Note: There is one Extraordinary issue to the Official Gazette Series II No. 24 dated 10-9-2026, namely, Extraordinary dated

16-9-2026 from pages 1471 to 1472 regarding Corrigendum from State Election Commission, Goa.

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

Department of Labour

Notification

The following Award passed by the Labour Court-II, at Panaji-Goa on 16/07/2026 in Case No.LC-

II/Appln/12/2026 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.

Manesh Hari Kedar, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim.

______________

THE LABOUR COURT–II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/Appln/12/2026.

Smt. Diksha Parab,

r/o Halli, Chandel,

Pernem, North Goa-403512

….

Workperson/Party-I

V/s

The Managing Director,

M/s. MINCO India Pvt. Ltd.,

D2, 34/35, Tivim Industrial Estate,

Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez,

Goa, India. Pin Code- 403507

….

Employer/Party-II

Workperson/Party-I represented by Ld. Rep. Shri G. J. Fernandes.

Employer/Party-II absent, marked an Ex-parte.

Panaji, Dated: 16/07/2026.

No. 28/02/2026-LAB/Part-IV/375

Date : 17-Aug-2026

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

1473

Reg. No. RNP/GOA/32/2024-2026

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

Panaji, 17th September, 2026 (Bhadra 26, 1948)

SERIES II No. 25

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

AWARD

1. By this Award, I shall disposed off the present petition filed by the Workperson u/s 2-A (2) of the

I.D. Act, 1947.

2. It is the case of the Workperson/Party I (for short the ‘Workperson’), in brief as per her statement of

claim filed in the present proceedings that she was employed by the Employer / Party II (for short, ‘the

Employer’) as ‘Housekeeping Operator’ initially for 6 years on contract basis. She stated that thereafter she

was employed on probation for 2 years and was thereafter confirmed in the services of the Employer on

22/05/2025. She stated her services have been terminated by a letter dt. 19/08/2025. She submitted that no

Show Cause Notice, Charge-sheet, Inquiry, Findings of Inquiry etc. were issued against her. She submitted

that the disciplinary process as prescribed under application of labour law was not at all, complied with by

the Employer. She submitted that she preferred a complaint to the Conciliation Officer under the I. D. Act,

1947. She stated that the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Mapusa-Goa initiated Conciliation Proceedings vide

communication dt. 11/11/2025. She stated that she sought reinstatement in service with full back wages and

all consequential benefits in the Conciliation Proceedings. She stated that being aggrieved by the refusal of

the Employer and more than the prescribed period under law having elapsed is constrained to seek recourse

to this legal remedy prescribed under the I. D. Act, 1947. She submitted that the termination of her services

was high handed and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice besides being arbitrary and

whimsical. She submitted that the termination of her services is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. She

stated that she remained unemployed from the date of termination of her services w.e.f. 19/08/2025. She

stated that she made efforts to gain an alternate employment however she could not succeed. The Workman

therefore prayed that the Employer be directed to reinstate her in its services with full back wages,

continuity in service and consequential benefits.

3. Upon receiving the aforesaid petition u/s 2-A of the I. D. Act, 1947 a notice was issued to the

Employer however on the first day of hearing on 09/03/2026 Shri C. Roy appeared on behalf of the

Employer and undertakes to file his letter of authority and as such the case was adjourned to 17/03/2026.

On 17/03/2026, both parties remained absent and as such the case was adjourned to 09/04/2026. On and

from 09/04/2026 the Applicant was represented by Shri G. J. Fernandes. On the contrary, none present for

the Employer and hence a notice was again issued to the Employer and the case was adjourned to

08/06/2026. On 08/06/2026, the Applicant was represented by Shri G. J. Fernandes. On the contrary, none

remained present for the Opponent though duly served. Hence, the Opponent has been marked as an Ex-

parte.

4. The following issues have been framed on 02/07/2026 at Exb. 4A.

Whether the Applicant proves that the termination of her services w.e.f. 19/08/2025 is illegal

and unjustified?

Whether the Applicant is entitled to any relief?

What Order? What Award?

5. My answers to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the affirmative

(b) Issue No. 2 & 3

As per final order.

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Rep. Shri G. J. Fernandes appearing for the Applicant. On the

contrary, none remained present at the time of final arguments. I have carefully perused the entire records

of the present case. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced before me and is of the

considered opinion as under:

REASONS

6. Issue No. 1:

The evidence on records indicates that initially, the Workperson was in the employment of the

Employer in the Housekeeping Department as ‘Housekeeping Operator’ for 6 years on contract basis. The

evidence on records indicates that thereafter the Workperson was appointed on probation for 2 years and

thereafter her services has been confirmed by the Employer to the post of ‘Housekeeping Operator’ w.e.f.

1474

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

01/04/2025 by its letter dt. 22/05/2025. The evidence on records indicates that the services of the

Workperson were terminated by the Employer by its letter dt. 19/08/2025. Upon perusal of the termination

letter at Exb.7 issued to the Workperson, it was alleged that the Workperson was involved in the serious

breach of company policy. Specifically on 19/08/2025 the Workperson were observed accessing a secured

drawer in the HR and Admin Department without authorization and using her mobile phone to take

photographs of confidential bonus statements and this action of the Workperson constitutes a violation of

company’s confidentiality and security policies as outlined in the Employee handbook. The evidence on

record indicates that no Show Cause Notice, Charge-Sheet, Inquiry, Findings of Inquiry etc. were issued to

the Workman. In other words no disciplinary action were conducted however the services of the

Workperson were terminated without following principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, the

misconduct alleged against the Workperson is not grave and serious. The Workperson could have been

issued a warning letter. Thus, the action of the Employer in terminating her services is in violation of the

well established principles of natural justice and as such the said action of the Employer in terminating the

services of the Workperson is arbitrary and whimsical. Thus, the Workperson proved that the action of the

Employer in terminating her services is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law. The Issue No.1 is therefore,

answered in the affirmative.

7. Issue No. 2:

While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

action of the Employer in terminating the services of the Workperson w.e.f. 19/08/2025 is illegal and

unjustified. The evidence on record indicates that the Workperson was unemployed from the date of

termination of her services till date. The Workperson is therefore entitled for reinstatement in service with

full back wages, continuity in service and consequential benefits thereof.

The evidence on records indicates that the services of the Workperson has been terminated by the

Employer w.e.f. 19/08/2025 without holding any disciplinary inquiry or any other procedure under Labour

Laws. The Employer therefore shall pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the

Workperson.

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

ORDER

It is held that the action of the Employer in terminating the services of the Workperson Mrs.

Diksha Parab, is illegal, unjustified and bad-in-law.

It is held that the Employer M/s. MINCO India Pvt. Ltd., D2, 34/35, Tivim Industrial Estate,

Karaswada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa is hereby directed to reinstate the Workperson namely Mrs.

Diksha Parab with full back wages, continuity in service and consequential benefits thereof.

The Employer M/s. MINCO India Pvt. Ltd., D2, 34/35, Tivim Industrial Estate, Karaswada,

Mapusa, Bardez, Goa, shall pay a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to

the Workperson Mrs. Diksha Parab.

Inform the Government accordingly.

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

Panaji.

__________________

Notification

The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 23/07/2026

in Case No. LC-II/IT/01/2022 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.

Manesh Hari Kedar, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim.

No. 28/02/2025-LAB/Part-VI/376

Date : 18-Aug-2026

1475

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

THE LABOUR COURT–II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/IT/01/2022.

Shri Siddesh Naik,

since deceased through

his Legal heirs,

.......

Workman/Party I

1. Smt. Punam Siddesh Naik

2. Mast. Manthan Siddesh Naik

Both r/o H. No. 277, Bhandar wada,

Amona, Sanquelim-Goa

V/s

M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.,

Having office at Plot No. 154, 158 & 160,

Kundaim Industrial Estate,

Kundaim-Goa

.......

Employer/Party II

Workman/Party-I marked as Ex-parte.

Employer/Party-II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri. M. S. Bandodkar.

Panaji, Dated: 23/07/2026.

AWARD

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 03/01/2022, bearing

No. 28/56/2021-LAB/5 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court-II of Goa at

Panaji Goa, constituted under Section 7(1) of the said Act.

“(1)

Whether the action of the management of M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, Plot No. 154,

158 and 160, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa, in dismissing Shri Siddesh Naik,

Operator from services, with effect from 28/06/2021, is legal and justified?

(2)

If not, what relief, the Workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was registered under No. LC-II/IT/01/2022 and a registered A/D

notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to the said notice, Parties put in their appearance. The

Workman/Party-I (for short ‘Workman’), filed his Statement of Claim on 27/07/2022 at Exb. 5. The facts of

the case in brief as pleaded by the Workman are that the Employer/Party-II (for short “Employer”) is

having its factory at Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim-Goa. He stated that the Employer manufactures

toothpaste. He stated that the Employer employs over 450 workers at Kundaim Factory besides office staff

and management staff. He stated that all workers are presently members of one Trade union by name

Colgate Workers Union. He stated that the Employer is having three factories under one establishment. He

stated that the said three factories are named as Advance Oral Care Limited (AOC), Professional Oral Care

Limited (POC), and Flex Factory. He stated that AOC and POC factories were earlier acquired by the

Employer and Flex factory was set up by the Employer in the year, 2008. He stated that the Employer

acquired AOC and POC in the year 2011 along with their employees with all continuity in service and

today all three factories are one factory for all legal and administrative purposes.

3. He stated that he was employed as an “Operator” with the Employer since 01/02/2005. He stated

that his services were confirmed as an Operator. He stated that his services was wrongly terminated on

28/06/2021. He stated that he was working honestly and efficiently with the Employer since the date of his

joining service. He stated that except the misconduct of absenteeism for which he has been charge-sheeted,

he has no other bad record. He stated that he was issued a charge-sheet dt. 05/08/2019 alleging that he had

remained absent from duty on April, 30, 2019 for one day, May, 1-16 and 20-31 for 28 days, July 1-31 for

1476

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

31 days and August, 2019 for 5 days. He stated that he replied to the Charge-sheet vide his reply dt.

12/08/2019 denying the allegations and giving justifications for his absence. He stated that the Employer,

thereafter held an enquiry into the said Charge-sheet. He stated that Mr. S. K. Manjrekar was appointed as

an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. He stated that he was represented by Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge,

President Colgate Palmolive Union, in the said enquiry. He stated that the enquiry proceedings were closed

by the Ld. Enquiry Officer on 05/03/2021 without recording his statement and without examining any

witnesses on his behalf which fact is admitted by the Ld. Inquiry Officer in his findings. He stated that Ld.

Inquiry Officer thereafter gave his findings of inquiry conducted by him by his findings dt. 27/03/2021. He

stated that his defence is that because of his personal family problems, he was under tension and depression

and therefore he remained absent. He stated that he has sufficient leave balance to his credit. He stated that

the absenteeism mentioned in the Charge-sheet has been treated as unauthorized absent because he has not

followed the leave rules, the leave applying procedure and might have not applied for any kind of leave. He

stated that his absence mentioned in the Charge-sheet was considered as unauthorized absence, even

though he has leave to his credit in the leave card. He stated that the Ld. Inquiry Officer conducted enquiry

in total violation of principles of natural justice. He stated that he only examined management witnesses

and did not examine Workman’s witnesses. He stated that based on the findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer,

the Employer issued a final show cause notice dt.15/06/2021. He stated that in the said final show cause

notice, the Employer levelled several new false charges and allegations which are not proved and which are

not part of the charge-sheet. He stated that on the basis of the said unproved charges and allegations, the

Employer dismissed him from service. He stated that the Employer, without waiting for his reply to the

final show cause notice, dismissed him vide dismissal letter dt. 28/06/2021 which is outright illegal and

unjustified. Aggrieved by the decision of the Employer to wrongfully terminate his services, he, vide his

letter dt.04/07/2021, raised an industrial dispute demanding reinstatement with full back wages and

continuity in service which ended in failure.

4. He submitted that his termination of services w.e.f. 28/06/2021 is illegal and unjustified for the

following among other grounds which may be taken without prejudice to one another that charges levelled

in the charge-sheet are not proved, final show cause notice levels additional charges not proved in the

enquiry nor pleaded in the charge-sheet and on the basis of unproved charges dismissal order is issued to

him, termination is in violation of principles of natural justice, Standing order makes it mandatory that

enquiry should be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice by giving both the sides

opportunity of being heard. He submitted that Ld. Enquiry Officer only heard the management but did not

hear the Workman, statement of the Workman was not recorded, his witnesses were not examined, his

documents and his reply to the charge –sheet were not taken on record. He submitted that findings were

one sided and biased in favour of the management and hence bad in law. He submitted that termination of

Workman is with retrospective which is bad in law. He stated that the Workman received termination letter

on 29/06/2021 terminating his services w.e.f. 28/06/2021. He submitted that Ld. Enquiry Officer and

management have travelled beyond the Charge-sheet to dismiss him from service which is bad in law,

What is not pleaded, alleged or charged in the charge sheet cannot be considered while imposing

punishment or giving findings. He submitted that Ld. Enquiry Officer has given findings on what is not

pleaded or charged or alleged in the charge sheet. Hence, findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. He

submitted that the management, in the final show cause notice, has considered what is not pleaded, alleged

or charged in the charge sheet for imposing punishment which is bad in law. He submitted that the final

show cause notice and dismissal letter issued to the Workman is bad in law as the same is based on

allegations not pleaded in the charge sheet and which are false. He submitted that the findings

dt.27.03.2021 are perverse and not based on the charge-sheet or the material on record of enquiry

proceedings. He submitted that the punishment is highly disproportionate and cannot be imposed even if

charges are proved as the charges are minor misconduct as per Standing Orders and only minor punishment

can be imposed. He submitted that both the Ld. Enquiry Officer and the Employer have travelled beyond

the charge-sheet while giving findings and while imposing punishment which is bad in law. He submitted

that the Workman had leave to his credit at the relevant time and if the same was sanctioned, it would not

have been misconduct. He submitted that he could not attend duty due to circumstances beyond his control

for which dismissal cannot be given. He stated that the management was informed about the same from

time to time and was aware of his problems which was genuine. He stated that he is working in the factory

for over 15 years. He stated that other than absenteeism, no other charges have been leveled against him

during his entire services period, hence, dismissal from services is highly disproportionate and unjust and

1477

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

ought to be set aside and replaced with minor punishment. He stated and submitted that as his dismissal

from service is illegal and unjustified, he should be reinstated in service with full back wages and

continuity of service with costs. He stated that under section 11 of Industrial Disputes Act, this Hon’ble

Labour Court has powers to look into the punishment issue and set it aside if found to be too harsh, unjust

and disproportionate. He stated that since the date of his termination, he is unemployed and he is unable to

get a job. He stated that he is being supported by his family members. The Workman therefore humbly

prays that he be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service with cost.

5. The Employer controverted the claim of the Workman by filing its written statement on 29/09/2022

at Exb. 6. The Employer, as and by way of its preliminary objections, submitted that the reference is bad-

in-law, not maintainable and ought to be rejected on the following grounds, each one of which is urged in

alternative and without prejudice to one another. The Employer admitted that the concerned Workman was

working with the Employer as an “Operator” since 01/02/2005. The Employer submitted that it has been

found that the concerned Workman has committed a serious acts of misconduct of remaining

unauthorizedly absent on various occasions. The Employer submitted that based on such behaviour, the

Workman was issued a charge-sheet dt.05/08/2019 and thereafter an enquiry was held against him. The

Employer submitted that during the enquiry, the Workman was represented by Mr. Subhash Naik Jeorge,

the President of Colgate Palmolive Employees Union. The Employer submitted that the enquiry was

conducted by following the principles of natural justice whereby adequate appropriate opportunities were

given to the concerned Workman to defend himself in the enquiry. The Employer submitted that after

completing the enquiry and appreciating the evidence on record of the enquiry, the Ld. Enquiry Officer

submitted the report/findings dt. 27/03/2021 wherein he came to the conclusion that the following charges

were proved against the concerned Workman which are Clause 12 Sub Clause (VI): Absence without leave

or absence without leave for 3 consecutive days or 7 days in a month, Clause 12 Sub Clause (VII): Breach

of any standing order or any law applicable to the establishment or any rules made there under, Clause 12

Sub Clause (XII): Neglect of work or gross or negligence or gross neglect of work and Clause 12 Sub

Clause (XVIII): Breach of any of the provisions prescribed to be complied with by a Workman under the

standing orders. The Employer submitted that the Ld. Enquiry Officer submitted the original enquiry

proceedings and its connected papers along with the finding in which he had come to the conclusion that

the above charges are proved against the concerned Workman. The Employer submitted that its competent

authority after going through the entire enquiry proceedings and its connected papers along with the

findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer concurred with the Enquiry Officer. The Employer submitted that upon

receipt of the finding of the Ld. Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice dt. 15/06/2021 was issued to the

concerned Workman and a copy of the findings of the Ld. Enquiry Officer was also sent to him. The

Employer submitted that if this Hon’ble Court goes through the contents of the show cause notice, it is

very much observant that not only the charges framed are proved but also serious in nature. The Employer

submitted that the past records of the concerned Workman are also bad. The Employer submitted that in

view of the same, they having regards to the circumstances mentioned in the show cause notice, advised

the concerned Workman to give a written explanation to the same informing as to why his services

shouldn’t be terminated for the misconduct conducted by him and also considering the past records. The

Employer submitted that the concerned Workman did not submit his written submissions in reply to the

show cause notice on 15/06/2021. The Employer submitted that its competent authority, after going

through the finding and the proved framed charges against the concerned Workman and considering his

past records decided to dismiss the concerned Workman and accordingly he was dismissed vide the letter

dt. 28/06/2021. The Employer submitted that the entire action on its part is legal and justified and this

Hon’ble Court should not interfere with the justified and legal action taken by them. The Employer

submitted that no case of whatsoever nature exist for interference with its decision and this Hon’ble court

ought to reject the reference in Toto. The Employer submitted that in the event this Hon’ble Court comes to

the conclusion that the enquiry conducted by the Ld. Enquiry officer is not fair and proper or that the

charges are not proved against the Workman, they may be allowed to lead additional evidence to justify its

case of dismissal.

6. The Employer admitted that it has its industrial establishment in Kundaim Industrial Estate and its

entire establishment is within one complex. The Employer stated that the Workman was dismissed after

holding a fair and proper enquiry and also by looking upon the past record of the concerned Workman. The

Employer stated that the Workman has been habitually absence and it has reflected in his record multiple

times. The Employer stated that the Workman has been issued a warning letter in 2012, a show cause letter

1478

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

and final warning letter in 2013, absenteeism letters in 2014 and 2016, show cause and final warning letter

in 2017, a further show cause and charge-sheet with the enquiry in 2018. The Employer stated that the

Workman was suspended in 2019 following which the current charge-sheet was issued and enquiry was

conducted. The Employer submitted that the habitual absenteeism is a severe Acts of misconduct in its

Standing Orders. The Employer admitted that the charge-sheet was issued to the Workman on 05/08/2019

containing the details mentioned therein with regard to the absenteeism record. The Employer admitted that

an enquiry was held after framing the charge-sheet wherein Mr. S. K. Manjrekar was appointed as an

Enquiry Officer. The Employer stated that the enquiry proceedings started on 20/08/2010 and ended on

05/03/2021 with about 20 enquiry seating’s. The Employer stated that due to the casual attitude of the

Workman and his defence representative towards the enquiry proceedings, the proceedings were adjourned

on multiple times. The Employer stated that the Workman did not report to the enquiry proceedings even

after receiving multiple notices of enquiry and as such the Ld. Enquiry Officer had to take into cognizance

of delay caused by the Workman and had to close the enquiry ex-parte. The Employer admitted that the Ld.

Enquiry officer gave his findings on 27/03/2021. The Employer admitted that according to the leave card in

the beginning of 2019 had a balance of 7 days of C. L., 28 days of P. L. and 2 R.H. but the absenteeism

without prior intimation and approval of the supervisor is considered as an unauthorized absenteeism. The

Employer stated that the rules for applying leave in the Standing Orders clearly provide the guidelines for

taking leaves and also provide the opportunity for the Workman to apply for leaves after returning for the

period of absence in case of any exigencies or unforeseen circumstances. The Employer stated that the

Workman has not followed the leave rules or has submitted his application for the leaves against the leave

balances available. The Employer denied the overall case as pleaded by the Workman and submitted that

the statement of claim of the entire reference is bad-in-law and ought to be dismissed with no reinstatement

in service, with full back wages and continuity in service with costs.

7. Ld. Rep. Shri Subhash Naik Jeorge appearing for the Workman submitted that he does not wish to

file any re-joinder on behalf of the Workman.

8. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties hereinabove, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to framed

the following issues on 07/11/2022 at Exb. 7.

Whether free, fair and proper enquiry was conducted against the Workman/Party-I in respect

of Charge-sheet dt. 05/08/2019?

Whether the charges of misconduct leveled against the Workman vide charge-sheet dated

05/08/2019 have been proved satisfaction of this Court by acceptable evidence?

Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the action of the management in dismissing of his

services w.e.f. 28/06/2018 is illegal and unjustified?

Whether the Employer/Party-II proves that the present order of reference is bad in law in view

of the reasons stated in para (A) to (I) of its Written Statement?

Whether the Workman is entitled to any relief?

What order? What Award?

9. My answered to the aforesaid issues are as under:

a) Issue No.1

In the Affirmative

b) Issue No. 2

In the affirmative

c) Issue No. 3

In the negative

d) Issue No. 4

In the affirmative

e) Issue No. 5 & 6

As per final order

I have heard the oral arguments of the Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar representing the Employer.

None present for the Workman at the time of final argument. I have carefully perused the entire records of

the present case. I have also carefully considered the submissions advanced before me.

REASONS

10. Issue No. 1 & 2:

1479

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

By order dt. 16/03/2026 passed in my findings on preliminary issues No. 1 & 2. I have discussed and

came to the conclusion that a free, fair and proper enquiry was conducted against the Workman/Party-I in

respect of Charge-sheet dt. 05/08/2019 and that the charges of misconduct leveled against the Workman

vide charge-sheet dated 05/08/2019 have been proved satisfaction of this Court by acceptable evidence.

The issue No.1 and 2 are therefore answered in the Affirmative.

11. Issue No. 3:

In the case of V. N. S. Engineering Services v/s. Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu and

Anr., reported in 1987 II LLN 968, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that “there is nothing in

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that indicates a departure from the general rule that he, who approaches

a court for relief, should prove his case i.e. the obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation. The

test being that he, who does not lead evidence,must fail. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay further held

that the provisions of Rule-10-B of the I.D.( Central Rules), 1957 which requires the party raising a dispute

to file a statement of demands relating only to the issue in the order of reference for adjudication within 15

days from the receipt of the order of reference and forward copies to the opposite party involved, clearly

indicates that the party who raises the industrial disputes, is bound to prove the contention raised by him

and an Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court would be erring in placing the burden of proof on the other

party to the dispute”.

12. In the case of Airtech Pvt. Ltd. v/s. State of U. P. & Ors., reported in 1984 (49) FLR 38, the

Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has held that “the matter can be looked at from another angle, which

party will fail if the evidence is not led before the Labour Court in proceedings in a reference made to it for

adjudication by the State Government? The obvious answer is that the workman will fail. Here the

reference was made by the State Government at the instance of the workman and for the benefit of the

workman. In the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman, the reference is bound to be

answered by the court against the workman. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to

lead any evidence at all. This matter was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Shankar Chaudhart v/s.

Britania Biscuits Co. Ltd. in paragraph 30^th Court held that the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal have

all the trappings of a court. In paragraph 31 it held that any party appearing before a Labour Court or

Industrial Tribunal ‘Must’ make a claim or demur the claim of the other side and when there is burden

upon it to prove or establish the fact so as to invite a decision in its favour, it has to lead evidence. The

obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the

allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led. It must seek an opportunity to lead

evidence”.

13. In the case of V. K. Raj Industries v/s Labour Court (I) and Ors. reported in the year 1981

(29) FLR, 194 of Allahabad High Court has held that the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal are

judicial in nature, even though the Indian Evidence Act, is not applicable to the proceeding before the

Industrial Court, but the principle underlying the said Act are applicable. The High Court has held that“it is

well settled that if a party challenges the validity of an order and if no evidence is produced, the party

invoking the jurisdiction must fail. The High Court has also held that if the workman fails to appear or to

file written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in

favour of the workman and he will not be entitled any relief”.

The principle laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts in its respective case are still holds good.

Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts.

14. In the instant case, the order of reference has been issued by the Government of Goa at the instance

of the Workman, who has raised the present dispute pertaining to his alleged termination of services by the

Employer w.e.f. 28/06/2021 by contending to be illegal and unjustified. The Workman appeared before this

Hon’ble court and filed his pleadings, setting up the grounds of challenge to his alleged illegal termination

of service. The Employer resisted the claim of the Workman by contending that it has terminated the

services of the Workman by following the procedure of law and the termination order is just, fair and

proper. The Workman has however failed to lead any material evidence either oral or documentary in

support of his pleadings. On the contrary, the Employer examined its witnesses. The said oral as well as

documentary evidence remained unchallenged for want of denial. Hence, it is held that the Workman failed

to prove that the action of the Employer in terminating the services of the Workman w.e.f. 28/06/2021 is

illegal and unjustified. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, it is held that the action of the Employer in

1480

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

terminating the services of the Workman w.e.f. 28/06/2021 is legal and justified. The issue No.3 is

therefore answered in the Negative.

15. Issue No. 4:

While deciding the issue No.1, I have discussed and came to the conclusion that a free, fair and proper

enquiry was conducted against the Workman/Party-I in respect of Charge-sheet dt. 05/08/2019. Similarly,

while deciding the issue No. 2, I have discussed and come to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct

leveled against the Workman vide charge-sheet dated 05/08/2019 have been proved to the satisfaction of

this Court by acceptable evidence. While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I have discussed and come

to the conclusion that the action of the management of the Employer in dismissing the services of the

Workman w.e.f. 28/6/2021 is legal and justified. This proves that the reference is bad-in-law and not

maintainable and is liable to be rejected. Hence it is held that the Employer proved that the present

reference of order is bad-in-law in view of reasons stated in para (A) to (I) of the Written Statement. The

issue No. 4 is therefore answered in the Affirmative.

In view of above I pass the following order:

ORDER

It is held that the action of the management of M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, Plot

No. 154, 158 and 160, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Kundaim, Goa, in dismissing Shri Siddesh

Naik, Operator from its services, with effect from 28/06/2021, is legal and justified.

It is held that the deceased Workman Shri Siddesh Naik is not entitled to any relief.

No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

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

Panaji.

________________

Notification

The following Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on 27/07/2026

in Case No. LC-II/IT/12/2014 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.

Manesh Hari Kedar, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim.

_______________

THE LABOUR COURT–II

GOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

(Before Shri Suresh N. Narulkar, Hon’ble Presiding Officer)

Case No. LC-II/IT/12/2014.

Shri Mahableshwar A. Naik,

Rep. by the President,

Goa Trade & Commercial Worker’s Union,

Velho’s Building, Opp. Municipal Garden, Panaji-Goa.

Workman/Party-I

V/s

No. 28/03/2026-LAB/Part-I/383

Date : 21-Aug-2026

1481

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

The General Manager,

M/s. Meta Copper & Alloys Ltd.,

Zuarinagar, Sancoale, Goa.

…..

Employer/Party-II (1)

The Canara Bank,

ARM Branch,

Mathias Plaza,

Panaji-Goa.

…..

Employer/Party-II (2)

Workman/Party-I represented by Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat.

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

Employer/Party-II (2) represented by Adv. Mrs. A. A. Raikar.

Panaji, Dated: 27/07/2026.

AWARD

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 11/12/2014, bearing

No. 28/42/2014-Lab/721, referred the following dispute for its adjudication to this Labour Court II, Panaji-

Goa.

“(1)

Whether the action of M/s. Meta Copper and Alloys Limited, Zuarinagar, Sancoale, Goa, in

suspending the operations of the Factory and refusing employment to Shri Mahableshwar A.

Naik, with effect from 01/10/2011, is legal and justified?

(2)

If not, what relief, the Workman is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case was registered under No. LC-II/IT/12/2014 and registered A/D

notice was issued to the Parties. In pursuance to the said notice, the Workman/Party-I (for short, ‘the

Workman’) filed his Statement of Claim on 08/04/2015 at Exhibit-3. The Workman stated that all the

workmen named in the present schedule of the reference is the unionized member of Goa Trade and

Commercial Workers Union (AITUC) and since then the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union is

espousing the case of this Workman before every competent forum and authority. He stated that the

Employer/Party-II (for short “the Employer”) is a factory situated at Zuarinagar, Sancoale, Goa, which was

earlier known as Meta strips. He stated that the Employer factory employed more than 400 Workmen ever

since its inception at Zuarinagar, Sancoale. He stated that all the Workmen named in the present reference

were employed at the above factory for last many years continuously. He stated that the Employer factory

was running in three shift operations by employing more than 400 workmen at its above factory. He stated

that suddenly the management of the employer refused to provide employment to all the willing Workman

including himself w.e.f. 01.10.2011. He stated that the Employer was employing more than 100 workmen

at its factory prior to refusing to provide employment to these workmen and as such the provisions of

Chapter V B of the I. D. Act, 1947 is applicable. He stated that when he went to report for work with the

Employer on 01.10.2011 the management of the Employer refused to provide employment to him and

forcibly kept him out of employment by restraining him at the factory gate. He stated that after this

incident, he has started sitting near the factory gate waiting for an opportunity to resume for his duties

subsequent to his refusal of employment and he still continue to sit near the factory gate. He stated that

however, till date he has not been provided entry in the factory and are refused employment. He stated that

the action of the Employer in refusing to provide employment is illegal, unjust and bad-in-law. He stated

that all the Workmen are everyday reporting at the factory of the Employer waiting for an opportunity to

resume for his normal duties.

3. He stated that there is no severance of Employer Employee Relationship and the contract of Master

and servant/Employer-Employee still survives and continues and as such he is entitled for full wages w.e.f.

01/10/2011. He stated that the action of the Employer in refusing to provide employment to the smacks of

malice and malafides and is an act of Unfair Labour Practice which has been resorted by the Employer to

harass and victimize the unionized Workman. He stated that the Employer has adopted this illegal and

Unfair Labour Practices to get rid of permanent Workman and has rendered permanent Workman jobless

without accepting any liability and without following the statutory procedure laid down in Chapter-VB of

the I. D. Act, 1947 which is otherwise required to be followed by the Employer in case of

1482

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

retrenchment/closure/lock-out of the Employer factory. He submitted that refusing to provide employment

to the unionized Workman w.e.f. 01/10/2011 is nothing but illegally denying the Workman the right to

employment which is unethical, illegal, unjust and bad-in-law. He submitted that all the Workmen are

entitled for immediate employment with full back wages and continuity in service. He submitted that all

the Workmen are unemployed and have no source of income to maintain himself and his families, and are

entitled for full wages. The Workman therefore prayed that the action of the Employer in refusing to

provide employment to him w.e.f. 01/10/2011 be held as illegal unjust and bad in law and all the Workman

named in the present Schedule of Reference be provided immediate employment in the Employer

Company with immediate effect with full back wages and continuity in service along with all other

consequential benefits.

4. The Employer-1 controverted the case of the Workman by filing its written statement on 11/6/2015

at Exb. 4. The Employer-1 as an by way of its preliminary objections, submitted that the entire reference is

bad-in-law, not maintainable and ought to be rejected for the following grounds: that it was in the business

of manufacturing copper and brass products at Upasnagar, Zuarinagar, Goa. The Employer-I stated that as

the institutions which were providing working capital for daily operations suddenly stopped financing them

resulting in no money for purchase of raw materials for production and it was unable to continue its

activities. The Employer-I stated that the entire suspension of the manufacturing activities was due to the

reason that they had no funds to buy the raw materials as the institutions who were financing them were

suddenly stopped financing. The Employer-I stated that they had no money to buy raw materials and

therefore had no choice but to suspend its manufacturing operations, till alternate arrangements for funds,

could be made. The Employer-I stated that they therefore suspended its manufacturing activities at its

plants located at Zuarinagar w.e.f. 17/06/2011. The Employer-I stated that it had no funds to make plant

operative and for the last three years they were operating at only 30% of its installed capacity due to non-

availability of funds at these low volums. The Employer-I stated that when even this limited funding dried

up, they were compelled to suspend its manufacturing activities. The Employer-I stated that they are still in

the process of seeking new investors/funds for reviving the operations. The Employer-I stated that they had

to keep some skeleton staff for security and maintenance of its equipments, land and building and the list of

staff required to work was displayed on the notice board and that the entire action on the part of its

management is totally legal and fully justified. The Employer-I stated that by notice dated 30/05/2011 they

had originally decided to suspend its manufacturing activities from 07/06/2011. The Employer-I stated that

since the residual work was required to be completed, the suspension of the manufacturing activities was

differed and they ultimately suspended its manufacturing activities w.e.f. 17/06/2011 by notice

dt.06/06/2011. The Employer-I stated that based on the nature of work, they displayed the names of the

workmen who were required to work and the names of the workmen who were not required to work during

the suspension of manufacturing activities on the respective notice boards and also outside the factory gate

and that the suspension of the manufacturing activities still continues till date. The Employer-I stated that

during the suspension of manufacturing activities, while they tried to make alternative arrangements of

funds from other investors, the financial institutions who had earlier given loans to them and to whom

repayments had not been done visited its premises and took over possessions of entire factory property

under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 on 15/02/2012. The Employer-I stated that thereafter on 29/05/2012 the institutions

published a sale notice in Navhind Times, a local newspaper for the sale of the movable and immovable

properties of the entire factory under Rules 6(2) and 8(6) and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement)

Rules, 2002 and invited bids for the same. The Employer-I submitted that as no bids were received for the

sale notice dt.29/05/2012, a second sale notice was published on 22/09/2012 in the newspaper Navhind

Times towards sale notice of movable properties under rules 6(2) and immovable properties under rules

8(6) and 9 of the security interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 again inviting tenders for the same. The

Employer-I submitted that as of today its entire property stands taken over by the financial institutions and

therefore they are necessary parties to this reference and therefore Employer-II ARCIL–Mumbai (Who

have taken over from Indian Overseas Bank, Panaji and Arihant Revival Enterprises, Mumbai (who have

taken over from Halcyon Finance and Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai) be made as necessary parties to

the reference. The Employer-I submitted that the Goa Trade & Commercial workers union has no locus

standi to represent the workmen concerned in reference, as the person concerned in the reference is not

their member. The Employer-1 submitted that since it has not terminated the services of the workmen

1483

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

concerned in the reference, question of legality and/or justifiability of termination as contemplated in the

order of reference does not arise and on that ground also the reference is bad-in-law and not maintainable.

5. The Employer-I submitted that after the suspension of its operation by notice dt.16/06/2011 and

17/06/2011 of its manufacturing activities the Employer-II and others took over the possession of land and

building (Immovable Assets) on 15/02/2012 and entire plant and machinery used in the manufacturing

activities (Movable Assets) on 22/02/2012 under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and in exercise of power conferred under section 13(12)

read with Rule 3 of Security interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002, issued under demand notice dated

09/11/2011. The Employer-I submitted that the possession and the ownership was taken over by the

Employer-II and others of Immovable and Moveable assets of the undertaking by virtue of operation of law

on 15/02/2012 and 22/02/2012. The Employer-II stated that therefore subsequent to the Employer-II and

others taking over possession of Immovable of Assets as well as the Moveable Assets and referred to above

they had no control over the assets and despite its best intensions could never start its manufacturing

activities. The Employer-1 stated that they could never start its manufacturing activities. The Employer-1

therefore submits that from 15/02/2012 / 22/02/2012 the functioning of its undertaking became non

functional by virtue of law and due to financial institutions taking over possession and ownership of its

assets and therefore since the entire manufacturing activities became non functional, they could never start

its manufacturing activities and non functionality of the activity was due to unavoidable circumstances

beyond its control and after filing of written statement there were further developments and litigation

between the parties.

6. The Employer-1 submitted that it gave notice to the Workmen about manufacturing activities

becoming non functional and formal termination of service on 13/08/2016 vide displaying notice on the

notice board as also at the gate as also informed to the Government that the manufacturing activities of the

undertaking closed for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. The Employer-I stated that the notice is given

to the Government as required under section 25 FFA of the act. The Employer-I submitted that no notice to

the Government and to the Workmen was required to be given since Workmen were already aware of

taking of the assets by the Employer-II and others. The Employer-I stated that however as abundant caution

that they have given such notice. The Employer-I stated that this can be seen from the fact that the

Workmen were already aware of the possession of assets taken over by Employer-II and others prior to the

giving of the notice because they filed suit in Vasco Civil Court and appeal in the High Court. The

Employer-I further submitted that since the manufacturing activities of the undertaking at Upasnagar,

Zuarinagar has become non functional / closed by the operation of law, the Workmen are entitled to the

legal dues as per 25 FFF of 3 months wages, since the closure is due to circumstances beyond the control

of Employer. The Employer-I submitted that the Workmen are not entitled to any money or benefits which

can be computed in terms of money from 16/06/2011 or 17/06/2011 till 22/02/2012 and therefore till the

disposal of reference, since the suspension of the operation done by them were due to unavoidable

circumstances beyond its control and closure was also due to circumstances beyond its control. In any

event and without prejudice, the Employer-I submitted that after taking the possession of the assets by

Employer-II and others on 15/02/2012 and 22/02/2012, since the manufacturing activities had become non

functional by operation of law due to unavoidable circumstances beyond its control, the Workmen at the

most are entitled to compensation under section 25-FFF of the act not exceeding average pay for 3 months

upto 22/02/2012 and thereafter. Without prejudice to above the Employer-1 submitted that in view of the

clear terms of reference, this Hon’ble Court shall have jurisdiction only to find out whether the suspension

of operation w.e.f. 16/06/2011 and 17/06/2011 is justified or not and this jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court

would end up to 22/02/2012 only when its undertaking became non functional by operation of law i.e.

Employer-II taking over its possession of assets. The Employer-I stated that this is because once the bank

takes over the possession of the assets as stated above, by no stretch of imagination could the

manufacturing activities of the undertaking be activated. The Employer-I stated that in fact the undertaking

became non functional due to unavoidable circumstances beyond its control and they could never start the

manufacturing activities after 22/02/2012 as the bank has taken over all the assets. The Employer-I stated

that therefore it’s case that the suspension of operation does not remain thereafter and further process

would be under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2013 and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2012. The Employer-I submits that so called

dispute raised by the union i.e. Goa Trade & Commercial Workers Union and Workmen is not an Industrial

Dispute as contemplated under section 2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and consequently entire

1484

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

reference is bad-in-law and not maintainable and incapable of adjudication. The Employer -1 submitted

that in view of the relevant provisions of SARFEASI Act, 2002 the Workmen are not entitled to any relief

as claimed by the Workmen and therefore it is beyond jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal to grant any

relief as prayed for and therefore reference ought to be rejected. The Employer-1 denied the overall case as

pleaded by the Workman and prayed for rejection of the present reference.

7. The Employer-II also controverted the case of the Workman by filing its written statement on

8/3/2017 at Exb.20. The Employer-II submitted that the entire reference is bad-in-law, not maintainable

and ought to be rejected as it is a body corporate established and constituted under the banking companies

(acquisition and transfer of undertakings) Act, 1971 having its head office at Bangalore in the state of

Karnataka and amongst others having a assets recovery management branch at Panaji-Goa. The Employer-

II stated that its written statement have been signed and verified by Shri V. Vishwaprakash, who is the Sr.

Manager and who is duly authorized and power of attorney holder of them. The Employer-II stated that the

Employer-I is its borrower and the Employer-I have availed various credit facilities from consortium of

banks which is reconstituted from time to time/its assigns including its Panaji Branch during 2000 from

their business purpose against the execution of various loan documents/agreements/guarantees and other

security documents on its movable/immovable properties creating securities in its favour. The Employer-II

stated that for securing the limits, primary security being all present and future stock of raw materials such

as Copper Cathode, Copper scrap, Zinc, Brass honey Scrap, Master alloys etc., stock in process, finished

the goods, store and spares, book debts etc. and second charge on all present and future movable fixed

assets such as vehicles, movable plant and machinery, machinery spares, tools and accessories and other

movables etc. and immovable fixed assets such as land and all present and future building, plant and

machineries imbedded to earth or fastened to anything which is embedded to earth etc. The Employer-II

stated that the conduct of account of the Employer-I was not satisfactory/out of order and hence the

accounts of the Employer-1 was classified as NPA in its books of accounts.

8. The Employer-II stated that subsequently they initiated recovery action against the Employer-I in

respect of the recovery limits under various credit facilities. The Employer-II stated that it has initiated

recovery action and filed original application (OA) in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III at Mumbai in the

year 2011 for its recovery of a sum of Rs. 141,91,94,039.90 (Rupees One hundred forty one crores ninety

one lacs ninety four thousand thirty nine and paise ninety only) together with further interest thereon

@16.25% P.A. and 18.75% P.A. compounded with monthly rests from the date of filing of the O.A. till

payment and also for various other reliefs as more particularly content in the said original application. The

Employer-II stated that pending the hearing and final disposal of the above original application, the

defendants have approached them for an one time settlement of the debt contained in the O.A. as well as

the debts payable by them to consortium lenders/its assigns i.e. M/s Arihant Revival Enterprises (Assignee

of original defendant No. 4 in O.A.), and ARCIL (Assignee of Original defendant No. 5 in O.A.). The

Employer-II stated that accordingly consent terms were entered into between them and defendant Nos. 1 to

3 therein in the O.A. on 12/11/2014. The Employer-II stated that pursuant to the said consent term, the Ld.

Presiding Officer has passed the order in terms of consent terms on 12/11/2014. The Employer-II stated

that pursuant to the said consent terms dt. 12/11/2014, the defendants have paid a sum of Rs.

1735.6900,000/- to them. The Employer-II stated that upon receipt of the above said amount of Rs.

1735.00 lacs to them and Rs.4050.00 lacs to the consortium banks which were credited to the loan account

of the Employer-II with the bank, they as well as other consortium banks /its assigns have released the

charge in respect of the plant and machinery to the Employer-II herein at its request with the condition that

defendant No. 1 to 3 in the said O.A. shall pay a sum of Rs. 5160.00 lacs to the consortium of banks. The

Employer-II stated that after payment of aforesaid sum of Rs. 1735.00 lacs to them the party No. I

defendants therein have failed and neglected to pay the balance amount to them as contained in the said

consent terms. The Employer-II therefore submitted that since the defendant have committed default in

repaying the amount under the one time settlement/consent term, the concession granted to the defendants

under the said consent terms dt. 12/11/2014 is now not available to the defendants and the defendants are

bound and liable to pay them the entire claim amount of Rs. 141,91,94,039.90/- (Rupees One hundred forty

one crores ninety one lacs ninety four thousand thirty nine and paise ninety only) together with further

interest thereon @16.25% p.a. and 18.75% p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of filing of

the O.A. till payment. The Employer-II stated that as the Party could not repay the amount it has initiated

recovery proceedings including amongst others, action under SARFAESI Act, 2002 on its properties and

put the properties on auction under SARFAESI Act. The Employer-II stated that as a secured creditor, it

1485

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

has every right to take necessary recovery steps including action under SARFAESI Act. The Employer-II

stated that but even after putting the property under public auction four times on various occasions, the

auction failed due to want of bidders. The Employer-II stated that the Employer-1 have approached them

for an one time settlement of the debt contained in the O.A. as well as the debts payable by them to other

consortium lenders to M/s Arihant Revival Enterprises (Assignee of original defendant No. 4 in O.A.) and

ARCIL (Assignee of original defendant No. 5 in O.A.). The Employer-II stated that as the Employer-1

have approached to them for an one time settlement of their dept contained in the O.A. as well as dues to

the other consortium lenders they have deferred for the time being the proceedings for sale of immovable

properties of the Employer-I under SARFAESI Act. The Employer-II stated that they are therefore not a

necessary party in the proceedings herein and entire relief claimed by the Workmen against them is bad-in-

law/not maintainable and ought to be dismissed in limine.

9. Thereafter, the Workman filed his rejoinder on 24/10/2016 at Exb. 14 and Re-joinder to the written

statement of Bank on 20/03/2017 at Exb. 21. The Workman, by way of his Re-joinder, confirms and

reiterates all the submissions and averments made by him in his claim statement to be true and correct and

denies all the statements and averments made by the Employer in the Written Statement, which are

contrary to the statements and averments made by him. The Workman stated that he came to know from

the notice published by Employer-II on 28/08/2012 after the suspension of operation by the Employer-I by

notices dt.16/06/2011 and 17/06/2011 of the manufacturing activities of the undertaking that Employer-II

had taken over the possession of the movable and immovable assets of the Employer-I as specified in the

said notice under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 and in exercise of powers confirmed u/s 13(12) read with Rule free of Security

interest(enforcement) Rules, 2002, issued under demand notice dt. 09/11/2011.

10. Based on the pleadings filed by the respective parties, this court framed the following issues on

27/07/2017 at Exb. 23. The said issues have been updated vide order dt. 27/11/2017 at Exb. 28 pursuant to

the amendment of the written statement by the Employer.

Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the Employer/Party-II refused employment to him

w.e.f. 01/10/2011?

Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the action of the Employer/Party II in refusing him

employment w.e.f. 01/10/2011 is illegal and unjustified?

Whether the Workman/Party-I proves that the action of the Employer/Party II in suspending the

operations of its factory is illegal and unjustified?

Whether the Employer/Party-II (1) proves that the present order of reference is bad-in-law in

view of the reasons stated in para A to F of its written statement by way of preliminary

objections?

4A.

Whether the Employer /Party-II (1) proves that the present order of reference is bad-in-law in

view of the reasons stated in para A to N of its written statement by way of preliminary

objections?

Whether the Employer/Party-II (2) proves that the present order of reference is bad-in-law and

not maintainable in view of the reasons mentioned in para 2 to 11 of its written statement?

Whether the Workman/Party-I is entitled to any relief?

What order? What award?

11. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as under:

(a) Issue No. 1

In the Affirmative.

(b) Issue No. 2

In the Affirmative.

In the Negative.

(d) Issue No. 4 & 4A

In the Negative.

(e) Issue No. 5

In the Negative.

(f) Issue No. 6 & 7

As per final order.

1486

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

I have heard the oral arguments of Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat, appearing for the Workman as well as

Ld. Adv. Shri. M. S. Bandodkar, appearing for the Employer-II(1) and Employer-II (2) represented by Adv.

Ms. N. Coelho h/f Adv. Mrs. A. A. Raikar. Both the parties have filed their synopsis of written arguments. I

have carefully perused the entire records of the present case including the synopsis of written argument

filed by both the parties. I have also carefully considered the submissions advanced before me and are of

the opinion as under:

REASONS

12. Issue No. 1:

The evidence on record indicates that the Employer-I had issued a letter dt. 01/10/2011 (Exb. 48) to

the Workman stating that he was kept in the employment from 05/12/2000 to 30/09/2011 and that the

manufacturing activity has been suspended from 07/06/2011 till further orders and the same was displayed

in its various notice board vide its notice dt. 30/05/2011 and that since the Employer-I cannot further

provide the Workman any work from 01/10/2011, a notice dt. 30/05/2011 is applicable to him and he was

requested to come and meet the G.M. HRD and Administration to collect the dues payable to him during

the office hours on any working day. The Employer-I closed its factory w.e.f. 13/10/2016. Thus, the said

letter of the Employer-1 on record clearly indicates that the Employer-1 had suspended its manufacturing

activity from 07/06/2011 till further orders and refused employment to the Workman w.e.f. 01/10/2011.

Hence, it is held that the Workman proved that he was refused employment by the Emoloyer-1 w.e.f.

01/10/2011. The issue No. 1 is therefore answered in the affirmative.

13. Issue No. 2:

While deciding the issue No. 1 hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

Workman was refused employment w.e.f. 01/10/2011.

The evidence on record indicates that the first witness of the Workman namely Shri. Ratikant

Khandeparkar, in his affidavit in evidence stated that the Employer-1 had employed more than 400

Workmen excluding officers, supervisors and managerial staff on all the days preceding 12 months from

18/06/2011 and the factory was running in three shifts and that the present Workman was amongst other

400 workmen who were working in the factory of the Employer-I continuously till 17/06/2011 and

18/06/2011 when the said workmen were not allowed to report for work on both these days. In support of

his oral evidence as produced on record E.S.I contributions at Exb.32, and 33-colly, Exb. 35, Exb-36-colly

and Exb. 37. The aforesaid evidence on record clearly indicates that the Employer-1 had employed more

than 100 workmen in its factory for the period from 2010 to 2011. The sole witness of the Employer-1, its

authorized signatory, Shri D. Mathur, has produced a list of 194 workmen employed in June, 2011 and has

stated that out of the said list 20 employees are non-workmen category but has not laid any evidence in

support of the aforesaid statement. Hence, the Employer is covered under Chapter V-B of the I. D. Act,

1947.

14. The letter of the Employer-1 at exb.48 indicates that the services of the Workman were terminated

without any misconduct or punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. Section 2 (OO) of the I.D.

Act 1947 defines the term retrenchment and it means:

“2(00)-retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any

reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not

include-

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the Contract of employment

between the employer and the workmen concerned contain a stipulation in that behalf, or

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the Contract of

employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such Contract being

terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein, or

(c) Termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health.

15. In the case in hand, the services of the Workman has been refused without any misconduct on his

part. Further, the refusal of employment to the Workman does not comes under sub clause (a) to (c). Hence

refusing of employment to the Workman amounts to retrenchment of the said Workman.

1487

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

16. As the Employer-1 was employing more than 100 workmen, chapter V-B of the I.D. Act is

applicable. Section 25-N of the I.D. Act provides for condition precedent to retrenchment of workmen and

it reads as under:

25-N Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workers-(1) No workman employed in any industrial

establishment to which this Chapter applies, who has been in continues service for not less than one year

under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until- (a) The workmen has been given three

months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or

the workmen has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice and

c) The prior permission of the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by that

Government by notification in the Official Gazette (hereafter in this section referred to as the specified

authority), has been obtained on an application made in this behalf.

17. The evidence on record indicates that the Employer-1 had not obtained any prior permission to

retrench the Workman as required u/s 25-N of the I.D. Act, 1947 as well as nor given three months notice

in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the Workman has

been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. Thus, the refusal of employment to the

Workman w.e.f. 01/10/2011 is illegal and unjustified. Hence it is held that the Workman proved that the

action of the Employer in refusing him employment w.e.f. 01/10/2011 is illegal and unjustified. The issue

No.2 is therefore answered in the affirmative.

18. Issue No. 3:

The Workman filed his pleadings i.e. claim statement in the present proceeding. The Workman has

however did not plead about suspending the operation of the factory in its entire claim statement or

rejoinder filed in the present proceeding, though the reference issued by the Govt. of Goa pertains to the

legality and justifiability of the action of the Employer-1 in suspending the operation of the factory and

refusing the employment to the Workman w.e.f. 01/10/2011 and the relief the Workman is entitled to.

19. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar representing the Employer submitted that the Workman did not

challenge the suspension of operation and that there is absolutely no pleadings pertaining to the suspension

of operation w.e.f. 01/10/2011 and as such though there is evidence, this Hon’ble court cannot look into the

same. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar representing the Employer relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble

Apex Court 1) In the case of Shankar Chakravarti V/s. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in

1979 AIR 1652, and 2) In the case of Mukund Ltd. v/s. Mukund Staff and Officers Association.

20. In the case of Shankar Chakravarti (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, held in para 32 of its

judgment held as under:

“32. If such be the duties’ and functions of the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, any party

appearing before its must make claim or demur the claim of the other side and when there is a burden upon

it to prove or establish the fact so as to invite a decision in its favour, if it has to lead evidence. The quasi-

judicial tribunal is not required to advise the party either about is rights or what it should do of omit to do.

Obligation to lead evidence or establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the

allegation. The test would be who would failed if no evidence is led. It must seek an opportunity to lead

evidence and lead evidence. A contention to substantiate which evidence is necessary has to be pleaded. If

there is no pleading raising a contention there is no question of substantiating such a non-existing

contention by evidence. It is well settled that allegation which is not pleaded, even if there is evidence in

support of it, cannot be examined because the other side has no notice of it and it entertained it would

tantamount to granting an unfair advantage to the first mentioned party. We are not unmindful of the fact

that pleadings before such bodies have not to be read strictly, but it is equally true that the pleadings must

be such as to give sufficient notice to the other party of the case it is called upon to meet. This view

expressed in Tin Printers (Private) Ltd. v/s. Industrial Tribunal (I) commends to us. The rules of fair play

demand that where a party seeks to establish a contention which if proved would be sufficient to deny relief

to the opposite side, such a contention has to be specifically pleaded and then proved. But if there is no

pleading there is no question of proving something which is not pleaded. This is very elementary.”

21. In the case of Mukund Ltd. (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, held as under:

“It is settled law that in the absence of a plea, no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be

looked into” (Case refer Bandar Singh & Ors V/s. Nihal Singh and Ors.(2003) 4SCC 161.

1488

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

22. In the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another v/s. Bajranglal

(Rajasthan) reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 14 of its

judgment held as under:

14. “It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient

evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the plaint and in case the pleadings are not complete, the

Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas”.

23. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its aforesaid judgment is well established

and also applicable to the case in hand. In the case in hand, there is absolutely no pleadings pertaining to

the action of the Employer-I in suspending the operation of the factory w.e.f. 01/10/2011. In the absence of

any pleadings, no evidence can be looked into. Thus in the absence of any pleading of the Workman it is

held that the Workman failed to prove that the action of the Employer-I suspending the operation of its

factory is illegal and unjustified. The issue No.3 is therefore answered in the Negative.

24. Issue No. 4 & 4A:

While deciding the issue No. 3 hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

Workman failed to prove that the action of the Employer-1 in suspending the operation of its factory is

illegal and unjustified.

The Employer-I submitted that the Goa Trade & Commercial workers union has no locus standi to

represent the workmen concerned in reference, as the person concerned in the reference is not their

member. The Employer-1 submitted that since it has not terminated the services of the workmen concerned

in the reference, question of legality and/or justifiability of termination as contemplated in the order of

reference, does not arise and on that ground also the reference is bad-in-law and not maintainable.

25. Ld. Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkar representing the Employer-1 submitted that Goa Trade and

Commercial Workers Union has no locus standi to represent the Workman under reference as the person

concerned in the reference is not its member and relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court: 1) In

the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. V/s. Industrial Tribunal of Gujarat reported in

1968 (I) LLJ 834 and 2) in the case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate V/s. Dimakuchi Tea Estate

reported in 1958 SCR 1156,

26. In the case of Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Ltd. (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as

under:

“If no dispute at all was raised by the employees concerned with the management, any request sent by

them to the Government would only be a demand by them and not an industrial dispute between them and

their employer. An industrial dispute, as defined, must be a dispute between employers and employers,

employers and workmen, and workmen and workmen. A mere demand to be Government, without a dispute

being raised by the workmen with their employer, cannot become an industrial dispute.

27. In the case of Dimakushi Tea Estate (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“that an industrial dispute, as defined, must be a dispute between employers and employers, employers

and workmen, and workmen and workmen and according to him since in the case in hand there is nothing

to indicate that the workmen had espoused the dispute, it has to be held that the Union had no any

authority on behalf of the workmen and that party-I union has no locus standi to espouse the dispute”.

28. On the contrary Ld. Adv. Shri P. J. Kamat appearing for the Workman submitted that the Union has

locus standi and relied upon a judgment in the case of ANZ Grindlay Bank V/s. G. S. Grindlay Bank

Employees Union and Ors reported in 2001 (89) FLR 375.

29. In the case of ANZ Grindlay Bank (Supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held as under:

“The Union is a complete shelter and home for retreat for every workman as and when he finds himself

in difficulty. Very often the employees or workmen do not become members of any union for their own

reasons selfish or otherwise. It is possible that the present workman being only a temporary workman

preferred to remain away from the Union but when he found himself in difficulty he knocked the doors of

the Union which rightly gave shelter to him and responded to his call for help. The Union did not, rightly

adopt a narrow and sectarian attitude of not helping him on the ground that he was not the Union member,

the union has rightly extended its help and has espoused his cause for justice. There is no bar or

prohibition, for the Respondent union functioning in the Petitioners company, or for that matter for any

1489

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

union functioning in any undertaking to espouse cause of any workman who might not have been enrolled

as member in the past. The Membership of a union is not a condition precedent to espouse an industrial

dispute of a workman. The union can espouse of even a non member, who approaches them for help”.

30. In the case in hand, the Workman, in his cross examination, admitted that neither he nor his union

has made any demand letter on the Employer at any time prior to making the letter dt. 04/12/2012 at

Exb.140. On the contrary, as against his oral evidence, the Workman had produced a documentary evidence

on record i.e. a copy of industrial dispute dt. 04/12/2012 raised by Goa Trade and Commercial Workers

Union addressed to the Labour Commissioner Panaji Goa and a copy of which was made to the Employer-

1 with a demand to provide employment to the Workman with immediate effect. The Workman also

produced copy of receipt of payment of entrance fees as well as membership fees of the union. The

Workman also produced a copy of the reply of the Employer dt. 10/07/2014 addressed to ALC Panaji Goa

as well as minutes of meeting held on 10/07/2014 between the management of the Employer-1 and their

workmen represented by Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union in the matter of refusal of

employment before the ALC & Conciliation Officer Panaji Goa.

The sole witness of the Employer-1 and its authorized signatory, Shri Deepak Mathur, in his cross-

examination, admitted that the Employer-1, vide its letter dt. 11/07/2011 (Exb. 119-cross) addressed to the

union deposed that when the dispute has been raised by the union in respect of its action of keeping

workers out as per notice at exb.49-cross, the Employer was required to preserve the attendance and wage

records of all those workers for the said year. He admits that in its letter at exb. 119-cross, the Employer

had not disputed the locus standi of the union to take up the matter of the workmen of the Employer-1. He

admits that the Labour commissioner Panaji has instituted conciliation proceeding in the said dispute raised

by the union and that in the said conciliation proceedings held on 23/08/2011 at exb. 85 Mr. Dwarka Rao

along with Mr. Bandodkar attended the conciliation proceeding and minutes were recorded at exb. 85. He

also admits that in the said proceedings Mr. Christopher Fonseca and Mr. Suhas Naik of the union were

present representing the workmen. He also admits that in the said proceedings, the Employer-1 did not

raise the issue of locus standi of the said union to represent the Workman. He admits that from 23/08/2011

till 04/11/2012 the Employer-1 did not challenge the locus standi of the said union to represent the

workmen of the Employer-1 and that for the first time on 05/11/2012 the Employer-1 challenged the locus

standi of the said union to represent the workmen of the Empoyer-1 in its written statement. Thus,

aforesaid evidence on record clearly indicates that the action of the Employer-1 to raise the issue of locus

standi of the said union is afterthought and not maintainable in law. Hence, it is held that the union has

every right to represent the Workman and challenged the refusal of employment to the workman w.e.f.

01/10/2011. Hence, it is held that the Employer-1 failed to prove that the present order of reference is bad-

in-law in view of the reasons stated in para A to N of its written statement by way of preliminary

objections. The issue No. 4 and 4A is answered in the Negative.

31. Issue No. 5:

The evidence on record indicates that Employer-1 is the borrower of the Employer-II and the

Employer-1 have availed various credit facilities from consortium of banks which is reconstituted from

time to time/its assigns including its Panaji Branch during 2000 from their business purpose against their

execution of various loan documents/agreements/guarantee and other security documents on its

movable/immovable properties creating securities in its favour. The evidence on record indicates that for

securities the limits, primary security being all present and future stocks of raw materials such as copper

cathode, copper scrap, zinc, brass honey scrap, master alloys etc., stock in process, finished the goods,

store and spares, book depths etc. and second charge on all present and future movable fixed assets such as

vehicles, movable plant and machinery, machinery spares, tools and accessories and other movable etc. and

immovable fixed assets such as land and all present and future building, plant and machineries embedded

to earth or fastened to anything which is embedded to earth etc. The evidence on record indicates that the

conduct of the Employer-1 was not satisfactory/out of order and hence the account of the Employer-I was

classified as NPA in its books of accounts. The evidence on record indicates that subsequently the

Employer-II initiated recovery action against the Employer-I in respect of the recovery limits under various

credit facilities. The evidence on record indicates that the Employer-II initiated recovery action and filed

original application (O.A.) in the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III at Mumbai in the year, 2011 for its recovery

of a sum of Rs.141,91,94,039,90 (Rupees One hundred forty one crores ninety one lacs ninety four

thousand thirty nine and paise ninety only) together with further interest thereon @16.25% p.a. and 18.75%

1490

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of filing of the O.A. till payment and also various relief

as more particularly contained in the said original application. The evidence on record indicates that

pending the hearing and final disposal of the above original application, the defendants have approached

the Applicant Bank for a One Time Settlements of the debt contained in the O.A. as well as the debts

payable by them to consortium lenders/its assigns i.e. M/s Arihant Revival Enterprises (Assignee of

Original Defendant No. 4 in O.A.) and ARCIL (Assignee of Original Defendant No.5 in O.A.). The

evidence on record indicates that accordingly Consent Terms were entered between the Applicant Bank and

Defendants Nos.1 to 3 therein in the O.A. on 12/11/2014. Pursuant to the said Consent terms, the Ld.

Presiding Officer has passed the order in terms of Consent Terms on 12/11/2014. The evidence on record

indicates that pursuant to the Consent Terms dt. 12/11/2014 the defendants have paid a sum of Rs. 1735.69

Lacs to the Applicant. The evidence of record indicates that upon receipt of the above said amount of Rs.

1735.69 Lacs to the Applicant and Rs. 4050.00 Lacs to the Consortium Banks which were credited to the

loan account of Employer-II, with the Bank, the Applicant Bank as well as other Consortium Banks/its

assigns have released the charge in respect of the Plant and Machinery to the Employer-I herein (Defendant

No.1 in the O.A.) at the request of the Employer-II with the condition that, the defendant No. 1 to 3 in the

said O.A. shall pay a sum of Rs. 5160.00 Lacs to the Consortium of Banks. The evidence on records

indicates that after payment of aforesaid sum of Rs. 1735.00 Lacs to the Impleading Party-II Canara Bank,

the Party No. 1-Defendants therein have failed and neglected to pay the balance amount to the Applicant

Bank as contained in said Consent Terms. The Applicant therefore submits that, since the Defendants have

committed default in repaying the amount under the One Time Settlement/Consent terms, the concession

granted to the defendants under the said Consent terms dt. 21/11/2014 was not available to the Defendants

and that the Defendants were bound and liable to pay the Applicant the entire claim amount of Rs.

141,91,94,039.90 (Rupees One hundred forty one crores ninety one lacs ninety four thousand thirty nine

and paise ninety only) together with further interest thereon @16.25% p.a. and 18.75% p.a. compounded

with monthly rests from the date of filing of the O.A. till payment.

32. The evidence on record indicates that the Party could not repay the amount, Bank has initiated

recovery proceedings including amongst others, action under SARFAESI Act 2002 on its properties and

put the properties on auction under SARFAESI Act. As a secured creditor, the Employer-II has every right

to take necessary recovery steps including action under SARFAESI Act. But even after putting the property

under Auction four times on various occasions, the auction failed due to want of bidders. The evidence on

record indicates that the Employer-I, Company have approached the Applicant Bank for a One Time

Settlement of the debt contained in the O.A. as well as the debts payable by them to other Consortium

Lenders to M/s Arihant Revival Enterprises (Assignee of Original Dfendant No. 4 in O.A.), Canara Bank

(Applicant in O.A.) and ARCIL (Assignee of Original Defendant No. 5 in O.A.). The evidence on record

indicates that the Company have approached the Applicant Bank for a One Time Settlement of their debt

contained in the O.A. as well as dues to the other Consortium Lenders, Bank has deferred for the time

being the proceedings for sale of the immovable peroperties of the Company under SARFAESI Act.

33. The evidence on record indicates that the Employer-II has not sold the assets of the Employer-I

under the SARFAESI Act. The evidence on record indicates that the Employer-I paid the required amount

of Rs. 25.00 Crs. towards the OTS One Time Settlement for the entire Consortium for releasing the charges

on the Plant and Machinery of the Employer-I, Employer-II released the charge on behalf of joint Lenders

on the Plant and Machinery vide their letter dt. 30/01/2016, The evidence on record indicates that the

Employer-I, vide their letters dt. 09/03/2017, paid the required balance amount of Rs. 17,20,23,000.00 by

way of DD towards the final payment against their Bank One Time Settlement and hence Employer-I, has

not proceeded under the SARFAESI Act. As the entire OTS amount is received, the accounts of the

Employer-I with the Employer-II stands closed. The evidence on records indicates that the Employer-II

released their charge on the secured asset Land and Building and personal Guarantee executed by the

Guarantors. The evidence on records indicates that the Employer-II had taken only symbolic possession of

the secured assets. The evidence on records indicates that the Employer-II at no time asked the Employer-I

to be a caretaker and did not ask them to maintain the machines so that they do not become scrap. The

evidence on record indicates that the Employer-II along with Consortium did not stop them in any ways

from functioning/working of the process in the Employer-I.

34. The evidence on record indicates that at present there are no dues pending, there is no cause of

action for the Party-I to file the resent impleading petition against the Employer-II in as much they are no

1491

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

way liable to pay the alleged dues due to the Party-I. Thus the implement of the Employer-II was added as

a proforma party on the request of the Workman. The implement of the Employer-II of the proceeding is

legal and bonafide thus though the Employer-II proved the allegations mentioned in para 2 to 11 of its

written statement, it does not mean that the reference is bad-in-law and not maintainable. Hence, it is held

that the Employer-II failed to prove that the present order of reference is bad-in-law in view of the reasons

stated in para 2 to 11 of its written statement. The issue No. 5 is therefore answered in the Negative.

35. Issue No. 6:

While deciding the issue No. 2 hereinabove, I have discussed and come to the conclusion that the

action of the Employer in refusing the employment to the Workman w.e.f. 01/10/2011 is illegal and

unjustified. Neither the Workman pleaded nor stated on oath that after refusal of his employment by the

Employer-I, he is unemployed. The Employer-I closed its factory w.e.f. 13/10/2016. The Workman is

therefore not entitled to reinstatement in service but the Workman is entitled to 20% of the back wages for

a period from 01/10/2011 till closure of the establishment w.e.f. 13/10/2016.

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

ORDER

In the absence of any evidence, it is held that the action of M/s. Meta Copper and Alloys Limited,

Zuarinagar, Sancoale, Goa, in suspending the operations of the Factory w.e.f. 01/10/2011 is legal

and justified.

It is held that the action of the M/s. Meta Copper and Alloys Limited, in refusing employment to

Shri Mahableshwar A. Naik, with effect from 01/10/2011, is illegal and unjustified.

It is held that the Workman Shri Mahableshwar A. Naik is entitled to receive from M/s. Meta

Copper and Alloys Limited, Zuarinagar, Sancoale, Goa, 20% of back wages w.e.f. 01/10/2011 till

13/10/2016.

No order as to costs.

Inform the Government accordingly.

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

Panaji.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Law & Judiciary

Law (Establishment) Division

Order

Read:- Order No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt.)/Part-II/1728 dated 22/07/2026.

The Government is pleased to appoint and post Shri Mahesh R. Prabhu Parrikar, as District Registrar,

Kushavati District, with immediate effect in public interest, thus relieving Shri Suraj R. Vernekar, of his

additional charge of District Registrar, Kushavati.

Shri Mahesh R. Prabhu Parrikar shall continue to hold the charge of Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-

Registrar, Ponda, in addition to his own duties, until further orders.

Shri Mahesh R. Prabhu Parrikar shall draw his salary against the vacant post of District Registrar

(Headquarters) until further orders.

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

Gajanan X. Bhonsle, Under Secretary (Estt.), Law.

Porvorim.

No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt)/Part-I/2088

Date : 09-Sep-2026

1492

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

Addendum

Read: Order No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt.)/Part-I/2088 dated 09/09/2026.

In the above read Order, in second line at para 2 in between the fifth and sixth word, the following

words shall be added and read as “and Civil Registrar-cum-Sub-Registrar-I, Ponda”.

Rest of the contents of the above Order remains unchanged.

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

Gajanan X. Bhonsle, Under Secretary (Estt.), Law.

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Personnel

Order

On the recommendation of the Goa Services Board, the Governor of Goa is pleased to order transfer

and posting of the following Junior Scale Officer of Goa Civil Service, in public interest, with immediate

effect:

Sr.

No.

Name and present posting of the Officer

Posted as

Shri Suyash V. Sinai Khandeparkar,

Joint Director, Information & Publicity with

additional charge of Deputy Director, Vigilance

Deputy Director, Vigilance

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

Raghuraj A. Faldesai, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Revenue

Order

On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee conveyed by the Goa Public Service

Commission, vide its letter No. COM/II/11/29(1)/2019/214 dated 10/08/2026, the Government is pleased

to promote the following Officer in the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records to the post of Inspector

of Surveys and Land Records/Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer (Group ‘B’, Gazetted) on regular

basis in Level 8 of Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, with immediate effect:

1. Smt. Maithili P. Sirsat.

The above officer shall be on probation for a period of 02 (two) years from the date of her joining. She

shall submit her Annual Assessment Report during the probation period.

She shall also exercise her option for pay fixation within a period of one month from the date of issue

of this order, in terms of F.R. 22(1)(a)(1). The option once exercised shall be final.

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

Vrushika Kauthankar, Under Secretary (Rev-I).

Porvorim.

No. 2/65/2016-LD(Estt)/Part-I/2098

Date : 09-Sep-2026

No. 5/4/2026-PER/2797

Date : 09-Sep-2026

No. 26/07/01/2025-RD/1329

Date : 10-Sep-2026

1493

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

Notification

In pursuance of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act,

1964 (Act No. 7 of 1964) and in supersession of the Government Order No. 1/4/2020-RD/8794 dated

03/11/2021, published in the Official Gazette, Series II No. 33 dated 11/11/2021, the Government of Goa

has decided that it will contribute 100% of the sum towards the cost of repair/strengthening of protective

bunds, subject to prior sanction of Finance Department towards each such proposal considering Budget

Allocation and Financial position of the State.

This notification shall come into force on the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

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

Vrushika Kauthankar, Under Secretary (Revenue-I).

Porvorim.

——— ♦♦♦———

Department of Town and Country Planning

Office of the Chief Town Planner

Order

Read: Order No. 1/3/TCP(Part-File)/2017-19/1836 dated 31-08-2026.

In supersession to the earlier order, as referred above, Government is pleased to order transfer and

posting of the following Officers of the Town and Country Planning Department, in public interest, with

immediate effect:

Sr. No.

Name and Designation of the

Officers

Present place of posting

Transferred/Posted at

Shri Ritesh R. Shirodkar,

Dy. Town Planner

Ponda Taluka Office, TCP Dept.,

Ponda and to assist Planning

Development Construction

Committee (PDCC) constituted

under the Goa Investment

Promotion and Facilitation Board of

Single Window Clearance Act, 2021

TCP Headquarters, Panaji and to

assist Planning Development

Construction Committee (PDCC)

constituted under the Goa

Investment Promotion and

Facilitation Board of Single Window

Clearance Act, 2021.

Shri Shivprasad P. Murari,

Dy. Town Planner

Member Secretary, South Goa

Planning and Development

Authority, Margao-Goa with

additional charge of Bicholim

Taluka Office, TCP Dept., Bicholim-

Goa

Member Secretary, South Goa

Planning and Development

Authority, Margao-Goa with

additional charge of Bicholim

Taluka Office, TCP Dept., Bicholim-

Goa and Ponda Taluka Office, TCP

Department, Ponda.

The Officers shall join the new place of posting with immediate effect, without availing joining time.

The Officers shall complete handing over and taking over process with immediate effect and submit

compliance.

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

Vertika Dagur, Chief Town Planner (Administration/Planning/Land Use)/HoD & ex officio Joint

Secretary.

Panaji.

No. 1/4/2020-RD/1346

Date : 11-Sep-2026

No. 1/3/TCP(Part-File)/2017-19/1869

Date : 08-Sep-2026

1494

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

Order

In supersession of all earlier orders pertaining to the appointment of Public Information Officers and

Appellate Authority in the Headquarters, Office of Town and Country Planning Department, Panaji, and in

pursuance to Sections 5(1) and 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the following officers are

hereby appointed as Public Information Officers, as specified in the column No. 2 and Appellate Authority

as specified in column No. 4, with immediate effect until further orders:

Sr.

No.

Name/Designation of Public

Information Officer

Subject

Appellate Authority

Smt. Tecla Fernandes,

Superintendent

Public Information Officer-1

Administration

Dy. Director

(Administration)

Smt. Anushka Hadkonkar,

Statistical Assistant

Public Information Officer-2

Statistics/Revenue/Budget Registration of

Professionals

Shri M.K.C.

Srikanth, Town

Planner (HQs)/

D.D.O.

Kum. Saloni Naik, Accountant

Public Information Officer-3

Accounts matters

Shri M.K.C.

Srikanth, Town

Planner (HQs)/

D.D.O.

Shri Saviour O Coutinho,

Planning Assistant,

Public Information Officer-4

Section 17 (2) matters, Regional Plan matters and

matters related to Section 39 (A)

Shri Vinod Kumar

Chandra, Town

Planner (HQs).

Shri Yugandaraj V. Redkar, Dy.

Town Planner

Public Information Officer-5

16-A Committee (Public Projects), Storage of

Explosives/Petroleum Products

Shri Vinod Kumar

Chandra, Town

Planner (HQs).

BPAMS

Shri M.K.C.

Srikanth, Town

Planner (HQs)/

D.D.O.

Smt. Sampurna P. Bhagat, Dy.

Town Planner,

Public Information Officer-6

Complaints (Public Grievances), Complaints

(Offline), Miscellaneous/General (Technical),

Consumer Protection Court matters

Shri Anand

Deshpande, Town

Planner (HQs).

Garbage Management Site issues

Shri M.K.C.

Srikanth, Town

Planner (HQs)/

D.D.O.

Shri Ram alias Tanay Sandesh

Timblo, Dy. Town Planner,

Public Information Officer-7

TCP Board

Shri Vinod Kumar

Chandra, Town

Planner (HQs).

Smt. Nadia Terence Fernandes,

Dy. Town Planner

Public Information Officer-8

30% FAR for 4 & 5 Star Hotels

Shri Anand

Deshpande, Town

Planner (HQs).

Legislation matters, TCP Act, GLDBCR, Matters

related to IGBC, Notary Architect/Engineer & De-

Regulations

Shri M.K.C.

Srikanth, Town

Planner (HQs)/

D.D.O.

No. 21/22/RTI-GEN/TCP-HQ/2020-21/1899

Date : 10-Sep-2026

1495

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

Shri Rajesh Tirodkar, Planning

Assistant,

Public Information Officer-9

Matters related to Section 17-A

Chief Town

Planner (Land Use)

Matters related to Committee for Regulation 6.1.1

and 25000 m2 & above

Shri Vinod Kumar

Chandra, Town

Planner (HQs).

10.

Shri Ritesh Shirodkar, Dy. Town

Planner,

Public Information Officer-10

Conservation/NMA, Zoning Plans & ODP related

matters

Shri Anand

Deshpande, Town

Planner (HQs)

This is issued with the approval of the Secretary (TCP).

Vertika Dagur, Chief Town Planner (Admn./Planning/Land Use)/HoD.

Panaji.

1496

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOA

SERIES II No. 25

17TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published by the Director, Printing & Stationery,

Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

Price—Rs. 24.00

PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA—198/80-9/2026.