Panaji, 15th September, 2022 (Bhadra 24, 1944)
SERIES II No. 24
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410
Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2021-2023
GOVERNMENT OF GOA
Department of Animal Husbandry &
Veterinary Services
–––
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”.
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
–––
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
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,
Hon’ble High Court of
— Chairperson.
Bombay at Goa
Secretary, Department of
— Member.
Civil Supplies &
Consumer Affairs
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
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.
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.
2089
Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected]
2090
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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
Societies
–––
Notification
In exercise of the powers vested in me under
Section 8 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001,
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
No. 14/8/2001-GAD-III/3192
On the recommendation of the Departmental
Promotion Committee as conveyed by the Goa
Public Service Commission vide their letter
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2091
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
––––
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
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.
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.
2092
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
Department of Labour
–––
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 Court-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.
————
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.
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. 28/38/2021-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?”
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 from
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2093
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.
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
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
The following Award passed by the Labour
Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 15-07-2022 in Case No.
2094
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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.
————
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
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.
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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2095
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
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.
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
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.
2096
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2097
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, Party 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 II
2098
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. and
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2099
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 was
2100
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, Conveyance
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2101
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.
2102
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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 to
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2103
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.
2104
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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 ensuring
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2105
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
Party 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,
2106
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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.
24. The Party I examined its second witness
Shri Prakash Naik and during his cross-examination
brought on record the copy of Confirmation Letter
of the worker dated 10/11/2014 and Promotion Letter
dated 11/03/2011 at Exhibit 66-Colly.
25. The Party II examined its witness
Mrs. Sharmila Nadkarni working as an Assistant
General Manager of Tulip Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. and
through this witness brought on record copy of
Memorandum of Settlement dated 23/02/2008 at
Exhibit 69, copy of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 24/01/2011 at Exhibit 70, copy of
Memorandum of Settlement dated 22/05/2014 at
Exhibit 71, copy of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 10/06/2014 at Exhibit 72, copy of
Memorandum of Settlement dated 09/08/2017 at
Exhibit 73, copy of Memorandum of Settlement
dated 22/07/2021 at Exhibit 74, copy of Minutes of
the meeting of the Partners of M/s Orchid
Biomedical Systems dated 25/01/2017 at Exhibit 75,
copy of Pay Slip for the month of April, 2017 before
signing of the Settlement at Exhibit 76, copy of
settlement showing year wise increase in salary/
emoluments at Exhibit 77, copy of Notice dated
30th January, 2017 at Exhibit 78, copy of letter dated
07/10/2017 sent to Dy. Labour Commissioner at
Exhibit 79, copy of notice dated 15/09/2017
displayed on the Notice Board at Exhibit 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.
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
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2107
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 clear
2108
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 a
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2109
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 one
2110
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 the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2111
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.
2112
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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 which
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2113
the settlement shall continue to bind the
parties is indicated in Section 19. Therefore,
when there is a settlement for a limited period,
the same shall bind the parties for that
limited period and further held that it is well
known that under the Industrial Disputes Act,
the parties are entering into an agreement.
Under Section 2(p) of the Act for a period
which might have been mentioned in the
agreement and if the period is mentioned,
then the parties would bind themselves to
act according to the terms of the agreement
for a limited period as mentioned. After expiry
of the said period, the contract is
extinguished. It is open for the parties to enter
into agreement for further period. It depends
on the bargaining factor and both sides will
consider their own interest and will arrive at
a binding decision.
4. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works (represented
by its Partners), Mysore v/s Workmen
(represented by Secretary, Mangalore
Ganesh Beedi Workers and Allied Beedi
Factories Workers Association), Mysore
reported in the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Karnataka 2004 (3)L.L.N. 696
wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that
it is well settled that the court is not entitled
to scan a settlement in bits and pieces and
hold some parts not or not so good for
workmen. The court should look at settlement
as a whole, unless it can be demonstrated
that the objectionable portion is such that it
completely out weights all the other
advantage gained the Court should be slow
to hold a settlement as unfair and unjust.
The burden of proof that the terms of
settlement are unfair or unreasonable lies on
the respondent-union and not on the
management. It is so because, settlements
are accepted by vast majority of workmen
and they have received the benefits and
advantages of the settlement without any
demur and protest. The majority of workmen
have also not complained to the Industrial
Tribunal against the terms of settlement. In
the context, it is reasonable to presume that
the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable
and amicable to the workmen concerned. It
the respondent-union contests such a
presumption, it is for the respondent-union
to lead evidence to show that the settlements
are fair and unreasonable or they were
entered into between the parties for some
extraneous considerations and not in the
interest of the workmen concerned.
5. Air India Employees Guild, Mumbai v/s Air
India, Ltd. Mumbai, and others reported in
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay Writ Petitions Nos. 2544 of 2004
and 1452 of 2005 dated 21/12/2006 where in
the employer and Unions in the industry
which accept the Code of Discipline have to
follow the method of verification of
membership as laid down therein. Once the
procedure is accepted, it is not open to any
of the parties who agree to abide by the code
of Discipline to seek a procedure different
from the procedure agreed. The code of
Discipline admittedly does not provide for
deciding who has the majority of membership,
by holding secret ballot.
6. Deepak Industrial, Ltd., and another v/s
State of West Bengal and others reported in
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta Appeal against Original Order
No. 271 of 1972 dated 11/10/1974 held that
the amended S, 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
makes it clear that when an individual dispute
is not sponsored by other workmen of
espoused by the Union of the workmen even
then it would be deemed to be an industrial
dispute within the meaning of the Act. In
spite of the said amendment which brings in
individual dispute within the scope of the
Act it has not made any difference on the
principles as to what would constitute an
industrial dispute within the meaning of the
Industrial Disputes Act. If it is an industrial
dispute, that is a dispute raised by an
individual, it must be raised by him and
reference may be made in due course for
adjudication under the said Act. On the other
hand, if a group of workmen raised a dispute
that can also constitute an industrial dispute
within the meaning of the Act which may be
referred to the Tribunal; in due course. But
when the dispute is espoused or sponsored
by a union judicial decisions have uniformly
held, that when the authority of the union is
challenged by the employer, it must be proved
by production of material evidence.
.
7. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company
Limited V/s Their Workmen, reporting in
the Hon’ble Supreme Court (1981) 4 SCC
wherein the Apex Court has held that “a
2114
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2115
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.
2116
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
22. It is true that in the settlement signed on
10/06/2014, the basic salary is increased every
year. In the settlement dated 09/08/2017 also
basic salary is increased every year. It is true
that FDA is also increased by Rs. 650/-.
23. It is correct that in this settlement the workers
have agreed to increase the productivity from
12,000 to 14,000 units. I have produced two
settlements of Indoco and Geno which are
both pharma companies.
24. It is true that whether a workman is skilled,
semi-skilled or unskilled is a decision of the
Management. We get the bonus @ 20% as per
the Payment of Bonus Act. It is true that
contract workers are being paid minimum
wages as per the Act.
25. It is true that my present salary is Rs. 15,497/- is
because I have not accepted the settlements
dated 09/08/2017 and 21/07/2021. It is true
that all the contract workers are paid
minimum wages independent of the years of
service.
26. It is true that presently all the workers are
working in peace and harmony in the Factory.
It is true that only 19 workers have not
accepted both the settlements as mentioned
above.
52. Learned Adv. Shri S. P. Gaonkar has placed
reliance on the following authorities:
1. Transport Corporation of India Ltd. V/s
MRMT & G. K. Union, 2002 (3) LLJ 835
wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court
observed as under while explaining the Apex
Court’s decision in Kamani Steel Metals Ltd.
“9. The Apex Court in Kamani Steel Metal (supra)
has while rejecting the submission of the
Employer that there was no change of
circumstance justifying a revision of wages,
pay scales or dearness allowance observed
that judicial notice must be taken of the fact
that commodity prices have soared high, the
general level of wages has gone up and in
some industries there have been two or three
revisions already and in some others Wage
Boards have been appointed while
adjudicating a wage reference. I has further
observed that if inspite of these factors there
has been no upward revision in the Company,
the demand would be justified. Therefore, it
is obvious that while adjudicating the
reference, the Tribunal was required to keep
certain principles which the Apex Court has
laid down in the forefront and to consider the
fact that upward revision in wages must be
given if the circumstances so warrant. The
Apex Court has held in a number of cases
that the Industrial Tribunal must strive to
endeavor to see that workers are paid fair
wages and not merely the minimum wages.
Fair wages are something less than the living
wages which are the ultimate foal, and more
than the minimum wages which must be paid
in any event. Fair wages which are fixed at a
particular time may not remain fair with
passage and the price increase and, therefore,
a revision in wages is necessary. To a certain
extent, this disparity is made up by payment
of dearness allowance, but as the Apex Court
has consistently taken a view that 100%
neutralization is not advisable, it is necessary
to sufficiently bridge the gap between the
wages and cost of living by revision of the
wages as also the dearness allowance. The
mere fact that the is an increase in the
Consumer Price index, justifies an upward
revision.
2. Transport Corp. of India Ltd. V/s MRMT &
G. K. Union, 2002 (3) LLJ 835,the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay has observed that “14.
The contention of the Learned Counsel for the
Petitioners that unless the workman steps into
the witness box and leads evidence to justify
his demand, it would not be open for the
Tribunal to consider any wage increase must
also be negative. This is because the mere
change in circumstance of the rise in the
Consumer Price Index is sufficient to warrant
an upward revision in wages. What is the
Consumer Price Index prevailing at the time
when the demand is raised or when the dispute
is referred for adjudication or when Tribunal
makes an Award is a matter of record based
on the Notifications issued by the Government
from time to time. Therefore, the oral evidence
of the workman would be of no assistance to
prove this fact. Further Balance Sheets and
Profit and Loss Accounts which are necessary
to show the financial capacity of an Employer
are maintained by the Employer and the
workman again would not be of no assistance
to prove this fact. Further Balance Sheets and
Profit and Loss Accounts which are necessary
to show the financial capacity of an Employer
are maintained by the Employer and the
workman again would not be able to throw
any light on these aspects as the financial
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2117
capacity is to be assessed by the Tribunal from
the record made available to it. This record is
to be produced by the Employer if he pleads
financial inability to implement the burden of
an increased wage structure. The burden of
proof to show that he has no financial capacity
to withstand the burden imposed upon it
would be on the Employer as it is he who
knows his financial position and the conclusive
proof of that are the Balance Sheets which are
normally in his possession. In the instant case,
the Tribunal has considered and assessed the
financial capacity of the transporters to bear
the burden by taking into account the Balance
Sheets and the Profit and Loss Accounts of
those who had produced them on record. He
has rightly drawn adverse inference against
those employers who had not cared to produce
these documents or to substantiate their claim
that they do not have the capacity to
withstand financial burden which would be
imposed upon them due to the demands. The
Tribunal considered the fact that most of the
Employers neither appeared no filed their
Balance Sheets and Profit and Loss Accounts
or the Statement of Salaries. The statement
recording the strength of the employees also
was not produced and since all these factors
were within the knowledge of the transporters,
the Tribunal has drawn an adverse inference
and held that the transporters were able to
bear the burden”.
3. Hindustan Unilever C/s B. N. Dongre, (1994)
6 SCC 157 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has observed that “the concept of Dearness
Allowance, the second most important element
in a worker’s wage-plan next to the basic wage,
was introduced during the second World War
to meet the increase in the cost of living caused
by inflation. It was either linked to the cost of
living index or was given by way of flat
increases. When linked to the former, it was
granted to all the income groups at a flat rate
or was graded on a scale admissible to different
income groups diminishing with rise in
income. Basically, the concept of dearness
allowance was designed to combat inflation
and protect real wages and therefore it would
appear that there should be cent percent
neutralization. This is a concept peculiar to
India, Ceylon, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The
National commission of Labour (1969)
recommended 95% neutralization for minimum
wage earners but it was reluctant to
recommend the same rate for workers in higher
wage groups for fear that it may spark off
inflationary trends. Normally, such a Dearness
Allowance formula suffers from two drawbacks,
(i) it has the pernicious effect of distorting the
wage-structure and (ii) it results in a sharp
erosion of real income, particularly of those in
the higher wage groups. Generally speaking,
the distortion of the wage-structure takes place
because employees in different pay scales are
granted Dearness Allowance not at a uniform
rate but at a tapering rate, i.e. the workers in
the lower scales getting a higher neutralization
as compared to those in the higher pay
brackets in whose case the neutralization
percentage diminishes with the rise in basic
wage. That is because it is believed that those
in the higher pay brackets have a cushion to
absorb the brunt of inflation”.
4. Transport Corp. of India Ltd. V/s MRMT &
G. K. Union, 2002 (3) LLJ 835, (already cited
above) where the first principles have been
explained and it has also been held that the
Tribunal has the power to even grant
demands more than claimed.
5. Mukand Limited C/s Mukand Staff
Association, 2001 (4) LLN 682 wherein the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has observed
that “At the outset, it would be well to have
regard to the fact, that industrial adjudication
is not an exercise involving a pure
mathematical computation. Statistics and
figures are undoubtedly important facets of
the process of wage fixation but, in the
practical application of the region-cum-
industry formula, difficulties do arise before
the industrial adjudicator. The circumstances
relating to two industries within the same
region or two establishments within the same
industry in the same region, can rarely, if ever,
be identical. Each establishment in the
industry is bound to have its own peculiar
characteristics relating not merely to the
nature of its business but, also those relating
to its own peculiar industrial relations
scenario. The industrial adjudicator cannot
throw up his hands in despair when
confronted with the problems of adjudication.
In making comparisons under the region-cum-
industry formula, the adjudicator has to assess
the data which has been produced before
him. Extrapolation of data is not a mechanical
process and any exercise involving the
application of date or of making statistical
2118
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
comparisons has to be conscious of the
limitations of the process. Practical experience
in these matters would show that there would
be some deficiencies in the data and some
limitations on applying the norms of
comparability. In such a case, it is the sound
and robust common sense of the expert
adjudicator
which
must
guide
the
determination. In that determination, the
Industrial Tribunal has the benefit of rival
submissions which have to be duly
considered.
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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2119
56. Hence, from her evidence it stands
established that they have signed comprehensive
settlement with Party II(2) on their Charter of
Demands dated 22/02/2017 which is a majority Union
and
this
settlement
was
signed
on
09/08/2017 and accepted by majority Union without
any exceptions by all the establishments of
Party II(1) at Verna Industrial Estate and they also
offered same settlement to the members of Party I
but that was rejected by the Party I. It has also
come on record that in the settlement signed with
Party II(2), the Company has given substantial
benefits to all its workmen including the last
settlement which was signed on 22/07/2021 and
about the loss in the financial position has been
accepted by Shri Prakash Naik, the second witness
of the Party I.
57. It is also seen that the Party II(1) had signed
the said settlements by taking into consideration
all the relevant provisions under the Industrial
Disputes Act and the principles laid down by the
Apex Court and also the financial position and
status of the Company to pay and comparable
concerns signed the settlements with Party II(2).
The Party I Union cannot raise the Charter of
Demands as it does not have the majority and the
Party II(2) is a majority Union. The arguments
advanced by Learned Advocate Shri S. P. Gaonkar
for Party I that the Party II(1) Employer never called
them for verification or for secret ballot to find out
the majority but it is seen that the secret ballot
theory is not recognized under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 or the Trade Union Act. It is also
a settled law that the Party II(1) Company cannot
be compared to any pharmaceutical Company as
the profits, losses, production capacity of each
Company defers from one another and the
comparison to be made as prayed and alleged by
the Party I Union with Indico Remedies, Geno
Pharmaceuticals are not correct and comparable
concerns as the payment and emoluments are to be
done by having regards to the industry cum region
principles and paying capacity of each Company
which varies from one another and moreover, the
Party II(1) being a private Company has to depend
on their own profits and they cannot be compared
with the Government departments. The present
emoluments given by the Company in the
settlement signed with Goa Trade and Commercial
Workers’ Union has taken care of pay-scales, flat-
rise and fitment and as such there is no need for
increasing the same which is more evident and
clear from the evidence of the Party II(2) Union.
58. It is seen that both the settlements dated
09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021 were offered to all the
workmen including the said 19 workmen of Party I
Union but they refused the same. Both these
settlements are proper, fair and reasonable having
accepted by a vast majority of workmen without
any reservations and therefore the demand raised
by the said 19 workmen certainly needs to be
rejected. The first witness of Party II(1) Company in
her cross-examination has clearly stated that their
Company manufactures all types of diagnostic
products which are different from medical
equipments. She has further stated in her cross
that at the time of signing both the settlements
dated 09/08/2017 and 22/07/2021 both the Parties
took care of their respective interests and both the
said settlements are reasonable settlements. She
has also admitted that in the negotiations the
Management was represented by H.R., Finance and
Technical Team and the Union was represented by
the Workers Committee and the Union leadership
and also admitted that both the Parties after much
negotiations and discussions signed the settlement
at Exh.74.
59. It is seen that the Party I has not led any
evidence to show the financial position of the
Company, industry cum region, paying capacity and
comparable concern. It is seen that the settlements
which have been relied upon the Party I Union in
no way comparable to the Company and there is
nothing on record to show as to how those
settlements can be compared with one
establishment of the Company. The Party I Union
has failed to prove the financial capacity of Tulip
Diagnostics (P) Ltd. to pay the workers who have
not accepted the settlement dated 09/08/2017 as
no Balance Sheets are produced by the Party I Union.
Even otherwise the workmen have refused to give
the extra productivity which was one of the terms
for increase in wage in the 2017 settlement. Since
the 19 workers have refused to give more
productivity as per clause 19 of the same, it would
be unjust to burden the Company with increase in
wages. It is also pertinent to note that the minority
union has made serious allegations against the Goa
Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union. According
to them the Party II(2) is puppet union and it is not
majority Union and unless that issue is decided the
Tribunal cannot proceed further.
60. The Party II(1) has signed 5 settlements i.e.
settlement dated 23/02/2008, 24/01/2011,
22/05/2014, 10/06/2014 and 09/08/2017 and in all
the settlements the Party II(1) has given substantial
benefits to all the workmen and settlement dated
2120
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 also
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2121
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.
2122
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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 the
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2123
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.
————
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
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.
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, Goa
2124
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
–––
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.
————
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;
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.
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
No. 15/2/2019-PER/3963
Read: Memorandum No. 15/2/2019-PER dated
16-06-2022.
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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2125
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.
2126
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2127
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:
Sr.
Twr.
Taluka
Village
Survey
Sub-
Area
Name of
Name of
Other Rights
No. No.
No.
Div.
in (Ha.
the
the
No.
Ars. Sq. Mtrs.)
Occupant
Tenant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
Salcete
Cuncolim
336
4
0000.55.75
Court Receiver
Nil
Nil
10
0000.33.50
Court Receiver
Nil
Nil
12
0000.19.50
Court Receiver
Nil
Nil
2
Salcete
Cuncolim
337
1
0009.57.50
Court Receiver
Nil
Nil
3
2, 3
Salcete
Cuncolim
338
1
00032.28.00
Court Receiver
Nil
Shree Shirdi
Steel Re Rollers
Pvt. Ltd.
4
14
Quepem
Balli
34
9
00.49.25
1) Maria Magadalina
Nil
Nil
Morais Almeida
5
Quepem
Balli
11
0000.05.50
1) Maria Magadalina
Nil
Nil
Morais Almeida
12
0000.36.50
1) Maria Magadalina
Nil
Nil
Morais Almeida
6
15,
Quepem
Balli
37
1
0002.18.25
1) Communidade of
Nil
Nil
16
Balli
2
0004.33.00
Nil
Nil
1) Yesso Molu
Phaldesai
7
18
Quepem
Balli
41
1
0002.30.00
1) Ivan Tome Moraes
Nil
Nil
2) Gwen Fatima Mores
2
02.35.00
Nil
Nil
Dheu Duri
2128
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
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.
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.
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
–––
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”.
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
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
No. 64/05/2022/PCE-PWD-Tech.Cell/68
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.
OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA
SERIES II No. 24
15TH SEPTEMBER, 2022
2129
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.