Goa Gazette, No. 2223-24, 15 September 2022

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

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Panaji, 15th September, 2022 (Bhadra 24, 1944) SERIES II No. 24 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Note:- There are two Extraordinary issues to the Official Gazette, Series II No. 23 dated 8-09-2022 as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 09-09-2022 from pages 2069 to 2070 regarding Order from Department of Elections.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 14-09-2022 from pages 2071 to 2088 regarding Notifications from Department of Finance.

and notifies Selection Committee for appointment of President, Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, President and 02 Members in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Goa and 01 Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa.

Selection Committee consisting of following

persons:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Sonak, Hon'ble Justice,

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services

–––

Hon'ble High Court of — Chairperson. Bombay at Goa

Secretary, Department of — Member. Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs

Addendum

No. 2/14/93-AH(Part IV)/2022-23/3284

Read: Order No. 2/14/93-AH(Part IV)/2022-23/

/2989 dated 24-08-2022.

The following para shall be added to the above

referred order:-

"The Officers referred to in the said order shall draw their salaries from the Budget Heads they were drawing their Pay & Allowances prior to their transfer".

Secretary, Revenue — Member.

Gopal A. Parsekar, Director (Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs) & ex officio Joint Secretary.

Panaji, 22nd August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Co-operation

Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies

–––

Order

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Dr. Agostinho Misquita, Director & ex officio Jt.

Secretary (AH).

Panaji, 6th September, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Civil Supplies and

Consumer Affairs –––

No. 3-1-Urban-TS-II/SZ/2017/RCS/Vol/I/1669

Read: 1) Notification No. 3/3/Urban Credit/TSII/ /PZ/2017/RCS/Suppl/5306 dated 10-02-2020.

2) Order No. 3/8/Urban/Credit/TSII/QZ/

/2020/RCS/5725 dated 02-03-2020.

3) Order No. 3/8/Urban/Credit/TSII/QZ/

/2020/RCS/842 dated 06-07-2021.

4) Amended Certificate No. 5-476-1992/ /ARQZ/Credit/Vol. I dated 10-11-2020.

Notification

No. DCS/ADCS/Appoint/Part File I/2022-23/1701

As per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the State Government hereby constitutes 5) Letter No. 2-1-2012/ARQZ/URBAN/VOL-I/

/464 dated 19-07-2022.

Whereas, vide Order at reference No. 2 above issued by Registrar of Co-operative Societies u/s.

123B and 91D of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, the General Manager of the Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Quepem, Goa (Reg. No. 8-RES-(a)-59/South Goa/92) was authorized to act as Sales cum Recovery Officer in relation to the recovery of debts and to attach and sell the property of defaulters or to execute any decree by attachment and sale of property and execution of all recovery orders passed by the authority subject to conditions mentioned in the said Order.

And whereas, vide Amendment Certificate referred at Ref. No. 4 above, the said Society was re-classified from 'Credit Society to "Service Society" and name of the Society has been amended as "The Quepem Urban Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., Quepem-Goa.

And whereas, said appointment of General Manager as Sales cum Recovery Officer was initially for the period from 02-03-2020 to 31-03-2021 and the said authorization was further extended from 01-04-2021 to 31-03-2022 vide Order at Ref. No. 3 above.

And whereas, vide letter dated 19-07-2022 at Ref. No. 5 above, said Quepem Urban Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., Quepem-Goa has requested for extending said authorization for a further continuous period of one year till 31-03-2023.

Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred upon undersigned u/s. 123B read with Notification dated 10-2-2020 at Reference No. 1 above, the appointment & authorization of said Sales cum Recovery Officer is hereby further extended for a period of 1 year with retrospective effect from 01-04-2022 to 31-03-2023.

All the other terms and conditions mentioned in the Order at reference No. 2 above shall continue to apply.

The undersigned reserves the right to withdraw this Order at any stage without assigning any reasons.

Given under the seal of this office.

Vishant S. N. Gaunekar, Registrar of Co-operative Societies & ex officio Joint Secretary (Co-operation).

Panaji, 23rd August, 2022.

———u———

Office of the Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Shri Ashtavinayak Self Help Group Co-operative Society Ltd., Durbhat, Ponda is registered under code symbol No. RCSPZ2022230016.

Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda Zone

(Co-operative Societies).

Ponda, 22nd August, 2022.

Certificate of Registration

"Shri Ashtavinayak Self Help Group Co-operative Society Ltd., Durbhat, Ponda- Goa has been registered on 22-08-2022 and its bears registration code symbol No. RCSPZ2022230016 and its classified as "General Society" under sub-classification No. in terms of Rule 8 of the Goa Co-operative Rules, 2003.

Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda Zone

(Co-operative Societies).

Ponda, 22nd August, 2022.

———— Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, Prabhavati Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa is registered under code symbol No. RCSPZ2022230015.

Pankaj V. Marathe, Asstt. Registrar, Ponda Zone

(Co-operative Societies).

Ponda, 22nd August, 2022.

Certificate of Registration

"Prabhavati Co-op. Housing Maintenance Society

Ltd., Curti, Ponda-Goa has been registered on

22-08-2022 and its bears registration code symbol No.

RCSPZ2022230015 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).

Ponda, 22nd August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of General Administration

–––

Order

Societies –––

No. 14/8/2001-GAD-III/3192

Notification

In exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa Public Service Commission vide their letter2090 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 No. COM/II/11/42(2)/2019/166 dated 07-07-2022, Government is pleased to promote Smt. Veena S. Lawande, Senior Assistant to the post of Section Officer (Group 'B' Gazetted) in Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa, on regular basis, in Level 7 of the Pay Matrix as per C.C.S. (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, with immediate effect.

Smt. Lawande shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of her joining the post.

Smt. Lawande shall exercise her option for fixation of pay in the promotional grade in terms of F. R. 22(I)(a)(1) within a period of one month. The option once exercised shall be final.

The expenditure towards pay and allowances of Smt. Lawande shall be debited to the Budget Head:- "2052—Secretariat General Services; 00—; 090—Secretariat; 01—Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms; 01—Salaries.

Smt. Lawande is entitled for pay and allowances from the date of acceptance of promotion in relaxation to F.R. 17.

The order of posting is being issued separately.

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

Shreyas Dsilva, Under Secretary (GA-II).

Porvorim, 6th September, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Home Home—General Division

––––

1952), the Government of Goa hereby appoints a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. K. Jadhav, for the purpose of making an inquiry into various complaints/FIRs regarding illegal land transfer/land grabbing by way of forged documents that have taken place in the State of Goa.

The terms of reference for the above Commission

shall be as under:

(i) to inquire into and fix responsibilities in all cases of grabbing of private/any other lands in the State of Goa and to find out the involvement of Government Officers and any other public functionaries and private individuals in such land grabbing;

(ii) to inquire and find out the loop-holes/ /deficiencies/lacunae/negligence in the administrative system and the legal frame- -work which led to such large scale land grabbing;

(iii) to recommend to the Government the steps/ /measures/action that is required to be taken or any change to be made in the administrative system/legal framework for the purpose of avoiding such cases of land grabbing in the future; and

(iv) to recommend changes in law for preventing

such land grabbing in future.

Notification

No. 10/06/2022-HD(G)/7808

Whereas, vide Order No. 2/166/2013-HD(G)/6953 dated 15-06-2022, the Government of Goa has constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate and inquire into various complaints/ /FIRs regarding illegal land transfer/land grabbing by way of forged documents;

And whereas, in the course of investigation of the said complaints/FIRs, the widespread cases of illegal land transfer/land grabbing by way of forged documents have been unearthed by the said Special Investigation Team (SIT);

And whereas, as the said cases are of public importance, the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission for the purpose of making inquiry into the said cases.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Act No. 60 of Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Act No. 60 of 1952), the Government of Goa being of the opinion that and having regard to the nature of the inquiry to be made and other circumstances of the case hereby directs that the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the said Act shall be applicable to the above Commission.

The above Commission of Inquiry shall submit its Report/Recommendation to the Government within a period of 4 months from the date of its first sitting.

The Collector, North Goa District is hereby directed to make all logistic arrangements including office premises and staff for the Commission of Inquiry.

The allowances and entitlements of the

Chairman shall be notified subsequently.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Vivek K. Naik, Under Secretary (Home-I).

Porvorim, 9th September, 2022.

Department of Labour

–––

A W A R D

Order

No. 28/12/2007-LAB/435

Governor of Goa is pleased to declare satisfactory completion of probation period as well as confirmation of Shri Suresh Nakul Narulkar, in the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Cour t-II (Group "A" post) in the Labour Department, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa with effect from 19-05-2010.

This issues with the approval of the Council of

Ministers in the VIth meeting held on 06-07-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 19th August, 2022.

————

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Government of Goa, by Order dated 21-09-2021, bearing No. 28/38/2021-LAB/453 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Labour Court, Panaji, Goa.

"(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. United Taximen's Union, Yellow-Black Pre-paid Taxi Counter, Dabolim Airport, Dabolim, Vasco, Goa, in terminating services of Smt. Deepa Sawant, Clerk, with effect from 27-08-2020, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the Workperson is entitled

to?"

Notification

No. 28/02/2022-LAB/Part-I/420

The following Award passed by the Labour Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 15-07-2022 in Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/19/2021 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, 17th August, 2022.

————

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon'ble

Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/19/2021

Smt. Deepa Sawant, R/o. Plot No. 12, Near MES Pump, Shantinagar, Vasco -da-Gama, Goa ..… Workmen/Party I.

V/s

M/s United Taximen's Union, Yellow-Black Pre-paid Taxi Counter, Dabolim Airport, Dabolim-Goa …. Employer/Party II.

Workmen/Party-I represented by Adv. Ms. Akshata Bhat.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri E. O. Mendes.

Panaji, Dated: 15-07-2022.

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was registered under No. LC-II/IT/19/2021 and registered A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to the said notice, the Parties put in their appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short 'Workman'), filed her Statement of Claim on 25-02-2022. The facts of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workperson are that she joined the Employer/Party II (for short 'Employer') in the year 2011 as a 'Clerk'. She stated that thereafter, the name of the Employer was changed as Yellow- Black Taxi Union. She stated that subsequently the aforesaid union merged together and it was named as "United Taximen's Union" having its counter at Counter No. 13 at Dabolim Airport in the year 2015. She stated that she was absorbed by the Employer after merging both the aforesaid unions. She stated that she was paid salary of Rs. 12000/- per month. She stated that on 22-04-2020, she was promoted as Cashier. She stated that she could not handle the cash due to lack of experience and knowledge. She stated that there was a short fall of Rs. 14,500/-. She stated that she requested the senior cashier to relieve her from the duty of cashier and that she will continue work as clerk. She stated that subsequently, the Employer asked her to sign one affidavit stating that she borrowed a cash for personal need and that she will return the same in installments. She stated that she never borrowed the amount for her personal needs. However, as there was no other option, she signed the said affidavit and agreed to refund the said amount. She stated that she was relieved in January, 2020 and she continued to work as clerk.

3. She stated that due to Covid lockdown, the operations at the airport halted from 23-03-2020 and the Employer directed her to remain at home. She stated that she was paid half salary for the month of March and April, 2020. She stated that she was not paid salary for the month of May, 2020. She stated that the Employer directed her to join the work from2092 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 24-05-2020 on alternate days. Accordingly, she reported for the work. She stated that the Employer did not pay salary for the month of May 2020. She stated that the Employer has however, paid salary to her for the month of June, 2020 on 08-07-2020. She stated that she continued the work in July, 2020, however, the salary for the month of July, 2020 was not paid by the Employer. She stated that however, on 22-07-2020, she was informed by the Employer that she will be paid half salary for the month of July and August, 2020. However, till date she was not paid a single rupee by the Employer towards the salary of July and August, 2020. She stated that on 22-07-2020, all the staff on duty came together to ask the Employer about its unilateral decision of making payment of half salary. However, the Employer did not give any satisfactory reason to them. She stated that she was not on duty on 22-07-2020, however, she visited the airport to request the Employer to make full payment for the month of July onwards as the Employer had already started making full payment from June, 2020. She stated that she worked in August, 2020 till 26-08-2020.

4. She stated that the Employer suddenly instructed her to not to come to work without giving any reasons or without issuing any notice. She stated that she was informed by the Employer that she will be taken on duty on next month and some other staff will be given break in next month. However, later the Employer informed her that she will not be taken back on duty. She stated that when the Employer did not call her to join duties after one month. She stated that she approached Labour Inspector at Vasco and orally submitted her grievances. She stated that the Labour Inspector called the Employer to his office for deliberation vide letter dated 11-09-2020. She stated that after the Employer received the knowledge of the complaint filed against them by her, the Employer issued a show-cause notice dated 23-07-2020 to her. She stated that the said notice sent to her through post on 08-10-2020.

Association and the case was fixed for argument on the said application. On 05-07-2022, Ld. Adv. Ms. Akshata Bhat along with the Workperson as well as Ld. Adv. Shri E. O. Mendes appearing for the Employer appeared before me and both the representatives orally submitted that they are trying to settle the matter amicably and seek time.

Accordingly, on 08-07-2022, the Workperson along with her Adv. Ms. Akshata Bhat as well as Ld. Adv. Shri E. O. Mendes, representing the Employer remained present. Both the Advocates submitted that they have settled the matter amicably between the parties hereinabove and prayed for disposing off

the reference as consent award. The parties produced on record a copy of the terms of settlement duly signed by both the parties along with their respective representatives which is on record at Exb. 6.

I have carefully perused the said terms of settlement at Exb. 6 signed by and between the parties hereinabove. The said terms of settlement are

beneficial to both the parties. Hence, I consented for the same. Since the dispute under reference is settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute under present reference does not survive.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the

following order:

O R D E R

1. It is held that the action of the management of M/s. United Taximen's Union, Yellow-Black Pre-paid Taxi Counter, Dabolim Airport, Dabolim, Vasco, Goa, in terminating services of Smt. Deepa Sawant, Clerk, with effect from 27-08-2020, is legal and justified, does not survive.

2. The Workperson, Smt. Deepa Sawant, Clerk,

is not entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-

(Suresh N. Narulkar), Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

————

Notification

No. 28/02/2022-LAB/424

5. She submitted that before her dismissal from service, the Employer did not follow the principles of natural justice and a new person is employed in her place. She submitted that before termination of her services, the provisions of I. D. Act, 1947 were not followed and as such her dismissal from service is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. She submitted that she is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in services. The Workperson therefore prayed that the Employer be directed to reinstate her in full back wages and continuity in service.

6. Thereafter, the Employer filed an application for changing her name as United Taximen's The following Award passed by the Labour Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 15-07-2022 in Case No.

Ref. LC-II/IT/20/2021 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, 17th August, 2022.

she joined the Employer/Party II (for short 'Employer') in the month of May 2017 as a 'Clerk'. She stated that she had worked continuously without any break. She stated that she was paid salary of Rs. 11,500/- per month.

————

IN THE LABOUR COURT-II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI (Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Honble Presiding Officer)

Case No. Ref LC-II/IT/20/2021

Smt. Kavita Kamble, R/o. H. No. L-31, Housing Board, Upasnagar, Zuarinagar, Sancoale-Goa ..… Workmen/Party I.

V/s

M/s United Taximen's Union, Yellow-Black Pre-paid Taxi Counter, Dabolim Airport, Dabolim-Goa …. Employer/Party II.

Workmen/Party-I represented by Adv. Ms. Akshata Bhat.

Employer/Party-II represented by Adv. Shri E. O. Mendes.

Panaji, Dated : 15-07-2022.

A W A R D

1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), the Government of Goa, by Order dated 21-09-2021, bearing No. 28/39/2021-LAB/452 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Labour Court, Panaji, Goa.

"(1) Whether the action of the management of M/s. United Taximen's Union, Yellow-Black Pre-paid Taxi Counter, Dabolim Airport, Dabolim, Vasco, Goa, in terminating services of Smt. Kavita Kamble, Clerk, with effect from 27-08-2020, is legal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the Workperson is entitled

to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was registered under No. LC-II/IT/20/2021 and registered A/D notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to the said notice, the Parties put in their appearance. The Workman/Party-I (for short 'Workman'), filed his Statement of Claim on 25-02-2022. The facts of the case in brief as pleaded by the Workperson are that 3. She stated that due to Covid lockdown the operations at the airport halted from 23-03-2020 and the Employer directed her to remain at home. She stated that she was paid half salary for the month of March and April, 2020. She stated that she was not paid salary for the month of May, 2020. She stated that the Employer directed her to join the work from 24-05-2020 on alternate days. Accordingly, she reported for the work. She stated that the Employer did not pay salary for the month of May 2020. She stated that the Employer has however, paid salary to her for the month of June, 2020 on 08-07-2020. She stated that she continued the work in July, 2020, however, the salary for the month of July, 2020 was not paid by the Employer. She stated that however, on 22-07-2020, she was informed by the Employer that she will be paid half salary for the month of July and August, 2020. However, till date she was not paid a single rupee by the Employer towards the salary of July and August, 2020. She stated that on 22-07-2020, all the staff on duty came together to ask the Employer about its unilateral decision of making payment of half salary. However, the Employer did not give any satisfactory reason to them. She stated that she was not on duty on 22-07-2020, so could not join the other staff in the discussions. She stated that she worked in August, 2020 till 26-08-2020.

4. She stated that the Employer suddenly instructed her to not to come to work without any giving any reasons or without issuing any notice. She stated that she was informed by the Employer that she will be taken on duty on next month and some other staff will be given break in next month. However, later the Employer informed her that she will not be taken back on duty. She stated that when the Employer did not call her to join duties she asked the Employer the reason for not calling for duty. She stated that there was a complaint against her. She stated that on asking the nature of complaint, she was informed that complaint was regarding eating of "chirmuli" on duty. She stated that she will not be allowed to join work and her services are terminated. She stated that after one month as she was not called on duty and was given the silly reason, she approached the Labour Inspector at Vasco and orally submitted her grievances. She stated that the Labour Inspector called the Employer to his office for deliberation vide letter dated 11-09-2020.

She stated that after the Employer received the knowledge of the complaint filed against them by her, the Employer issued a show-cause notice dated 23-07-2020 to her. She stated that the said notice sent to her through post on 08-10-2020.

5. She submitted that before her dismissal from service, the Employer did not follow the principles of natural justice and a new person is employed in her place. She submitted that before termination of her 2. The Workperson, Smt. Kavita Kamble, Clerk,

is not entitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/- (Suresh N. Narulkar), Presiding Officer, Labour Court.

————

Notification

services, the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947 were not followed and as such her dismissal from service is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. She submitted that she is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity in services. The Workperson therefore prayed that the Employer be directed to reinstate her in full back wages and continuity in service.

6. Thereafter, the Employer filed an application for changing her name as United Taximen's Association and the case was fixed for argument on the said application. On 05-07-2022, Ld. Adv. Ms. Akshata Bhat along with the Workperson as well as Ld. Adv. Shri E.O. Mendes appearing for the Employer appeared before me and both the representatives orally submitted that they are trying to settle the matter amicably and seek time. Accordingly on 08-07-2022, the Workperson along with her Adv. Ms. Akshata Bhat as well as Ld. Adv. Shri E. O. Mendes, representing the Employer remained present. Both the Advocates submitted that they have settled the matter amicably between the parties hereinabove and prayed for disposing off the reference as consent award. The parties produced on record a copy of the terms of settlement duly signed by both the parties along with their respective representatives which is on record at Exb. 6.

I have carefully perused the said terms of settlement at Exb. 6 signed by and between the parties hereinabove. The said terms of settlement are beneficial to both the parties. Hence, I consented for the same. Since the dispute under reference is settled between the parties, I hold that the dispute under present reference does not survive.

In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following

order:

O R D E R

1. It is held that the action of the management of M/s. United Taximen's Union, Yellow-Black Pre-paid Taxi Counter, Dabolim Airport, Dabolim, Vasco, Goa, in terminating services of Smt. Kavita Kamble, Clerk, with effect from 27-08-2020, is legal and justified, does not survive.

No. 28/2/2022-LAB/Part-VI/351

The following award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 04-07-2022 in Ref. No. IT/03/2018 is hereby published as required under Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 12th July, 2022. ______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Ms. Bela N. Naik, Hon'ble Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/03/2018

Workmen, Rep. by General Secretary, Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh, G-5, Macedo Appts., Tisk, Ponda-Goa. … Workmen/Party I

V/s

1. M/s Zephyr Biomedicals System,

Division of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd., Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Salcete-Goa. … Employer/Party II(1)

2. Goa Trade & Commercial

Workers' Union, Velho Bldg., Panaji-Goa.… Party II(2)

Workmen/Party I represented by Ld. Representative Shri P. Gaonkar

Employer/Party II(1) represented by Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar. Party II(2) represented by Adv. Suhaas Naik.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 4th day of the month of July of the year 2022)

By Order dated 29/01/2018, bearing No. 28/32/ /2017-LAB/77, 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 Zephyr Biomedicals, Division of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Limited, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna–Goa in not conceding the following demands raised by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vide their letter dated 28/11/2016, is legal and justified?

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

Demand No. 1: PAY SCALES:

Grades:

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 4500 points of AICPI (1960) the computation of VDA shall be made quarterly based as per existing system.

Demand No. 5: HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE:

Union demands that HRA should be paid at the revised rate of 30% of Basic, as the cost of accommodation is very high in Goa due to Tourist State.

Demand No. 6: EDUCATION ALLOWANCE:

The Union demands that Education Allowance shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs.2500/- per month.

Demand No.7: CONVEYANCE ALLOWANCE:

Union demands that all workmen shall be paid conveyance allowance @ revised rate of Rs. 2500/- per month.

Demand No. 8: PAID HOLIDAYS:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be

granted paid holidays at rate 12 days per year.

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 the revised by adding Rs.5000/- per annum to the existing LTA, with minimum of four days Earned Leave. The amount shall be paid one week before the commencement of leave.

Demand No.11: MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT:

Union demands that those workmen who are outside the purview of the ESIC, shall be reimbursed full medical expenses incurred by him for self and his family including dependent father and mother.

Demand No. 12: LOAN:

Union demands that existing loan shall be increased to Rs.300000/- towards house repair and construction of House and towards the purchase of household articles or marriage of self or his/her family member, purchase of vehicle etc.

Demand No.13: BONUS/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. 1500/- 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. 1000/- per month.

Demand No.18: MEAL REIMBURSEMENT: Union demands that the workmen who will continue from the First/General Shift to Second Shift or Second Shift to General/First Shift shall be paid Rs. 150/- per day per shift work.

Demand No.19: TRANSPORT FACILITY:

Union demands that management shall provide free transport facility in all shifts from the following routes:

(a) Verna to Panaji and back. (b) Verna to Margao and back. (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/03/2018 and registered A/D notices were issued to both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices, Par ty I filed a Claim Statement at Exhibit 5. Thereafter, the Party II(1) filed its Written Statement which is at Exhibit 7.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present reference is that the Employer/Party II is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceutical/health industry, manufacturing Tests and other products related to diagnostics and the Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. is the Company which owns the Employer/Party II along with other two establishments namely Orchid Biomedical Systems and Qualpro Diagnostics 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 and therefore that the Union was the majority Union in the establishment and request to sort out the Charter of Demand which was pending. Inspite of being the fact that the Party I represented majority of the workers, the party II signed the settlement dated 09/08/2017 u/s 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the Goa Trade & Commercial Workers' Union. It is stated that the Party I by its letter dated 10/08/2017 to the Labour Commissioner informed him about the unfair labour practices implemented by the Party II by signing a settlement by ignoring the majority Union and on 11/08/2017 the matter of charter of demands was admitted in conciliation and the minutes of conciliation were made. None participated in the conciliation proceedings on behalf of the Party II. On 14/08/2017, the party I informed the Party II2097 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 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 very minutely. The settlement is fair and reasonable and on this ground alone, the Party I have to accept the said settlement in toto without any reservations, which has been offered to Party I immediately after signing of the said settlement.

9. It is further the case of the Party II(1) that the word 'division' is mentioned only because of the sales and marketing requirements and the establishment do not work separately. The establishment does not have separate balance sheets and there is only one balance sheet of all the establishments, i.e. Tulip Diagnostics P. Ltd. and2098 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 all the establishments as mentioned by Party I as divisions are not financially independent and they are all together. The establishments of the same Company i.e. Tulip Diagnostics P. Ltd. and it has signed the settlement along with all its establishments at Verna which is called as 'division' by Party I. That the Orchid Biomedical System, Qualpro Diagnostics and Zephyr Biomedicals are not divisions of Tulip Diagnostics P. Ltd. but they are part and parcel of Tulip Diagnostic P. Ltd. financially or otherwise and therefore demand purporting to be on the division of Tulip Diagnostics P. Ltd. cannot be raised and as such the said demand is bad in law. The firms like Orchid Biomedical System, Qualpro Diagnostics, Zephyr Biomedicals, Coral Clinical Systems were partnership concerns merged by virtue of law in Tulip Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. from the closure of business hours on 30/01/2017 and as such from 31/01/2017 there are no divisions and there is only one Company known as Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. It is also their objection that the Union has no locus standi as the person on whose behalf the dispute has been raised are not members of the said Union nor have the workers as claimed by them have issued any Resolution seeking to raise the demand before the Management and on this ground also the demand needs to be rejected.

10. The Party II(1) further states that it has a majority Union namely Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union with whom the Party II(1) have signed the comprehensive settlement dated 09/08/2017 arising out of the Charter of Demand dated 22/02/2017 covering all the demands as given by the Party II(2) and the same settlement was offered to the so called members of the Party I however, the Party I refused to accept the settlement. The Party I is trying to discriminate between the workmen and is creating industrial relation problems giving high hopes to the minority workmen who according to the said Union are members of the said Union. It is further stated that by virtue of law, the Party I is trying to discriminate between the workmen and is creating industrial relations problems giving high hopes to the minority of workmen who according to the said Union are members of the said Union and this Tribunal having regard to judgment of the Apex Court including judgment on industry cum region principles capacity to pay comparable concerns ought not to grant anything to the workmen and on that ground alone the reference ought to be rejected.

11. The Party II(1) states that the Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. is a diagnostic company which is involved in manufacturing and market of in-vitro diagnostics reagents, kits and instruments and the Company is not pharmaceutical company as mentioned by the party I. The Party II(1) states that 7 manufacturing Units in Goa are located at Verna Industrial Estate and all of them are within a radius of 1-3 kms. All their products are in-vitro use in pathological laboratories to diagnose a disease. One step test or Elisa is a principle based on which various tests/products are manufactured for various application and infectious diseases or Parasitology has a wide range of products which differ from each other in terms of their applications which are used in pathological laboratories.

12. The Party II(1) states that originally the workers were represented by BharatiyaKamgarSena 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 Kamgar Sena dated 22/05/2014 and Tulip Group of Companies Employees Union dated 10/06/2014 and the majority of the employees had joined Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union, therefore Company was justified in not signing the settlement with the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh which is a very minority Union and to avoid discrimination and industrial relation problem. The Party II(1) further states that the letter dated 10/07/2017 given by the Union was2099 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 appropriately replied to by Party II(1) by its letter dated 26/07/2017 and it was not legally correct on part of the Party I to raise the Charter of Demands.

13. The Party II(1) further states that it is true that Party II(1) wrote letter dated 26/07/2017 to the Dy. Labour Commissioner explaining all the true facts in reply to Party I letter dated 10/07/2017 and some of the important points covered under the said letter were that they do not have Company in any other name other than Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. The Party II(1) further states that the secret ballot theory is not recognized under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Trade Union Act and the Party II(1) having regards to all the principles under the Industrial Disputes Act and the principle laid down by the Apex Court and having regard to industry-cum-region principle, capacity to pay and comparable concerns signed a settlement with the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union. The Party II(1) was really surprised as to how it can send 3 Charter of Demands to one Company claiming that there are different divisions wherein membership exists.

14. The Party II further states that it is true that they received a letter dated 04/08/2017 from the Union, the contents of which were wrong and there is no question of Party I being majority Union and the Party I was never a majority Union. The Party II(1) further states that the Party I wrote letter dated 10/08/2017 to the Dy. Labour Commissioner, however, the demand in conciliation itself is bad in law as the Party II(1) had informed the Conciliation Officer that there was no question of considering demands by few workers claiming to be majority in a so called division of the Company. The Party II(1) further states that it was not necessary to participate in negotiation on behalf of Party II(1) as it was futile and Party I's unreasonable demands itself could not be considered for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. The Party II further states that they received the letter dated 14/08/2017, however, the Party II disputed the correctness of the authorization contained in the said letter as it is defective and in fact Party II have not received any letter showing that the workers have authorized Shri P. Gaonkar or to correctly represent them or that any resolution was annexed with the said letter and further states that the contents of the letter dated 14/08/2017 were absolutely false and baseless and emphatically denies all the contents of the said letter and that they have correctly signed the settlements and being comprehensive settlement, the entire allegations of the party I are bad in law and no unfair labour practice is committed by the Party II(1).

15. The Party II(1) further states that the Dy. Labour Commissioner gave his Failure Report dated 09/10/2017 but the present Order of Reference dated 29/01/2018 is totally bad in law and in that there is basic defect in the said reference and that it has signed proper, rational, reasonable and progressive settlement with Goa Trade & Commercial Workers' Union and the said settlement was required to be accepted by the Party I. The Party II(1) states that the concept of paying fair wages is utopian idea and fair wages are being paid by the Company and the concept of living wages would change from region to region and that the Company has paid fair wages in the Settlement. The Party II(1) further states that the Company/Party II(1) cannot be compared to any pharmaceutical Companies and it is not in prime financial health showing profits as it is making small profit and comparison with Indico Remedies, Geno pharmaceuticals are not comparable concerns and the Company is not in a position to take any additional financial burden by revising the wages.

16. The Party II(1) further submits that Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union is not only a majority Union but the said settlement signed with the majority Union is fair and reasonable and majority of the workers have accepted the same and further submits that since it has already signed settlement with Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union, therefore, there is no question of comparing pay-scales allowances and other emoluments in the regions nor it is required to be compared with any other Companies and the Union cannot rely upon other establishments in the region to satisfy the region component of the industry cum region principle. The Party II(1) further submits that existing wage structure is fair and reasonable and therefore no case exist for granting for considering the demand and that it has absolutely taken into consideration the factor of flat rise while fixing the wages while signing of the settlement. It is further submitted that it has given seniority increment in the settlement signed with Goa Trade & Commercial Workers' Union and that the entire demand is misconceived and not maintainable since the party II while increasing the emolument has taken into consideration Variable Dearness Allowance & Fixed Dearness Allowance is accordingly fixed and that no place exists for granting Variable Dearness Allowance and that the Party I by demanding Variable Dearness Allowance and other emoluments is trying to discriminate amongst the workers which is disturbing industrial relations in the Factory.

17. It is further stated that the House-Rent Allowance, Education Allowance, Conveyance2100 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 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 8 the Party I denied the case put forth by Party II(1) in the Written Statement.

19. Written Statement also came to be filed by Party II(2) who were added subsequently and they denied the case put forth by the Party I. It is the preliminary objection raised by Party II(2) that the Party I Union has made serious allegations against them alleging that the settlement signed by Party II(2) Union is an unfair settlement and states that it becomes necessary to decide whether the settlement dated 09/08/2017 signed by Party II(2) with the Employer Party II is fair and reasonable.

20. The Party II(2) Union has mentioned in detail the salient features of this settlement which are as follows:

Party II(2) Union as and by way of preliminary objections submits that the Party I Union has made serious allegations against the Party II(2) Union in its Interim Relief Application at para 7 alleging that the settlement signed by Party II(2) Union is an Unfair settlement.

In the said Interim Relief it is also alleged that Party II(2) Union is a " handpicked Union" and that the Party II company though it convenient to negotiate with this Union being it a "handpicked Union".

1. The Party II(2) Union specifically denies that above allegations as the same are false and misleading. However, without prejudice the Party II(2) Union states that when the serious allegations of unfair settlement is alleged it is necessary to first decide whether the settlement dated 09/08/2017 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 companies are the members of Party II(2) Union and Party II (2) Union is espousing the cause of these workmen before every competent forum and authorities.

4. The Party II(2) Union states that after the unionization by these workmen Party II(2) Union submitted a comprehensive charter of demand before the management of the Party II(1) company, seeking revision and enhancement in their existing salaries, allowance and other service conditions by its demand letter dated 22/02/2017.

5. The Party II (2) Union states that pursuant to this, the Party II(2) Union held several rounds of protected and prolonged discussions with the management of Party II company and after series of prolonged and protected bilateral discussions, the Party II(2) company dated 09/08/2017 and majority of the workmen employed with Party II company have accepted the said settlement dated 09/08/2017 and the benefits extended under this settlement.

6. The Party II(2) Union states that the salient features of this settlement are spelt-out hereunder:-

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

1. APPLICABILITY:

This settlement is applicable to all permanent workers working in the above factories who are on the rolls of the company as on the date of signing of this settlement.

2. PERIOD OF SETTLEMENT:

(iii) It is agreed between the parties that this settlement shall be applicable for a period of 3 years and 6 months i.e. from, 1st April 2017 to 30th September 2020.

3. REVISION IN SALARY:

All the workmen shall be paid salary revision as

under:-

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 ALLOWANC:

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 to2102 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 the legal nominee of the deceased worker within 3 months. The deductions will be done from workers employed in Verna Industrial Estate, Verna-Goa.

(ii) On death of a worker it is agreed that employment shall be considered to be given to one of the eligible/capable dependent who is an immediate family member. All other things being equal the next of kin will be preferred.

16. MEDICAL ALLOWANCE:

a) it is agreed between the parties that Rs.1000/- per month, per worker be paid from the month the contribution to the ESIC scheme is stopped and the employee is out of ESIC. The said payment will be paid annually as Medical Allowance. It has been also agreed between the parties that if the ESIC slab changes & employees fall back into the coverage limit against, the allowance of Rs.1000/- per month will be stopped and against they will be covered under the ESIC.

b) It was agreed that the existing Medical Coverage of Rs. 50,000/- would be enhanced to Rs. 75,000/- per worker which includes his family members. The coverage will not cover Maternity benefit in the police. The enhanced coverage will be effective from 1st September 2017. However no arrears shall be paid for any of the past claims from 1st April to 31st August.

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

17. OVERTIME:

It is agreed between the parties that overtime shall be reconsidered by evaluating the productivity increase. However, depending upon the work load, the company would be willing to consider overtime at its discretion.

18. PRODUCTIVITY:

(i) it is agreed between the parties that there will be an increase in productivity from the existing 12000 test/units to minimum 14000 test/units per assembly per 8 hours shift in the existing assemblies.

(ii) In other units where productivity cannot be measured directly in terms of test/units per assembly, there should be a commensurate increase in the No. of units/kits/pack sizes produced to improve productivity & output.

(iii) In case any resources are required, they shall be provided after discussions with the respective unit head.

19. PROMOTION:

It has been agreed between the parties that promotion policy for permanent workers would be looked into once HR based evaluation systems are in place & this could begin from after 2 years from signing of the agreement. The system would measure the individuals based on the skill, efforts and punctuality, discipline and job responsibilities taken to improve productivity.

20. BONUS:

It has been agreed between the parties that the existing workmen shall be categorized as unskilled for FY 16-17 and semi-skilled for FY 17-18 and the bonus shall be paid as per the Payment of Bonus Act 1965. From FY 18-19 & 19-20 once the skilled categories have been assigned the payout can be done based on the same.

21. UNION CONTRIBUTION:

a) It is agreed between the parties that the benefits arising out of this settlement shall be extended to all those workmen who gives an acceptance letter to the Management by signing a Declaration Form annexed to this settlement at Annexure "A".

b) It is agreed between the parties that the Management shall deduct a once time contribution equivalent at the increase in salary & allowances inclusive of seniority allowance of each beneficiary of this settlement as on 1st April 2017 from the arrears payable to each of the workmen who avail the benefits of this settlement at ANNEXURE- "A" annexed to this settlement irrespective of any Union affiliation/ /membership and such deducted amount shall be paid by the Management to the Goa Trade & Commercial Workers' Union by a cheque.

22. ARREARS:

It is agreed between the parties that arrears arising out of the settlement i.e from 1st April'17 to 31st July' 17 shall be paid on or before 10th September 2017, to the workmen who sign the declaration mentioned in Annexure A of this settlement.

23. GENERAL CLAUSES:

a) It is further agreed between the parties that no workmen is entitled to work only in one shift continuously, except for health reasons as certified by the certified medical practitioner.

b) This settlement is in full and final settlement in respect of all the demands raised by the Union and workmen in their charter of Demands dated 22nd February, 2017 and during the discussions, it is clearly understood by and between both the parties that all other demands raised on behalf of the workmen by the Union/workmen and contained in their Charter of Demand dated 22nd February, 2017 which are not specifically dealt with or settled herein were discussed and agreed as withdrawn by the Union/ workman and thus settled.

c) During the operative period of this settlement,

Union/Workmen shall not raise, pursue and/ /or agitate any other demand(s) of whatsoever nature entailing additional financial or administrative impact other than what has been agreed in terms of this settlement. The Union also undertakes to maintain peaceful

and harmonious industrial relations and shall not resort to any strike/Go Slow or any other agitation activities during the period of the settlement and shall follow the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for ventilating their grievances of demands. The workmen shall maintain cordial atmosphere in the respective undertakings and in surrounding arrears during the tenure of the settlement and even after expiry of this settlement and till new settlement is singed in accordance with law.

d) It is also agreed by the Union/workmen that all other terms and conditions of service and privileges and practices as well as rights of the Management shall continue to remain in force unless specifically modified by this settlement.

e) The Union/Workmen agreed that strict discipline will be maintained everywhere in the work premises/precincts and also elsewhere in connection with the employment and shall not interfere with the work of others and they shall not create any obstacle/disturbance in day to day production/productivity as well as in the developmental initiatives.

f) It is agreed between the parties that unless otherwise stated and modified in this settlement, all the existing practices, benefits and Privileges enjoined upon by the workmen shall continue to remain in force unchanged.

g) This settlement shall continue to be in force for the period of the settlement until otherwise it is terminated in accordance with law and shall continue to be in force till new settlement is arrived at in accordance with the law.

h) Every workmen shall sign a letter of acceptance annexed herewith as Annexure- A as a token of his/her acceptance to the terms & conditions of this settlement and the benefits of this settlement shall be extended to the workmen who sign the letter of acceptance annexed hereto at Annexure "A".

i) In case of any revision in salary takes place due to revision by Government over and above the increase given in this settlement, the Management agrees to give such salary increase to the workmen.

7) The Party II(2) Union states that the above settlement is linked to the productivity and in clause (19) of the said settlement all the parties have agreed to give an increased productivity from existing 12,000/- tests/units to minimum of 14,000 tests/units in 8-hours shift.

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 ensuring2104 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 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) read with Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act, 1947 with the sole object of ensuring industrial peace and harmony, ensuring upward revision in the existing salaries of its member workers and by extending them several benefits, allowances and benefits under the said settlement.

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

ISSUES

1. Whether the Party I proves that the Charter of Demands raised by it vide their letter dated 28/11/2016 is legal and justified?

2. Whether the Party I proves that the Party I has locus standi to raise the dispute or represent Party I workmen?

3. Whether the Party II proves that the demands raised by the Party I are liable to be rejected as the demands cannot be a subject matter of an Industrial Dispute?

4. Whether the Party II proves that the demands have been raised on part of the Company and therefore it is bad in law?

5. What Relief? What Award?

23. During the course of evidence the Party I examined its first witness Shri P. Gaonkar who is the General Secretary of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and through this witness brought on record copy of letter dated 28/11/2016 by Party I at Exhibit 36, copy of letter dated 20/06/2017 by Par ty II at Exhibit 37, copy of letter dated 10/07/2017 by Party I at Exhibit 38, copy of letter dated 26/07/2017 by Party II at Exhibit 39, copy of letter dated 04/08/2017 by Party I at Exhibit 40,2105 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 brought on record the copy of Confirmation Letter of the worker dated 10/11/2014 and Promotion Letter dated 11/03/2011 at Exhibit 66-Colly.

25. The Party II examined its witness Mrs. Sharmila Nadkarni working as an Assistant General Manager of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and through this witness brought on record copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 23/02/2008 at Exhibit 69, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 24/01/2011 at Exhibit 70, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22/05/2014 at Exhibit 71, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10/06/2014 at Exhibit 72, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 09/08/2017 at Exhibit 73, copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 22/07/2021 at Exhibit 74, copy of Minutes of the meeting of the Par tners of M/s Orchid Biomedical Systems dated 25/01/2017 at Exhibit 75, copy of Pay Slip for the month of April, 2017 before signing of the Settlement at Exhibit 76, copy of settlement showing year wise increase in salary/ emoluments at Exhibit 77, copy of Notice dated 30th January, 2017 at Exhibit 78, copy of letter dated 07/10/2017 sent to Dy. Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 79, copy of notice dated 15/09/2017 displayed on the Notice Board at Exhibit 80, copy of letter dated 19/01/2018 sent to Asst. Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 81, copy of letter dated 11/06/2018 sent to Asst. Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 82, copy of Writ Petition No.1058/19 filed by workmen/Party I with regard to challenge of Award rejecting interim relief at Exhibit 83 and copies of 29 declaration of workmen who have accepted settlement dated 09/08/2017 at Exhibit 84 Colly. During cross-examination a copy of the document showing that the salary was given as per Exh. 73 from August 2017 was brought on record at Exhibit 86-D, a copy of the declarations signed by the members of GMS (14 declarations) at Exhibit 87-D, and a copy of the Notification of Government of Goa dated 24/05/2016 at Exhibit 89-D and a letter dated 6/09/2021 issued to the DLC Margao along with the covering letter dated 6/09/2021 at Exhibit 90-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.

copy of settlement dated 09/08/2017 between Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. and their workmen at Exhibit 41, copy of letter dated 10/08/2017 by Party I to Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 42, copy of minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 11/08/2017 at Exhibit 43, copy of letter dated 14/08/2017 by Party I at Exhibit 44, copy of letter dated 14/08/2017 by Party I to the Labour Commissioner at Exhibit 45, copy of report of failure of conciliation proceedings dated 09/10/2017 at Exhibit 46, copy of settlement dated 26/11/2012 between Party II and their workmen at Exhibit 47, copy of settlement dated 22/05/2014 between Party II and their workmen at Exhibit 48, copy of settlement dated 13/07/2015 between Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and their workmen at Exhibit 49, copy of settlement dated 04/12/2015 between Indoco Remedies Ltd. and their workmen at Exhibit 50, copy of settlement dated 25/05/2016 between Betts India Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen at Exhibit 51, copy of settlement dated 30/05/2017 between Nestle India Ltd. and their workmen at Exhibit 52, copy of Appointment Letters of workers of Zephyr Biomedical at Exhibit 53 Colly, copy of Pay Slips of workers working in ZEP division for the month of April, 2016; May, 2016; June, 2016; April, 2017; May, 2017; June, 2017 and July, 2017 at Exhibit 54 Colly, copy of Appointment Letters of workers of Orchid Biomedical Systems at Exhibit 55 Colly, copy of Pay Slips of workers working in ORC division for the month of April, 2016; June, 2016; March, 2016; April, 2017; May, 2017; June, 2017 and July, 2017 at Exhibit 56 Colly; copy of Appointment letters of workers of Qualpro Diagnostics at Exhibit 57 Colly, copy of Pay Slips of workers working in Qualpro Division for the month of April, 2016; June, 2016; March, 2016; April, 2017; May, 2017; June, 2017 and July, 2017 at Exhibit 58 Colly, 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 59 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 60 Colly. During cross- examination of this witness the documents brought on record were a copy of Affidavit/Pg. 98 dated 27/01/2017 at Exhibit 61, a copy of the letter dated 03/04/2008 submitted by the witness to the Management to show his majority at Exhibit 62-D Colly, copy of letter dated 14/06/2017 made to the Party II along with the list of the members at Exhibit 63-D Colly.

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 24. The Party I examined its second witness Shri Prakash Naik and during his cross-examination2106 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 going through the same, I have given my reasons and findings on the issues which are framed and the same are as follows:

Issue No. 1 … Negative Issue No. 3 & 4 … Affirmative Issue No. 2 … Negative Issue No. 5 … As per the Final Order

REASONS

Issue No.1, 3 and 4

28. Issue No. 1, 3 and 4 are discussed together for the sake of convenience and also as they are interconnected inspite of being the fact that the burden of Issue No.1 is on Party I, and the burden of Issue No. 3 and 4 is on Party II(1) to be proved because if Issue No.1 is answered in the negative, then automatically issue No.3 and 4 have to be answered in the affirmative and therefore they are taken up for discussion together.

29. The Workmen have examined Shri P. Gaonkar who is the General Secretary of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and he represents the workers in the reference i.e. Party I and Shri Prakash Naik as the second witness of Party I. The Employer/Party II(1) has examined Smt. Sharmila Nadkarni, working as an Assistant General Manager of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. as their first witness after which they closed their case.

30. It is the contention and the case of Party I that M/s Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. is the Company which owns the Employer/Party II along with the other independent Factories and establishments namely; Orchid Biomedicals and Qualpro Diagnostics 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 36 to 60 Colly and I have perused all these documents in deciding the instant case.

31. The Party I vide their Charter of Demand dated 28/11/2016 gave notice of intention to terminate the existing settlement dated 22/05/2014 to which, the Party II(1) sent a reply dated 20/06/2017 stating that the GMS could not have raised the said Charter of Demand since it does not have the majority and that the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union who is Party II(2) enjoyed the majority. This is the major dispute between the Parties to their present reference. From the evidence and the documents on record, it is seen that the settlement dated 22/05/2014 and 10/06/2014 is not validly terminated and that all the workmen of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. including the members of Party I signed the settlement dated 22/05/2014 and 10/06/2014 after signing the Requisite Declaration. The settlement was signed for a period of three years and three months i.e. 01/01/2014 to 31/03/2017 and the terms of the said settlement were binding on all the Parties to the settlement as a settlement can be validly terminated by giving a written notice of two months prior to the expiry date mentioned in the settlement, secondly by giving a clear intention to terminate the settlement and thirdly by giving a notice by a Party representing the majority of persons bound by the said settlement. This is the necessity u/s 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as it is mandatory for the Union to terminate the settlement in the prescribed manner. That, u/s 19(7) of the Industrial Disputes Act postulates that before raising any demands, only the majority Union has to terminate the existing settlement u/s 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

32. Learned Advocate Shri M. S. Bandodkar for Party II(1) has placed reliance on the authority reported in the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. and Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat and others (1968) 1 LLJ, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a mere demand to a Government without a dispute being raised by the workmen with their Employer cannot become an industrial dispute and such a dispute will not be a genuine dispute raised on behalf of the workmen and would not constitute an 'industrial dispute'.

33. It is seen that the Employer used to run its manufacturing activities under various names such as Orchid, Zephyr, Qualpro and others. They were individual partnership concerns but all were under the Management of M/s Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. which is the employer for all purposes and different Trade Unions had been operated in the units of the Employer over the years and there has never been any majority Union till dated. This can be seen from settlements at Exh. 70 which was with Orchid, Qualpro and Zephyr Verna Employees Union and Exh. 71 which was with another Union namely; Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. From the evidence it is clear2107 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 that the true Employer is and was Tulip diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and it used to manage its production in its different units/divisions namely Orchid, Qualpro, Zephyr etc. The clear indication of this position comes from the fact that the individual workmen who had signed the settlement at Exh. 70 were employed in either Orchid, Zephyr or Qualpro. For example, Custodio Lucas, Chandrashekar Shirodkar and Dulo Naik were with Zephyr and Prasad Chanekar and Vishal Naik were employed at Orchid. All of them had signed the settlement dated 24/01/2011 which governed the service conditions in the Party II(1) Company at the relevant time. This settlement dated 24/01/2011 was never terminated by the Employer in accordance with Section 19 of the Act and the Party I on the other hand did not have any obligation. To terminate this settlement as Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh was not a Party to this settlement. It is submitted that under Section 19 only 'Parties' have the onus to terminate the settlement and not non-Parties.

34. It is the contention of the Party I that by letter dated 28/11/2016 at Exh. 36, the Party I/Union had raised Charter of Demands on the Employer and by this letter, the Union had asked the Management to have a discussion on wage revision and that there was also an intention to terminate previous settlement dated 22/05/2014 with Bharatiya Kamgar Sena. This Charter of demand was not responded to either by any of the individual divisions like Orchid, Qualpro or Zephyr and also by Tulip diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. In January, 2017, the Employer had merged all its divisions into Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and Exh. 78 is a Notice dated 30/01/2017 showing that w.e.f. 01/02/2017 all individual Units including Orchid, Zephyr and Qualpro were transferred to Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. It is further contended that it is Employer's own case that the previous settlements have already been terminated.

35. It is the contention of the Party I/Union that the demands raised by the Union are the need of the hour for all the workers in the establishment and if an Award is made by this Tribunal accepting the Charter of Demands dated 28/11/2016, it will be applicable to all the workers and that under Section 18(3) of the Act, an Award made by the Tribunal is binding on under Clause (a) on all the parties and under Clause (d) on all the workmen employed at the establishment. It is further contended that there is an urgent need to revise and standardize the wages in the establishment and this is so because the purchasing power of the wages currently being received has drastically fallen during the relevant period for which the Party I Union wanted the Employer to consider the demands i.e. 2017 to 2020. The All India Consumer Price Index (AICPI) has shown exponential increase during this period and the index numbers (Base 1960=100) have increased from 6262 in the beginning of 2017 to 7845 in the end of 2020 which means the AICPI has increased by 25.7% points for the relevant period which itself is enough reason to seek the wage revision.

36. The law regarding wage-fixation has been settled and the principles pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will have to be followed by the Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated these well settled principles in Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. V/s Workmen (1967) 1 SCR 652 at Para 9 which is as under:

"9. At the outset, it will be convenient to consider the question of principle. The object of industrial law is two-fold, namely, (i) to improve the service conditions of industrial labour so as to provide them the ordinary amenities of life, and (ii) by that process, to bring about industrial peace which would in its turn accelerate productive activity of the country resulting in its prosperity. The prosperity of the Country, in its turn, helps to improve the conditions of labour. By this process, it is hoped that the standard of life of the labour can be progressively raised from the stage of minimum wage, passing through need found wage, fair wage, to living wage. Industrial adjudication reflected in the judgments of tribunals and the Courts have evolved some principles governing wage fixation 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 36 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 a2108 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 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 evidence to show that any Demand or termination was ever raised on Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. and/or Party II(1).

38. From the evidence on record it is seen that divisions as sought to be created and mentioned in the Statement of Claim by Party I, the same is a figment of imagination of Party I. Since no division exists as mentioned by Party I and having raised the demand in that way, the demand ought to be rejected. It was also informed to Party I that they were the minority and that the Union representing the majority has submitted their Charter of Demands. The Party I Union vide communication dated 10/07/2017 submitted that Tulip has forcefully entered the names of the workers represented by Party I on the Rolls of the new Company and in the absence of a Tripartite Agreement, they cannot be termed as workers of the newly formed Company.

39. Now coming to the evidence of Shri P. Gaonkar on behalf of the Party I Union and it is seen that his cross-examination has been miserably shaken on all material grounds which is evident from his deposition. He could not depose to the questions asked vis-à-vis his documents and this becomes clear from his entire cross-examination. He has admitted in cross that he has not produced nor there is any document to show that he is the General Secretary of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and he has signed the Claim Statement. His clarification on this point that the General Secretary is elected at the General Body of the Union in the meeting and as such this document is not available to him cannot be accepted.

40 Further, he has admitted that Party II is manufacturing and marketing in vitro diagnostic re-agent kits and instruments and also admitted that he has not denied this statement in his Rejoinder. Further, he has admitted that and the same is as follows which admissions are relevant to decide the present reference:

1. Party II(1) presently has three divisions and the reference has come of one individual Factory as at that time these were separate Factories and subsequently they were merged in one.

2. It is true that on his Affidavit-in-Evidence at Page-98 Para-9 it is agreed and mentioned that after the closing date, each partnership entity shall operate as a division of Tulip Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. under the name and style of Erstwhile Partnership Entity.

3. It is true that I have not filed the Resolution dated 27/11/2016 stating that the workers have resolved to terminate the settlement dated 22/05/2014.

4. It is true that I did not send the copy of the Resolution to the Company but I have sent a letter informing the Company about it and further stated that the letter at Exh. 36 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. 40 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 one2109 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 more Union existing by name Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union represented by Shri Christopher Fonseca.

11. It is true that till date any Orders passed by this Tribunal or by the Hon'ble High Court, they have not mentioned anywhere that the settlement dated 09/08/2017 is unfair and not reasonable and further admitted that he has not challenged independently before any Authority that the settlement dated 09/08/2017 is unfair and unreasonable and has further admitted that he has not calculated as to how much money the said 18 workers lost for not accepting the settlement dated 09/08/2017 at Exh. 84 Colly.

12. It is true that on Exh.62-D Colly and 63-D Colly which were produced in cross which are the documents related to show his majority that he produced both these documents in cross for the first time before this Court and Exh.62-D Colly is not addressed to the Management but it is addressed to the General Secretary, GMS, Ponda-Goa.

13. It is true that on Exh.62-D Colly it is mentioned that the workers would like to join the Union and further admitted that there was no acknowledgement on Exh.62-D Colly that it has been acknowledged by the General Secretary of the Union and according to him their Union is not in the habit of issuing acknowledgement slips which explanation is not satisfactory to my mind.

14. It is true that no membership receipts are

enclosed to Exh.62-D Colly.

15. It is true that Party I did not produce the copy of the Resolution before this Tribunal seeking to raise the demand on the Management and also admitted that there are no pleadings to the effect that the settlement which is signed with Party II(2) is malafide, fraud, corrupt or any other inducement to sign the settlement.

16. It is true that on Exh.63-D Colly, all the divisions mentioned in the said letter were known as Tulip Diagnostics Ltd. and that they were merged into Tulip Diagnostics Ltd.

17. It is true that he does not know if the said Company has signed four settlement dates apart from the Settlement dated 09/08/2017 and further admitted that no settlements were signed with him and all the settlement dates were accepted by his members without any reservations.

18. It is true that I have not produced the Membership Register of the workers/Union and he stated that he has produced the names of the list of the members.

19. He admitted that he does not know how many workers have accepted the Settlement dated 09/08/2017 as of today.

20. He admitted that he does not remember about the settlement dated 09/08/2017 signed with the Party II(2).

21. It is true that I have not produced Minutes of the General Body Meeting dated 13/08/2017 before this Tribunal and further admitted that nothing has been stated with regard to the Settlement dated 09/08/2017 signed with the Party II(2) and the Company inspite there being two complaints.

22. He further admitted that the document which he has produced at Exh.63-D Colly and 2013 Settlement was signed with individual Company and it was three different settlements signed with three Companies.

23. It is true that it is not mentioned by him anywhere in the Failure Report the settlement signed by Party II(1) and the Union is by, coercion, duress and false promises, fraud, corruption and other inducements given to the workers.

24. It is true that what product is manufactured by Party II(1)/Zephyris 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.49, 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.49 is not the same as mentioned on Exh. 41.

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 the2110 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 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 Zephyr Biomedical Systems. Infact Zephyr 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 existing settlement under 19(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act which is not so in this case.

43. The evidence on record shows that the workers/the members of the Party I Union in the year 2016 when the demands were raised as the Failure Report dated 09/10/2017 at Exh. 46 does not show or prove that the General Secretary had furnished it to the Dy. Labour Commissioner proving his majority prior to the Failure Report and the Party II(1) Company was informed about any majority of the workers had joined the Union prior to raising the Charter of Demands. Hence, it clearly proves that in the year 2016, these workmen were not the members of Party I Union.

44. At this juncture, reliance is placed in the Authority reported in the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. and Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat 1968 (1) LLJ 834 and in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate V/s Dimakuchi Tea Estate 1958 SCR 1156 that an industrial dispute, as defined, must be a dispute between employers and employers, employers and workmen, workmen and workmen and according to Party II(1) since in the case in hand there is nothing to indicate that the workmen had espoused the dispute, hence, I come to the conclusion that Shri P. Gaonkar had no authority on behalf of the workmen/Party I Union.

45. The evidence also shows that there are no documents to show that the letters at Exh. 62-D Colly and 63-D Colly were received by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and moreover Shri P. Gaonkar has admitted that he has not produced any list of workers at the time of raising Charter of Demands, nor at the time of filing the Claim Statement before this Tribunal nor at the time of his evidence and above all Shri P. Gaonkar has admitted that he has not produced any documents to show that he is the General Secretary of the said Party I Union. The admissions made by Shri P. Gaonkar conclusively proves that no Resolution was ever taken by the workmen authorizing the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and Shri P. Gaonkar as its General Secretary to raise the dispute and so also to indicate that the workmen joined the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh. This is more clear on the admission of Shri. P. Gaonkar 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'ble Apex Court has held that the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act is a creature of that statue. It acquires jurisdiction on the basis of reference made to it. The Tribunal has to confine itself within the scope of the subject matter of reference and cannot travel beyond the same. It is for this reason that it becomes the bounden duty of the appropriate Government to make the reference appropriately which is reflective of the real/exact nature of "dispute" between the parties.

2. Central Bank Employee's Union &Ors V/s Central Bank of India & Ors. reported in the Hon'ble Bombay High Court W.P No. 1293 of 1990 dated 14/06/1994 has held it is well settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court of India that even if the settlement hurts some persons the totality is required to be seen and if the settlement is in the large interest of the employees and in pursuance of the managerial function, then the said settlement should not be disturbed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The sequence of events indicate that the impugned settlement merely provided on additional avenue whereby stenos in the main-stream were given an opportunity. If they so desire, to opt for the steno officers post by a particular date. This was in view of the fact that the post of steno officers was created prior to 1990 and since vacancies arose in the said category an additional option was given by the Bank to the stenos to join by a particular date. If they so desire from the general category to the specialist category. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the Agreement was arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Employee's Union v/s G.M.D Corporation reported in the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court 2001 LLR 346 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held it is required to be noted that under the Industrial Disputes Act, the settlements and awards are binding on the persons as provided for by Section 18 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act refers to the period of operation of settlements and awards. The scheme of Section 19 appears to be that the settlements and awards shall be binding on the parties as per the memorandum of settlement. The date of operation and the period till which2112 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022

   the  settlement  shall  continue  to  bind  the        extraneous  considerations  and  not  in  the
   parties is indicated in Section 19. Therefore,         interest  of  the  workmen  concerned.
   when there is a settlement for a limited period,
                                                       5. Air India Employees Guild, Mumbai v/s Air
   the  same  shall  bind  the  parties  for  that
                                                          India, Ltd. Mumbai, and others reported in
   limited period and further held that it is well
                                                          the  Hon'ble  High  Court  of  Judicature  at
   known that under the Industrial Disputes Act,
                                                          Bombay  Writ  Petitions  Nos.  2544  of  2004
   the  parties  are  entering  into  an  agreement.
                                                          and 1452 of 2005 dated 21/12/2006 where in
   Under  Section  2(p)  of  the  Act  for  a  period
                                                          the  employer  and  Unions  in  the  industry
   which  might  have  been  mentioned  in  the
                                                          which accept the Code of Discipline have to
   agreement  and  if  the  period  is  mentioned,
                                                          follow  the  method  of  verification  of
   then  the  parties  would  bind  themselves  to
                                                          membership as laid down therein. Once the
   act according to the terms of the agreement
                                                          procedure  is  accepted,  it  is  not  open  to  any
   for a limited period as mentioned. After expiry
                                                          of the parties who agree to abide by the code
   of  the  said  period,  the  contract  is
                                                          of  Discipline  to  seek  a  procedure  different
   extinguished. It is open for the parties to enter
                                                          from  the  procedure  agreed.  The  code  of
   into agreement for further period. It depends
                                                          Discipline  admittedly  does  not  provide  for
   on the bargaining factor and both sides will
                                                          deciding who has the majority of membership,
   consider their own interest and will arrive at
                                                          by  holding  secret  ballot.
   a  binding  decision.
4. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (represented           6. Deepak  Industrial,  Ltd.,  and  another  v/s
   by  its  Partners),  Mysore  v/s  Workmen              State of West Bengal and others reported in
   (represented  by  Secretary,  Mangalore                the  Hon'ble  High  Court  of  Judicature  at
   Ganesh  Beedi  Workers  and  Allied  Beedi             Calcutta  Appeal  against  Original  Order
   Factories  Workers  Association),  Mysore              No. 271 of 1972 dated 11/10/1974 held  that
   reported  in  the  Hon'ble  High  Court  of            the amended S, 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
   Judicature at Karnataka 2004 (3)L.L.N. 696             makes it clear that when an individual dispute
   wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that           is  not  sponsored  by  other  workmen  of
   it is well settled that the court is not entitled      espoused by the Union of the workmen even
   to  scan  a  settlement  in  bits  and  pieces  and    then it would be deemed to be an industrial
   hold  some  parts  not  or  not  so  good  for         dispute  within  the  meaning  of  the  Act.  In
   workmen. The court should look at settlement           spite of the said amendment which brings in
   as  a  whole,  unless  it  can  be  demonstrated       individual  dispute  within  the  scope  of  the
   that the objectionable portion is such that it         Act  it  has  not  made  any  difference  on  the
   completely  out  weights  all  the  other              principles  as  to  what  would  constitute  an
   advantage gained the Court should be slow              industrial dispute within the meaning of the
   to  hold  a  settlement  as  unfair  and  unjust.      Industrial  Disputes  Act.  If  it  is  an  industrial
   The  burden  of  proof  that  the  terms  of           dispute,  that  is  a  dispute  raised  by  an
   settlement are unfair or unreasonable lies on          individual,  it  must  be  raised  by  him  and
   the  respondent-union  and  not  on  the               reference  may  be  made  in  due  course  for
   management.  It  is  so  because,  settlements         adjudication under the said Act. On the other
   are  accepted  by  vast  majority  of  workmen         hand, if a group of workmen raised a dispute
   and  they  have  received  the  benefits  and          that can also constitute an industrial dispute
   advantages  of  the  settlement  without  any          within the meaning of the Act which may be
   demur and protest. The majority of workmen             referred  to  the  Tribunal;  in  due  course.  But
   have  also  not  complained  to  the  Industrial       when  the  dispute  is  espoused  or  sponsored
   Tribunal  against  the  terms  of  settlement.  In     by a union judicial decisions have uniformly
   the context, it is reasonable to presume that          held, that when the authority of the union is
   the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable       challenged by the employer, it must be proved
   and  amicable  to  the  workmen  concerned.  It        by  production  of  material  evidence.
   the  respondent-union  contests  such  a
   presumption,  it  is  for  the  respondent-union . 7. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company
   to lead evidence to show that the settlements          Limited  V/s  Their  Workmen,  reporting  in
   are  fair  and  unreasonable  or  they  were           the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  (1981)  4  SCC
   entered  into  between  the  parties  for  some        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 were accepted by the workmen including me without any objections.

4. It is correct that all these settlements have been signed by the Internal Committee and the Internal Union and thereafter with the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union and he has also admitted further that it is correct that the structure-wise settlements signed with the Union were same.

5. 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.

6. It is true that from the documents which are produced by me before this Court, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that their Union Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh is majority or minority and also admitted that the settlement dated 09/08/2017 is not accepted by 19 workmen. He could not answer as to who are the said 19 workmen who had not signed the settlement dated 09/08/2017 as he stated that he is not aware.

7. It is true that in my Affidavit-in-Evidence I have not mentioned as to the number of membership of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh including myself and further admitted that a Notice was also displayed stating that the workmen should accept the settlement dated 22/07/2021 by signing the declaration and the contents of this settlement were read over and explained to them by the Management.

8. He further admitted that I say that I have signed the declaration for accepting the settlement dated 22/07/2021 and while giving this declaration he put certain conditions before the Company for accepting the settlement but as the Company did not accept the conditions put forth by him, he could not get any benefits from the Settlement dated 22/07/2021.

9. It is true that except 19 workmen, all other workmen signed the declaration unconditionally and accepted the settlement dated 22/07/2021 in toto.

10. He further admitted that it is correct that by the earlier settlement dated 09/08/2017, the workers got the benefit around Rs. 9,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. It is correct that new settlement which has been signed in 2021, the workers got the benefit of around Rs.11,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. It is correct that both the settlements have been accepted by majority of the workmen. It is correct that majority of the workers are members of both the Unions. It is correct that both the settlements have been accepted by the Members of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh also in toto.

11. It is true that by not accepting both the settlements dated 09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021, I suffered a monetary loss of Rs. 20,000/- and by not accepting both these settlements, the monetary loss is a very bad thing that happened to me.

12. It is correct that after knowing that settlement dated 09/08/2017 has been signed by Party II(2) thereafter only our union wrote a letter to Dy. Labour Commissioner on the next day. It is correct that the Union has sent only the letter dated 10/08/2017 which is at Exh. 42. It is correct that with this letter the Union did not enclose any document showing majority of Gomantak Mazdoor Sang and that Exh. 42 does not indicate anywhere in the Failure Report that the list of the majority was filed before the Conciliation Officer. It is correct that after signing the settlement with the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union, the matter was admitted in conciliation on 10/08/2017. It is correct that thereafter we gave a letter dated 14/08/2017 to the Management which is at Exh. 44 and that we had given the letter in July, 2017. It is true that I have not produced this letter of July, 2017 before this Court.

13. I do not know what action was taken by the Dy. Labour Commissioner on the Management made on our complaint. Thereafter, the Dy. Labour Commissioner sent the Failure Report to the Government.

14. We have never raised any objection for Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Internal Unions when they signed settlement with the Company. I have not produced letter dated 28/11/2016 sent to the Management.

15. It is true that the Management wrote a letter dated 20/06/2017 to us stating that we had no majority in the Union.

16. It is true that at that time the total workmen employed were around 310 in the entire three establishments/total group in the said Company. We had sent a letter informing our strength of the workmen along with the names to the Dy. Labour Commissioner but not to the Management. It is true that it was brought to our notice that we were having thin minority by the Management.

17. It is true that the proceedings before the Dy. Labour Commissioner ended in a Failure Report.

18. It is true that though we had made a complaint before the Dy. Labour Commissioner that the Management was following unfair labour practices, but I do not know what action was taken by the Dy. Labour Commissioner on the Management on these allegations. The local Committee of our Union was formed after the settlement dated 09/08/2017 was signed with Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union.

19. It is true that all the settlements till date signed with the different Unions have the same structural features. It is true that the category of all the workers is the same which is semi-skilled workers. We did not make any representation to the Company alleging that there was disparity between the salaries of newcomers and old workers which caused discontentment between the workers.

20. It is true that in the present reference we had filed an application for Interim Relief and the same was dismissed. It is true that the settlement dated 09/08/2017 was signed with the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union accepted by all the workmen except 19 workmen. It is true that the settlement dated 22/07/2021 signed with the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union has been also accepted by all the workmen except 19 workmen.

21. It is true that old workers are getting more salary and the new ones are getting less salary. We have not written any letter to the Company 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    certain principles which the Apex Court has
      10/06/2014, the basic salary is increased every        laid down in the forefront and to consider the
      year. In the settlement dated 09/08/2017 also          fact that upward revision in wages must be
      basic salary is increased every year. It is true       given  if  the  circumstances  so  warrant.  The
      that FDA is also increased by Rs. 650/-.               Apex  Court  has  held  in  a  number  of  cases
                                                             that  the  Industrial  Tribunal  must  strive  to
  23. It is correct that in this settlement the workers
                                                             endeavor  to  see  that  workers  are  paid  fair
      have agreed to increase the productivity from
                                                             wages and not merely the minimum wages.
      12,000  to  14,000  units.  I  have  produced  two
                                                             Fair wages are something less than the living
      settlements  of  Indoco  and  Geno  which  are
                                                             wages which are the ultimate foal, and more
      both pharma companies.
                                                             than the minimum wages which must be paid
  24. It is true that whether  a workman is skilled,         in any event. Fair wages which are fixed at a
      semi-skilled or unskilled is a decision of the         particular  time  may  not  remain  fair  with
      Management. We get the bonus @ 20% as per              passage and the price increase and, therefore,
      the  Payment  of  Bonus  Act.  It  is  true  that      a revision in wages is necessary. To a certain
      contract  workers  are  being  paid  minimum           extent, this disparity is made up by payment
      wages as per the Act.                                  of dearness allowance, but as the Apex Court
                                                             has  consistently  taken  a  view  that  100%
  25. It is true that my present salary is Rs. 15,497/- is   neutralization is not advisable, it is necessary
      because I have not accepted the settlements            to  sufficiently  bridge  the  gap  between  the
      dated  09/08/2017  and  21/07/2021.  It  is  true      wages  and  cost  of  living  by  revision  of  the
      that  all  the  contract  workers  are  paid           wages  as  also  the  dearness  allowance.  The
      minimum wages independent of the years of              mere  fact  that  the  is  an  increase  in  the
      service.                                               Consumer  Price  index,  justifies  an  upward
                                                             revision.
  26. It  is  true  that  presently  all  the  workers  are
      working in peace and harmony in the Factory.        2. Transport Corp. of India Ltd. V/s MRMT &
      It  is  true  that  only  19  workers  have  not       G.  K.  Union,  2002  (3)  LLJ  835,the  Hon'ble
      accepted both the settlements as mentioned             High Court of Bombay has observed that "14.
      above.                                                 The contention of the Learned Counsel for the
                                                             Petitioners that unless the workman steps into
   52.  Learned  Adv.  Shri  S.  P.  Gaonkar  has  placed
                                                             the witness box and leads evidence to justify
reliance  on  the  following  authorities:
                                                             his  demand,  it  would  not  be  open  for  the
   1. Transport  Corporation  of  India  Ltd.  V/s           Tribunal to consider any wage increase must
      MRMT  &  G.  K.  Union,  2002  (3)  LLJ  835           also  be  negative.  This  is  because  the  mere
      wherein  the  Hon'ble  Bombay  High  Court             change  in  circumstance  of  the  rise  in  the
      observed as under while explaining the Apex            Consumer Price Index is sufficient to warrant
      Court's decision in Kamani Steel Metals Ltd.           an  upward  revision  in  wages.  What  is  the
                                                             Consumer  Price  Index  prevailing  at  the  time
  "9. The Apex Court in Kamani Steel Metal (supra)           when the demand is raised or when the dispute
      has  while  rejecting  the  submission  of  the        is referred for adjudication or when Tribunal
      Employer  that  there  was  no  change  of             makes an Award is a matter of record based
      circumstance  justifying  a  revision  of  wages,      on the Notifications issued by the Government
      pay  scales  or  dearness  allowance  observed         from time to time. Therefore, the oral evidence
      that judicial notice must be taken of the fact         of the workman would be of no assistance to
      that commodity prices have soared high, the            prove  this  fact.  Further  Balance  Sheets  and
      general  level  of  wages  has  gone  up  and  in      Profit and Loss Accounts which are necessary
      some industries there have been two or three           to show the financial capacity of an Employer
      revisions  already  and  in  some  others  Wage        are  maintained  by  the  Employer  and  the
      Boards  have  been  appointed  while                   workman again would not be  of no assistance
      adjudicating a wage reference. I has further           to prove this fact. Further Balance Sheets and
      observed that if inspite of these factors there        Profit and Loss Accounts which are necessary
      has been no upward revision in the Company,            to show the financial capacity of an Employer
      the demand would be justified. Therefore, it           are  maintained  by  the  Employer  and  the
      is  obvious  that  while  adjudicating  the            workman  again  would  not  be  able  to  throw
      reference, the Tribunal was required to keep           any  light  on  these  aspects  as  the  financial

   capacity is to be assessed by the Tribunal from         recommend the same rate for workers in higher
   the record made available to it. This record is         wage  groups  for  fear  that  it  may  spark  off
   to be produced by the Employer if he pleads             inflationary trends. Normally, such a Dearness
   financial inability to implement the burden of          Allowance formula suffers from two drawbacks,
   an  increased  wage  structure.  The  burden  of        (i) it has the pernicious effect of distorting the
   proof to show that he has no financial capacity         wage-structure  and  (ii)  it  results  in  a  sharp
   to  withstand  the  burden  imposed  upon  it           erosion of real income, particularly of those in
   would  be  on  the  Employer  as  it  is  he  who       the higher wage groups. Generally speaking,
   knows his financial position and the conclusive         the distortion of the wage-structure takes place
   proof of that are the Balance Sheets which are          because employees in different pay scales are
   normally in his possession. In the instant case,        granted Dearness Allowance not at a uniform
   the Tribunal has considered and assessed the            rate but at a tapering rate, i.e. the workers in
   financial capacity of the transporters to bear          the lower scales getting a higher neutralization
                                                           as  compared  to  those  in  the  higher  pay
   the burden by taking into account the Balance
                                                           brackets  in  whose  case  the  neutralization
   Sheets  and  the  Profit  and  Loss  Accounts  of
                                                           percentage  diminishes  with  the  rise  in  basic
   those who had produced them on record. He
                                                           wage. That is because it is believed that those
   has  rightly  drawn  adverse  inference  against
                                                           in the higher pay brackets have a cushion to
   those employers who had not cared to produce
                                                           absorb  the  brunt  of  inflation".
   these documents or to substantiate their claim
   that  they  do  not  have  the  capacity  to         4. Transport Corp. of India Ltd. V/s MRMT &
   withstand  financial  burden  which  would  be          G. K. Union, 2002 (3) LLJ 835, (already cited
   imposed upon them due to the demands. The               above)  where  the  first  principles  have  been
   Tribunal considered the fact that most of the           explained and it has also been held that the
   Employers  neither  appeared  no  filed  their          Tribunal  has  the  power  to  even  grant
   Balance Sheets and Profit and Loss Accounts             demands more than claimed.
   or  the  Statement  of  Salaries.  The  statement
                                                        5. Mukand  Limited  C/s  Mukand  Staff
   recording the strength of the employees also
                                                           Association,  2001  (4)  LLN  682  wherein  the
   was not produced and since all these factors
                                                           Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has observed
   were within the knowledge of the transporters,
                                                           that "At the outset, it would be well to have
   the Tribunal has drawn an adverse inference
                                                           regard to the fact, that industrial adjudication
   and  held  that  the  transporters  were  able  to
                                                           is  not  an  exercise  involving  a  pure
   bear the burden".
                                                           mathematical  computation.  Statistics  and
3. Hindustan Unilever C/s B. N. Dongre, (1994)             figures  are  undoubtedly  important  facets  of
   6  SCC  157  wherein  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court         the  process  of  wage  fixation  but,  in  the
   has  observed  that  "the  concept  of  Dearness        practical  application  of  the  region-cum-
   Allowance, the second most important element            industry  formula,  difficulties  do  arise  before
   in a worker's wage-plan next to the basic wage,         the industrial adjudicator. The circumstances
   was introduced during the second World War              relating  to  two  industries  within  the  same
   to meet the increase in the cost of living caused       region or two establishments within the same
   by inflation. It was either linked to the cost of       industry in the same region, can rarely, if ever,
   living  index  or  was  given  by  way  of  flat        be  identical.  Each  establishment  in  the
   increases.  When  linked  to  the  former,  it  was     industry  is  bound  to  have  its  own  peculiar
   granted to all the income groups at a flat rate         characteristics  relating  not  merely  to  the
   or was graded on a scale admissible to different        nature of its business but, also those relating
   income  groups  diminishing  with  rise  in             to  its  own  peculiar  industrial  relations
   income.  Basically,  the  concept  of  dearness         scenario.  The  industrial  adjudicator  cannot
   allowance  was  designed  to  combat  inflation         throw  up  his  hands  in  despair  when
   and protect real wages and therefore it would           confronted with the problems of adjudication.
   appear  that  there  should  be  cent  percent          In making comparisons under the region-cum-
   neutralization.  This  is  a  concept  peculiar  to     industry formula, the adjudicator has to assess
   India, Ceylon, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The             the  data  which  has  been  produced  before
   National  commission  of  Labour  (1969)                him. Extrapolation of data is not a mechanical
   recommended 95% neutralization for minimum              process  and  any  exercise  involving  the
   wage  earners  but  it  was  reluctant  to              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. 69 to 84 Colly in support of their case. Her testimony with the support of all these documents establishes and proves the case of the Party II(1). Her cross-examination could not be shaken on any material aspect and throughout she maintained and proved with the documents that all the establishments as mentioned by Party I as divisions are not financially independent and they are altogether the establishments of the same Company i.e. of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. and Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. has singed the settlement of all its establishments at Verna which is called as 'division' by Party I. That according to her Orchid, Zephyr, Qualpro Diagnostics are not 'divisions' of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. but they are part and parcel of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. financially or otherwise and therefore the demand placed on the divisions of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. is bad in law and needs to be rejected. She has also stated that the Party II(1) has signed a comprehensive settlement with Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union on their Charter of Demands dated 22/02/ 2017 which is a majority Union and the said settlement has been signed on 09/08/2017 and accepted by majority Union without any exception by all the establishments of Party II(1) at Verna Industrial Estate.

55. It is pertinent to note that from 2008 onwards the Company has signed 6 Settlements on Charter of Demands with different union i.e. settlement dated 23/02/2008, 24/01/2011, 22/05/2014, 10/06/2014, 09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021 and though Party I was claiming that the Union has membership, at no point of time the Company did sign any settlement with the said Union and the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh accepted all settlements without any objection in toto.

56. Hence, from her evidence it stands established that they have signed comprehensive settlement with Party II(2) on their Charter of Demands dated 22/02/2017 which is a majority Union and this settlement was signed on 09/08/2017 and accepted by majority Union without any exceptions by all the establishments of Party II(1) at Verna Industrial Estate and they also offered same settlement to the members of Party I but that was rejected by the Party I. It has also come on record that in the settlement signed with Party II(2), the Company has given substantial benefits to all its workmen including the last settlement which was signed on 22/07/2021 and about the loss in the financial position has been accepted by Shri Prakash Naik, the second witness of the Party I.

57. It is also seen that the Party II(1) had signed the said settlements by taking into consideration all the relevant provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act and the principles laid down by the Apex Court and also the financial position and status of the Company to pay and comparable concerns signed the settlements with Party II(2). The Party I Union cannot raise the Charter of Demands as it does not have the majority and the Party II(2) is a majority Union. The arguments advanced by Learned Advocate Shri S. P. Gaonkar for Party I that the Party II(1) Employer never called them for verification or for secret ballot to find out the majority but it is seen that the secret ballot theory is not recognized under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the Trade Union Act. It is also a settled law that the Party II(1) Company cannot be compared to any pharmaceutical Company as the profits, losses, production capacity of each Company defers from one another and the comparison to be made as prayed and alleged by the Party I Union with Indico Remedies, Geno Pharmaceuticals are not correct and comparable concerns as the payment and emoluments are to be done by having regards to the industry cum region principles and paying capacity of each Company which varies from one another and moreover, the Party II(1) being a private Company has to depend on their own profits and they cannot be compared with the Government departments. The present emoluments given by the Company in the settlement signed with Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union has taken care of pay-scales, flat- rise and fitment and as such there is no need for increasing the same which is more evident and clear from the evidence of the Party II(2) Union.

58. It is seen that both the settlements dated 09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021 were offered to all the workmen including the said 19 workmen of Party I Union but they refused the same. Both these settlements are proper, fair and reasonable having accepted by a vast majority of workmen without any reservations and therefore the demand raised by the said 19 workmen certainly needs to be rejected. The first witness of Party II(1) Company in her cross-examination has clearly stated that their Company manufactures all types of diagnostic products which are different from medical equipments. She has further stated in her cross that at the time of signing both the settlements dated 09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021 both the Parties took care of their respective interests and both the said settlements are reasonable settlements. She has also admitted that in the negotiations the Management was represented by H.R., Finance and Technical Team and the Union was represented by the Workers Committee and the Union leadership and also admitted that both the Parties after much negotiations and discussions signed the settlement at Exh.74.

59. It is seen that the Party I has not led any evidence to show the financial position of the Company, industry cum region, paying capacity and comparable concern. It is seen that the settlements which have been relied upon the Party I Union in no way comparable to the Company and there is nothing on record to show as to how those settlements can be compared with one establishment of the Company. The Party I Union has failed to prove the financial capacity of Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. to pay the workers who have not accepted the settlement dated 09/08/2017 as no Balance Sheets are produced by the Party I Union. Even otherwise the workmen have refused to give the extra productivity which was one of the terms for increase in wage in the 2017 settlement. Since the 19 workers have refused to give more productivity as per clause 19 of the same, it would be unjust to burden the Company with increase in wages. It is also pertinent to note that the minority union has made serious allegations against the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers' Union. According to them the Party II(2) is puppet union and it is not majority Union and unless that issue is decided the Tribunal cannot proceed further.

60. The Party II(1) has signed 5 settlements i.e. settlement dated 23/02/2008, 24/01/2011, 22/05/2014, 10/06/2014 and 09/08/2017 and in all the settlements the Party II(1) has given substantial benefits to all the workmen and settlement dated2119 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 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 remain unchanged. It has also been agreed that the privilege leave can be availed for the 5th time in a year only in case of personal emergencies only like hospitalization, death to close family members.

(b) It has been agreed by the union that the workmen shall make full efforts to reduce absenteeism, which is mostly seen in the months of October, November and

December.

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 also2120 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 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 workmen and on whose behalf the dispute has been espoused by and also they have to prove the fact that the workmen/ /Party I had authorised Shri P. Gaonkar to sign the Claim Statement on their behalf. That, on going through the evidence of Shri P. Gaonkar who is the first witness of the Party I, it is seen that there is no single document produced by him on behalf of the Union to raise the dispute or to represent them in the present case.

64. At the outset, it is seen that he has admitted in cross that he has no produced any documents to show that he is the General Secretary of Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and that he has signed the Claim Statement. Further, in his 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. 36 which is a letter dated 28/11/2016 does not mention anywhere the names of the workers which is as per the names of the Union. Further, it is seen that the letters at Exh. 62- D Colly and 63-D Colly which are signed by about 126 workers and addressed to the General Secretary of the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh informing that they would like to join GMS, and that they shall abide rules and regulations of the Union and that they authorize the General Secretary of the GMS to represent them before the Management, but to this it is seen that by both these documents the workmen have only stated that they would like to join their Union and nowhere it is mentioned that they have joined the said Union. Therefore, both these letters do not help the Party I to show that the workmen have joined the Party I Union. It is settled law that intention to join is totally a different as aspect from actually joining any Union and to prove this, the Union must provide the details of the membership along with the receipts after accepting them in their Union which is admittedly no there in the case. There is no cogent evidence placed on record by the Party I to prove that the said workers were the members of the Union in the year 2016 when the demands were raised and as the Failure Report dated 09/10/2017 at Exh. 46 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. 42". "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. 43 also does not indicate anywhere in the Failure Report that the list of the majority was filed before the Conciliation Officer". Even otherwise, no document has been produced by the Party I such as any Authority Letter or Resolution by the workmen authorizing the Sangh and Shri P. Gaonkar as its General Secretary to raise the dispute and so also to show that the workmen have joined the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh. When Shri P. Gaonkar himself has admitted in cross that no such Resolution was passed, in other way it clearly indicates that Shri P. Gaonkar was not even authorised nor he had any locus standi to raise the Charter of Demand dated 28/11/2016 before the Management and therefore to my mind when there was no Resolution passed to raise the Charter of Demands, the said demands which were raised as on 28/11/2016 have to be considered as bad in law.

66. Even otherwise, the Charter of Demands raised on behalf of the Party I does not mention that any of the workers have left the earlier Union and joined the Party I Union after 2014. No membership documents are produced to show that the Party I represented majority and Shri P. Gaonkar did not produce any letters signed by the workers of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. stating that they have left the earlier Union and are joining the Sangh and/or authorizing Shri P. Gaonkar to represent them before the Management or before any other authorities. The Party I has admitted in the Statement of Claim that Bhartiya Kamgar Sangh had signed settlements with Tulip Diagnostics (P) Ltd. and there is nothing on record to show that any of the workers left the earlier Union after 2014 and became the members after 2014.

67. At this juncture I again place reliance on the authority reported in the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. and Industrial Tribunal, Gujarat and others (1968) 1 LLJ 834 and in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate V/s Dimakuchi Tea Estate 1958 SCR 1156 that an industrial dispute as defined must be a dispute between employers and employers, employers and workmen, workmen and workmen and according to Party II(1) since in the case in hand there is nothing to indicate that the workmen has espoused the2122 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 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:

ORDER

1. The action of the Management of M/s Zephyr Biomedical 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.

————

3. Director of Health Services, — Member.

Panaji

4. Director of Tourism, Panaji — Member.

5. Director of Municipal — Member.

Administration, Panaji-Goa

(III) Employer's Representatives

1. The Principal Chief — Member.

Engineer, Public Works Department, Altinho, Panaji

2. The Chief Engineer, — Member.

Water Resources Department, Panaji

3. Representative of — Member.

Confederation of Real Developers and Association of India (CREDAI-INDIA), Margao

4. Shri M. G. Chandrashekhar, — Member.

Consulting Structural Engineers, Valuers & Quantity Surveyors, B-2/G-2, Nandanban Housing Society, Nr. T. B. Hospital, Caranzalem Post, Taleigao Road, St. Inez, Goa

5. Shri Dinesh Pai, Director, — Member.

Notification

No. 24/10/2004-LAB/I/434

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 18 of the Building and Other Construction Workers' (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (Central Act 27 of 1996), and in supersession of the Government Notification No. 24/10/2004-LAB/639 dated 12-09-2017 published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 26 dated 28-09-2017, the Government of Goa hereby re-constitutes, with effect from 19-08-2022, the Goa Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Board, consisting of the following persons:-

(I) Hon'ble Minister for Labour — Chairperson.

and Employment

(II) State Government Representatives

1. Commissioner of Labour and — Member

Employment, Panaji-Goa Secretary.

2. The Chief Inspector of — Member.

Factories and Boilers, Panaji-Goa

Priority Construction, H. No. 707, SBI Colony, Alto Torda, Porvorim, Bardez-Goa

(IV) Building Worker's Representatives

1. Shri Christopher Fonseca, — Member.

President, Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union, Panaji

2. Shri Krishna T. Pal, — Member.

General Secretary, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), Tisk, Ponda-Goa

3. Shri Subhash Naik George, — Member.

President, Kamgaracho Ekvott, Panaji-Goa

4. The President, Ashanghatit — Member.

Kamgar Mahasangh, Goa Pradesh, Dabara Wado, Bordem, Bicholim, Goa

5. Smt. Sweta Sardessai, — Member.

T2, B1, Block, Advalpalkar Shelter Co-op. Society, Caranzalem, Goa2123 OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 24 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 (V) Nominee of Central Government

1. Dy. Director, DGFASLI, — Member.

Sion, Mumbai

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 19th August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Law & Judiciary Law (Establishment) Division

–––

And whereas, the validity of the Endorsement dated 18-06-2020 to the Certificate of Practice issued to Shri Emerico Estevao Afonso stands withdrawn and cancelled, as per the Notaries Act, 1952 (Central Act 53 of 1952) and Notaries Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred as the "said Act" and "said Rule"), since the said Advocate expired on 08-03-2022.

Now therefore, in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 10 of the said Act, the Government of Goa hereby removes the name of Applicant entered as a Notary from the Register maintained by it under Section 4 of the said Act.

Order

No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt.)/1303

Ex-post facto approval of the Government of Goa is hereby conveyed assigning additional charge of office of Civil Registrar-cum-Sub Registrar, Dharbandora to Shri Piedade Dias, Civil Registrar- -cum-Sub Registrar, Sanguem in addition to his own duties, w.e.f. 11-08-2022.

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

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

Porvorim, 29th August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Personnel –––

Order

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

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

Porvorim, 29th August, 2022.

————

No. 15/2/2019-PER/3963

Read: Memorandum No. 15/2/2019-PER dated

16-06-2022.

Order

No. 5-40-94/LD(2)/1316

Whereas, the Government vide Notification No. 5-40-94/LD(2) dated 07-06-1994, appointed Shri Emerico Estevao Afonso, Advocate (hereinafter referred as the "Applicant") as a Notary for period of three years with effect from 07-06-1994, for Tiswadi area;

And whereas, the Government vide Certificate of Practice dated 07-06-1994 has certified that the Applicant is authorized to practice as a Notary for a period of three years from 07-06-1994, for Tiswadi area;

And whereas, the Government on the request of the Applicant had renewed his Certificate of Practice as a Notary for subsequent 06 terms and the period of validity of the Certificate of Practice expires on 07-06-2025 in the Endorsement dated 18-06-2020 issued to the Applicant. However, vide letter dated 25-07-2022, the daughter of the Notary, Ms. Christabel Afonso has informed that the above applicant Shri Emerico Estevao Afonso, Advocate who was practicing as a Notary expired on 08-03-2022;

On the recommendations of the Goa Public Service Commission as conveyed vide their letter No. COM/I/5/42(2)/2021/113 dated 27-05-2022, the Governor of Goa is pleased to appoint the following candidates to the post of Block Development Officer

(Group "B" Gazetted) under the Government of Goa in Level-7 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016 with immediate effect:

1. Kum. Nimisha Sandeep Fal Dessai.

2. Shri Pretesh Babu Shetye.

3. Shri Prathamesh Anil Shankardas (OBC).

The appointees have been declared medically fit by the Medical Board. The character and antecedents of the appointees are verified by respective District Magistrate, wherein no adverse remarks have been reported.

The appointees shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining. They shall submit their Annual Assessment Report during the probation period.

The pay and allowance of the above officers shall be debited to the Budget Head controlled by the Directorate of Panchayats, wherever they are posted from time to time.

They shall report to Personnel Department for

further orders.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 26th August, 2022.

———— Order

No. 15/14/2011-PER/ELEC(Part-I)/3978

Shri Rahul C. Desai, Mamlatdar, Bardez Taluka, shall report to Personnel Department for further orders.

Shri Krishna Gauns, Joint Mamlatdar-I, Bardez shall hold the charge of Mamlatdar, Bardez in addition to his own duties with immediate effect until further orders.

This issues with the approval of Goa Services

Board.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 29th August, 2022.

———— Order

No. 22/8/2022-PER/3985

On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee as conveyed by Goa Public Service Commission vide their letter bearing No. COM/II/11/37(2)/2022/236 dated 26-08-2022, the Governor of Goa is pleased to promote the following Junior Scale Officers of Goa Police Service to Senior Scale Officer of Goa Police Service (Group 'A' Gazetted), on regular basis under Rule 30 of Goa Police Service Rules, 2022, in the Level-11 of Pay Matrix with immediate effect:-

1. Smt. Maria Monserrate.

2. Shri Gurudas N. Gawade (ST).

3. Shri Edwin M. S. Colaco (ST).

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.

The Officers shall exercise their option for fixation of pay in promotional grade in terms of F.R 22(1)(a)(1) within a period of one month from the date of issue of the order. The option once exercised shall be final.

On promotion, the above Officers shall continue

to hold the post presently held by them.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Nathine S. Araujo, Under Secretary (Personnel).

Porvorim, 29th August, 2022.

———— Order

No. 13/02/2022-PER(A)/3986

The Governor of Goa is pleased to grant extension in service to Shri Prakash L. Pai, Executive Engineer, Public Works Department beyond the date of his superannuation for a period of 06 months w.e.f. 01-09-2022 to 28-02-2023 in public interest. This order is subject to Vigilance clearance from Vigilance Department, concurrence of Finance Department and approval of Council of Ministers.

The extension is further subject to termination without assigning any reasons during the period of extension.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

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

Porvorim, 29th August, 2022.

———— Order

No. 7/24/2022-PER/4012

In pursuance of Order No. 14016/12/2022.UTS-I dated 18-08-2022, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi; the Governor of Goa is pleased to post Ms. Mahima Madan, IAS (Probationer) of AGMUT:2021 as Assistant Collector (Trainee) in the office of the District Collector, North Goa for district training with immediate effect.

Ms. Mahima Madan, IAS (Probationer) has

reported to this administration on 02-09-2022.

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

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

Porvorim, 2nd September, 2022.

———— Corrigendum

No. 7/4/2022-PER/3961

Read: Order No. 7/4/2022-PER/2022 dated

18-05-2022.

In the Order read at preamble, the word "officiating basis" stands deleted. Rest of the

contents remain unchanged.

This issues with the approval of Government.

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

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

Porvorim, 26th August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Planning

Directorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation

––––

Order

No. DPSE/ADMN/Trans-CSC-Gazetted/2022-23/1827

Government is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following Officers of the Common Statistical Cadre with immediate effect.

Sr. Name of Officer & Present place Department/Office to No. designation of posting which transferred/

/additional charge

1 2

3

4

1. Smt. Melita V. B. Fernandes, Directorate of Panchayats, Additional charge for 02 days at Statistical Officer Panaji-Goa Directorate of Tribal Welfare,

Panaji-Goa, stands withdrawn.

2. Shri Thanu N. Zalmi, Directorate of Social Welfare, To hold additional charge for 02 Statistical Officer Panaji-Goa days on every Tuesday and

Thursday in Directorate of Tribal Welfare, Panaji-Goa until further orders.

3. Smt. Deepa S. Pawar, Office of the Chief Electrical DPSE, RBD Division, Porvorim- Research Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department, -Goa, against the vacant post of Panaji-Goa Shri Vikas T. Kundaikar, Research

Assistant, transferred.

4. Shri Vikas T. Kundaikar, DPSE, RBD Division, Directorate of Agriculture, Research Assistant Porvorim-Goa Panaji, Goa, against the vacant

post of Shri Anil Toraskar, Research Assistant, retired.

5. Shri Jeetendra R. Fadte, Directorate of Panchayats, Office of the Chief Electrical Research Assistant Panaji-Goa Engineer, Electricity Department,

Panaji, Goa against the vacant post of Smt. Deepa S. Pawar, Research Assistant, transferred.

6. Shri Sumant Rodrigues, Office of the Chief Electoral To hold additional charge for 02 Research Assistant Officer, Altinho, Panaji, Goa days on every Tuesday and

Thursday in Directorate of Fisheries, Panaji, Goa, against the vacant post of Shri Sudesh P. Volvoikar, Research Assistant, retired until further orders.

7. Smt. Radhika R. Prabhudessai, Directorate of Mines & Additional charge for 02 days at Research Assistant Geology, Panaji, Goa Electricity Department, Panaji-

-Goa, stands withdrawn.

1 2

3

4

8. Smt. Gail A. Azavedo, DPSE, Co-ordination Directorate of Art & Culture, Research Assistant Division, Porvorim, Goa Panaji, Goa, against the vacant

post of Smt. Vandana L. Naik Panvelkar, Research Assistant, transferred.

9. Smt. Vandana L. Naik Directorate of Art & Culture, DPSE, Co-ordination Division, Panvelkar, Research Panaji, Goa Porvorim, Goa against the vacant Assistant

post of Smt. Gail A. Azavedo, Research, Assistant, transferred.

The Officers shall complete handing over and taking over process within 3 days of issue of this order and submit compliance.

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

Vijay B. Saxena, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Planning).

Porvorim, 7th September, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Power

Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer ––– Addendum to Gazette Notification Series II No. 1 dated:1-04-2021(27/1/ /EHV/CEE/TECH) CEE/TECH/EHV-DIV-XII

It is hereby notified for the information of the general public that the 220KV single circuit transmission line has been planned from Cuncolim 220/33KV sub-station to Balli Village in Quepem Taluka to proposed 220KV Konkan Railway Balli Traction sub-station.

The above proposed 220KV single circuit tower line is likely to pass through the following survey Nos., sub-divisions and additional names of areas belonging to owners mentioned here below:

The Electricity Department, Government of Goa shall have and exercise all the power conferred by Section 67 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 which the telegraphic authorities possesses under Part-III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) for carrying out the above schemes.

The concerned members of the public are advised to contact the Executive Engineer, Div-XII, Electricity Department, Xeldem-Goa, incase the public needs additional details.

The map showing the tentative tower line is made available in the following offices for the information of public.

This issue with the concurrence of Finance (Exp.) Department vide their U.O. No. 1400087113 dated 14-08-2022.

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

Gautami Parmekar, Under Secretary (Health-II).

Porvorim, 26th August, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Public Works Office of the Principal Chief Engineer

–––

Order

1. Office of the Collector, North Goa District,

Panaji-Goa.

2. Office of the Collector, South Goa District,

Margao-Goa.

3. Office of the Dy. Collector, Quepem/Salcete.

4. Office of the Mamlatdar, Quepem/Margao.

5. Office of the Chief Officer, Quepem

Municipal Council, Quepem.

6. Office of the Chief Officer, Cuncolim

Municipal Council, Cuncolim.

7. Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer, Panaji.

8. Office of the Superintending Engineer,

Circle-I (S), Margao.

9. Office of the Executive Engineer, Elect. Div.

XVI, Margao.

10. Office of the Executive Engineer, Elect. Div.

XVIII (Civil), Ponda.

Objections if any shall be sent to the Executive Engineer, Elect. Div. XII, Xeldem, Government of Goa within one month from the date of publication of this notice for consideration by the Electricity Department.

No. 64/05/2022/PCE-PWD-Tech.Cell/67

Ex-post facto approval of the Government is hereby conveyed for extension of deputation period in respect of Shri Jude A. D. Carvalho, Assistant Engineer of this Department, presently posted in Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Panaji-Goa for a period of one year from 01-09-2020 to 30-08-2021 on the same terms and condition contained in O.M. No. 13/1/2016-PER/1494 dated 27-05-2019 of the Department of Personnel, Government of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim as amended from time to time.

The deputation period of Shri Jude A. D. Carvalho, Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 01-09-2021 to 10-11-2021 (02 months and 10 days) is extended without deputation allowance.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer (PWD)

& ex officio Addl. Secretary.

Panaji, 7th September, 2022.

–––––—

Order

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Stephen Fernandes, Chief Electrical Engineer.

Panaji, 06th September, 2022.

———uuu———

Department of Public Health

–––

No. 64/05/2022/PCE-PWD-Tech.Cell/68

Order

No. 38-2-2021-I-PHD/1303

Government is pleased to recognize "Global Hospital, Mumbai" for their treatment for Gastro Surgical Works & Transplant Surgeries under "Goa Mediclaim Scheme".

Approval of the Government is hereby conveyed for extension of deputation period in respect of Shri Jude A. D. Carvalho, Assistant Engineer of this Department, presently posted in Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Panaji-Goa for a period of two years from 11-11-2021 to 10-11-2023 on the same terms and condition contained in O.M. No. 13/1/2016-PER/1494 dated 27-05-2019 of the Department of Personnel, Government of Goa, Secretariat, Porvorim as amended from time to time.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Uttam P. Parsekar, Principal Chief Engineer (PWD)

& ex officio Addl. Secretary.

Panaji, 7th September, 2022.

Department of Revenue ––– Order

No. 35/2/2013-RD/1019

In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act No. 2 of 1899), as in force in the State of Goa, the Government of Goa hereby permits the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Goa Divisional Office, Panaji (hereinafter referred to as the "LIC Goa") to pay consolidated stamp duty of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only), chargeable on sums to be insured in the insurance policies issued by its offices in the State of Goa with effect from 1st January, 2022 upto 31st December, 2022 in lieu of affixing stamps upon individual insurance policies, which has been paid vide cheque No. 000109 dated 21-07-2022, drawn on HDFC Bank, Panaji, Goa, subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(a) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the insurance policies issued during the above mentioned period falls short of the stamp duty consolidated herein and paid to the Government, the excess consolidated stamp duty shall be adjusted for the next calendar year of 2023.

(b) In case the stamp duty chargeable on the insurance policies issued during the above period exceeds the stamp duty consolidated herein and paid to the Government, the balance amount due towards the stamp duty shall be paid to the Government Treasury by LIC Goa latest by the first week of January, 2023.

(c) A detailed report of the total stamp duty charged on the sums insured in the insurance policies issued by the offices of the LIC Goa in the State of Goa during the above period shall be submitted to the Secretary (Revenue), Revenue Department, Government of Goa on or before 31-12-2022.

By order and in the name of the Governor of

Goa.

Sandeep Gawde, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim, 9th September, 2022.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery, Government Printing Press, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001. PRICE–Rs. 41.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—200/120—9/2022.