companies Employees Union

and that the Party II(1) had signed two settlements,

one with the Bharatiya Kamgar Sena dated

22/05/2014 and other with Tulip Group of Companies

1752

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

Employees Union dated 10/06/2014. The Party II(1)

states that the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers

Union raised a Charter of Demand dated

22/02/2017 and after thorough negotiations with

the said Union, the settlement was signed on

09/08/2017 and it is true that the Party I raised the

Charter of Demand on 28/11/2016, however, it has

no authority to terminate any settlement as majority

of the workers are not the members of the Party I

Union nor any of the workers have passed any

Resolution to terminate the settlement or to submit

a charter of demand and on that ground alone, the

charter of demand raised by Party I cannot be

entertained. The Party II(1) further states that it

had written a letter dated 20/06/2017 mentioning

that the Party I cannot raise the charter of demand

since it does not have the majority and that the

Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union is the

majority Union. The Party II(1) further states that all

partnership firms like Orchid Biomedical Systems,

Qualpro Diagnostics, Zephyr Biomedicals and Coral

Clinical Systems were merged to Tulip Diagnostics

(P) Ltd. and as of today there are no divisions or

partnership concerns and there is only one Company

i.e. Party II Company Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. The

earlier settlements were signed with Bhartiya

Kamgar Sena dated 22/05/2014 and Tulip Group of

Companies Employees Union dated 10/06/2014 and

the majority of the employees had joined Goa Trade

and Commercial Workers’ Union, therefore Company

was justified in not signing the settlement with the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh which is a very minority

Union and to avoid discrimination and industrial

relation problem. The Party II(1) further states that

the letter dated 10/07/2017 given by the Union was

appropriately replied to by Party II(1) by its letter

dated 26/07/2017 and it was not legally correct on

part of the Party I to raise the Charter of Demands.

13. The Party II(1) further states that it is true

that Party II(1) wrote letter dated 26/07/2017 to the

Dy. Labour Commissioner explaining all the true

facts in reply to Party I letter dated 10/07/2017 and

some of the important points covered under the

said letter were that they do not have Company in

any other name other than Tulip Diagnostics (P)

Ltd. The Party II(1) further states that the secret

ballot theory is not recognized under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 or the Trade Union Act and the

Party II(1) having regards to all the principles under

the Industrial Disputes Act and the principle laid

down by the Apex Court and having regard to

industry-cum-region principle, capacity to pay and

comparable concerns signed a settlement with the

Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union. The

Party II(1) was really surprised as to how it can

send 3 Charter of Demands to one Company claiming

that there are different divisions wherein

membership exists.

14. The Party II further states that it is true that

they received a letter dated 04/08/2017 from the

Union, the contents of which were wrong and there

is no question of Party I being majority Union and

the Party I was never a majority Union. The Party

II(1) further states that the Party I wrote letter dated

10/08/2017 to the Dy. Labour Commissioner,

however, the demand in conciliation itself is bad in

law as the Party II(1) had informed the Conciliation

Officer that there was no question of considering

demands by few workers claiming to be majority in

a so called division of the Company. The Party II(1)

further states that it was not necessary to

participate in negotiation on behalf of Party II(1) as

it was futile and Party I’s unreasonable demands

itself could not be considered for the reasons

mentioned hereinabove. The Party II further states

that they received the letter dated 14/08/2017,

however, the Party II disputed the correctness of

the authorization contained in the said letter as it

is defective and in fact Party II have not received

any letter showing that the workers have authorized

Shri P. Gaonkar or to correctly represent them or

that any resolution was annexed with the said letter

and further states that the contents of the letter

dated 14/08/2017 were absolutely false and baseless

and emphatically denies all the contents of the

said letter and that they have correctly signed the

settlements and being comprehensive settlement,

the entire allegations of the party I are bad in law

and no unfair labour practice is committed by the

Party II(1).

15. The Party II(1) further states that the

Dy. Labour Commissioner gave his Failure Report

dated 09/10/2017 but the present Order of Reference

dated 29/01/2018 is totally bad in law and in that

there is basic defect in the said reference and that

it has signed proper, rational, reasonable and

progressive settlement with Goa Trade &

Commercial Workers’ Union and the said settlement

was required to be accepted by the Party I. The

Party II(1) states that the concept of paying fair

wages is utopian idea and fair wages are being

paid by the Company and the concept of living

wages would change from region to region and

that the Company has paid fair wages in the

Settlement. The Party II(1) further states that the

Company/Party II(1) cannot be compared to any

pharmaceutical Companies and it is not in prime

financial health showing profits as it is making

small profit and comparison with Indico Remedies,

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1753

Geno pharmaceuticals are not comparable concerns

and the Company is not in a position to take any

additional financial burden by revising the wages.

16. The Party II(1) further submits that Goa Trade

and Commercial Workers Union is not only a

majority Union but the said settlement signed with

the majority Union is fair and reasonable and

majority of the workers have accepted the same

and further submits that since it has already signed

settlement with Goa Trade and Commercial

Workers’ Union, therefore, there is no question of

comparing pay-scales allowances and other

emoluments in the regions nor it is required to be

compared with any other Companies and the Union

cannot rely upon other establishments in the region

to satisfy the region component of the industry

cum region principle. The Party II(1) further submits

that existing wage structure is fair and reasonable

and therefore no case exist for granting for

considering the demand and that it has absolutely

taken into consideration the factor of flat rise while

fixing the wages while signing of the settlement. It

is further submitted that it has given seniority

increment in the settlement signed with Goa Trade

& Commercial Workers’ Union and that the entire

demand is misconceived and not maintainable

since the party II while increasing the emolument

has taken into consideration Variable Dearness

Allowance & Fixed Dearness Allowance is

accordingly fixed and that no place exists for

granting Variable Dearness Allowance and that the

Party I by demanding Variable Dearness Allowance

and other emoluments is trying to discriminate

amongst the workers which is disturbing industrial

relations in the Factory.

17. It is further stated that the House-Rent

Allowance, Education Allowance, Conveyance

Allowance and Transport facility, Paid Holidays,

Leave and Leave Travel Assistance, Medical

Reimbursement and Accident Benefits, Loan issues,

Bonus/Ex-Gratia, Shift Allowance, demands

regarding meals and canteen, emergency Gate Pass

are all taken care of in the settlement dated

09/08/2017 and this settlement dated 09/08/2017 is

a very fair and reasonable settlement with Goa Trade

and Commercial Workers’ Union giving substantial

increase in several emoluments and the demands

and the arrogance is formed by Party I who are

minority workers by not accepting the settlement

are only trying to make industrial problem and

discontent amongst the workers. The Party II states

that no case is made out for granting or considering

their demands and therefore the reference needs to

be rejected.

18. In the Rejoinder at Exhibit 7 the Party I denied

the case put forth by Party II(1) in the Written

Statement.

19. Written Statement also came to be filed by

Party II(2) who were added subsequently and they

denied the case put forth by the Party I. It is the

preliminary objection raised by Party II(2) that the

Party I Union has made serious allegations against

them alleging that the settlement signed by Party

II(2) Union is an unfair settlement and states that

it becomes necessary to decide whether the

settlement dated 09/08/2017 signed by Party II(2)

with the Employer Party II is fair and reasonable.

20. The Party II(2) Union has mentioned in detail

the salient features of this settlement which are as

follows:

Party II(2) Union as and by way of preliminary

objections submits that the Party I Union has

made serious allegations against the

Party II(2) Union in its Interim Relief

Application para 7 alleging that the

settlement signed by Party II(2) Union is an

Unfair settlement.

In the said Interim Relief it is also alleged

that Party II(2) Union is a “ handpicked

Union” and that the Party II company though

it convenient to negotiate with this Union

being it a “handpicked Union”.

1. The Party II(2) Union specifically denies that

above allegations as the same are false and

misleading. However, without prejudice the

Party II(2) Union states that when the serious

allegations of unfair settlement is alleged it

is necessary to first decide whether the

settlement dated 09/08/2017 signed by Party

II(2) Union with the Party II employer is fair

and reasonable or whether it is unfair

settlement before proceedings to other issues.

2. The Party II(2) Union states that in the

interest of justice it is therefore necessary to

first frame the preliminary issue regarding

fairness of the said settlement dated

09/08/2017 and all other issues needs to be

decided subsequently.

Without prejudice, the Party II(2) Union

offers its para-wise comments to the Written

Statement and Interim Relief application as

under. The Party II(2) Union states that it is a

registered trade Union duly registered under

the Trade Unions Act, 1923, having its office

at 2nd Floor, Velhos’ Building, Panaji-Goa.

1754

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

3. The Party II(2) Union states that the majority

workmen employed with Party II and its group

companies are the members of Party II(2)

Union and Party II (2) Union is espousing the

cause of these workmen before every

competent forum and authorities.

4. The Party II(2) Union states that after the

unionization by these workmen Party II(2)

Union submitted a comprehensive charter of

demand before the management of the

Party II(1) company, seeking revision and

enhancement in their existing salaries,

allowance and other service conditions by its

demand letter dated 22/02/2017.

5. The Party II (2) Union states that pursuant to

this, the Party II(2) Union held several rounds

of protected and prolonged discussions with

the management of Party II company and after

series of prolonged and protected bilateral

discussions, the Party II(2) company dated

09/08/2017 and majority of the workmen

employed with Party II company have

accepted the said settlement dated

09/08/2017 and the benefits extended under

this settlement.

6. The Party II(2) Union states that the salient

features of this settlement are spelt-out

hereunder:-

Terms of Settlement

1. Applicability:

This settlement is applicable to all permanent

workers working in the above factories who are on

the rolls of the company as on the date of signing

of this settlement.

2. Period of Settlement:

(iii) It is agreed between the parties that this

settlement shall be applicable for a period of 3

years and 6 months i.e. from, 1st April, 2017 to 30th

September, 2020.

3. Revision in Salary:

All the workmen shall be paid salary revision as

under:-

Rs. 3250/- for the 1st year i.e. from 1st April,

2017 to 31st March, 2018.

Rs. 1200/- for the 2nd year i.e. from 1st April,

2018 to 31st March, 2019.

Rs.1200/- for the 3rd year i.e. from 1st April,

2019 to 31st March, 2020.

Rs.1500/- for subsequent 6 months i.e. from

1st April 2020 to 30th September 2020 as

per the distribution below.

4. Distribution of Money:

It is further agreed between the parties that the

distribution of salary revised as per clause (3) above

shall be paid as under:-

50% of the money of 1st year shall be allocated

in basic wages and remaining 50% shall be

allocated in HRA and Conveyance Allowance.

In 2nd, 3rd and subsequent 6 month 60% of

the money shall be allocated to basic wages

and remaining 40% shall be allocated to HRA

and Conveyance Allowance.

It is further agreed between the parties that

distribution between the HRA and the conveyance

allowance shall be 50% of each.

5. Fixed Dearness Alloowance:

It is agreed between the parties that all

permanent workers shall be paid Fixed Dearness

Allowance as under:-

a) Rs. 650/- for the 2nd year i.e. from

1st April, 2018 to 31st March, 2019.

b) Rs. 650/- for the 3rd year i.e. from 1st April,

2019 to 31st March, 2020.

c) Rs. 650/- for subsequent 6 months i.e. from 1st

April, 2020 to 30th September, 2020.

6. Seniority Allowance:

It is agreed between the parties that seniority

allowance of Rs. 35/- shall be paid for each

completed year of service as on 1st April, 2017 to

all permanent workmen. The said amount will be

added to the Fixed Dearness Allowance.

7. Casual and Sick Leave:

It is agreed between the parties that existing

quantum and practice shall continue.

8. Privilege Leave:

A) It has been agreed between the parties that

the existing PL of 18 days shall be enhanced to 21

days from April 2017. It is also agreed that the

existing PL accumulation of 54 days will remain

unchanged. It has been also agreed that the PL can

be availed for the 5th time in a year only in case of

personal emergencies only like hospitalization,

death of close family members.

b) It has been agreed by the Union that the

workmen shall make full efforts to reduce

absenteeism, which is mostly seen in the months of

October, November & December.

Food Allowance:

It is agreed between the parties that the existing

Food Allowance would remain unchanged and the

same will be made applicable to all the workmen

in all the units.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1755

9. Shift allowance/DormitoryAllowance:

It is agreed between the parties that existing

practice of payment of Shift Allowance/Dormitory

Allowance would remain unchanged.

10. Leave Travel Allowance:

It is agreed between the parties that the existing

practice of LTA shall continue to remain unchanged.

11. Late Coming:

It is agreed between the parties that, late coming

for 10 minutes twice in a month shall be allowed.

12. Company Loan:

It has been agreed between the parties that

present loan of Rs. 50,000/- will be enhanced to

Rs. 70,000/- with 10% interest on reducing balance

to be recovered in 36 equal installments. The

existing gap of 6 months for availing a fresh loan

will remain unchanged. It is further agreed that

the loan applications should not exceed 18 Nos. in

a month from all the factories in Verna, Goa.

13. Festival Advance:

It is agreed between the parties that festival

advance of Rs. 5000/- shall be paid once a year

during Ganesh/Diwali or Christmas festivals,

depending upon the faith, which is to be recovered

in 5 equal installments. The recovery of the

installment amount will commence from the month

following the month the advance is disbursed.

14. Canteen & Transport:

It is agreed between the parties that canteen &

transport shall remain unchanged. However it has

been agreed between the parties that, 2 years from

the date of signing of the settlement, the parties

will mutually discuss to find a tangible solution

and evaluate the feasibility to provide canteen &

transport facility workmen.

15. Death Relief Fund:

(i) It is agreed between the parties that in case

of death of a worker, while on the company roll,

one day’s gross salary will be deducted from the

worker’s salary and an equal amount will be

added by the company and paid to the legal

nominee of the deceased worker within 3 months.

The deductions will be done from workers

employed in Verna Industrial Estate, Verna-Goa.

(ii) On death of a worker it is agreed that

employment shall be considered to be given to

one of the eligible/capable dependent who is an

immediate family member. All other things being

equal the next of kin will be preferred.

16. Medical Allowance:

a) it is agreed between the parties that Rs. 1000/-

per month, per worker be paid from the month

the contribution to the ESIC scheme is stopped

and the employee is out of ESIC. The said

payment will be paid annually as Medical

Allowance. It has been also agreed between the

parties that if the ESIC slab changes & employees

fall back into the coverage limit against, the

allowance of Rs. 1000/- per month will be stopped

and against they will be covered under the ESIC.

b) It was agreed that the existing Medical

Coverage of Rs. 50,000/- would be enhanced to

Rs. 75,000/- per worker which includes his family

members. The coverage will not cover Maternity

benefit in the police. The enhanced coverage

will be effective from 1st September, 2017.

However no arrears shall be paid for any of the

past claims from 1st April to 31st August.

c) It has been agreed between the parties that

the existing annual medical allowance shall be

enhanced by Rs. 500/- from April 2017.

17. Overtime:

It is agreed between the parties that overtime

shall be reconsidered by evaluating the productivity

increase. However, depending upon the work load,

the company would be willing to consider overtime

at its discretion.

18. PRODUCTIVITY:

(i) it is agreed between the parties that there

will be an increase in productivity from the

existing 12000 test/units to minimum 14000 test/

units per assembly per 8 hours shift in the

existing assemblies.

(ii) In other units where productivity cannot be

measured directly in terms of test/units per

assembly, there should be a commensurate

increase in the No. of units/kits/pack sizes

produced to improve productivity & output.

(iii) In case any resources are required, they shall

be provided after discussions with the respective

unit head.

19. Promotion:

It has been agreed between the parties that

promotion policy for permanent workers would be

looked into once HR based evaluation systems are

in place & this could begin from after 2 years from

signing of the agreement. The system would

measure the individuals based on the skill, efforts

and punctuality, discipline and job responsibilities

taken to improve productivity.

20. Bonus:

It has been agreed between the parties that the

existing workmen shall be categorized as unskilled

for FY 16-17 and semi-skilled for FY 17-18 and the

bonus shall be paid as per the Payment of Bonus

1756

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

Act 1965. From FY 18-19 & 19-20 once the skilled

categories have been assigned the payout can be

done based on the same.

21. Union Contribution:

a) It is agreed between the parties that the

benefits arising out of this settlement shall be

extended to all those workmen who gives an

acceptance letter to the Management by signing

a Declaration Form annexed to this settlement at

Annexure “A”.

b) It is agreed between the parties that the

Management shall deduct a once time

contribution equivalent at the increase in salary

& allowances inclusive of seniority allowance of

each beneficiary of this settlement as on 1st April

2017 from the arrears payable to each of the

workmen who avail the benefits of this settlement

at ANNEXURE- “A” annexed to this settlement

irrespective of any Union affiliation/membership

and such deducted amount shall be paid by the

Management to the Goa Trade & Commercial

Workers’ Union by a cheque.

22. Arrears:

It is agreed between the parties that arrears

arising out of the settlement i.e from 1st April, 17

to 31st July, 17 shall be paid on or before 10th

September 2017, to the workmen who sign the

declaration mentioned in Annexure A of this

settlement.

23. General Clauses:

a) It is further agreed between the parties that

no workmen is entitled to work only in one shift

continuously, except for health reasons as

certified by the certified medical practitioner.

b) This settlement is in full and final settlement

in respect of all the demands raised by the Union

and workmen in their charter of Demands dated

22nd February 2017 and during the discussions,

it is clearly understood by and between both the

parties that all other demands raised on behalf

of the workmen by the Union/workmen and

contained in their Charter of Demand dated 22nd

February 2017 which are not specifically dealt

with or settled herein were discussed and agreed

as withdrawn by the Union/workman and thus

settled.

c) During the operative period of this settlement,

Union/Workmen shall not raise, pursue and/or

agitate any other demand(s) of whatsoever nature

entailing additional financial or administrative

impact other than what has been agreed in terms

of this settlement. The Union also undertakes to

maintain peaceful and harmonious industrial

relations and shall not resort to any strike/Go

Slow or any other agitation activities during the

period of the settlement and shall follow the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 for

ventilating their grievances of demands. The

workmen shall maintain cordial atmosphere in

the respective undertakings and in surrounding

arrears during the tenure of the settlement and

even after expiry of this settlement and till new

settlement is singed in accordance with law.

d) It is also agreed by the Union/workmen that

all other terms and conditions of service and

privileges and practices as well as rights of the

Management shall continue to remain in force

unless specifically modified by this settlement.

e) The Union/Workmen agreed that strict

discipline will be maintained everywhere in the

work premises/precincts and also elsewhere in

connection with the employment and shall not

interfere with the work of others and they shall

not create any obstacle/disturbance in day to

day production/productivity as well as in the

developmental initiatives.

f) It is agreed between the parties that unless

otherwise stated and modified in this settlement,

all the existing practices, benefits and Privileges

enjoined upon by the workmen shall continue to

remain in force unchanged.

g) This settlement shall continue to be in force

for the period of the settlement until otherwise

it is terminated in accordance with law and shall

continue to be in force till new settlement is

arrived at in accordance with the law.

h) Every workmen shall sign a letter of

acceptance annexed herewith as Annexure-A as

a token of his/her acceptance to the terms &

conditions of this settlement and the benefits of

this settlement shall be extended to the workmen

who sign the letter of acceptance annexed hereto

at Annexure “A”.

i) In case of any revision in salary takes place

due to revision by Government over and above

the increase given in this settlement, the

Management agrees to give such salary increase

to the workmen.

7) The Party II(2) Union states that the above

settlement is linked to the productivity and in

clause- (19) of the said settlement all the parties

have agreed to give an increased productivity from

existing 12,000/- tests/units to minimum of 14,000

tests/units in 8-hours shift.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1757

In sub-clause (ii) it is also agreed where

productivity cannot be measured directly in terms

of tests/units per assembly there should be

commensurate increase in number of units/kits/

/pack sixes produced to improve productivity and

output.

The Party II(2) Union states that the overall

wage settlement is linked to productivity and the

majority workmen who are members of the

Party II(2) Union are giving productivity as per the

said clause(19) of the said settlement and upon

fulfillment of the said productivity target the

revised wages and benefits are extended to the

members of Party II(2) Union.

8) The Party II(2) Union states that the settlement

dated 09/08/2017 signed by Party II Company with

Party II(2) Union is fair, just and proper and at that

particular time the Party II (2) Union after getting

the approval of all the majority workmen signed

the said settlement with the Party II Company.

9) The Party II(2) Union states that the settlement

singed by the Party II(2) Union with the Party II

company is just fair and proper and is a valid

settlement as per Section 2(p) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

The said settlement has also been registered with

the office of the appropriate authority.

10) The Party II(2) Union states that its Union

believes in settlement of labour disputes by direct

negotiations/settlement through collective

bargaining as this is the best method of ensuring

industrial peace and timely delivery of justice to

the workmen which is the basic aim of the industrial

jurisprudence.

11) The Party II(2) Union is of the opinion that

the wage rise extended by the Party II company

vide its settlement dated 09/08/2017 is fair, proper

and reasonable considering several factors such as:

Industry cum region principle.

ii)

Profits earned by the company for the last

many financial years.

iii)

The financial capacity of the employer to

settle the wage settlement.

iv)

Industrial peace and harmony at the work

place.

Meeting the requirements and needs of the

workmen.

vi)

Inflation in the market, and overall

prevalent circumstances.

Considering these overall factors and other

necessary relevant factors, the Party II(2) Union

signed a settlement dated 09/08/2017 with Party II

company in the interest of its member workmen.

The Party II(2) Union is of the firm opinion that the

settlement signed by the Party II(2) Union with the

Party II employer is just, fair and proper and takes

care of the prevalent inflation in the market.

12) With reference to the Claim Statement filed

by the Party I workmen with reference to clause (1),

(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), the contents of the

same are denied for want of knowledge and the

Party I workmen be put to the strict proof.

It is specifically denied that the Party I Union

represents the majority of the workmen as alleged.

The majority of the workmen are the members of

Party II(2) Union and Party II(2) Union enjoys absolute

majority.

13) With reference to para 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, the

contents of the same are denied being false and

misleading and the Party I/Union be put to the

strict proof thereof.

14) With reference to para 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,

21, 22, the Party I/ Union does not wish to offer any

comments.

15) With reference to para 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,

29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,

44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 & para 52, the Party II

Union does wish to officer any comments.

16) With reference to Interim Relief application

filed by the Party I/Union, the Party II (2) Union

wish to offer its comments as under:

a) With reference to para (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) &

para 6, the Party II (2) Union does not wish to offer

any comments.

b) With reference to Para 7, the Party II(2) Union

specifically denies that the employer has negotiated

with handpicked Union, as per its own convenience

and has entered into unfair settlement or in any

way favoured the management.

c) With reference to para (8), (9),(10) & para (11),

the Party II (2) Union does not wish to offer any

comments.

21. Without prejudice to the above, Party II(2)

Union states that Party II(2) Union has negotiated

with Party II company a wage settlement by holding

tenacious discussions/negotiations in marathon

meetings at bilateral level in presence of the

representative of the workers and after prolonged

and protected discussions held by the Party II(2)

Union has signed a settlement under section 2(p) r/

w Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947 with the sole

object of ensuring industrial peace and harmony,

ensuring upward revision in the existing salaries

of its member workers and by extending them

several benefits, allowances and benefits under the

said settlement.

1758

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

22. Based on the above mentioned pleadings my

Learned Predecessor has framed the Issues at

Exhibit 11 and the same are as follows:

ISSUES

1. Whether the Party I proves that the Charter of

Demands raised by it vide their letter dated

28/11/2016 is legal and justified?

2. Whether the Party I proves that the Party I has

locus standi to raise the dispute or represent

Party I workmen?

3. Whether the Party II proves that the demands

raised by the Party I are liable to be rejected

as the demands cannot be a subject matter of

an Industrial Dispute?

4. Whether the Party II proves that the demands

have been raised on part of the Company and

therefore it is bad in law?

5. What Relief? What Award?

23. During the course of evidence the Party I

examined its first witness Shri P. Gaonkar who is

the General Secretary of the Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh and through this witness brought on record

copy of letter dated 28/11/2016 by Party I at Exhibit

25, copy of letter dated 20/06/2017 by Party II at

Exhibit 26, copy of letter dated 10/07/2017 by Party

I at Exhibit 27, copy of letter dated 26/07/2017 by

Party I at Exhibit 28, copy of letter dated

04/08/2017 by Party I at Exhibit 29, copy of

settlement dated 09/08/2017 between Tulip

Diagnostics (P) Ltd. and their workmen at Exhibit

30, copy of letter dated 10/08/2017 by Party I to

Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 31, copy of minutes

of conciliation proceedings dated 11/08/2017 at

Exhibit 32, copy of letter dated 14/08/2017 by Party

I at Exhibit 33, copy of letter dated 14/08/2017 by

Party I to the Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 34,

copy of report of failure of conciliation proceedings

dated 09/10/2017 at Exhibit 35, copy of settlement

dated 26/11/2012 between Party II and their

workmen at Exhibit 36, copy of settlement dated

22/05/2014 between Party II and their workmen at

Exhibit 37, copy of settlement dated 13/07/2015

between Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and their

workmen at Exhibit 38, copy of settlement dated

04/12/2015 between Indoco Remedies Ltd. and their

workmen at Exhibit 39, copy of settlement dated

25/05/2016 between Betts India Pvt. Ltd. and their

workmen at Exhibit 40, copy of settlement dated

30/05/2017 between Nestle India Ltd. and their

workmen at Exhibit 41, copy of Appointment Letters

of workers of Zephyr Biomedical at Exhibit 42 Colly,

copy of Pay Slips of workers working in ZEP division

for the month of April, 2016; May, 2016; June, 2016;

April, 2017; May, 2017; June, 2017 and July, 2017 at

Exhibit 43 Colly, copy of Appointment Letters of

workers of Orchid Biomedical Systems at Exhibit 44

Colly, copy of Pay Slips of workers working in ORC

division for the month of April, 2016; June, 2016;

March, 2016; April, 2017; May, 2017; June, 2017 and

July, 2017 at Exhibit 45 Colly; copy of Appointment

letters of workers of Qualpro Diagnostics at Exhibit

46 Colly, copy of Pay Slips of workers working in

Qualpro Division for the month of April, 2016; June,

2016; March, 2016; April, 2017; May, 2017; June,

2017 and July, 2017 at Exhibit 47 Colly, copy of

Article titled “How to estimate the purchasing

value of the Rupee? Dated 27/02/2012 published by

the Navhind Times, ET Markets (Website) at Exhibit

48 and copy of Statistics from Labour Bureau,

Government of India on All India Average Consumer

Price Index Numbers for Industrial Workers and

Rate of Inflation in consumer Price Index Numbers

for industrial Workers for the year 2017 at Exhibit

49 Colly. During cross-examination of this witness

the documents brought on record were a copy of

Affidavit/Pg. 98 dated 27/01/2017 at Exhibit 61, a

copy of the letter dated 03/04/2008 submitted by

the witness to the Management to show his majority

at Exhibit 62-D Colly, copy of letter dated 14/06/

2017 made to the Party II along with the list of the

members at Exhibit 63-D Colly.

24. The Party I examined its second witness Shri

Prakash Naik and during his cross-examination

brought on record the copy of Confirmation Letter

of the worker dated 10/11/2014 and Promotion Letter

dated 11/03/2011 at Exhibit 66-Colly.

25. The Party II examined its witness

Mrs. Sharmila Nadkarni working as an Assistant

General Manager of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and

through this witness brought on record copy of

Memorandum of Settlement dated 23/02/2008 at

Exhibit 69, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated

24/01/2011 at Exhibit 70, copy of Memorandum of

Settlement dated 22/05/2014 at Exhibit 71, copy of

Memorandum of Settlement dated 10/06/2014 at

Exhibit 72, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated

09/08/2017 at Exhibit 73, copy of Memorandum of

Settlement dated 22/07/2021 at Exhibit 74, copy of

Minutes of the meeting of the Partners of

M/s Orchid Biomedical Systems dated 25/01/2017

at Exhibit 75, copy of Pay Slip for the month of

April, 2017 before signing of the Settlement at

Exhibit 76, copy of settlement showing year wise

increase in salary/emoluments at Exhibit 77, copy

of Notice dated 30th January, 2017 at Exhibit 78,

copy of letter dated 07/10/2017 sent to Dy. Labour

Commissioner at Exhibit 79, copy of notice dated

15/09/2017 displayed on the Notice Board at Exhibit

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1759

80, copy of letter dated 19/01/2018 sent to Asst.

Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 81, copy of letter

dated 11/06/2018 sent to Asst. Labour Commissioner

at Exhibit 82, copy of Writ Petition No.1058/19 filed

by workmen/Party I with regard to challenge of

Award rejecting interim relief at Exhibit 83 and

copies of 3 declaration of workmen who have

accepted settlement dated 09/08/2017 at Exhibit

84 Colly. During cross-examination a copy of the

document showing that the salary was given as

per Exh.73 from August 2017 was brought on record

at Exhibit 86-D, a copy of the declarations signed

by the members of GMS (14 declarations) at Exhibit

87-D, and a copy of the Notification of Government

of Goa dated 24/05/2016 at Exhibit 89-D.

26. Heard arguments. Learned Advocate Shri S.

P. Gaonkar argued on behalf of Party I and Learned

Advocate Shri M. S. Bandodkar argued on behalf of

the Party II(1) and Adv. Shri Suhaas Naik argued on

behalf of Party II(2). Both the Parties have placed on

record written submissions.

27. I have gone through the records of the case

and have duly considered the arguments advanced

and also the arguments placed on record and after

going through the same, I have given my reasons

and findings on the issues which are framed and

the same are as follows:

Issue No.1

… Negative.

Issue No. 3 & 4 … Affirmative.

Issue No. 2

… Negative.

Issue No. 5

… As per the Final Order.

REASONS

Issue No. 1, 3 and 4

28. Issue No. 1, 3 and 4 are discussed together for

the sake of convenience and also as they are

interconnected inspite of being the fact that the

burden of Issue No. 1 is on Party I, and the burden

of Issue No. 3 and 4 is on Party II(1) to be proved

because if Issue No.1 is answered in the negative,

then automatically issue No. 3 and 4 have to be

answered in the affirmative and therefore they are

taken up for discussion together.

29. The Workmen have examined Shri P. Gaonkar

who is the General Secretary of Gomantak Mazdoor

Sangh and he represents the workers in the

reference i.e. Party I and Shri Prakash Naik as the

second witness of Party I. The Employer/

/Party II(1) has examined Smt. Sharmila Nadkarni,

working as an Assistant General Manager of Tulip

Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. as their first witness after

which they closed their case.

30. It is the contention and the case of Party I

that M/s Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. is the Company

which owns the Employer/Party II along with the

other independent Factories and establishments

namely; Orchid Biomedicals and Zephyr Biomedicals

and they are engaged in the manufacturing of

pharmaceutical products and it is an health

industry and it manufactures one-step membrane

and elisa based tests for fertility, infectious disease

and parasitology. A settlement dated 22/05/2014

was entered into by the Party I with the workmen

represented by a Trade Union namely Bhartiya

Kamgar Sena u/s 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 and on 28/11/2016 the Party I raised a

Charter of Demand and also gave a notice of

intention to terminate the existing settlement dated

22/05/2014. In support of their case, the Party I has

placed on record various documents from Exhibit

25 to 49 Colly and I have perused all these

documents in deciding the instant case.

31. The Party I vide their Charter of Demand

dated 28/11/2016 gave notice of intention to

terminate the existing settlement dated 22/05/2014

to which, the Party II(1) sent a reply dated

20/06/2017 stating that the GMS could not have

raised the said Charter of Demand since it does not

have the majority and that the Goa Trade and

Commercial Workers’ Union who is Party II(2)

enjoyed the majority. This is the major dispute

between the Parties to their present reference. From

the evidence and the documents on record, it is

seen that the settlement dated 22/05/2014 and

10/06/2014 is not validly terminated and that all

the workmen of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.

including the members of Party I signed the

settlement dated 22/05/2014 and 10/06/2014 after

signing the Requisite Declaration. The settlement

was signed for a period of three years and three

months i.e. 01/01/2014 to 31/03/2017 and the terms

of the said settlement were binding on all the

Parties to the settlement as a settlement can be

validly terminated by giving a written notice of

two months prior to the expiry date mentioned in

the settlement, secondly by giving a clear intention

to terminate the settlement and thirdly by giving

a notice by a Party representing the majority of

persons bound by the said settlement. This is the

necessity u/s 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as

it is mandatory for the Union to terminate the

settlement in the prescribed manner. That, u/s 19(7)

of the Industrial Disputes Act postulates that before

raising any demands, only the majority Union has

to terminate the existing settlement u/s 19(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act.

1760

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

32. Learned Advocate Shri M. S. Bandodkar for

Party II(1) has placed reliance on the authority

reported in the case of Sindhu Resettlement

Corporation Ltd. and Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat

and others (1968) 1 LLJ, the Hon’ble Apex Court

has held that a mere demand to a Government

without a dispute being raised by the workmen with

their Employer cannot become an industrial dispute

and such a dispute will not be a genuine dispute

raised on behalf of the workmen and would not

constitute an ‘industrial dispute’.

33. It is seen that the Employer used to run its

manufacturing activities under various names such

as Orchid, Zephyr, Qualpro and others. They were

individual partnership concerns but all were under

the Management of M/s Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.

which is the employer for all purposes and different

Trade Unions had been operated in the units of the

Employer over the years and there has never been

any majority Union till dated. This can be seen from

settlements at Exh. 70 which was with Orchid,

Qualpro and Zephyr Verna Employees Union and

Exh. 71 which was with another Union namely;

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. From the evidence it is clear

that the true Employer is and was Tulip diagnostics

Pvt. Ltd. and it used to manage its production in its

different units/divisions namely Orchid, Qualpro,

Zephyr etc. The clear indication of this position

comes from the fact that the individual workmen

who had signed the settlement at Exh.70 were

employed in either Orchid, Zephyr or Qualpro. For

example, Custodio Lucas, Chandrashekar Shirodkar

and Dulo Naik were with Zephyr and Prasad

Chanekar and Vishal Naik were employed at Orchid.

All of them had signed the settlement dated

24/01/2011 which governed the service conditions

in the Party II(1) Company at the relevant time. This

settlement dated 24/01/2011 was never terminated

by the Employer in accordance with Section 19 of

the Act and the Party I on the other hand did not

have any obligation. To terminate this settlement

as Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh was not a Party to

this settlement. It is submitted that under Section

19 only ‘Parties’ have the onus to terminate the

settlement and not non-Parties.

34. It is the contention of the Party I that by

letter dated 28/11/2016 at Exh.25, the Party I/Union

had raised Charter of Demands on the Employer

and by this letter, the Union had asked the

Management to have a discussion on wage revision

and that there was also an intention to terminate

previous settlement dated 22/05/2014 with

Bharatiya Kamgar Sena. This Charter of demand

was not responded to either by any of the individual

divisions like Orchid, Qualpro or Zephyr and also

by Tulip diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. In January, 2017, the

Employer had merged all its divisions into Tulip

Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and Exh.78 is a Notice dated

30/01/2017 showing that w.e.f. 01/02/2017 all

individual Units including Orchid, Zephyr and

Qualpro were transferred to Tulip Diagnostics Pvt.

Ltd. It is further contended that it is Employer’s

own case that the previous settlements have

already been terminated.

35. It is the contention of the Party I/Union that

the demands raised by the Union are the need of

the hour for all the workers in the establishment

and if an Award is made by this Tribunal accepting

the Charter of Demands dated 28/11/2016, it will be

applicable to all the workers and that under Section

18(3) of the Act, an Award made by the Tribunal is

binding on under Clause (a) on all the parties and

under Clause (d) on all the workmen employed at

the establishment. It is further contended that there

is an urgent need to revise and standardize the

wages in the establishment and this is so because

the purchasing power of the wages currently being

received has drastically fallen during the relevant

period for which the Party I Union wanted the

Employer to consider the demands i.e. 2017 to 2020.

The All India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) has

shown exponential increase during this period and

the index numbers (Base 1960=100) have increased

from 6262 in the beginning of 2017 to 7845 in the

end of 2020 which means the AICPI has increased

by 25.7% points for the relevant period which itself

is enough reason to seek the wage revision.

36. The law regarding wage-fixation has been

settled and the principles pronounced by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court will have to be followed by

the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has

reiterated these well settled principles in

Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. V/s Workmen (1967) 1

SCR 652 at Para 9 which is as under:

“9. At the outset, it will be convenient to consider

the question of principle. The object of industrial

law is two-fold, namely, (i) to improve the service

conditions of industrial labour so as to provide them

the ordinary amenities of life, and (ii) by that

process, to bring about industrial peace which

would in its turn accelerate productive activity of

the country resulting in its prosperity. The

prosperity of the Country, in its turn, helps to

improve the conditions of labour. By this process, it

is hoped that the standard of life of the labour can

be progressively raised from the stage of minimum

wage, passing through need found wage, fair wage,

to living wage. Industrial adjudication reflected in

the judgments of tribunals and the Courts have

evolved some principles governing wage fixation

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1761

though accidentally they related only to industries

born in the private sector. The principle of region-

cum-industry, the doctrine that the minimum wage

is to be assured to the labour irrespective of the

capacity of the industry to bear the expenditure in

that regard, the concept that fair wage is linked

with the capacity of the industry, the rule of

relevancy of comparable concerns, and the

recognition of the totality of the basic wage and

dearness allowance that should be borne in mind

in the fixation of wage structure, are all so well

settled and recognized by industrial adjudication

that further elaboration is unnecessary.

37. And to this it is seen that Exhibit 25 does not

specifically indicate the Union’s intention to

terminate the earlier settlement dated 22/05/2014.

It only mentions that its members have passed a

resolution to terminate the Settlement where it is

mentioned “I say that no Resolution was passed”

which indicates that Shri P. Gaonkar was not

authorized to even raise the Charter of Demands on

28/11/2016 and that in the absence of the clear

intention to terminate the earlier settlement and

absence of the resolution which could have proved

the same, an adverse inference must be drawn as

against the Party I and it must be held that the

earlier settlements have not been terminated. There

is no documentary evidenceto show that any

Demand or termination was ever raised on Tulip

Diagnostics (P) Ltd. and/or Party II(1).

38. From the evidence on record it is seen that

divisions as sought to be created and mentioned in

the Statement of Claim by Party I, the same is a

figment of imagination of Party I. Since no division

exists as mentioned by Party I and having raised

the demand in that way, the demand ought to be

rejected.It was also informed to Party I that they

were the minority and that the Union representing

the majority has submitted their Charter of

Demands. The Party I Union vide communication

dated 10/07/2017 submitted that Tulip has forcefully

entered the names of the workers represented by

Party I on the Rolls of the new Company and in the

absence of a Tripartite Agreement, they cannot be

termed as workers of the newly formed Company.

39. Now coming to the evidence of Shri P. Gaonkar

on behalf of the Party I Union and it is seen that his

cross-examination has been miserably shaken on

all material grounds which is evident from his

deposition. He could not depose to the questions

asked vis-à-vis his documents and this becomes

clear from his entire cross-examination. He has

admitted in cross that he has not produced nor

there is any document to show that he is the General

Secretary of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and he has

signed the Claim Statement. His clarification on

this point that the General Secretary is elected at

the General Body of the Union in the meeting and

as such this document is not available to him cannot

be accepted.

40. Further, he has admitted that Party II is

manufacturing and marketing in vitro diagnostic

re-agent kits and instruments and also admitted

that he has not denied this statement in his

Rejoinder. Further, he has admitted that and the

same is as follows which admissions are relevant to

decide the present reference:

1 Party II(1) presently has three divisions and

the reference has come of one individual

Factory as at that time these were separate

Factories and subsequently they were merged

in one.

2. It is true that on his Affidavit-in-Evidence at

Page-98 Para-9 it is agreed and mentioned that

after the closing date, each partnership entity

shall operate as a division of Tulip Diagnostic

Pvt. Ltd. under the name and style of Erstwhile

Partnership Entity.

3. It is true that I have not filed the Resolution

dated 27/11/2016 stating that the workers

have resolved to terminate the settlement

dated 22/05/2014.

4. It is true that I did not send the copy of the

Resolution to the Company but I have sent a

letter informing the Company about it and

further stated that the letter at Exh. 25 does

not mention anywhere the names of the

workers which are according to the names of

the Union.

5. It is true that the expiry is mentioned to be

dated 31/03/2017 and the Resolution is dated

27/11/2016 which is four months earlier.

6. It is true that after submitting the Charter of

Demands, the Company sent me a letter dated

20/06/2017 stating that Firms like Zephyr

Biomedicals, Orchid Biomedical Systems,

Qualpro Diagnostics, Coral Clinical Systems,

there are no employees and all employees have

joined Tulip Diagnostics.

7. I have not produced any documents to show

that our Union is a majority Union before this

Tribunal to show my majority but the

documents

were

submitted

the

Management.

1762

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

8. He has admitted that vide letter dated

20/06/2017, the Company had informed him

that there is only Company by name Tulip

Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and all these partnership

companies are merged into that Company.

9. I do not exactly remember whether I had raised

the dispute before the Authority regarding

the change in service conditions and further

admitted that he has not informed the

Appropriate Authority as according to him it

is not required and further admitted that he

did not approach the Labour Commissioner

for taking secret ballots to show their majority.

10. That the last two Paras of Exh. 29 which is a

copy of the letter dated 04/08/2017 made by

Party I that they wanted the Company should

sign settlement with the majority Union and

he was aware that at that time there was one

more Union existing by name Goa Trade &

Commercial Workers Union represented by Shri

Christopher Fonseca.

11. It is true that till date any Orders passed by

this Tribunal or by the Hon’ble High Court,

they have not mentioned anywhere that the

settlement dated 09/08/2017 is unfair and not

reasonable and further admitted that he has

not challenged independently before any

Authority that the settlement dated

09/08/2017 is unfair and unreasonable and has

further admitted that he has not calculated as

to how much money the said 18 workers lost

for not accepting the settlement dated

09/08/2017 at Exh. 84 Colly.

12. It is true that on Exh. 62-D Colly and 63-D

Colly which were produced in cross which

are the documents related to show his majority

that he produced both these documents in

cross for the first time before this Court and

Exh. 62-D Colly is not addressed to the

Management but it is addressed to the General

Secretary, GMS, Ponda–Goa.

13. It is true that on Exh. 62-D Colly it is mentioned

that the workers would like to join the Union

and further admitted that there was no

acknowledgement on Exh. 62-D Colly that it

has been acknowledged by the General

Secretary of the Union and according to him

their Union is not in the habit of issuing

acknowledgement slips which explanation is

not satisfactory to my mind.

14. It is true that no membership receipts are

enclosed to Exh. 62-D Colly.

15. It is true that Party I did not produce the copy

of the Resolution before this Tribunal seeking

to raise the demand on the Management and

also admitted that there are no pleadings to

the effect that the settlement which is signed

with Party II(2) is malafide, fraud, corrupt or

any other inducement to sign the settlement.

16. It is true that on Exh. 63-D Colly, all the

divisions mentioned in the said letter were

known as Tulip Diagnostics Ltd. and that they

were merged into Tulip Diagnostics Ltd.

17. It is true that he does not know if the said

Company has signed four settlement dates

apart from the Settlement dated 09/08/2017

and further admitted that no settlements were

signed with him and all the settlement dates

were accepted by his members without any

reservations.

18. It is true that I have not produced the

Membership Register of the workers/Union and

he stated that he has produced the names of

the list of the members.

19. He admitted that he does not know how many

workers have accepted the Settlement dated

09/08/2017 as of today.

20. He admitted that he does not remember about

the settlement dated 09/08/2017 signed with

the Party II(2).

21. It is true that I have not produced Minutes of

the General Body Meeting dated 13/08/2017

before this Tribunal and further admitted that

nothing has been stated with regard to the

Settlement dated 09/08/2017 signed with the

Party II(2) and the Company inspite there

being two complaints.

22. He further admitted that the document which

he has produced at Exh. 63-D Colly and 2013

Settlement was signed with individual

Company and it was three different

settlements signed with three Companies.

23. It is true that it is not mentioned by him

anywhere in the Failure Report the settlement

signed by Party II(1) and the Union is by,

coercion, duress and false promises, fraud,

corruption and other inducements given to

the workers.

24. It is true that what product is manufactured

by Party II(1)/Qualpro is not manufactured by

the Geno Pharmaceuticals and further

admitted that he has not produced the Balance

Sheet and Profit and Loss of Geno

Pharmaceuticals and also admitted that the

Balance Sheet records shows the financial

position of the Company.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1763

25. It is true that except the settlement at Exh.38,

I have not produced any document to show

comparison between Geno Pharmaceuticals

and Party II(1) and that the Grades and Pay-

Scales as mentioned on Exh. 38 is not the

same as mentioned on Exh. 30.

26. I do not know the exact dates of the

settlements made by Party II(1) but it would

be around three or more.

27. It is correct that I have signed the Settlement

without VDA in Funskool, but in lieu of VDA

and DA. He also admitted further that he does

not know if any declaration is signed

accepting the Settlement by all other workmen

except 19 workmen and further stated that he

does not know if both the above settlements

are kept open to all the workmen including

the 19 workmen.

28. He admitted that by not accepting the

settlements dated 09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021,

the workers have not suffered monetarily and

also admitted that he has not made any

mention in his Reply filed before the Tribunal

that the new settlement is unfair and

unreasonable.

29. He also admitted that in the Claim Statement,

there are no allegations that the Party II(2) is

handpicked Union which was otherwise

stated by this witness.

41. Hence, from the above admissions of the first

witness of the Party I, it is abundantly clear that

the Charter of Demands was not raised with the

actual Employer and it was not raised even before

Tulip Diagnostics as the entire reference does not

show that the dispute is between the Party I Union

and the Qualpro Diagnostic Systems. Infact Qualpro

Diagnostic Systems did not exist as on 31/01/2017.

Hence it is clear that the demand was not raised by

the workmen not there is anything on record to

show that the said demands were fair, genuine and

justified and the dispute in question does not seem

to be a real and a substantial one and it is not

espoused by the majority workers of the Party II(1).

Hence, it cannot be stated that the demand was

raised by the workmen of the Party II(1) as the

majority of the workmen have accepted the said

settlement except the 19 workmen who are in

minority.

42. Further, it is seen that all the workmen of

Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. including the members

of Party I have signed and accepted the two

settlements dated 22/05/2014 and 10/06/2014 after

signing the Requisite Declaration. Both these

settlements are not validly terminated by following

the strict principles and provisions of Section 19(2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act wherein it is

mandatory for the Union to terminate the settlement

in the prescribed manner and above all, Section

19(7) of the Industrial Disputes Act mandates that

before raising any demands, only the majority union

has to terminate the existing settlement under 19(2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act which is not so in

this case.

43. The evidence on record shows that the

workers/the members of the Party I Union in the

year 2016 when the demands were raised as the

Failure Report dated 09/10/2017 at Exh. 35 does not

show or prove that the General Secretary had

furnished it to the Dy. Labour Commissioner proving

his majority prior to the Failure Report and the

Party II(1) Company was informed about any

majority of the workers had joined the Union prior

to raising the Charter of Demands. Hence, it clearly

proves that in the year 2016, these workmen were

not the members of Party I Union.

44. At this juncture, reliance is placed in the

Authority reported in the case of Sindhu

Resettlement Corporation Ltd. and Industrial

Tribunal, Gujarat 1968 (1) LLJ 834 and in the case

of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate V/s Dimakuchi

Tea Estate 1958 SCR 1156 that an industrial dispute,

as defined, must be a dispute between employers

and employers, employers and workmen,

workmen and workmen and according to Party

II(1) since in the case in hand there is nothing to

indicate that the workmen had espoused the

dispute, hence, I come to the conclusion that Shri

P. Gaonkar had no authority on behalf of the

workmen/Party I Union.

45. The evidence also shows that there are no

documents to show that the letters at Exh. 62-D

Colly and 63-D Colly were received by the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh and moreover Shri P. Gaonkar has

admitted that he has not produced any list of

workers at the time of raising Charter of Demands,

nor at the time of filing the Claim Statement before

this Tribunal nor at the time of his evidence and

above all Shri P. Gaonkar has admitted that he has

not produced any documents to show that he is the

General Secretary of the said Party I Union. The

admissions made by Shri P. Gaonkar conclusively

proves that no Resolution was ever taken by the

workmen authorizing the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

and Shri P. Gaonkar as its General Secretary to raise

the dispute and so also to indicate that the

workmen joined the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh. This

is more clear on the admission of Shri. P. Gaonkar

1764

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

that there was no Resolution passed nor he was

authorized to raise the Charter of Demands on 28/11/

2016. No efforts were taken by the Party I Union even

during the examination of their second witness to

produce the Resolution which clearly proves that

there was no Resolution passed to raise the Charter

of Demands and as such the demand which was

raised dated 28/11/2016 is therefore held to be bad

in law.

46. The Party I failed to produce the evidence to

show that the letters dated 03/04/2008, 10/08/2015

and 10/12/2016 were received by the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh prior to writing letter dated

28/11/2016 and Shri P. Gaonkar failed to give the

dates on which they received these above letters.

Hence, all this goes to show that only 19 workmen

have not admitted the said settlement and the

evidence of Shri Prakash Naik corroborates the same

who has stated in his cross that “it is true that the

settlement dated 09/08/2017 is accepted by 19

workmen”.

47. It is also seen that the Party II(1) have signed

a Comprehensive Settlement with the Goa Trade

and Commercial Workers’ Union on their Charter of

Demand dated 22/02/2017 which is admittedly a

majority Union and the said settlement was signed

on 09/08/2017 and was accepted by majority Union

without any exceptions by all the establishments

of Party II(1) at Verna Industrial Estate which

settlement is fair and reasonable and legal.

48. It is amply clear that Party II(1) has a majority

Union more than two third of workmen namely of

Party II(2) with whom the Party II(1) Company have

signed comprehensive settlement dated 09/08/2017

arising out of the Charter of Demands dated

22/02/2017 covering all the demands as made by

Party I and this settlement was also offered to the

members of the Party I Union but they chose to

refuse and accept the said settlement. It is a settled

law that settlement of labour disputes by direct

negotiation and collective bargaining is always to

be preferred for it is the best guarantee of industrial

peace which is the aim of all legislations for

settlement of labour disputes. It may not be always

possible or necessary that such a settlement is

arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings

which may be the first step towards resolving the

industrial dispute which may be lingering between

the Employers and their workmen represented by

their Unions but even if at that stage such

settlement does not take place and the industrial

dispute gets referred for adjudication, even pending

such disputes, the Parties can arrive at an amicable

settlement which may be binding on the Parties to

the settlement unlike settlement arrived at during

conciliation proceedings which may be binding not

only on the Parties to the settlement but even to

the entire labour force working in the concerned

organization even though they may not be members

of the Union which might have entered into

settlement during conciliation proceedings.

49. Learned Advocate Shri M. S. Bandodkar for

Party II(1) relied on the following authorities.

Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited V/s

State of Jharkhand and others reported in

Supreme Court(2014) I SCC536 wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court constituted

under the Industrial Disputes Act is a creature

of that statue. It acquires jurisdiction on the

basis of reference made to it. The Tribunal has

to confine itself within the scope of the subject

matter of reference and cannot travel beyond

the same. It is for this reason that it becomes

the bounden duty of the appropriate

Government

make

the

reference

appropriately which is reflective of the real/

exact nature of “dispute” between the parties.

Central Bank Employee’s Union & Ors V/s

Central Bank of India & Ors. reported in the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court W.P No. 1293 of

1990 dated 14/06/1994 has held it is well

settled by various decisions of the Supreme

Court of India that even if the settlement hurts

some persons the totality is required to be

seen and if the settlement is in the large

interest of the employees and in pursuance of

the managerial function, then the said

settlement should not be disturbed under

Article 226 of the Constitution. The sequence

of events indicate that the impugned

settlement merely provided on additional

avenue whereby stenos in the main-stream

were given an opportunity. If they so desire,

to opt for the steno officers post by a particular

date. This was in view of the fact that the post

of steno officers was created prior to 1990 and

since vacancies arose in the said category an

additional option was given by the Bank to

the stenos to join by a particular date. If they

so desire from the general category to the

specialist

category.

the

above

circumstances, there is no merit in the

contention advanced on behalf of the

petitioners that the Agreement was arbitrary

and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1765

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation

Employee’s Union v/s G.M.D Corporation

reported in the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

2001 LLR 346 wherein the Hon’ble High Court

has held it is required to be noted that under

the Industrial Disputes Act, the settlements

and awards are binding on the persons as

provided for by Section 18 of the Act. Section

19 of the Act refers to the period of operation

of settlements and awards. The scheme of

Section 19 appears to be that the settlements

and awards shall be binding on the parties as

per the memorandum of settlement. The date

of operation and the period till which the

settlement shall continue to bind the parties

is indicated in Section 19. Therefore, when

there is a settlement for a limited period, the

same shall bind the parties for that limited

period and further held that it is well known

that under the Industrial Disputes Act, the

parties are entering into an agreement. Under

Section 2(p) of the Act for a period which

might have been mentioned in the agreement

and if the period is mentioned, then the parties

would bind themselves to act according to

the terms of the agreement for a limited period

as mentioned. After expiry of the said period,

the contract is extinguished. It is open for the

parties to enter into agreement for further

period. It depends on the bargaining factor

and both sides will consider their own interest

and will arrive at a binding decision.

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (represented

by its Partners), Mysore v/s Workmen

(represented by Secretary, Mangalore

Ganesh Beedi Workers and Allied Beedi

Factories Workers Association), Mysore

reported in the Hon’ble High Courtof

Judicature at Karnataka 2004 (3)L.L.N. 696

wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that

it is well settled that the court is not entitled

to scan a settlement in bits and pieces and

hold some parts not or not so good for

workmen. The court should look at settlement

as a whole, unless it can be demonstrated

that the objectionable portion is such that it

completely out weights all the other

advantage gained the Court should be slow

to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust. The

burden of proof that the terms of settlement

are unfair or unreasonable lies on the

respondent-union and not on the management.

It is so because, settlements are accepted by

vast majority of workmen and they have

received the benefits and advantages of the

settlement without any demur and protest.

The majority of workmen have also not

complained to the Industrial Tribunal against

the terms of settlement. In the context, it is

reasonable to presume that the terms of the

settlement are fair, reasonable and amicable

to the workmen concerned. It the respondent-

union contests such a presumption, it is for

the respondent-union to lead evidence to

show that the settlements are fair and

unreasonable or they were entered into

between the parties for some extraneous

considerations and not in the interest of the

workmen concerned.

Air India Employees Guild, Mumbai v/s Air

India, Ltd. Mumbai, and others reported in

the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at

Bombay Writ Petitions Nos. 2544 of 2004 and

1452 of 2005 dated 21/12/2006 wherein the

employer and Unions in the industry which

accept the Code of Discipline have to follow

the method of verification of membership as

laid down therein. Once the procedure is

accepted, it is not open to any of the parties

who agree to abide by the code of Discipline

to seek a procedure different from the

procedure agreed. The code of Discipline

admittedly does not provide for deciding who

has the majority of membership, by holding

secret ballot.

Deepak Industrial, Ltd., and another v/s State

of West Bengal and others reported in the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Calcutta

Appeal against Original Order No. 271 of

1972 dated 11/10/1974 held that the amended

S, 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, makes it

clear that when an individual dispute is not

sponsored by other workmen of espoused by

the Union of the workmen even then it would

be deemed to be an industrial dispute within

the meaning of the Act. In spite of the said

amendment which brings in individual

dispute within the scope of the Act it has not

made any difference on the principles as to

what would constitute an industrial dispute

within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes

Act. If it is an industrial dispute, that is a

dispute raised by an individual, it must be

raised by him and reference may be made in

due course for adjudication under the said

Act. On the other hand, if a group of workmen

raised a dispute that can also constitute an

industrial dispute within the meaning of the

Act which may be referred to the Tribunal; in

due course. But when the dispute is espoused

1766

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

or sponsored by a union judicial decisions have

uniformly held, that when the authority of the

union is challenged by the employer, it must

be proved by production of material evidence.

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company

Limited V/s Their Workmen, reporting in

the Hon’ble Supreme Court (1981) 4 SCC

wherein the Apex Court has held that “a

settlement cannot be weighed in any golden

scales and the question whether it is just and

fair has to be answered on the basis of

principles different from those which come

into play when an industrial dispute is under

adjudication. If the settlement had been

arrived at by a vast majority of the concerned

workmen with their eyes open and was also

accepted by them in its totality, it must be

presumed to be just and fair and not liable to

be ignored while deciding the reference

merely because a small number of workers

were not parties to if or refused to accept it,

or because the Tribunal was of the opinion

that the workers deserved marginally higher

emoluments than they themselves thought

they did.”

50. I have perused all the above authorities in

deciding the present case and the ratios applied in

all the above cases gets squarely attracted to the

facts of the present case.

51. Now coming to the second witness examined

by the Party I who is Shri Prakash Naik and he has

mentioned in his Affidavit-in-Evidence that he is

the employee of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and

presently he is working in M/s Orchid Biomedical

Systems as a Production Assistant and according

to him M/s Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. is the Company

which owns the Employer/Party II(1) along with

other independent Factories, establishments

namely, Qualpro Diagnostics and Zephyr Biomedical

which are engaged in one business as one single

entity though located in the Verna Industrial Estate

in separate and independent premises and all the

details of the Party I’s case and in his cross, he has

clearly stated that the Party II(1) is engaged in the

manufacturing of malaria test, pregnancy test and

now rapid antigen test for Covid-19 and Party II(1)

is not engaged in the manufacturing of

pharmaceutical products. He has admitted in cross

that Qualpro, Zephyr and Orchid Biomedical

Systems have merged and have become one

Company i.e. Tulip Diagnostic (P) Ltd and this merge

took place in the year 2007. He is aware of all the

five settlements which took place out of Charter of

Demands and he has admitted that none of the

above five settlements were made with Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh Trade Union. He has admitted that

he has not accepted the settlements dated 2017

and 2021 and both these settlements were offered

to him for acceptance. This goes to show that both

the settlements were made open and available to

all the workmen of Party II(1) Employees including

the Party I workmen. He has further admitted that:

It is true that the settlement dated

23/02/2008 was accepted by all the workmen

including me.

It is true that all the workmen of all

establishments of the Company at Verna has

accepted the settlements dated 24/01/2011,

22/05/2014 and 10/06/2014.

It is correct that all these four settlements

were accepted by the workmen including me

without any objections.

It is correct that all these settlements have

been signed by the Internal Committee and

the Internal Union and thereafter with the

Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union

and he has also admitted further that it is

correct that the structure-wise settlements

signed with the Union were same.

It is correct that in this matter we have not

filed any documents showing the membership

of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh in connection

with the workers.

It is true that from the documents which are

produced by me before this Court, it is not

possible to come to the conclusion that their

Union Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh is majority

or minority and also admitted that the

settlement dated 09/08/2017 is not accepted

by 19 workmen. He could not answer as to

who are the said 19 workmen who had not

signed the settlement dated 09/08/2017 as he

stated that he is not aware.

It is true that in my Affidavit-in-Evidence I

have not mentioned as to the number of

membership of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

including myself and further admitted that a

Notice was also displayed stating that the

workmen should accept the settlement dated

22/07/2021 by signing the declaration and the

contents of this settlement were read over

and explained to them by the Management.

He further admitted that I say that I have

signed the declaration for accepting the

settlement dated 22/07/2021 and while giving

this declaration he put certain conditions

before the Company for accepting the

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1767

settlement but as the Company did not accept

the conditions put forth by him, he could not

get any benefits from the Settlement dated

22/07/2021.

It is true that except 19 workmen, all other

workmen signed the declaration unconditionally

and accepted the settlement dated 22/07/2021

in toto.

10.

He further admitted that it is correct that by

the earlier settlement dated 09/08/2017, the

workers got the benefit around Rs. 9,000/- to

Rs. 10,000/-. It is correct that new settlement

which has been signed in 2021, the workers

got the benefit of around Rs.11,000/- to

Rs.12,000/-. It is correct that both the

settlements have been accepted by majority

of the workmen. It is correct that majority of

the workers are members of both the Unions.

It is correct that both the settlements have

been accepted by the Members of Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh also in toto.

11.

It is true that by not accepting both the

settlements dated 09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021,

I suffered a monetary loss of Rs. 20,000/- and

by not accepting both these settlements, the

monetary loss is a very bad thing that

happened to me.

12.

It is correct that after knowing that settlement

dated 09/08/2017 has been signed by

Party II(2) thereafter only our union wrote a

letter to Dy. Labour Commissioner on the next

day. It is correct that the Union has sent only

the letter dated 10/08/2017 which is at exh.

31. It is correct that with this letter the Union

did not enclose any document showing

majority of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and that

Exh. 31 does not indicate anywhere in the

Failure Report that the list of the majority was

filed before the Conciliation Officer. It is

correct that after signing the settlement with

the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union,

the matter was admitted in conciliation on

10/08/2017. It is correct that thereafter we gave

a letter dated 14/08/2017 to the Management

which is at Exh. 33 and that we had given the

letter in July, 2017. It is true that I have not

produced this letter of July, 2017 before this

Court.

13.

I do not know what action was taken by the

Dy. Labour Commissioner on the Management

made on our complaint. Thereafter, the

Dy. Labour Commissioner sent the Failure

Report to the Government.

14.

We have never raised any objection for

Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Internal Unions

when they signed settlement with the

Company. I have not produced letter dated

28/11/2016 sent to the Management.

15.

It is true that the Management wrote a letter

dated 20/06/2017 to us stating that we had no

majority in the Union.

16.

It is true that at that time the total workmen

employed were around 310 in the entire three

establishments/total group in the said

Company. We had sent a letter informing our

strength of the workmen along with the names

to the Dy. Labour Commissioner but not to the

Management. It is true that it was brought to

our notice that we were having thin minority

by the Management.

17.

It is true that the proceedings before the

Dy. Labour Commissioner ended in a Failure

Report.

18.

It is true that though we had made a complaint

before the Dy. Labour Commissioner that the

Management was following unfair labour

practices, but I do not know what action was

taken by the Dy. Labour Commissioner on the

Management on these allegations. The local

Committee of our Union was formed after the

settlement dated 09/08/2017 was signed with

Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union.

19.

It is true that all the settlements till date

signed with the different Unions have the same

structural features. It is true that the category

of all the workers is the same which is semi-

skilled workers. We did not make any

representation to the Company alleging that

there was disparity between the salaries of

newcomers and old workers which caused

discontentment between the workers.

20.

It is true that in the present reference we had

filed an application for Interim Relief and the

same was dismissed. It is true that the

settlement dated 09/08/2017 was signed with

the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union

accepted by all the workmen except 19

workmen. It is true that the settlement dated

22/07/2021 signed with the Goa Trade and

Commercial Workers’ Union has been also

accepted by all the workmen except 19

workmen.

21.

It is true that old workers are getting more

salary and the new ones are getting less salary.

We have not written any letter to the Company

1768

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

showing the disparity between the salaries of

the new comers and old workers causing

greater discontentment between the workers.

It is correct that the settlement signed with

the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union

the FDA is given.

22.

It is true that in the settlement signed on

10/06/2014, the basic salary is increased every

year. In the settlement dated 09/08/2017 also

basic salary is increased every year. It is true

that FDA is also increased by Rs. 650/-.

23.

It is correct that in this settlement the workers

have agreed to increase the productivity from

12,000 to 14,000 units. I have produced two

settlements of Indoco and Geno which are

both pharma companies.

24.

It is true that whether a workman is skilled,

semi-skilled or unskilled is a decision of the

Management. We get the bonus @ 20% as per

the Payment of Bonus Act. It is true that

contract workers are being paid minimum

wages as per the Act.

25.

It is true that my present salary is Rs.15,497/- is

because I have not accepted the settlements

dated 09/08/2017 and 21/07/2021. It is true

that all the contract workers are paid minimum

wages independent of the years of service.

26.

It is true that presently all the workers are

working in peace and harmony in the Factory.

It is true that only 19 workers have not

accepted both the settlements as mentioned

above.

52. Learned Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar has placed

reliance on the following authorities:

Transport Corporation of India Ltd. V/s

MRMT & G. K. Union, 2002 (3) LLJ 835

wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

observed as under while explaining the Apex

Court’s decision in Kamani Steel Metals Ltd.

“9. The Apex Court in Kamani Steel Metal

(supra) has while rejecting the submission of

the Employer that there was no change of

circumstance justifying a revision of wages,

pay scales or dearness allowance observed

that judicial notice must be taken of the fact

that commodity prices have soared high, the

general level of wages has gone up and in

some industries there have been two or three

revisions already and in some others Wage

Boards have been appointed while

adjudicating a wage reference. I has further

observed that if inspite of these factors there

has been no upward revision in the Company,

the demand would be justified. Therefore, it is

obvious that while adjudicating the reference,

the Tribunal was required to keep certain

principles which the Apex Court has laid

down in the forefront and to consider the fact

that upward revision in wages must be given

if the circumstances so warrant. The Apex

Court has held in a number of cases that the

Industrial Tribunal must strive to endeavor to

see that workers are paid fair wages and not

merely the minimum wages. Fair wages are

something less than the living wages which

are the ultimate foal, and more than the

minimum wages which must be paid in any

event. Fair wages which are fixed at a

particular time may not remain fair with

passage and the price increase and, therefore,

a revision in wages is necessary. To a certain

extent, this disparity is made up by payment

of dearness allowance, but as the Apex Court

has consistently taken a view that 100%

neutralization is not advisable, it is necessary

to sufficiently bridge the gap between the

wages and cost of living by revision of the

wages as also the dearness allowance. The

mere fact that the is an increase in the

Consumer Price index, justifies an upward

revision.

Transport Corp. of India Ltd. V/s MRMT &

G. K. Union, 2002 (3) LLJ 835, the Hon’ble

High Court of Bombay has observed that “14.

The contention of the Learned Counsel for the

Petitioners that unless the workman steps into

the witness box and leads evidence to justify

his demand, it would not be open for the

Tribunal to consider any wage increase must

also be negative. This is because the mere

change in circumstance of the rise in the

Consumer Price Index is sufficient to warrant

an upward revision in wages. What is the

Consumer Price Index prevailing at the time

when the demand is raised or when the dispute

is referred for adjudication or when Tribunal

makes an Award is a matter of record based on

the Notifications issued by the Government

from time to time. Therefore, the oral evidence

of the workman would be of no assistance to

prove this fact. Further Balance Sheets and

Profit and Loss Accounts which are necessary

to show the financial capacity of an Employer

are maintained by the Employer and the

workman again would not be of no assistance

to prove this fact. Further Balance Sheets and

Profit and Loss Accounts which are necessary

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1769

to show the financial capacity of an Employer

are maintained by the Employer and the

workman again would not be able to throw

any light on these aspects as the financial

capacity is to be assessed by the Tribunal from

the record made available to it. This record is

to be produced by the Employer if he pleads

financial inability to implement the burden of

an increased wage structure. The burden of

proof to show that he has no financial capacity

to withstand the burden imposed upon it

would be on the Employer as it is he who knows

his financial position and the conclusive proof

of that are the Balance Sheets which are

normally in his possession. In the instant case,

the Tribunal has considered and assessed the

financial capacity of the transporters to bear

the burden by taking into account the Balance

Sheets and the Profit and Loss Accounts of

those who had produced them on record. He

has rightly drawn adverse inference against

those employers who had not cared to produce

these documents or to substantiate their claim

that they do not have the capacity to withstand

financial burden which would be imposed upon

them due to the demands. The Tribunal

considered the fact that most of the Employers

neither appeared no filed their Balance Sheets

and Profit and Loss Accounts or the Statement

of Salaries. The statement recording the

strength of the employees also was not

produced and since all these factors were within

the knowledge of the transporters, the Tribunal

has drawn an adverse inference and held that

the transporters were able to bear the burden”.

Hindustan Unilever C/s B. N. Dongre, (1994)

6 SCC 157 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court

has observed that “the concept of Dearness

Allowance, the second most important element

in a worker’s wage-plan next to the basic wage,

was introduced during the second World War

to meet the increase in the cost of living caused

by inflation. It was either linked to the cost of

living index or was given by way of flat

increases. When linked to the former, it was

granted to all the income groups at a flat rate

or was graded on a scale admissible to different

income groups diminishing with rise in income.

Basically, the concept of dearness allowance was

designed to combat inflation and protect real

wages and therefore it would appear that there

should be cent percent neutralization. This is a

concept peculiar to India, Ceylon, Pakistan and

Bangladesh. The National commission of

Labour (1969) recommended 95% neutralization

for minimum wage earners but it was reluctant

to recommend the same rate for workers in

higher wage groups for fear that it may spark

off inflationary trends. Normally, such a

Dearness Allowance formula suffers from two

drawbacks, (i) it has the pernicious effect of

distorting the wage-structure and (ii) it results

in a sharp erosion of real income, particularly of

those in the higher wage groups. Generally

speaking, the distortion of the wage-structure

takes place because employees in different pay

scales are granted Dearness Allowance not at a

uniform rate but at a tapering rate, i.e. the

workers in the lower scales getting a higher

neutralization as compared to those in the

higher pay brackets in whose case the

neutralization percentage diminishes with the

rise in basic wage. That is because it is believed

that those in the higher pay brackets have a

cushion to absorb the brunt of inflation”.

Transport Corp. of India Ltd. V/s MRMT &

G. K. Union, 2002 (3) LLJ 835, (already cited

above) where the first principles have been

explained and it has also been held that the

Tribunal has the power to even grant demands

more than claimed.

Mukand Limited V/s Mukand Staff

Association, 2001 (4) LLN 682 wherein the

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has observed

that “At the outset, it would be well to have

regard to the fact, that industrial adjudication

is not an exercise involving a pure mathematical

computation. Statistics and figures are

undoubtedly important facets of the process

of wage fixation but, in the practical

application of the region-cum-industry

formula, difficulties do arise before the

industrial adjudicator. The circumstances

relating to two industries within the same

region or two establishments within the same

industry in the same region, can rarely, if ever,

be identical. Each establishment in the

industry is bound to have its own peculiar

characteristics relating not merely to the

nature of its business but, also those relating

to its own peculiar industrial relations

scenario. The industrial adjudicator cannot

throw up his hands in despair when

confronted with the problems of adjudication.

In making comparisons under the region-cum-

industry formula, the adjudicator has to assess

the data which has been produced before him.

Extrapolation of data is not a mechanical

process and any exercise involving the

application of date or of making statistical

1770

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

comparisons has to be conscious of the

limitations of the process. Practical experience

in these matters would show that there would

be some deficiencies in the data and some

limitations on applying the norms of

comparability. In such a case, it is the sound

and robust common sense of the expert

adjudicator

which

must

guide

the

determination. In that determination, the

Industrial Tribunal has the benefit of rival

submissions which have to be duly considered.

Tata Chemicals V/s Workmen 1978 (3) SCC

42 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has

observed that “a bare perusal of the above

quoted section would show that whereas a

settlement arrived at by agreement between

the Employer and the workmen otherwise than

in the course of conciliation proceeding is

binding only on the Parties to the agreement.

The conclusion that a minority Union can

validly raise an industrial dispute gains

support from Section 2(k) of the Act which does

not restrict the ambit of the definition of

‘industrial dispute’ to a dispute between an

employer and a recognized majority Union but

takes within its wide sweep, any dispute or

difference between Employer and workmen

including a minority Union of workmen which

is connected with employment or terms of

employment or conditions of labour of workmen

as well as the observations made by this

Court in M/s Sharampal Premchand v/s

Shrampal Premchand (Saughandhi) (1) (1975)

3 SCC 613.

“In Jhagrakhan Collieires (P) Ltd. V/s Shri G.

C. Agarwal, Presiding Officer, Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur & Ors. (supra) Sarkaria, J.

speaking for the Bench observed that “an

implied agreement by acquiescence, or by

conduct such as acceptance of a benefit under

an agreement to which the worker acquiescing

or accepting the benefit was not a Party, being

outside the purview of the Act, is not binding

on such a worker either under sub-section (1)

or under sub-section (3) of section 18. It follows,

therefore, ‘that even if 99% of the workers have

impliedly accepted the agreement arrived at by

drawing V.D.A. under it, will not-whatever its

effect under the general law put an end to the

dispute before the Labour Court and make it

functus officio under the Act.” Accordingly, the

theory of implied agreement by acquiescence

sought to be built up on behalf of the Appellant

on the basis of the acceptance of the benefits

flowing from the agreement even by the

workmen who were not signatories to the

settlement is of no avail to the Appellant

Company and cannot operate as an estoppel

against the Sangh or its members.”

53. I have perused all the above authorities in

deciding the present case and there is no dispute

about the settled position of law but the same are

of no use to the Party I as the facts of the present

case are totally different from the above mentioned

cases.

54. The Party II(1) which is the Company has

placed on record the Affidavit-in-Evidence of

Mrs. Sharmila Nadkarny, working as Asst. General

Manager for Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. and she has

mentioned in her Affidavit-in-Evidence the detailed

facts of the case and has produced documents from

Exh. 69 to 84 Colly in support of their case. Her

testimony with the support of all these documents

establishes and proves the case of the Party II(1).

Her cross-examination could not be shaken on any

material aspect and throughout she maintained and

proved with the documents that all the

establishments as mentioned by Party I as divisions

are not financially independent and they are

altogether the establishments of the same Company

i.e. of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. and Tulip

Diagnostics (P) Ltd. has singed the settlement of all

its establishments at Verna which is called as

‘division’ by Party I. That according to her Orchid,

Zephyr, Qualpro Diagnostics are not ‘divisions’ of

Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. but they are part and

parcel of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. financially or

otherwise and therefore the demand placed on the

divisions of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. is bad in law

and needs to be rejected. She has also stated that

the Party II(1) has signed a comprehensive

settlement with Goa Trade and Commercial Workers

Union on their Charter of Demands dated 22/02/

2017 which is a majority Union and the said

settlement has been signed on 09/08/2017 and

accepted by majority Union without any exception

by all the establishments of Party II(1) at Verna

Industrial Estate.

55.

It is pertinent to note that from 2008

onwards the Company has signed 6 Settlements on

Charter of Demands with different union i.e.

settlement dated 23/02/2008, 24/01/2011,

22/05/2014, 10/06/2014, 09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021

and though Party I was claiming that the Union has

membership, at no point of time the Company did

sign any settlement with the said Union and the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh accepted all settlements

without any objection in toto.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1771

56. Hence, from her evidence it stands

established that they have signed comprehensive

settlement with Party II(2) on their Charter of

Demands dated 22/02/2017 which is a majority Union

and this settlement was signed on 09/08/2017 and

accepted by majority Union without any exceptions

by all the establishments of Party II(1) at Verna

Industrial Estate and they also offered same

settlement to the members of Party I but that was

rejected by the Party I. It has also come on record

that in the settlement signed with Party II(2), the

Company has given substantial benefits to all its

workmen including the last settlement which was

signed on 22/07/2021 and about the loss in the

financial position has been accepted by Shri Prakash

Naik, the second witness of the Party I.

57. It is also seen that the Party II(1) had signed

the said settlements by taking into consideration

all the relevant provisions under the Industrial

Disputes Act and the principles laid down by the

Apex Court and also the financial position and

status of the Company to pay and comparable

concerns signed the settlements with Party II(2).

The Party I Union cannot raise the Charter of

Demands as it does not have the majority and the

Party II(2) is a majority Union. The arguments

advanced by Learned Advocate Shri S. P. Gaonkar

for Party I that the Party II(1) Employer never called

them for verification or for secret ballot to find out

the majority but it is seen that the secret ballot

theory is not recognized under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 or the Trade Union Act. It is also

a settled law that the Party II(1) Company cannot

be compared to any pharmaceutical Company as

the profits, losses, production capacity of each

Company defers from one another and the

comparison to be made as prayed and alleged by

the Party I Union with Indico Remedies, Geno

Pharmaceuticals are not correct and comparable

concerns as the payment and emoluments are to be

done by having regards to the industry cum region

principles and paying capacity of each Company

which varies from one another and moreover, the

Party II(1) being a private Company has to depend

on their own profits and they cannot be compared

with the Government departments. The present

emoluments given by the Company in the

settlement signed with Goa Trade and Commercial

Workers’ Union has taken care of pay-scales, flat-

rise and fitment and as such there is no need for

increasing the same which is more evident and

clear from the evidence of the Party II(2) Union.

58. It is seen that both the settlements dated

09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021 were offered to all the

workmen including the said 19 workmen of Party I

Union but they refused the same. Both these

settlements are proper, fair and reasonable having

accepted by a vast majority of workmen without

any reservations and therefore the demand raised

by the said 19 workmen certainly needs to be

rejected. The first witness of Party II(1) Company in

her cross-examination has clearly stated that their

Company manufactures all types of diagnostic

products which are different from medical

equipments. She has further stated in her cross

that at the time of signing both the settlements

dated 09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021 both the Parties

took care of their respective interests and both the

said settlements are reasonable settlements. She

has also admitted that in the negotiations the

Management was represented by H.R., Finance and

Technical Team and the Union was represented by

the Workers Committee and the Union leadership

and also admitted that both the Parties after much

negotiations and discussions signed the settlement

at Exh.74.

59. It is seen that the Party I has not led any

evidence to show the financial position of the

Company, industry cum region, paying capacity and

comparable concern. It is seen that the settlements

which have been relied upon the Party I Union in

no way comparable to the Company and there is

nothing on record to show as to how those

settlements can be compared with one

establishment of the Company. The Party I Union

has failed to prove the financial capacity of Tulip

Diagnostics (P) Ltd. to pay the workers who have

not accepted the settlement dated 09/08/2017 as

no Balance Sheets are produced by the Party I Union.

Even otherwise the workmen have refused to give

the extra productivity which was one of the terms

for increase in wage in the 2017 settlement. Since

the 19 workers have refused to give more

productivity as per clause 19 of the same, it would

be unjust to burden the Company with increase in

wages. It is also pertinent to note that the minority

union has made serious allegations against the Goa

Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union. According

to them the Party II(2) is puppet union and it is not

majority Union and unless that issue is decided the

Tribunal cannot proceed further.

60. The Party II(1) has signed 5 settlements i.e.

settlement dated 23/02/2008, 24/01/2011,

22/05/2014, 10/06/2014 and 09/08/2017 and in all

the settlements the Party II(1) has given substantial

benefits to all the workmen and settlement dated

22/05/2014 has been accepted by Party I Union in

toto without making any allegations. The Party I

has not produced any material to show that the

workmen have paid membership fees to the Union

1772

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

for the year 2016. The full Bench of the Bombay

High Court in Air india Employees’ Guild V/s Air

India Ltd., 2007 II LLJ 2017 (Bom) has held that

the issue as to whether a workman is a member or

not has to be decided only on the basis of receipt

of payment of subscription for the relevant period.

Thus, there is absence of material evidence to show

that the demand is espoused by the workmen of

the Factory. In the case of Deepak Industrial, Ltd.,

and another v/s State of West Bengal (1975) 1 LLJ,

the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that “if the

evidence does not establish that the workmen in

substantial number by passing appropriate

resolution authorize the Union to raise a demand,

any demand raised by the Union cannot be said to

be a dispute raised on behalf of the workmen of the

Employer. In the case of the Bombay Union of

Journalist V/s The Hindu AIR 1963 (SC) 318, the

Apex Court held that without espousal of the

demand by substantial number of workmen

employed by the Employer (The Hindu), the dispute

raised by the Union on behalf of the workmen would

neither be a genuine dispute nor an industrial

dispute.

61. The Apex Court in the case of Express

Newspaper (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors. V/s The Union of

India & Ors. AIR (1958) SC 578, the Apex Court

set out the principles applicable in fixation of

wages. (1) In the fixation of rates of wages which

include within its compass the fixation of scales of

wages also, the capacity of the industry to pay is

one of the essential circumstances to be taken into

consideration except in cases of bare subsistence

or minimum wage where the Employer is bound to

pay the same irrespective of such capacity; (2) The

capacity of the industry to pay is to be considered

on an industry-cum-region after taking a fair cross

section of the industry and (3) the proper measure

for gauging the capacity of the industry to pay

should take into account the elasticity of demand

for the product, the possibility of tightening up the

organization so that the industry could pay higher

wages without difficulty and the possibility of

increase in the efficiency of the lowest paid workers

resulting in increase in production considered in

conjunction with the elasticity of demand for the

increased rate should not be such as to drive the

Employer out of business.

62.

Learned Adv. Shri Suhaas Naik on behalf of

Party II(1) has argued that Party II(2) Union vis-a-vis

the documents it is noted as follows:

It is seen that the before signing this wage

settlement under Section 2(p) read with

Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, the Party II (2) Union had placed a

Charter of Demands dated 22.02.2017 before

the Party II (1) company, After placing the

said charter of demands series of bilateral

meetings/negotiations/discussions were held

between the Management team of Party II(1)

company and the workmen/Party II(2) Union

and after series of protracted discussions, both

Parties finally agreed to settle the said Charter

of Demands dated 22/02/2017 by signing a

comprehensive wage settlement dated 09/08/

2017 under Section 2(p) of the Industrial

Disputes Act,1947.

It is seen that after signing this wage

settlement bilaterally, the said settlement was

then forwarded to the Certifying Authorized

Officer of the Labour Department, Government

of Goa, for registration of the same and the

Office of the Labour Commissioner registered

the said settlement under No. 18/2017.

It is seen that as per Clause (8) of this

settlement, the Privilege Leave is paid as

under:

(a) It has been agreed between the parties

that the existing Privilege Leave of 18 days

shall be enhanced to 21 days from April,

2017. It has been also agreed that the

Privilege Leave accumulation of 54 days

will remain unchanged. It has also been

agreed that the privilege leave can be

availed for the 5th time in a year only in

case of personal emergencies only like

hospitalization, death to close family

members.

(b) It has been agreed by the union that the

workmen shall make full efforts to reduce

absenteeism, which is mostly seen in the

months of October, November and

December.

It is seen that as per Clause (17) of this

settlement, the Medical Allowance is paid as

under:

(a) It is agreed that Rs. 1,000/- per month, per

worker be paid from the month the

contribution to the ESIC Scheme is

stopped and the employee is out of ESIC.

The said payment will be paid annually

as Medical Allowance. It has been also

agreed between the parties that if the

ESIC slab changes and employees fall back

into the coverage limit again, the Medical

Allowance of Rs. 1,000/- per month, per

worker will be stopped and again they

will be covered under the ESIC.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1773

(b) It was agreed that the existing Mediclaim

coverage of Rs. 50,000/- would be

enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- per worker, which

includes his family members. The coverage

will not cover Maternity benefit in the

Policy. The enhanced coverage will be

effective from 01/09/2017. However, no

arrears shall be paid for any of the past

claims from 1st April to 31st August.

that the existing annual medical

Allowance shall be enhanced by Rs. 500/-

from April, 2017.

It is seen the besides the above rise the Party

II(1) Union has secured an increase in the

salary for the 1st year of Rs. 3,250/-; for the 2nd

year of Rs. 1,200/-; for the 3rd year of Rs. 1,200/-

and for the remaining 6 months of Rs.1,500/-

in addition to the Fixed Dearness Allowance

(FDA) as mentioned above. The total rise is a

Rs. 9,100/- in addition to other liabilities which

the Party II(1) company has to pay on Provident

Fund Contributions, Gratuity, Bonus, etc.

It is seen that this settlement dated

09/08/2017 has been accepted by vast majority

of the workmen and at present there is

absolute peace and normalcy at the factory of

the Party II (1) Union.

It is seen that the above settlement expires on

September, 2020 and thereafter the Party II Union

terminated the said settlement and placed a

fresh Charter of Demand dated 30/09/2020 and

series of bilateral meetings/negotiations were

again held between the management team

and the Union team and after series of

prolonged and protracted discussions a fresh

settlement was again signed on 22/07/2021

for a period of 3 years and 6 months. In this

settlement, a direct wage rise of Rs. 11,800/-

per month, per worker has been given

excluding, statutory liabilities on Provident

Fund contributions, Gratuity, Bonus, Shift

Allowance, Leave Travel Allowance, etc. in

the following manner.

(a) Rs. 5,800/- per month, per worker salary

increase for the 1st year w.e.f. 01/10/2020 to

30/09/2021;

(b) Rs. 2,500/- per month, per worker salary

increase for the 2nd year w.e.f. 01/10/2020

to 30/09/2022;

increase for the 3rd year w.e.f. 01/10/2022

to 30/09/2023;

(d) Rs.1,000/- per month, per worker salary

increase for the 1st year w.e.f . 01/10/2023

to 31/03/2024;

It is seen that the above settlement dated

22/07/2021 has been signed under Section 2(p)

read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial

disputes Act,1947 and Rule 58(2) of the

(Central) Rules, 1957 in the prescribed manner

and the same has been duly registered before

the Certifying Officer under Registration

No. 09/2020 and such settlements which are

fully complied in accordance with the Rule

Books are always treated as fair, just and

proper settlements as laid down by the various

norms

and

guidelines

Industrial

jurisprudence and such settlement are never

opened to judicial scrutiny unless the same

are proved to be malafide.

It is seen that both the above settlements dated

09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021 have been duly

accepted by majority of the workmen and

there is absolute normalcy prevailing in the

Party II(1) company and absolute industrial

peace and normalcy is prevailing in the factory

of the Party II(1) company and the same cannot

be allowed to be disturbed.

Hence, Issue No. 1, 3 and 4 are answered in the

negative.

Issue No. 2

63. The Party II has raised objection in the Written

Statement that the Party I has no locus standi to

rise the dispute or represent the present Party I

workmen and, based on these objections issue

No. 2 has been framed by placing a burden on the

Party I to discharge the same and in order to prove

this the Party I Union has to show their connection

between the workmen and on whose behalf the

dispute has been espoused by and also they have

to prove the fact that the workmen/Party I had

authorised Shri P. Gaonkar to sign the Claim

Statement on their behalf. That, on going through

the evidence of Shri P. Gaonkar who is the first

witness of the Party I, it is seen that there is no

single document produced by him on behalf of the

Union to raise the dispute or to represent them in

the present case.

64. At the outset, it is seen that he has admitted

in cross that he has no produced any documents to

show that he is the General Secretary of Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh and that he has signed the Claim

Statement. Further, in his crossexamination he has

admitted that he has not produced the copy of the

Resolution before this Tribunal seeking to raise the

1774

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

demand on the Management and has admitted that

he has not produced the copy of the said Resolution.

He has also admitted that he has not produced the

Membership Register of the workers/Union but

voluntarily has stated that he has produced the

names of the list of members. It is pertinent to note

here that the document as regards the Membership

from giving the list of members as the document of

List of Documents will not be authentic as much as

the Membership Register. HE has also admitted

further that Exh.25 which is a letter dated

28/11/2016 does not mention anywhere the names

of the workers which is as per the names of the

Union. Further, it is seen that the letters at

Exh. 62-D Colly and 63-D Colly which are signed by

about 126 workers and addressed to the General

Secretary of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh

informing that they would like to join GMS, and

that they shall abide rules and regulations of the

Union and that they authorize the General

Secretary of the GMS to represent them before the

Management, but to this it is seen that by both

these documents the workmen have only stated

that they would like to join their Union and nowhere

it is mentioned that they have joined the said Union.

Therefore, both these letters do not help the Party

I to show that the workmen have joined the Party

I Union. It is settled law that intention to join is

totally a different as aspect from actually joining

any Union and to prove this, the Union must provide

the details of the membership along with the

receipts after accepting them in their Union which

is admittedly no there in the case. There is no

cogent evidence placed on record by the Party I to

prove that the said workers were the members of

the Union in the year 2016 when the demands were

raised and as the Failure Report dated 09/10/2017

at Exh. 35 does not reveal that the General Secretary

had furnished to the Dy. Labour Commissioner any

documents proving their majority prior to the

Failure Report. Hence, there is nothing on record to

show that in the year 2016, these workmen were

the members of the Party I Union.

65.

Moreover, the second witness Shri Prakash

Naik in his cross-examination has also admitted

that “it is correct that in this matter we have not

filed any documents showing the membership of

the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh in connection with

the workers” and further stated that “it is correct

that the Union had sent only the letter dated

10/08/2017 which is at Exh. 31”. “It is correct that

with this letter the Union did not enclose any

document showing majority of the Gomantak

Mazdoor Sangh”. “It is correct that Exh. 32 also

does not indicate anywhere in the Failure Report

that the list of the majority was filed before the

Conciliation Officer”. Even otherwise, no document

has been produced by the Party I such as any

Authority Letter or Resolution by the workmen

authorizing the Sangh and Shri P. Gaonkar as its

General Secretary to raise the dispute and so also

to show that the workmen have joined the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh. When Shri P. Gaonkar

himself has admitted in cross that no such

Resolution was passed, in other way it clearly

indicates that Shri P. Gaonkar was not even

authorised nor he had any locus standi to raise the

Charter of Demand dated 28/11/2016 before the

Management and therefore to my mind when there

was no Resolution passed to raise the Charter of

Demands, the said demands which were raised as

on 28/11/2016 have to be considered as bad in law.

66. Even otherwise, the Charter of Demands

raised on behalf of the Party I does not mention

that any of the workers have left the earlier Union

and joined the Party I Union after 2014. No

membership documents are produced to show that

the Party I represented majority and Shri P. Gaonkar

did not produce any letters signed by the workers

of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. stating that they have

left the earlier Union and are joining the Sangh

and/or authorizing Shri P. Gaonkar to represent them

before the Management or before any other

authorities. The Party I has admitted in the

Statement of Claim that Bhartiya Kamgar Sangh

had signed settlements with Tulip Diagnostics (P)

Ltd. and there is nothing on record to show that

any of the workers left the earlier Union after 2014

and became the members after 2014.

67. At this juncture I again place reliance on the

authority reported in the case of Sindhu

Resettlement Corporation Ltd. and Industrial

Tribunal, Gujarat and others (1968) 1 LLJ 834 and

in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate

V/s Dimakuchi Tea Estate 1958 SCR 1156 that an

industrial dispute as defined must be a dispute

between employers and employers, employers and

workmen, workmen and workmen and according to

Party II(1) since in the case in hand there is nothing

to indicate that the workmen has espoused the

dispute, it has to be held that Shri. P. Gaonkar had

no any authority on behalf of the workmen and that

Party I Union has no locus standi to espouse the

dispute.

68.

Hence, in view of the above reasons and

guided by the above authority, it is abundantly

clear that Party I has failed to prove the burden on

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

1775

Issue No. 2 casted on them and accordingly, the

same is answered in the negative.

Accordingly, I pass the following Order:

Order

1. The action of the Management of M/s Qualpro

Diagnostic Systems, Division of Tulip

Diagnostics (P) Limited, Verna Industrial

Estate, Verna – Goa in not conceding the

following Charter of Demands raised by the

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vide their letter

dated 28/11/2016, is legal and justified.

2. The Party I/Workmen are not entitled for any

relief.

3. No Order as to cost.

4. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Bela N. Naik),

Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal

and Labour Court.

Dated: 04/07/2022.

Place: Panaji, Goa.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

–––

Order

No. 6/78/2011-PER/3551

On the recommendation of the Goa Services

Board, Dr. Snehal Naik Goltekar, Special Land

Acquisition Officer, Goa State Infrastructure

Development Corporation shall also hold the

charge of Additional Director of Panchayats-I in

addition to his own duties, w.e.f. 01-08-2022 on

superannuation of Shri Umakant Korkankar in

public interest.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Eshant V. Sawant, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 15th July, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

–––

Order

No. 4/12/2008-II/PHD/Part I/1136

On the recommendation of Goa Public Service

Commission conveyed vide their letter No. COM/II/11/

/30(3)/2022/142 dated 15-06-2022, the Government is

pleased to declare the following Physicist in the

Department of Radiology as having satisfactorily

completed their probation period of two years and

to confirm them in the post of Physicist in the

Department of Radiology in Goa Medical College,

Bambolim, with effect from the date of completion

of their probation period:-

Sr.

Name of Officer

Date of completion of

No.

probation period

Shri Goraksha Dharmaji

18-01-2018.

Chikale

Shri Madusudan

16-07-2019.

Premanand Chatim

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 26th July, 2022.

————

Order

No. 2/10/2021-II/PHD/1152

Government is pleased to accept the resignation

dated 17-06-2022 tendered by Dr. Pranav

Nagarsenkar, Lecturer, Department of General

Surgery, Goa Medical College and he stands

relieved w.e.f. 17-07-2022 (a.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 27th July, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship

Directorate of Skill Development and

Entrepreneurship

Order

No. DSDE/TRG/Skill Hub Initiative/2021-22/Part

file-I/1016

Sub.: Constitution of State Monitoring

Committee (SMC) for Skill Hub Initiative (SHI)

under PMKVY 3.0

The Skill Hub Initiative (SHI) under Pradhan

Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY 3.0) has been

Entrepreneurship, Ministry of Education and other

stakeholder Union ministries, for implementation of

Skilling Component under National Education

Policy (NEP) 2020.

Skill Hub Initiative (SHI) aims at creating shared

infrastructure, aligning with the needs of the local

economy and addressing the needs of all target

1776

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 18

4TH AUGUST, 2022

segments for vocational training and developing

well-defined pathways for students to continue with

their chosen academic-vocational pursuits.

Sanction of the Government is conveyed to

constitute the State Monitoring Committee (SMC)

at the State level for overseeing the regular

functioning of the SHI with participation of

stakeholders as per guidelines for Skill Hubs

Initiative (SHI) issued by Ministry of Skill

Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE), GoI as

under:-

Sr.

Deatils of State Monitoring

Roles to be played

No.

Committee Members

in SMC

1. Secretary, Skill Development

— Chairman.

& Entrepreneurship,

Government of Goa

2. Director, Directorate of

— Member

Skill Development &

Secretary.

Entrepreneurship

3. Dy. Director of Education,

— Member.

Directorate of Education

4. Director, Directorate of

— Member.

Higher Education or his

representative

5. Assistant Director

— Member.

(Polytechnic),

Directorate of Technical

Education

6. Director, Department

— Member.

of Rural Development

7. Dy. Director (Admin),

— Member.

Directorate of Panchayat

8. Chairman of District

— Member.

Skill Committee-North Goa

or his Representative

9. Chairman of District

— Member.

Skill Committee-South Goa

or his Representative

10. Assistant Director (TRG),

— Member.

Directorate of Skill

Development &

Entrepreneurship (handling

PMKVY Scheme)

Mandate of State Monitoring Committee (SMC)

shall be as under:

To act as joint monitoring Committee for

overseeing the regular functioning of the “Skill

Hubs Pilot’, recommending to Steering

Committee any policy or operational

corrections for improving its implementation,

reviewing, and approving of proposals in

accordance with the guidelines or any other

functions as deemed necessary by Steering

Committee.

The State Monitoring Committee shall refer

the Guidelines of the Skill Hubs Initiative (SHI)

pilot and shall adhere to the PMKVY 3.0

Guidelines. In case of any deviation from

PMKVY 3.0 guidelines, the State Monitoring

Committee shall examine the same and place

it before the Steering Committee for final

approval.

Periodic review of allocated training targets

to all types of identified Skill Hubs within the

State.

The State Monitoring Committee (SMC) shall

meet as and when required or atleast once in six

months. Further, if any non-official member is

nominated by Chairman of District Skill Committee

as representative of District Skill Committee on State

Monitoring Committee (SMC), then such member

shall be entitled for remuneration of Rs. 1,500/- per

sitting of the SMC.

This issues with the approval of the Government.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Dipak Desai, Director & ex officio Additional

Secretary (Skill Development & Entrepreneurship).

Panaji, 12th July, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Urban Development

(Municipal Administration)

Office of the Minister for Urban Development

–––

Standing Order

No. 11/58/2019/DMA/Cases/2200

In pursuance of Rule 17 of the Rules of Business

of the Government of Goa, 1991, I, Shri Vishwajit P.

Rane, Minister for Urban Development, Government

of Goa, hereby withdraw the Standing order No.

11/58/2019/DMA/Cases/2552 dated 7th November,

2019 published in the Official Gazette, Series II

No. 33 dated 14th November, 2019.

This Standing order shall come into force with

immediate effect.

Vishwajit P. Rane, Hon’ble Minister for Urban

Development.

Porvorim, 26th July, 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. 40.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—148/120—8/2022.