Goa Gazette, No. 2223-19, 11 August 2022

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

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Panaji, 11th August, 2022 (Sravana 20, 1944) SERIES II No. 19 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Note:- There are four Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 18 dated 04-08-2022 as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 04-08-2022 from pages 1777 to 1778 regarding Order from Goa State Election Commission.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 08-08-2022 from pages 1779 to 1808 regarding Orders from Department of

Panchayati Raj and Community Development and Department of Home.

(3) Extraordinary (No. 3) dated 9-08-2022 from pages 1809 to 1810 regarding Orders from Goa State Election

Commission and Orders from Department of Panchayati Raj and Community Development.

(4) Extraordinary (No. 4) dated 10-08-2022 from pages 1811 to 1814 regarding Order, Notification, Corrigendum

from Goa State Election Commission and Notice from Department of Panchayati Raj and Community Development.

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative

Societies ––– Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, Hum Greenhills Co-op Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., H. No. 62/21, Hum Green Hills, Prabhu Nagar, Curti, Ponda is registered under code symbol No. RCSPZ2022230014.

Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda Zone

(Co-operative Societies).

Ponda, 26th July, 2022.

Certificate of Registration

"Hum Greenhills Co-op Housing Maintenance Society Ltd"., H. No. 62/21, Hum Green Hills, Prabhu Nagar, Curti, Ponda, Goa has been registered on 26-07-2022 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSPZ2022230014 and its classified as "Co-operative Housing Society " under sub-classification No. 7-(d)-Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda Zone

(Co-operative Societies).

Department of Finance Directorate of Accounts –– Order

No. DA/Admn/46-2(171)(part)/2022-23/1083/146

Whereas, the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held by the Goa Public Service Commission (GPSC), Panaji-Goa on 10-08-2016 for considering the promotion of Assistant Accounts Officers to the post of Dy. Director of Accounts/ /Accounts Officer under the Common Accounts Cadre of the Directorate of Accounts.

And whereas, the findings of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 10-08-2016, as conveyed by the GPSC vide letter No. COM/II/ /11/1(1)/2016/261 dated 19-08-2016, in respect of Shri Vitorino Salvador Colasso, Assistant Accounts Officer were kept under sealed cover due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings/vigilance inquiry for major Penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 initiated against him vide Memorandum No. ACB/VIG/COM-53/2013/2533 dated 31-12-2014.

And whereas, the findings of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 10-08-2016 were maintained in the subsequent DPC meetings held on 06-06-2017, 09-02-2018 and 29-05-2019 for promotion to the post of Dy. Director of Accounts/ /Accounts Officer.

And whereas, vide Order No. ACB/VIG/Com-53/ /2013/2929 dated 23-10-2019, on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings/vigilance inquiry, a penalty of censure was imposed on Shri Colasso.

And whereas, there were 07 vacancies (1 of 2016 i.e. sealed cover vacancy reserved for Shri Colasso and 6 of 2019) of the post of Dy. Director of Accounts/ /Accounts Officers. As such, vigilance clearance was sought from the Directorate of Vigilance for processing promotion of Assistant Accounts Officer to the post of Dy. Director of Accounts against the said vacancies which also included the name of Shri Colasso.

And whereas, vide letter No. 1/3/2018-VIG/ /Accts (Part-3)/4014 dated 06-12-2019, the Directorate of Vigilance, Altinho, Panaji-Goa informed that the vigilance clearance in respect of Shri Vitorino Salvador Colasso is withheld as on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings for major penalty under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 initiated vide memorandum dated 31-12-2014, a penalty of censure has been imposed on him vide order dated 23-10-2019 and currency of said penalty is still in force.

And whereas, the findings of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 10-08-2016 which were kept in sealed cover and maintained in the subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee meetings held on 06-06-2017, 09-02-2018 and 29-05-2019, was maintained also in the DPC meeting held on 07-02-2020.

And whereas, Shri Colasso filed a Writ Petition (F) No. 76 of 2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa, Altinho, Panaji-Goa.

And whereas, Shri Colasso also preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Governor of Goa challenging the Order dated 23-10-2019 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance wherein a penalty of Censure was imposed against him.

And wheras, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa, Altinho, Panaji-Goa, vide Judgment dated 08-02-2021 passed in Writ Petition (F) No. 76 of 2021, directed to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations of DPC held on 07-02-2020 and subject to the said recommendations promote the petitioner to the post of Dy. Director of Accounts from the date on which his juniors are promoted and the said date being 10-02-2020 when the persons junior to him as reflected in seniority list published by the respondent No. 3 on 07-03-2019 have been promoted. If the Petitioner is found to be eligible by the DPC for promotion, the promotion order should be issued forthwith with a notional date being awarded as 10-02-2020 and his salary should be fixed in the pay scale of the promotional post along with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom.

And whereas, with the approval of the Government, the Goa Public Service Commission, Panaji-Goa was requested to open the sealed cover of the DPC meeting held on 07-02-2020 in respect of Shri Vitorino Salvador Colasso, Assistant Accounts Officer under the Common Accounts Cadre of the Directorate of Accounts.

And whereas, the findings of the DPC meeting held on 07-02-2020 which was kept in sealed cover were subsequently reviewed in the review DPC meeting held on 13-05-2021 for promotion of Shri Vitorino Salvador Colasso, Assistant Accounts Officer to the post of Dy. Director of Accounts/ /Accounts Officer.

And whereas, in view of the recommendation of the Review DPC meeting held on 13-05-2021 as conveyed by the Goa Public Service Commission vide its letters No. COM/II/11/1(1)/2019/175 dated 18-05-2021 and No. COM/II/11/1(1)/2019/49 dated 21-05-2021, Shri Colasso, was promoted to the post of Dy. Director of Accounts/Accounts Officer on regular basis w.e.f. 10-02-2020 with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom vide Order No. DA/Admn/45-2/2021-22/TR-494/81 dated 30-06-2021.

And whereas, the Hon'ble Governor of Goa and the First Appellate Authority vide Judgment dated 15-04-2021 quashed Order dated 23-10-2019 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance and directed to issue warning to Shri Colasso and Accordingly, vide Order No. ACB/VIG/COM-53/2013/Part-1/1205 dated 01-06-2021 quashed and set aside order dated 23-10-2019 and issued warning to Shri Colasso to not to repeat such lapse in future.

And whereas, vide representation dated 04-05-2021 Shri Colasso requested to process his promotion in view of O.M. No. 11012/12/2016- -Estt.A.III dated 06-12-2016 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi.

And whereas, Shri Colasso filed a Misc.Civil Application in the WP (F) No. 76/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking for clarification of the Order dated 08-02-2021. Accordingly, vide oral Order dated 05-07-2021, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa directed this Directorate to hear the Petitioner i.e. Shri Colasso and make suitable recommendations to the Government on the Petitioner's representation dated 04-05-2021 and dispose off the same one way or the other as expeditiously as possible. It was also1816 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 directed to consider the effect of the Judgment dated 15-04-2021 passed by Hon'ble Governor of Goa together with the contentions of the Petitioner based on O.M. dated 06-12-2016 and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) & Others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Others, AIR 1991 SC 2010.

And whereas, the Government conveyed that the issuance of warning to Shri Colasso on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings cannot be treated as penalty or punishment in view of O.M. dated 06-12-2016.

And whereas, the Goa Public Service Commission was requested to open the sealed cover of the DPC held on 10-08-2016 in respect of Shri Colasso.

And whereas, the Goa Public Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/1(1)/2019/ /564 dated 22-03-2022 conveyed the findings of the DPC on opening of the sealed cover in respect of Shri Colasso and recommended him fit for promotion.

Now therefore, in view of the recommendation as conveyed by the Goa Public Service Commission vide its letter No. COM/II/11/1(1)/2019/564 dated 22-03-2022 on opening of the sealed cover of the DPC held on 10-08-2016, the Government is pleased to promote Shri Vitorino Salvador Colasso to the post of Dy. Director of Accounts/Accounts Officer (Group "A" Gazetted) in Level 10 of the Pay Matrix (i.e. Pay Band PB-3 Rs. 15,600-39,100, Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- pre-revised) on regular basis w.e.f. 08-09-2016.

Shri Colasso shall be eligible for fixation of his salary in the pay scale of the promotional post w.e.f. 08-09-2016 by exercising option under FR 22 (I)(a)(1) within one month from the date of issue of this order. He shall also be eligible for arrears of pay w.e.f. 08-09-2016 and all other consequential benefits flowing therefrom as per O.M. dated 14-09-1992 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi.

Shri Colasso shall continue to work at his present place of posting i.e. Zilla Panchayat (South) Margao- Goa (on deputation) as per order dated 30-06-2021.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Dilip K. Humraskar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Accounts).

Panaji, 2nd August, 2022.

Debt Management Division

––– Notification

No. 2/8/2012-Fin(DMU)/1007

Read: Notification No. 2/8/2012-Fin(DMU)/858

dated 20-04-2022.

Government is pleased to accept the resignation tendered by Shri Joshua Peter D'souza as Vice- -Chairman of Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., w.e.f. 22-07-2022 (b.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Pranab G. Bhat, Under Secretary, Finance (Bud-II).

Porvorim, 5th August, 2022.

–––––— Notification

No. 2/8/2012-Fin(DMU)/1008

Read: (1) Notification No. 2/8/2012-Fin(DMU)/1007

dated 05-08-2022.

(2) Notification No. 2/8/2012-Fin(DMU)/858

dated 20-04-2022.

In pursuance to clause 17 & 18 of the Articles of Association of Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (GSIDC), Government of Goa is pleased to nominate Shri Deepak Naik, resident of Vasco, Goa on the Board of Directors of GSIDC Ltd. and further appoint him as Vice-Chairman of GSIDC Ltd., with immediate effect.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Pranab G. Bhat, Under Secretary, Finance (Bud-II).

Porvorim, 5th August, 2022.

———u———

(Revenue & Control) Division

––– Notification

No. 2/1/95-Fin(R&C)/Part(A)/649

Read: (1) Notification No. 2/1/95-Fin(R&C)Part (A)/

/612 dated 27-07-2022.

(2) Notification No. 2/1/95-Fin(R&C)Part (B)/

/611 dated 27-07-2022.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (4) of Rule 99 of the Goa Excise Duty Rules, 1964, the Government of Goa, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, hereby directs that all licensed premises "for the sale of liquor" shall be closed on 11-08-2022 in Ward No. IX of Village Panchayat, Calangute in Bardez Taluka on account of fresh Panchayat poll in Ward No. IX of Village Panchayat, Calangute.

However, the licensed premises having licence for "Bar and Restaurant" may be allowed to keep the restaurant open for serving food only and the Bar counter shall be closed and no liquor shall be allowed to be served on the above mentioned days. The owner of the licensed premises having "Bar & Restaurant" shall also display a board in the premises stating that no liquor will be served and that only the restaurant is open for serving food.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Pranab G. Bhat, Under Secretary, Finance (R&C).

Porvorim, 10th August, 2022.

–––––— Notification

No. 2/1/95-Fin(R&C)/Part (B)/650

Read: (1) Notification No. 2/1/95-Fin(R&C)/Part(A)/

/612 dated 27-07-2022.

(2) Notification No. 2/1/95-Fin(R&C)/Part(B)/

/611 dated 27-07-2022.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 5 and 8 of the Goa Excise Duty Act, 1964 (Act 5 of 1964) (hereinafter called the "said Act"), the Government of Goa hereby prescribes that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Government Notifications No. 2/6/2014-Fin(R&C)(A)/ /1386 dated 28-8-2014 and No. 2/6/2014-Fin(R&C) (B)/1389 dated 28-8-2014 both published in the Official Gazette, Sr. II No. 22 dated 28-8-2014, no liquor shall be transported from one place to another within the jurisdiction of Ward No. IX of Village Panchayat, Calangute in Bardez Taluka and the following shall be the maximum quantity of liquor which can be possessed by any person within the said areas without a permit issued in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder on 11-08-2022, on account of fresh Panchayat poll in Ward No. IX of Village Panchayat, Calangute, namely:

(a) Three quart bottles of Indian made foreign liquor or foreign liquor other than beer and six bottles of beer of 650 ml. for any person including his family.

(b) Three quart bottles of country liquor for any

person including his family.

This Notification shall remain in force only on 11-08-2022 in view of Polling day in Ward No. IX of Village Panchayat, Calangute in Bardez Taluka.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Pranab G. Bhat, Under Secretary, Finance (R&C)

Porvorim, 10th August, 2022.

Department of Home

Home—General Division

––– Notification

No. 01/08/2022-GHRC/HD(G)/7441

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25(2) of The Protection of Human Rights Act, the State Government hereby directs that when the Chairperson is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence on leave or otherwise, the Senior most Member of the Goa Human Rights Commission, shall discharge the functions of the Chairperson until the Chairperson resumes his duties.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Diksha N. Tari, Under Secretary (Home-II).

Porvorim, 28th July, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Industries ––– Order

No. 3/04/2022-IND/163

The Government is pleased to reconstitute the Empowered Group of Secretaries (EGoS) for PM Gati Shakti State Master Plan, comprising of following members:

1. Chief Secretary — Chairman.

2. Principal Chief Conservator — Member.

of Forest

3. All Administrative Secretaries — Member(s).

of the Government

4. Principal Chief Engineer (PWD) — Member.

5. Director, Directorate of Industries, — Member

Trade & Commerce (DITC) Secretary.

The terms of reference of Empowered Group of Secretaries (EGoS) are as follows:-

(i) To develop the state master plan by integrating State level data into the GIS portal developed by the BISAG-N.

(ii) An infrastructure audit may be conducted for the planned/created economic zones in the States.

(iii) The infrastructure gaps may be identified and addressed through the PM Gati Shakti State Master Plan.

(iv) Review and monitor implementation of the Plan to ascertain the logistics efficiency accruing thereof.

(v) Adopt framework and norms for undertaking

any amendments in the Plan.

(vi) Co-ordinate for any changes in the project already included in the Plan, within the prescribed framework and norms.

(vii) To set out a procedure and a definitive timeframe for synchronisation of various activities for construction of roads, rails, etc. along with all utility services in an area-based approach for development of infrastructure on pilot basis.

(viii) Align various initiatives on development of a common integrated portal which serves the need of all stakeholders.

(ix) Issue appropriate directions for achieving the objectives and for compliance to guiding principles of the PM Gati Shakti National Master Plan (NMP) and in addressing demand side requirements of concerned Departments.

(x) The EGoS will also look at the interventions required to meet the demand side in efficiently transporting bulk goods based on the requirements of various Departments.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 2nd August, 2022.

———

11. Managing Director (Goa — Member.

Industrial Development Corporation)

12. Chief Engineer, Department — Member.

of Water Resources

13. Director, Tourism Department — Member.

14. Managing Director, Goa — Member.

Tourism Development Corporation

15. Director, Agriculture Department — Member.

16. Director, Settlement and Land — Member.

Records

17. Managing Director, Goa State — Member.

Infrastructure Development Corporation

18. Deputy Director (Industries) — Convener.

The terms of reference, Scope of Work of Network

Planning Group (NPG) are as follows:-

1 . The group will be responsible for sharing their specific action Plan for 2020-21 to 2024-25 with each other for facilitating integration of networks, enhance optimization through modification/expansion/new network creation to avoid duplication of works for holistic development of any region as well as reducing logistics costs through micro-plan detailing.

Order

No. 3/04/2022-IND/164

The Government is pleased to constitute Network Planning Group (NGP) for PM Gati Shakti State Master Plan, comprising of following members:

1. Director, Industries, Trade — Chairperson.

and Commerce

2. Director, Urban Development — Member.

3. Chief Electrical Engineer — Member.

4. Director, Environment — Member.

5. Principal Chief Engineer — Member.

(Public Works Department)

6. Captain of Ports — Member.

7. Nominee of Principal Chief — Member.

Conservator of Forests (Forest Department)

8. Director, Civil Aviation — Member.

9. Director, Transport Department — Member.

10. Director, Information — Member.

Technology

2. This group shall after examining all the interventions proposed to be taken by various Department will delineate all projects where synchronization of efforts are required and propose any changes in the PM Gati Shakti NMP for consideration and approval of the EGoS.

3. The Nodal officers of the concerned Department will be responsible to ensure that the data inputs of the progress pertaining to the respective Departments have been correctly mapped in the PM Gati Shakti NMP through the individual applications provided by the BISAG-N.

4. NPG will monitor all the interventions in the Master plan and prepare periodic reports for review by the EGoS on the implementation.

5. Will assist EGoS in co-ordinating for any changes in the projects already included in the Master plan. While closed co-ordination with the State Governments will be done, private sector industries, experts will also be closely associated and consulted during planning and implementation.

6. Provide necessary guidance and support to all directives given by EGoS for implementation of PM Gati Shakti.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 2nd August, 2022.

———

And whereas the Committee hereby constituted shall function under the Goa IT Policy 2018 and perform all the functions specified therein as modified and/or amended herein.

Order

No. 3/04/2022-IND/165

The Government is pleased to constitute Technical Support Unit (TSU) for PM Gati Shakti State Master Plan, comprising of following members:

1. Director, Industries, Trade — Chairperson.

and Commerce

2. CEO, Goa Investment — Member.

Facilitation and Promotion Board

3. Director, Information and — Member.

Technology

4. Representative, Logistics Division, — Member.

DPIIT

5. Representative, BISAG-N — Member.

6. Consultant as appointed by — Member.

Goa Investment Facilitation and Promotion Board

7. CEO, Goa Electronics Limited — Convener.

The TSU will support the network planning group and Empowered Group of Secretaries to support PM Gati Shakti related initiatives and any other work allotted by the Government.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 2nd August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Information Technology –––

The Government hereby constitutes the following Empowered Committee in terms of sub- -clause 6.C.2 (d) of the Goa IT Policy 2018:

1. Hon'ble Chief Minister — Chairman.

2. Hon'ble Minister — Co-Chairman.

for Information Technology

3. Chief Secretary — Member.

4. Secretary (Finance) — Member.

5. Secretary (Education) — Member.

6. Secretary (Industries) — Member.

7. Secretary (Information — Member.

Technology)

8. Director (IT) — Members Secretary.

9. Managing Director (GITDC) — Member.

10. Two representatives from — Members.

Industry Associations (like GTA/GCCI/CII-Goa)

11. Two prominent Industrialists — Members.

The role of the Empowered Committee under the sub-clauses 6.C.2 stands substituted with the following clauses:

1. An empowered Committee (EC) is constituted at State level for guidance, approval of grants and for monitoring and encouraging New/ /Existing Units and Startups in the State.

2. The EC will be authority in deciding the incentives, which would be provided as per schemes defined in Goa IT Policy 2018 and the Startup Policy 2021.

3. The EC would be responsible for expediting decisions on approvals of incentives to the New/Existing Units as per this Policy and to the Startups as per the Startup Policy 2021.

Notification

No. 2(15)/DOIT/2017-18/Goa IT Policy 2018/703

Read: 1) Notification No. 2(15)/DOIT/2017-18/Goa

IT Policy-2018/624 dated 18-07-2018.

2) Notification No. 2(8)/DOIT/2018/Salary

Subsidy/755 dated 06-08-2018.

Whereas in partial modification of the above mentioned Notifications Government desires to notify the new Empowered Committee and define its role, functions and scope.

4. The EC will meet at least once every month or earlier as and when the need arises, for considering the applications received. Quorum for the meeting would be 7 members; wherein one member each from Industry Association and prominent Industrialist should be present.

Furthermore, the clauses 4.2 and 4.5 pertaining to linking of Aadhaar Card to the bank account of the Freshers under the Salary Subsidy Scheme and Campus Recruitment Assistance Scheme respectively of the Goa IT Policy 2018 notified vide 2(8)/DOIT/2018/Salary Subsidy/755 dated 06-08-2018 stands omitted and/or withdrawn from Goa IT Policy 2018.

Other than the above amendments caused to the Goa IT Policy 2018; remaining Policy and/or the clauses therein shall remain unchanged.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Praveen Volvotkar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (IT).

Altinho, 03rd August, 2022.

———uuu———

Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers ––– Order

No. 2/05(Part-II)/ADM-IFB/2022/1627

Consequent upon retirement on superannuation of Shri R. T. Korgaonkar, Inspector of Boilers on 31-07-2022, Shri Nandan S. Sawaikar, Inspector of Factories shall hold the charge of the post of Inspector of Boilers in addition to his own duties with immediate effect and until further orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vivek P. Marathe, Chief & ex officio Joint Secretary

(Inspector of Factories and Boilers).

Panaji, 08th August, 2022. ———

management of M/s. VPK Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Mardol, Goa and it's workmen, represented by the VPK Urban Co-operative Credit Society Employees Association, in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "said dispute");

And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7A of the said Act.

S C H E D U L E

"(1) Whether the members of the VPK Urban Co-operative Credit Society Employees Association can be construed as "workman" as per the Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947)?

(2) If the answer to issue No. (1) above is in affirmative, then whether the action of the management of M/s. VPK Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited in refusing to concede the following demands raised by the VPK Urban Co-operative Credit Society Employees Association, is legal and justified?

Order

No. 2/160/ADM-IFB/22-23/1631

Read: Order vide No. 2/160/ADM-IFB/2014/2071

dated 18-09-2014.

In partial modification to the order read in preamble and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), Shri Geetarth S. Velip, Craft Instructor (Boiler) is hereby designated as Assistant Public Information Officer for the Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers, Altinho, Panaji, Goa with immediate effect.

Vivek P. Marathe, Chief & ex officio Joint Secretary

(Inspector of Factories and Boilers).

Panaji, 08th August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Labour ––

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

Demand No. 1: BASIC PAY SCALE:

Basic Pay scales be revised by increasing the existing basic pay scales and annual increments by 30%. Employees be fitted on the new Basic Pay scale on stage to stage basis.

Demand No. 2: FIXED DEARNESS ALLOWANCE:

Fixed Dearness Allowance be paid at the rate of

75% of the Basic Pay.

Demand No. 3: VARIABLE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE:

Variable Dearness Allowance (VDA) be paid at the rate of 0.15% of the Basic Pay every month and VDA be paid for every rise or fall of 4 points over 6500 points at the quarterly average of the All India Average Working Class Consumer Price Index (General ) Base 1960=100.

Demand No. 4: HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE:

House Rent Allowance be paid at the rate of 25%

Order

No. 28/11/2022-LAB/398

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between of the Basic Pay.

Demand No. 5: CITY COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCE: City Compensatory Allowance be paid at the rate

of 15% of the Basic Pay.

Demand No. 6: CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE:

Conveyance Allowance be paid at the rate of 15%

of the Basic Pay.

DEMAND No. 7: OFFICIATING ALLOWANCE:

A suitable Officiating Allowance be paid to employees who are asked to perform higher duties than their designations.

DEMAND No. 8: MEDICAL AID:

Medical Aid of Rs. 12,000/- per annum be paid to

all employees.

DEMAND No. 9: LEAVE TRAVEL ALLOWANCE:

Leave Travel Allowance equivalent to one month's gross salary be paid to each employee per annum. Leave encashment of one month be allowed every year.

DEMAND No. 10: LEAVE FACILITIES:

Leave facilities be revised as follows:

(a) Casual Leave : 12 days per annum.

(b) Privilege Leave : 30 days per annum. Accumulation 300 days and beyond 300 days leave should be encashed.

(c) Sick Leave : 15 days on full pay or 30 days on half pay. Accumulation 200 days and beyond 200 days, leave should be encashed.

(d) Maternity Leave : 26 weeks.

(e) Paternity Leave : 15 days.

(f) Restricted Holiday : 5 days per annum. (g) Holidays : All Government

Holidays.

(h) Loss of Pay : 2 years.

DEMAND No. 11: LOAN FACILITIES:

Loan facilities be revised as follows:

(a) Staff Advance : Rs. 10,00,000/-.

(b) Two Wheeler Loan : Rs. 1,50,000/-.

(c) Four Wheeler Loan : Rs. 10,00,000/-.

(d) Housing Loan : Rs. 25,00,000/-.

(e) House Building : Rs. 25,00,000/-. Advance

(f) House Repair Loan : Rs. 5,00,000/-.

(g) Staff salary deduction : Rs. 10,00,000/-. Loan

(h) Festival Advance : One months gross

salary (interest free).

Rate of interest for all the above loans [except (h)]

should be 6% interest.

DEMAND No. 12: FIVE DAY WEEK/TIMINGS:

Five day week be introduced and the office

timings be 6.30 hours per day.

DEMAND No. 13: PROMOTION POLICY:

All vacancies should be filled up through internal promotions. All clerical and sub staff should be promoted every 8 years of service and all Deputy Managers and above category staff should be promoted every 5 years of service. All staff who have worked as Branch Incharge either in officiating capacity or in regular posts should be promoted every 5 years.

DEMAND No. 14: BONUS CUM EX-GRATIA:

Bonus cum ex-gratia of 20% be paid to all

employees, officers and managers every year.

DEMAND No. 15: ALLOWANCES:

There should be 50% increase in allowances such as Travelling Allowance, Branch Incharge Allowance, Mobile, etc.

DEMAND No. 16: STAGNATION INCREMENTS:

Stagnation increments should continue on

reaching the end of scale.

DEMAND No. 17: PERIOD OF SETTLEMENT:

Period of settlement be for 3 years w.e.f. 01-05-2017.

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

then, to what relief the workmen are entitled?".

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 04th August, 2022.

———— Order

No. 28/10/2022-LAB/400

Whereas, the Government of Goa is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists between the management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase IV, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa and it's workmen, represented by the Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, in respect of the matter specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the "said dispute");

And whereas, the Government of Goa considers it expedient to refer the said dispute for adjudication.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the1822 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), the Government of Goa hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa, constituted under Section 7A of the said Act.

S C H E D U L E

"(1) Whether the Bhartiya Kamgar Sena has Locus Standis to raise industrial disputes in respect of Charter of Demands on behalf of workmen before the management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private Limited, Plot No. N4, Phase IV, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Goa?

(2) If the answer to the above issue No. (1) is in affirmative, then, whether the action of the management of M/s. Putzmeister Concrete Machine Private Limited, in not conceding the following demands raised by the Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, is legal and justified?

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

Demand No. 1: APPLICABILITY:

The revision as per the Charter of Demands shall be applicable to all permanent workmen who are members of the said union and it shall also be applicable to those probationers who would be subsequently absorbed as permanent employees and those employees who become the members of the Union here after.

Demand No. 2: GRADES AND SCALE OF PAY:

(a) Grade I – Operators - 9000-700-12500-800- -16500-900-21000-1000-26000-1100-31500.

Grade II – Operators - 8000-650-11250-750- -15000-850-19250-950-24000-1050-29250.

Grade III – Operators/Management Associates -7000-600-10000-700-13500-800-17500-850- -21750-950-26500.

(b) Those of the operators who have worked for more than 10 years shall be classified in Grade I. The Operators who have worked for more than 5 years and upto 10 years shall be classified as Grade II and the Operators who have been appointed on permanent post and worked upto 5 years shall be classified in Grade III.

Demand No. 3: FLAT RISE/FITMENT:

The Union states that present practice of giving personal Pay be discontinued and the amount of Personal Pay giving so far be merged with the Basic Pay. Therefore, each worker be giving a flat rise of Rs. 7000/- in the basic salary as on 1st April 2021. After adding the above flat rise the revised basic salary so arrived at will be then fitted in the Revised Pay Scale in the respective Grades at appropriate, step.

Demand No. 4:

(a) Dearness Allowances:

With effect from 01st April, 2021 each workman should be paid fixed Dearness Allowance at 15% of the revised basic.

(b) Variable Dearness Allowances:- With effect from 01st April, 2021 each workmen should be paid Variable Dearness Allowances at Rs. 5/- per point rise over and above base 12170 points (AAICPI–1982=100). The Variable Dearness Allowance should be revised once every quarter.

Demand No. 5: ALLOWANCES:

(A) House Rent Allowance (HRA):- All the workmen should be paid additional House Rent Allowance of Rs. 2,000/- per month over and above the existing HRA. The HRA be revised every year at 10% of the basic.

(B) Leave Travel Allowance:- Each workman should be entitled to Leave Travel Allowance @ one gross salary once in a year.

(C) Lunch Allowance:- Each workman be paid

Rs. 1500/- per month as Lunch Allowance.

(D) Education Allowance:- All the workmen should be paid Education Allowance @ Rs. 1,000/- per month.

(E) Conveyance Allowance:- Each workman should be paid Rs. 500/- per month over and above the existing Conveyance Allowance.

(F) Medical Assistance Allowance:- Those workmen who will go out of the perview of ESI Scheme should be given Rs. 1000/- p.m. as Medical Assistance Allowance.

(G) Shift Allowance:- Each workman should be paid additional Rs. 100/- for 2nd Shift and Rs. 150/- for 3rd shift respectively.

(H) Maintenance Allowance:- Maintenance Allowance of Rs. 500/- p.m. should be given to the technicians who are working in Engineering Department.

(I) Monsoon Allowance:- An amount of Rs. 2000/- p. a. should be given Monsoon Allowance to each workman. The company was giving the Raincoat and/or umbrella for last many years which was abruptly stopped by the company without any reasons.

Demand No. 6: LEAVE FACILITIES:

(A) Privilege Leave:- All the workmen should be

given following privilege leave every year.

(a) For first 240 days : 30 days P/L.

(b) After 240 days : for every 5 working days, one day P/L with a right to accumulate for three years and balance P/L should be allowed to be encashed.

(B) Casual Leave:- All the workmen should be given 15 days Casual Leave in a year with full pay. Unavailed Casual Leave should be allowed to be encashed.

(C) Sick Leave:- All the workmen should be given 15 days Sick Leave in a year with a full pay.

(D) Special Leave:- Special Leave should be granted for chronic illness which is sanctioned by doctors till the fitness of patient.

(E) Shutdown Leave:- If there is a shutdown of the company for any reasons the company shall grant paid shut down leave and shall not adjust such period against the P/L of the workers.

Demand No. 7: LOAN:

Each unionized worker should be given loan as

under:

(a) Personal Loan: Rs. 3 Lakh.

(b) Housing Loan: All the workmen should be provided a Housing Loan as per requirement by the employee at 50% subsidy p.a.

Demand No. 8: INCENTIVES:

All the workmen should be paid 1% of the profit

share per annum.

Demand No. 9: PUNCHING CARD:

Provisions of Punching Card should be made near

the security gate.

Demand No. 10: SHIFT TIMES:

In case of three shift working.

1st Shift Time – 07.00 to 15.00 hrs.

2nd Shift Time - 15.00 to 23.00 hrs.

3rd Shift Time – 23.00 to 07.00 hrs.

Two times tea break in each shift to be given to

each workman.

Demand No. 11: TRANSPORT:

Transport should continue to be provided in all the shifts free of cost. The buses which are transporting the workers from factory to the schedule

drop point shall start within 10 minutes of the schedule shifts timings.

Demand No. 12: BONUS & EX-GRATIA:

All the workmen should be given 20% bonus on basic DA, VDA, and HRA and 20 % ex-gratia of their

total annual emoluments every year. The bonus payable is irrespect of the ceiling under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.

Demand No. 13: SERVICE REWARD:

Company should give Service Reward to the workmen who have completed 5 years, 10 years, 15 years and 20 years. They should be given Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 25,000/-

respectively.

Demand No. 14:

(A) Medical Scheme:

(a) All the workmen who are out of ESI Scheme should be given unlimited amount for treatment for self, spouse, two dependent

children and dependent parents.

(b) Normal day-to-day Medical bills should be

claimed after submission of bills amount.

(B) All the temporary/Casual/Badli/Fixed Term Contract workers should be made permanent and absorbed by the company.

(C) Period of Agreement will be for 3 years

(01-04-2021 to 31-03-2023).

Demand No. 15:

(1) Company should give time for Union to take meetings in the premises every 3 months.

(2) Company should allow short leave for late reporting to all the Union members in case of any emergency.

(3) Seniority increment in basic salary to the seniors, who have completed 10 years, 15 years and above should be given 2 increments, 3 increments respectively.

(4) In case of job rotation in the same grade for any union workers intimation letter should be given to the workers stating type of work, period with duly signed by Union leader, President and the rotated employee. The operators should not be rotated in Jobs which were not done by the operators in the past.

(5) Marriage gift Rs. 5000/- as token of love should be given to each workman who is getting married.

(6) Birthday/Marriage Anniversary gift as per

company policy.

Demand No. 16: INSURANCY POLICY:

All the workmen would be covered under the groups personal accident insurance policy. The Accident coverage of each workman should be given an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakh only) the coverage should be on a 24 hours basis. The terms and conditions prevailing as per the policy shall be binding.

Demand No. 17: LUMPSUM PAYMENT:

All the workmen should be given one time lumpsum amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as settlement signing incentive.

Demand No. 18: FESTIVAL ADVANCE:

The permanent workmen should be paid to avail festival advance of Rs. 24,000/- per year. The advance will be paid once a year, either for Ganesh Chaturthi, Id or Christmas as per request made by the workmen in writing. The advances should be deducted in 12 equal monthly installments from the salary of the workmen.

Demand No. 19:

the company 24 hours for any emergency as the Company is in manufacturer of heavy machinery.

Demand No. 25:

The company was providing four sets of Uniforms per year for use on duty which has been discontinued and provided only two sets of Uniforms in the last two years. The Company has also abruptly stopped the T-shirts with the company emblem which were used by the workmen while coming to work. The company was also providing Washing Allowance of Rs. 1500/- p.m. which was abruptly discontinued with effect from April, 2021. The Company should restore the same with immediate effect and pay the costs of such uniform to the workmen of last two years. The company should also restore the washing allowance of Rs. 1500/- p.m. with immediate effect and revise the same to Rs. 2500/- with effect from April, 2021.

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

then what relief the workmen are entitled to?".

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 04th August, 2022.

————

Notification

Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) be granted to each of the workmen with effect from 01-04-2020 by way of Interim Relief pending finalization of the Charter of Demands.

Demand No. 20:

In the night shift the management should give 15 minutes rest after every hour of working with a reliever operator during the said period.

Demand No. 21:

In case of death of any workmen, the company shall deduct of days wage from the salary of all employees and with equal contribution, the same shall be paid to the family of the deceased.

Demand No. 22: RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT:

All the above demands should be given with

Retrospective Effect from 01-04-2021 to 31-12-2023.

Demand No. 23:

The company should provide a room for Union Office within the premises of the Company. The company should allow the Union to have a Notice Board of the Union and/or allow the Union to display the Union notices on the Notice Board of the Company.

Demand No. 24:

The Company should provide an Ambulance in No. 28/02/2022-LAB/Part-V/352

The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 04-07-2022 in Ref. No. IT/18/2017 is hereby published as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

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

Porvorim, 12th July, 2022.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR

COURT, GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Ms. Bela N. Naik, Honble

Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/18/2017

Workmen,

Rep. by General Secretary,

Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,

G-5, Macedo Appts.,

Tisk, Ponda-Goa … Workmen/Party I.

V/s1825 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 1) M/s Orchid Biomedical System,

Division of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd., Verna Industrial Estate,

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

2) Goa Trade & Commercial

Worker's 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 15-11-2017, bearing No. 28/28/ /2017-LAB/784, 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 Orchid Biomedicals System, 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?

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

Demand No. 1: PAY SCALES:

Grades:

I. 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 to 7 years : Two Increments.

Service from 7 years to 10 years : Three Increments.

Service from 10 years to 15 years : Four increments.

Service from 15 years to 20 years : Five Increments.

Service above 20 years : Six Increments.

Demand No. 4: VARIABLE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE:

Union demands that the VDA shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 3/- per point rise beyond 4,500 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. 2,500/- per month.

Demand No. 7: CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE:

Union demands that all workmen shall be paid conveyance allowance @ revised rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month.

Demand No. 8: PAID HOLIDAYS:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

granted paid holidays at rate 12 days per year.

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 accumulation 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 encashment 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 the1826 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 revised by adding Rs. 5,000/- 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. 3,00,000/- 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/EX-GRATIA:

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. 1,500/- per month.

Demand No. 16: ACCIDENT BENEFITS WHILE ON DUTY AND WHILE COMING FOR DUTY AND WHILE GOING FROM THE 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. 1,000/- 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.

(c) Verna to Vasco and back.

(d) Verna to Ponda and back.

Demand No. 20: CANTEEN 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/18/2017 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 Qualpro Diagnostics 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.

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 and1827 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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 jurisprudence 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 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 very1828 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 minutely. The settlement is fair and reasonable and on this ground alone, the Party I have to accept the said settlement in to without any reservations, which has been offered to Party I immediately after signing of the said settlement.

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.

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.

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 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 KamgarSena dated 22-05-2014 and Tulip Group of Companies Employees Union dated 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 to1829 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 10-06-2014and 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 Demand.

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 sad 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 15-11-2017 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, 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 discriminate1830 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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 is 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 singed 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 singed 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.

3. The Party II(2) Union states that the majority workmen employed with Party II and its group company's 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 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:-

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

2017 to 31st March 2018.

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

2018 to 31st March 2019.

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

2019 to 31st March 2020.

d) 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:-

a) 50% of the money of 1st year shall be allocated in basic wages and remaining 50% shall be allocated in HRA and Conveyance Allowance.

b) 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 ALLOWANCE:

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.

9. SHIFT ALLOWANCE/DORMITORY ALLOWANCE:

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. 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 & employees fall back into the coverage limit against, the allowance of Rs. 1,000/- 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 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 22nd1833 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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:

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:

i) 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.

v) 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 Industrial Disputes 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.

22. Based on the above mentioned pleadings my Learned Predecessor has framed the Issues at Exhibit 11 and the same are as follows:

I S S U E S

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 26, copy of letter dated 20-06-2017 by Party II at Exhibit 27, copy of letter dated 10-07-2017 by Party I at Exh. 28, copy of letter dated 26-07-2017 by Party I at Exhibit 29, copy of letter dated 04-08-2017 by Party I at Exhibit 30, copy of settlement dated 09-08-2017 between Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd and their workmen at Exhibit 31, copy of letter dated 10-08-2017 by Party I to Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 32, copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 11-08-2017 at Exhibit 33, copy of letter dated 14-08-2017 by Party I at Exhibit 34, copy of letter dated 14-08-2017 by Party I to the Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 35, copy of report of failure of conciliation proceedings dated 09-10-2017 at Exhibit 36, copy of settlement dated 26-11-2012 between Party II and their workmen at Exhibit 37, copy of settlement dated 22-05-2014 between Party II and their workmen at Exhibit 38, copy of settlement dated 13-07-2015 between Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and their workmen at Exhibit 39, copy of settlement dated 04-12-2015 between in doco Remedies Ltd. and their workmen at Exhibit 40,1835 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 copy of settlement dated 25/05/2016 between Betts India Pvt. Ltd.., and their workmen at Exhibit 41, copy of settlement dated 30-05-2017 between Nestle India Ltd., and their workmen at Exhibit 42, copy of Appointment Letters of workers of Zephyr Biomedical at Exhibit 43 Colly, copy of Pay-Slips of workers working in ZEP division for the month of April, 2016; June, 2016, March, 2016, April, 2017, May 2017, June, 2017 and July, 2017 at Exhibit 44 Colly, copy Appointment Letters of workers of Orchid Biomedical Systems at Exh. 45 Colly, i of copy of Pay Slips of workers working in ORC division for the month of April, 2016; May, 2016; June, 2016; April, 2017; May, 2017; June, 2017 and July, 2017 at Exhibit 46 Colly, copy of Appointment Letters of workers of Qualpro Diagnostics at Exhibit 47Colly, copy of Pay Slips of workers working in ZEP division for the month of April, 2016; June, 2016; March, 2016; April, 2017; May, 2017; June, 2017 and July, 2017 at Exhibit 48Colly; copy of Article titled "How to estimate the purchasing value of the Rupee? Dated 27-02-2012 published by the Navhind Times, ETMarkets (Website) at Exhibit 49 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 50. During cross-examination of this witness the documents brought on record were a copy of Affidavit dated 27-01-2017 wherein it is mentioned at Para-9 that it is agreed that after the closing date, each Partnership Entity shall operate as a division of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. under the name and style of Erstwhile Partnership Entity at Exhibit 59; copy of the letter dated 03-04-2008 submitted by the witness to the Management to show his majority at Exhibit 61-D Colly, copy of letter dated 14-06-2017 made to the Party II along with the list of the members at Exhibit 62-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 67-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 70, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 24-01-2011 at Exhibit 71, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22-05-2014 at Exhibit 72, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-06-2014 at Exhibit 73, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 09-08-2017 at Exhibit 74, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22-07-2021 at Exhibit 75, copy of Minutes of the meeting of the Partners of M/s Orchid Biomedical Systems dated 25-01-2017 at Exhibit 76, copy of Pay Slip for the month of April, 2017 before signing of the Settlement at Exhibit 77, copy of settlement showing year wise increase in salary/emoluments at Exhibit 78, copy of Notice dated 30th January, 2017 at Exhibit 79, copy of letter dated 07-10-2017 sent to Dy. Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 80, copy of notice dated 15-09-2017 displayed on the Notice Board at Exhibit 81, copy of letter dated 19-01-2018 sent to Asst. Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 82, copy of letter dated 11-06-2018 sent to Asst. Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 83, copy of Writ Petition No. 1058/19 filed by workmen/Party I with regard to challenge of Award rejecting interim relief at Exhibit 84 and copies of 35 declaration of workmen who have accepted settlement dated 09-08-2017 at Exhibit 85 Colly. During cross-examination a copy of the document showing that the salary was given as per Exh. 74 from August 2017 was brought on record at Exhibit 88-D, a copy of the declarations signed by the members of GMS (14 declarations) at Exhibit 89-D, and a copy of the Notification of Government of Goa dated 24-05-2016 at Exhibit 91-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; Qualpro Diagnostics 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 26 to 50 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.

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. 71 which was with Orchid, Qualpro and Zephyr Verna Employees Union and Exh. 72 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. 71 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 there1837 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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.79 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 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 26 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 clear1838 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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) 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. 26 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 to the Management.

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. 30 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. 85 Colly.

12. It is true that on Exh.61-D Colly and 62-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. 61-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.61-D Colly it is mentioned that the workers would like to join the Union and further admitted that there was no acknowledgement on Exh. 61-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. 61-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. 62-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. 62-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)/Orchid 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.

25. It is true that except the settlement at Exh. 39, 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. 39 is not the same as mentioned on Exh. 31.

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 Orchid Biomedical Systems. Infact Orchid Biomedical 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 existing1840 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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. 36 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. 61 and 62-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 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.

1. Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited V/s State of Jharkhand and others reported in Supreme Court(2014) I SCC536 wherein the Hon'ble1841 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022

   Apex  Court  has  held  that  the  Industrial          continue  to  bind  the  parties  is  indicated  in
   Tribunal/Labour  Court  constituted  under  the        Section  19.  Therefore,  when  there  is  a
   Industrial  Disputes  Act  is  a  creature  of  that   settlement for a limited period, the same shall
   statue. It acquires jurisdiction on the basis of       bind  the  parties  for  that  limited  period  and
   reference made to it. The Tribunal has to confine      further held that it is well known that under
   itself within the scope of the subject matter of       the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  the  parties  are
   reference and cannot travel beyond the same.           entering  into  an  agreement.  Under  Section  2
   It is for this reason that it becomes the bounden      (p) of the Act for a period which might have
   duty of the appropriate Government to make
                                                          been  mentioned  in  the  agreement  and  if  the
   the reference appropriately which is reflective
                                                          period  is  mentioned,  then  the  parties  would
   of the real/exact nature of "dispute" between
                                                          bind themselves to act according to the terms
   the parties.
                                                          of    the  agreement  for  a  limited  period  as
2. Central  Bank  Employee's  Union  &  Ors  V/s          mentioned.  After  expiry  of  the  said  period,
   Central Bank of India & Ors. reported in the           the  contract  is  extinguished.  It  is  open  for
   Hon'ble Bombay High Court W.P No. 1293 of              the parties to enter into agreement for further
   1990 dated 14-06-1994 has held it is well settled      period. It depends on the bargaining factor and
   by various decisions of the Supreme  Court of          both  sides  will  consider  their  own
   India  that  even  if  the  settlement  hurts  some    interest and will arrive at a binding decision.
   persons the totality is required to be seen and
                                                       4. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works   (represented
   if the settlement is in the large interest of the
                                                          by  its  Par tners),  Mysore  v/s  Workmen
   employees and in pursuance  of  the managerial
                                                          (represented  by  Secretary,  Mangalore
   function, then the said settlement should not
                                                          Ganesh  Beedi  Workers  and  Allied  Beedi
   be  disturbed  under  Article  226  of  the
                                                          Factories  Workers  Association),  Mysore
   Constitution. The sequence  of events indicate
                                                          repor ted  in  the  Hon'ble  High  Court  of
   that the impugned  settlement merely provided
                                                          Judicature  at  Karnataka  2004  (3)L.L.N.  696
   on  additional  avenue  whereby  stenos  in  the
                                                          wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that
   main-stream were given an opportunity. If they
                                                          it is well settled that the court is not entitled
   so desire, to opt for the steno officers post by a
                                                          to  scan  a  settlement  in  bits  and  pieces  and
   particular date. This was in view of the fact that
                                                          hold  some  parts  not  or  not  so  good  for
   the post of steno officers was created prior to
                                                          workmen.  The  court  should  look  at
   1990  and  since  vacancies  arose  in  the  said
                                                          settlement  as  a  whole,  unless  it  can  be
   category  an  additional  option  was  given  by
                                                          demonstrated  that  the  objectionable  portion
   the Bank to the stenos to join by a particular         is such that it completely out weights all the
   date.  If  they  so  desire  from  the  general        other  advantage  gained  the  Court  should  be
   category  to  the  specialist  category.  In  the      slow to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust.
   above circumstances, there is no merit in the          The  burden  of  proof  that  the  terms  of
   contention  advanced  on  behalf  of  the              settlement are unfair or unreasonable lies on
   petitioners that the Agreement was arbitrary           the  respondent-union  and  not  on  the
   and  violation  of  Articles  14  and  16  of  the     management.  It  is  so  because,  settlements
   Constitution.                                          are  accepted  by  vast  majority  of  workmen
3. Gujarat  Mineral  Development  Corporation             and  they  have  received  the  benefits  and
   Employee's  Union  v/s  G.M.D  Corporation             advantages  of  the  settlement  without  any
   repor ted  in  the  Hon'ble  Gujarat  High             demur and protest. The majority of workmen
   Court  2001  LLR  346  wherein  the  Hon'ble           have  also  not  complained  to  the  Industrial
   High  Court has held it is required to be noted        Tribunal  against  the  terms  of  settlement.  In
   that  under  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  the      the context, it is reasonable to presume that
   settlements  and  awards  are  binding  on  the        the  terms  of  the  settlement  are  fair,
   persons  as  provided  for  by  Section  18  of  the   reasonable  and  amicable  to  the  workmen
   Act. Section 19 of the Act refers to the period        concerned.  if  the  respondent-union  contests
   of  operation  of  settlements  and  awards.  The      such a presumption, it is for the respondent-
   scheme  of  Section  19  appears  to  be  that  the    union  to  lead  evidence  to  show  that  the
   settlements  and  awards  shall  be  binding  on       settlements are fair and unreasonable or they
   the  parties  as  per  the  memorandum  of             were  entered  into  between  the  parties  for
   settlement.  The  date  of  operation  and  the        some  extraneous  considerations  and  not  in
   period  till  which  the  settlement  shall            the interest of the workmen concerned.

5. 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.

6. 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 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.

7. 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 :

1. It is true that the settlement dated 23-02-2008 was accepted by all the workmen including me.

2. 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.

 3. It  is  correct  that  all  these  four  settlements   Rs.12,000/-.  It  is  correct  that  both  the
    were  accepted  by  the  workmen  including            settlements  have  been  accepted  by  majority
    me without any objections.                             of the workmen. It is correct that majority of
 4. It  is  correct  that  all  these  settlements  have   the workers are members of both the Unions.
    been  signed  by  the  Internal  Committee  and        It  is  correct  that  both  the  settlements
    the  Internal  Union  and  thereafter  with  the       havebeen  accepted  by  the  Members  of
    Goa  Trade  and  Commercial  Workers'  Union           Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh also in toto.
    and  he  has  also  admitted  further  that  it  is 11. It  is  true  that  by  not  accepting  both  the
    correct  that  the  structure-wise  settlements        settlements  dated  09-08-2017  and  22-07-2021,
    signed with the Union were same.                       I suffered a monetary loss of Rs. 20,000/- and
 5. It  is  correct  that  in  this  matter  we  have  not by not accepting both these settlements, the
    filed any documents showing the membership             monetary  loss  is  a  very  bad  thing  that
    of  the  Gomantak  Mazdoor  Sangh  in                  happened to me.
    connection with the workers.
                                                       12. It  is  correct  that  after  knowing  that
 6. It is true that from the documents which are           settlement  dated  09-08-2017  has  been
    produced  by  me  before  this  Court,  it  is  not    signed by Party II(2) thereafter only our union
    possible to come to the conclusion that their          wrote  a  letter  to  Dy.  Labour  Commissioner
    Union  Gomantak  Mazdoor  Sangh  is  majority          on  the  next  day.  It  is  correct  that  the  Union
    or  minority  and  also  admitted  that  the           has  sent  only  the  letter  dated  10-08-2017
    settlement  dated  09-08-2017  is  not  accepted       which is at exh. 32. It is correct that with this
    by  19  workmen.  He  could  not  answer  as  to       letter  the  Union  did  not  enclose  any
    who  are  the  said  19  workmen  who  had  not        document  showing  majority  of  Gomantak
    signed  the  settlement  dated  09-08-2017  as         Mazdoor  Sang  and  that  Exh.  32  does  not
    he stated that he is not aware.                        indicate  anywhere  in  the  Failure  Report  that
 7. It  is  true  that  in  my  Affidavit-in-Evidence  I   the  list  of  the  majority  was  filed  before  the
    have  not  mentioned  as  to  the  number  of          Conciliation  Officer.  It  is  correct  that  after
    membership of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh               signing  the  settlement  with  the  Goa  Trade
    including  myself  and  further  admitted  that        and  Commercial  Workers'  Union,  the  matter
    a Notice was also displayed stating that the           was  admitted  in  conciliation  on  10-08-2017
    workmen  should  accept  the  settlement               It  is  correct  that  thereafter  we  gave  a  letter
    dated  22-07-2021  by  signing  the  declaration       dated  14-08-2017  to  the  Management  which
    and the contents of this settlement were read          is at Exh. 34 and that we had given the letter
    over  and  explained  to  them  by  the                in  July,  2017.  It  is  true  that  I  have  not
    Management.                                            produced  this  letter  of  July,  2017  before  this
                                                           Court.
 8. He  further  admitted  that  I  say  that  I  have
    signed  the  declaration  for  accepting  the      13. I  do  not  know  what  action  was  taken  by
    settlement  dated  22-07-2021  and  while              the  Dy.  Labour  Commissioner  on  the
    giving  this  declaration  he  put  certain            Management  made  on  our  complaint.
    conditions before the Company for accepting            Thereafter, the Dy. Labour Commissioner sent
    the  settlement  but  as  the  Company  did  not       the Failure Report to the Government.
    accept  the  conditions  put  forth  by  him,  he 14.  We  have  never  raised  any  objection  for
    could  not  get  any  benefits  from  the              Bhartiya  Kamgar  Sena  and  Internal  Unions
    Settlement dated 22-07-2021.                           when  they  signed  settlement  with  the
 9. It  is  true  that  except  19  workmen,  all          Company.  I  have  not  produced  letter  dated
    other  workmen  signed  the  declaration               28-11-2016 sent to the Management.
    unconditionally and accepted the settlement        15. It is true that the Management wrote a letter
    dated 22-07-2021 in toto.                              dated  20-06-2017  to  us  stating  that  we  had
10. He further admitted that it is correct that by         no majority in the Union.
    the  earlier  settlement  dated  09-08-2017,  the  16. It is true that at that time the total workmen
    workers got the benefit around Rs. 9,000/- to          employed  were  around  310  in  all  the  three
    Rs.10,000/-.  It is correct that new settlement        establishments/total  group  in  the  said
    which  has  been  signed  in  2021,  the  workers      Company. We had sent a letter informing our
    got  the  benefit  of  around  Rs.11,000/-  to         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 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:

1. 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 which1845 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022

   are fixed at a particular time may not remain           and Loss Accounts of those who had produced
   fair with passage and the price increase and,           them on record. He has rightly drawn adverse
   therefore, a revision in wages is necessary. To a       inference against those employers who had not
   certain  extent,  this  disparity  is  made  up  by     cared  to  produce  these  documents  or  to
   payment of dearness allowance, but as the Apex          substantiate their claim that they do not have
   Court has consistently taken a view that 100%           the  capacity  to  withstand  financial  burden
   neutralization is not advisable, it is necessary        which would be imposed upon them due to the
   to  sufficiently  bridge  the  gap  between  the        demands. The Tribunal considered the fact that
   wages  and  cost  of  living  by  revision  of  the     most of the Employers neither appeared no filed
   wages as also the dearness allowance. The mere          their  Balance  Sheets  and  Profit  and  Loss
   fact  that  the  is  an  increase  in  the  Consumer    Accounts  or  the  Statement  of  Salaries.  The
   Price index, justifies an upward revision.              statement  recording  the  strength  of  the
2. Transport Corp. of India Ltd. V/s MRMT & G.             employees also was not produced and since all
   K. Union, 2002 (3) LLJ 835, the Hon'ble High            these factors were within the knowledge of the
   Court of Bombay has observed that "14. The              transporters, the Tribunal has drawn an adverse
   contention  of  the  Learned  Counsel  for  the         inference and held that the transporters were
   Petitioners that unless the workman steps into          able to bear the burden".
   the witness box and leads evidence to justify his    3. Hindustan Unilever V/s B. N. Dongre, (1994)
   demand, it would not be open for the Tribunal to        6 SCC 157 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
   consider  any  wage  increase  must  also  be           observed  that  "the  concept  of  Dearness
   negative. This is because the mere change in            Allowance, the second most important element
   circumstance of the rise in the Consumer Price          in a worker's wage-plan next to the basic wage,
   Index is sufficient to warrant an upward revision       was introduced during the second World War to
   in  wages.  What  is  the  Consumer  Price  Index       meet the increase in the cost of living caused by
   prevailing at the time when the demand is raised        inflation. It was either linked to the cost of living
   or when the dispute is referred for adjudication        index or was given by way of flat increases. When
   or when Tribunal makes an Award is a matter of          linked to the former, it was granted to all the
   record based on the Notifications issued by the         income groups at a flat rate or was graded on a
   Government from time to time. Therefore, the oral       scale  admissible  to  different  income  groups
   evidence  of  the  workman  would  be  of  no           diminishing with rise in income. Basically, the
   assistance to prove this fact. Further Balance          concept of dearness allowance was designed to
   Sheets and Profit and Loss Accounts which are           combat  inflation  and  protect  real  wages  and
   necessary to show the financial capacity of an          therefore it would appear that there should be
   Employer are maintained by the Employer and             cent percent neutralization. This is a concept
   the workman again would not be  of no assistance        peculiar  to  India,  Ceylon,  Pakistan  and
   to prove this fact. Further Balance Sheets and          Bangladesh. The National Commission of Labour
   Profit and Loss Accounts which are necessary            (1969)  recommended  95%  neutralization  for
   to show the financial capacity of an Employer           minimum wage earners but it was reluctant to
   are  maintained  by  the  Employer  and  the            recommend the same rate for workers in higher
   workman again would not be able to throw any            wage  groups  for  fear  that  it  may  spark  off
   light on these aspects as the financial capacity        inflationary trends. Normally, such a Dearness
   is to be assessed by the Tribunal from the record       Allowance formula suffers from two drawbacks,
   made available to it. This record is to be produced     (i) it has the pernicious effect of distorting the
   by the Employer if he pleads financial inability        wage-structure  and  (ii)  it  results  in  a  sharp
   to implement the burden of an increased wage            erosion of real income, particularly of those in
   structure. The burden of proof to show that he          the higher wage groups. Generally speaking, the
   has  no  financial  capacity  to  withstand  the        distortion  of  the  wage-structure  takes  place
   burden  imposed  upon  it  would  be  on  the           because employees in different pay scales are
   Employer  as  it  is  he  who  knows  his  financial    granted Dearness Allowance not at a uniform
   position and the conclusive proof of that are the       rate but at a tapering rate, i.e. the workers in the
   Balance  Sheets  which  are  normally  in  his          lower scales getting a higher neutralization as
   possession. In the instant case, the Tribunal has       compared to those in the higher pay brackets in
   considered and assessed the financial capacity          whose  case  the  neutralization  percentage
   of the transporters to bear the burden by taking        diminishes with the rise in basic wage. That is
   into account the Balance Sheets and the Profit          because it is believed that those in the higher

pay brackets have a cushion to absorb the brunt of inflation".

4. 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.

5. 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 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.

6. 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.

7. "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. 70 to 85 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). Her1847 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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.

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. 75.

59. It is seen that the Party I has not led any evidence to show the financial position of the1848 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 remain1849 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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.

4. 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.

(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.

(c) It has been agreed between the parties that the existing annual medical Allowance shall be enhanced by Rs. 500/- from April, 2017.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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;

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

8. 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 of Industrial jurisprudence and such settlement are never opened to judicial scrutiny unless the same are proved to be malafide.

9. 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 workmen1850 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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 cross-examination he has admitted that he has not produced the copy of the Resolution before this Tribunal seeking to raise the 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 Register of the workers/Union is totally different 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. 26 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. 61-D Colly and 62-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. 36 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. 32". "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. 33 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 and1851 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 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 Issue No. 2 casted on them and accordingly, the same is answered in the negative.

Accordingly, I pass the following Order:

O R D E R

1. The action of the Management of M/s Orchid Biomedicals System, 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.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment ) Division

––

Order

No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt)/Part-I/1118

The Government of Goa is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following Civil Registrar- -cum-Sub-Registrar (C.R.S.R.), Group 'B', Gazetted Officers of Registration Department, with immediate effect, in public interest:-

Sr. Name of Officials Present place of posting Place of transfer No.

1. Shri Pramod Madhu Velip Jt. C.R.S.R., Ponda C.R.S.R., Quepem. 2. Shri Hanumant G. Dessai C.R.S.R., Ponda To hold additional charge

of Jt. C.R.S.R., Ponda.

The above Officer at Sr. No. 1 shall draw his pay and allowances against the respective post at the place of transfer from 01-08-2022.

They shall complete the process of handing over/taking over of charge immediately and submit compliance.

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

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

Porvorim, 29th July, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel

–––

Order

No. 22/8/2022-PER/3725

In exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 30 of the Goa Police Service Rules, 1997 (hereinafter to be called as "said rules"), the Government in consultation with the Goa Public Service Commission, hereby relaxes Rule 21 of the said Rules, to grant relaxation in qualifying service of1852 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 19 11TH AUGUST, 2022 02 years 08 months as on 01-04-2025 to the following

class of Officers in Junior Scale Officers (Deputy Superintendent of Police), Goa Police Service:-

1. Smt. Maria Monserrate. 2. Shri Gurudas N. Gawade (ST). 3. Shri Edwin M. S. Colaco. 4. Shri Nelson Albuquerque. 5. Smt. Sucheta B. Dessai. 6. Smt. Ezilda D'Souza. 7. Smt. Sunita Sawant. 8. Shri Rajendra V. R. Dessai. 9. Shri Dharmesh G. P. Angle.

10. Shri Kiran J. Poduval.

This issues with the approval of the Goa Public Service Commission vide letter No. COM/II/11/37(2)/ /2020/750 dated 29-07-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nathine S. Araujo, Under Secretary (Personnel-II).

Porvorim, 01st August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

––– Order

No. 22/12/2018-I/PHD/Part-I/1152

Read: 1. Order No. 22/12/2018-I/PHD/Part I/673

dated 03-04-2020.

2. Order No. 22/12/2018-I/PHD/Part I/3420

dated 23-10-2020.

Government is pleased to designate Dr. Rupa Naik, Chief Medical Officer under Directorate of Health Services as OMBUDSMAN to address grievance received from the people infected and affected by HIV, as a stop gap arrangement till further order.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

"A" Gazetted) under Directorate of Health Services in the Level 10 of Pay Matrix [Pay Band-3 Rs.15,600- 39,100 + Grade Pay Rs. 5400/- (pre-revised)].

Dr. Shruti Rohan Bhandare shall be on probation

for a period of two years.

Dr. Shruti Rohan Bhandare has been declared medically fit by the Medical Board and that the character and antecedents has been verified by the District Magistrate, North Goa, Panaji vide letter No. 2/11/2016-MAG/VCA/Vol.II/1439 dated 11-07-2022 and it is revealed that there is nothing adverse reported against her.

Consequent upon her appointment, the above doctor is posted at North Goa District Hospital, Mapusa.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 3rd August, 2022.

———— Order

No. 90/22/81-III/PHD(Vol.II)/1197

Sanction of the Government is hereby accorded for revision of diet rates for the patients undergoing treatment in the Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behaviour, Bambolim-Goa from Rs. 90/- to Rs. 120/- per patient per day.

The revised rates shall be made applicable

w.e.f. 01-08-2022.

This issues with the concurrence of Finance (Exp.) Department vide their U.O. No. 1400085932 dated 08-06-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health-I).

Porvorim, 29th July, 2022.

————

Order

Porvorim, 1st August, 2022.

————

No. 2/9/2021-II/PHD/1215

Order

No. 45/1/2007-I/PHD/1169

Read: Memorandum No. 45/1/2007-I/PHD/706

dated 20-05-2022.

On the recommendation of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/ /I/5/24(1)/2021/Part file/556 dated 16-03-2022, Government is pleased to appoint Dr. Shruti Rohan Bhandare to the post of Junior Pathologist (Group Government is pleased to accept the resignation dated 07-10-2021 tendered by Dr. Akshay Naik, Lecturer, Department of General Surgery, Goa Medical College and he stands relieved w.e.f. 07-11-2021 (f.n.).

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Trupti B. Manerkar, Under Secretary (Health).

Porvorim, 5th August, 2022.

Department of Printing & Stationery

––– Addendum

No. 3/184/2022-DPS/622

Read: O r d e r N o . 3 / 1 8 4 / 2 0 2 2 - D PS/ 2 8 6 d a t e d

06-06-2022.

The following shall be added in the above

referred order.

The Cabinet in its VIIIth meeting held on 20-07-2022 has accorded ex-post facto approval for appointment of Shri N. D. Agrawal as Advisor in the Department of Printing & Stationery for a period of 06 months from 03-06-2022 to 02-12-2022 to expedite the matter for award of ISO Certification for Department of Printing & Stationery. He shall be paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- per month in addition to pension and he will be provided a vehicle to be hired from Goa Tourism Development Corporation.

The expenditure shall be debited from the

following Budget Head:

Demand No. 20

2058 — Stationery and Printing.

00 —

001 — Direction and Administration.

01 — Direction (Non Plan). 50 — Other Charges.

By order and in the name of the Governor

of Goa.

Prasad Volvoikar, Director & ex officio Joint

Secretary (Printing & Stationery).

Panaji, 5th August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Tourism ––– Order

No. 4/3(110)2022/DT/1579

Government is pleased to constitute a Committee comprising of following members to select/declare the winners of the Photography Competition organized for general public with the theme of Goa's Historic sites, Heritage sites in Goa forts, Monuments, Heritage Statues and Martyrs Monuments by following all codal procedure.

1. Secretary (Tourism) — Chairman.

2. Director, Information and — Member.

Publicity Department

3. Director, Department of — Member.

Art and Culture

4. Managing Director, Goa — Member.

Tourism Development Corporation

5. President, United Goan — Member.

Photographers and Videographers Association

6. Director of Tourism — Member

Secretary.

The Committee shall scrutinize the entries and visualize the best photography as per the terms and conditions of the competition and declare winners of the contest to the Department.

The Committee shall meet as and when meeting is convened by the Chairman. The Committee may co-opt any expert member/stakeholder at any time, if found necessary.

Nikhil Desai, Director (Tourism).

Panaji, 03rd August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Urban Development

(Municipal Administration)

––– Order

No.10/639/2021-DMA/Trade or Occup. Licence/ /Part-II/2260

In supersession of all earlier Orders/Circulars, following documents are only required for Trade or Occupation license in Online/Offline mode:

1. Form "B" application along with any one document proving ownership or occupancy of the premise by the applicant.

2. Self Declaration/Undertaking in the format

attached by the applicant.

All Chief Officers/Commissioner of CCP are hereby instructed to ensure issuing of Trade or Occupation license for carrying out trade or occupation in their area with the above mentioned documents only. They should personally look after the complete procedure and ensure issuing of Trade or Occupation license within three working days, commencing from the date of application, in Offline/ /Online mode.

Gurudas P. Pilarnekar, Director (Urban

Development).

Panaji, 29th July, 2022.

FORM 'B'

……………………….. Municipal Council

............................................................................. Goa

APPLICATION FORM FOR TRADES AND OCCUPATION

1. Full Name of the Applicant (Block Letters): ________________________________________________

2. Address of Correspondence: ____________________________________________________________

3. Name & Style of Trade: _________________________________________________________________

4. Description of the Trade/Business premises:

(i) House No.:________

(ii) Ward No.:_________

(iii) Location/Street No.: ____________________________________

(iv) Area of the Shop/building (as per drawing):__________________________

5. Document in case the person conducting the business is other than the owner (copy attached).

The above information given by me is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Place:

Dated:

Signature & Name

Mobile No. __________

Email Id_____________

Aadhar No.__________

Mandatory Documents:

1. Copy of ownership or occupancy document (Sale deed or lease deed or lease agreement or MOU, etc.). 2. Undertaking by the applicant.

SELF DECLARATION/UNDERTAKING

I,_________________________________ S/o, D/o, ____________________________ Prop./Partner/ /Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory of M/s. ....................................................................... major of age resident of __________________________________ do hereby solemnly affirm and declare and also undertake to abide by the statements made herein below:-

1. That the license is sought for the establishment in the name and style of trade/storage ___________________________________________ in the premises ___________________________ at ____________________________ (address of the location of the trade).

2. That the premise which is used for the purpose of trade does not have any outstanding dues by way of house tax arrears and the house/shop rent tax receipt is in the owner's name. If still any outstanding dues, I will pay immediately once I receive the information.

3. That I am/we are r/o the prop./partner/Director/Manager/Authorized Signatory of the said establishment and I/we am/are fully empowered to apply for Trade/Storage License to the ____________________________(Municipal).

4. That I/we agree that the License/Storage is being issued in the name of the establishment and does not have any bearing on the ownership and cannot be used for settlement of ownership disputes. That I shall not claim any right/title in the property/premise on the basis of the said license.

I have read and I accept the terms & conditions mentioned above, I declare that the information provided by me in the application is true to the best of my knowledge and shall be liable for any action under law of the land. Besides this, a penal charge amounting to 10 times of the cost of the license fees for wrong information, also abide by me.

____________________________ ___________________________ Signature and Name of Premise Owner

Signature and Name of Business Owner

Aadhar Ref______________________ Aadhar Ref _______________________

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery, Government Printing Press, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001. PRICE–Rs. 42.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—159/120—8/2022.