reg. no. gr/rnp/goa/32 rni no. goaeng/2002/6410 › downloads › 1415 › 1415-18-sii-og-0.pdf ·...

Panaji, 31st July, 2014 (Sravana 9, 1936) SERIES II No. 18

Reg. No. GR/RNP/GOA/32 RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Suggestions are welcome on e-mail: [email protected] 325

GOVERNMENT OF GOADepartment of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture __

Order

No. 8/31/2014-15/D.Agri/99

Read: 1) Order No. 8/31/2012-13/D.Agri/249 dated30-10-2012.

2) Order No. 4/12/85-PER Vol. I dated30-06-2014.

Government has appointed Shri OrlandoRodrigues as Director of Agriculture on officiatingbasis vide order at Sr. No. 2. Hence his deputationperiod cited at Sr. No. 1 stands curtailed from thedate of handing over charge as Managing Director,Goa State Horticulture Corporation Ltd.

By order and in the name of the Governorof Goa.

D. P. Dwivedi, Secretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 18th July, 2014.

——— ———

Department of Animal Husbandry

Office of the Returning Officer to theGoa State Veterinary Council,

C/o Office of the Registrar of Co-op. Societies __

Notification

No. 50/3(1)/Elec./BOD/GSVC/RCS/HQ/14

In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 10of the Goa State Veterinary Council Rules, 1990,I, Shri J. B. Bhingui, Registrar of Co-op. Societies& Returning Officer to the Election of the GoaState Veterinary Council, hereby publish theprogramme of election of above said council asunder:

Programme of Election

1. Date, time and place 07-08-2014 fromfor filing of nominations 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.

in the Office of theRegistrar of Co-op.Societies, Panaji-Goa.

2. Date, time and place 09-08-2014 fromof Scrutiny of nomina- 10.30 a.m. onwardstion in the office of the

Registrar of Co-op.Societies, Panaji-Goa.

3. Date, time and place 11-08-2014 fromfor withdrawal of 10.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m.nomination in the office of the

Registrar of Co-op.Societies, Panaji-Goa.

4. Date, time and place 11-09-2014 fromof poll if necessary 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

in the office of theDirectorate of AnimalHusbandry & Veteri-nary Services, Patto,Panaji-Goa.

5. Date, time and place 12-09-2014 fromof counting of votes 11.00 a.m. onwardsand declaration of in the office of theresult Registrar of Co-op.

Societies, Panaji-Goa.

The nomination papers and other relevantdetails shall be obtained from the office of theRegistrar of Co-op. Societies, Panaji-Goa.

J. B. Bhingui, Returning Officer for the Goa StateVeterinary Council.

Panaji, 31st July, 2014.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOASERIES II No. 18 31ST JULY, 2014

326

Department of Education, Art & CultureDirectorate of Technical Education

College Section __

Order

No. 16/331/PPS/PF/DTE/2014/1088

Read: Memorandum No. 16/228/Recruit-Posts//GEC/DTE/11/PF-I/1004 dated 11-07-2014.

On the recommendations of Goa PublicService Commission conveyed vide their letterNo. COM(I)/5/18(1)/2011/395 dated 05-03-2012,Government is pleased to appoint Dr. PurnanandPundalik Savoikar on temporary basis to the postof Professor in Civil Engineering (Group ‘A’,Gazetted) at Goa College of Engineering,Farmagudi in the pay scale of 37,400--67,000+Academic Grade Pay ` 10,000/- with payprotection alongwith two increments (asrecommended by Goa Public Service Commission)w.e.f. date of joining the post as per the terms &conditions contained in the Memorandum citedabove.

The appointment is against the post createdvide order No. PDD/EDN/TECH/257/65 dated17-05-1965 and revived vide order No. 16/250//Creation & Revival of posts of GEC/DTE/10/2405dated 12-07-2010 and subsequently revived videorder 16/250/Creation & Revival of Posts of GEC/DTE//10/756 dated 18-06-2013 (Non Plan Second Postat Sr. No. 1).

Dr. Purnanand Pundalik Savoikar will be onprobation for a period of two years.

He should join duties within 30 days of thereceipt of this order, failing which this order isliable to be cancelled without further notice.

He has been declared fit by Medical Board, GoaMedical College & Hospital, Bambolim and hischaracter and antecedents have been verified andnothing adverse is reported against him duringhis selection as Lecturer in Civil Engineering inGoa College of Engineering, Farmagudi, Ponda-Goa.


Vivek B. Kamat, Director & ex officio Addl.Secretary (Technical Education).

Porvorim, 18th July, 2014.

Department of HomeHome—General Division

__

Notification

No. HD(G)45-59/575/66-Vol.III/2473

The Rajya Sainik Board, Goa is herebyre-constituted as under w.e.f. 01-08-2014.

1. Hon’ble Chief Minister : President//Chairman.

2. GOC-in-C, Southern : Vice-President.Command, Pune

3. GOC-in-C, Western Naval : Vice-President.Command, Mumbai

4. AOC-in-C, South Western : Vice-President.Air Command, Ahmedabad

5. Minister for Home : Member.

6. Shri Pramod Sawant, : Member.MLA, Sanquelim

7. Chief Secretary : Vice-President.

8. Flag Officer Commanding, : Member.Goa Area

9. Station Commander, : Member.Panaji, Goa

10. Director Resettlement, : Member.Zone (South)

11. Director General of Police : Member.

12. Principal Secretary : Member.

13. Secretary (Finance) : Member.

14. Secretary (Education) : Member.

15. Secretary (Information : Member.& Publicity)

16. Collector, North Goa, : Member.Panaji

17. Collector, South Goa, : Member.Margao

18. Additional Secretary : Member.(Personnel)

19. Additional Secretary : Member.(Home)

20. Director of Sports & : Member.Youth Affairs

21. Director of Social Welfare : Member.

22. Brig. N. H. Braganza (Retd.): Non-OfficialMember.


327

23. Vice Adm. Sunil K. Damle : Non-OfficialPVSM, AVSM, NM, VSM Member.(Retd.)

24. Air Cmde P. K. Pinto (Retd.) : Non-OfficialMember.

25. Ex-PO Krishna Mahadev : Non-OfficialShetkar Member.

26. President, Indian : Non-OfficialEx-service League Goa Member.

27. President, Air Force : Non-OfficialAssociation, Goa Member.

28. President, Goa Foundation : Non-OfficialMember.

29. Dir. General Resettlement : Special Invitee.Ministry of Defence,New Delhi

30. Secretary, Kendriya Sainik : Special Invitee.Board, New Delhi

31. Rep. of Department of : Vice-President.Ex-Servicemen Welfare,Ministry of Defence,New Delhi

32. Secretary, Rajya Sainik : MemberBoard Secretary.

The function of the Board are specified below:

(i) Co-ordinating and administering the workof Department of Sainik Welfare.

(ii) Promoting measures relating to the Welfareof Ex-Servicemen and the families ofserving and deceased personnel.

(iii) Disseminating information to the GeneralPublic regarding the Arm Forces in theCountry and taking measures to encouragethe general public to take active interest inthe Arm Forces.

The re-constituted Board shall hold office for aperiod of 2 years, from the date of issue of thisNotification. It shall meet every year.

This supersedes this Department’s earlierNotification No. HD(G)45-59/575/66-Vol III/1984dated 30-07-2012 and Corrigendum Nos. HD(G)45-59/575/66-Vol III/2386 dated 11-07-2013 &HD(G)45-59/575/66-Vol III/3053 dated 04-09-2013.


Neetal P. Amonkar, Under Secretary (Home).


Department of Labour__

Notification

No. 28/1/2014-Lab/226

The following award passed by the IndustrialTribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on10-02-2014 in reference No. IT/18/2000 is herebypublished as required by Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).


Shashank V. Thakur, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 08th April, 2014._________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDLABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOAAT PANAJI

(Before Ms. Bimba K. Thaly, PresidingOfficer)

Ref. No. IT/18/2000Workmen rep. byThe PresidentMarmagoa Steel Employees Union,C/o House No. 447,Macazana,Curtorim. P. O.Salcete, Goa … Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Marmagoa Steel280, Eclate,Curtorim, Salcete, Goa … Employer/Party II

Party I/Workman Mr. Mestrilal R. Sajiwan,represented by Adv. Shri M. P. Almeida.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri G. K.Sardessai.

AWARD

(Passed on this 10th day of February, 2014)

In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(2) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) (for short the Act),the Government of Goa vide order dated 20-01-2000bearing No.CL/3-11/10(2)/(44)/99/356 has referredthe following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal.

“(1) Whether the action of the management ofM/s. Marmagoa Steel Limited, Curtorim(Employer), in dismissing from the services


328

the following 3 workmen on the dates shownagainst their names who are the OfficeBearers of the recognized Trade Union andprotected workmen, is legal and justified?

(1) Mr. Agnelo Estibeiro with effect from02-08-99.

(2) Mr. Mestrilal R. Sajiwan, with effect from02-08-99.

(3) Mr. Indal Prasad Gupta, with effect from02-08-99.

(2) If not, to what relief the workmen areentitled?”

2. Upon receipt of the dispute, reference IT/18//00 came to be registered and notices were issuedto both the parties under registered A.D. post.Upon appearance, Party I filed the claim statementat Exb.5, Party II filed the written statement atExb.6 and Party I then filed the rejoinder atExb. 7.

3. It is in short the case of Party I that on22-6-94 the workers of the Party II unionized underGomantak Mazdoor Sangh and a settlement underSec. 12 (3) r/w Sec.18 (3) of the Act was signedbetween the said union and Party II. Thatthereafter on 19-11-96, the workers formed anunion i.e. Party I union and the said union throughvarious letters and personal meetings brought tothe notice of the management that the workingconditions within the premises were not adequatebut the management did not implement safetymeasures. That Party II terminated the services ofworkmen namely, Shri Agnelo Esteibero, MestrilalSajiwan and Indal Gupta and other two workmennamely, Shri Umashankar Yadav and ShriJayaprakash Yadev vide letters dated 6-3-99 and16-3-99. That the union approached the labourcommissioner and during the discussions held, asettlement was arrived at. That the terms of thesettlement included that the management shallrevoke the dismissal order in respect of the abovefive workers which included the workmen in thepresent reference and it was agreed that the saidworkers shall be kept under suspension pendinginquiry and the management shall expeditiouslyconduct and complete the enquiry proceedingsand pass the final order within 60 days from thedate of signing of the settlement. That thereafterthe enquiry with respect to the workmen in thepresent reference and the workers MestrilalSejwan and Indal Gupta was clubbed together andShri K.V. Nadkarni was appointed as the enquiryofficer. That during the enquiry, the managementby letters dated 2-8-99, discharged the services of

the workmen and the above other two workers.That the dispute was raised before the LabourCommissioner and on submitting of the failurereport by the Labour Commissioner, the presentdispute has been referred to this tribunal foradjudication. It is the case of the workmen thatthe charges alleged against them were not proved;that their discharge from service is illegal, nulland void and is against the certified standingorders and the principles of natural justice. It istheir case that they are unemployed and they haveprayed to hold the action of the management indischarging their services w.e.f. 2-8-99 as illegaland bad in law and to reinstate them back inservices with continuity in service and full backwages with effect from 2-8-99.

4. In the written statement it is in short thecase of Party II that the reference deserves to berejected as the workmen did not have the authorityto sign the statement of claim. It is stated that theworkman Shri Indal Prasad Gupta has signed thesettlement u/s. 2(p) of the Act with the employeraccording to which his entire dispute has beensettled conclusively. It is stated that the companyhad severe set back from the inception but inspiteit the company retained harmonious industrialrelation signing long term settlement up to31-3-97, with the union. That in December 1996the workers formed separate union under the nameof Marmagoa Steel Employees Union and thensubmitted a charter of demand by letter dated14-4-1997. After negotiations, a settlement wassigned between the parties for the period of threeyears u/s 12(3) r/w Sec. 18(3) of the Act. It is statedthat the settlement was to be effective from1-4-97 but the wage revision was to be effectivefrom 1-1-98 and it was further agreed that for theperiod from 1-4-97 to 31-12-97 a lump sum amountwas to be paid as per full and final settlement ofthe said period and accordingly arrears were tobe paid as per said terms of settlement. It is statedthat during the month of November 98 unionplaced fresh demand to pay difference of overtimefor the period from 1-4-97 to 31-12-97. That duringthe discussion on these demands, the companywith the sole intention of maintaining peace,agreed to pay the said non-existing payment by24-2-98. It is stated that due to financial difficulty,company could not raise the fund and thus anotice was displayed on 23-2-99 deferring thepayment. It is stated that on account of above, theworkers started non-co-operative attitude and assuch the company had to suspend the workfollowed by lockout and accordingly a notice tothat effect was given to the workmen. It is stated


329

that during suspension of operation, the officebearers of the union and the dismissed employeesstarted threatening the executives of the companyof dire consequences and finally at the instanceof Dy. Labour Commissioner, a settlement wasarrived at on 17-3-99. It is stated that in terms ofthis settlement the lock out was to be lifted andthe workmen were required to report for duty on18-3-99. That the dismissal order issued to fiveworkmen was revoked and they were kept undersuspension pending enquiry as per the allegationsmade against them in the earlier charge sheet andthe enquiry was to be completed and final orderin the same was to be passed within 60 days fromthe date of signing of the settlement. It is statedthat accordingly the enquiry continued but it wasnoticed that the charge sheeted workmen and theunion were not co-operating and wanted to delaythe enquiry. It is stated that the witnesses of thecompany were threatened of dire consequencesand that the concerned workmen in the referencewho were entering the company’s main gate andthreatening the other workers and officials of thecompany of dire consequences. It is stated thatthese workers were asking the willing workmennot to co-operate with the management inproduction and pressurizing the management. Itis stated that regards to entire circumstances thecompany decided not to retain the concernedworkmen in its services and accordingly theywere dismissed w. e. f. 2-8-2000. It is stated thatthe dismissal of the workmen is fully legal andjustified. The company has also reserved its rightto prove the allegations made in charge sheet dated18-3-99 and other allegations before theappropriate authority under the Act, in justificationof its action of dismissal of the workers includingthe past records.

5. In the rejoinder Party I has denied thecontentions raised by Party II in the writtenstatement.

6. On the basis of above averments of therespective parties, issues dated 15-1-01 at Exb.8were framed as under:

1. Whether the Workmen/Party I proves thatthey are the office bearers of MarmugaoSteel Employees Union and are also theprotected workmen?

2. Whether the Workmen/Party I proves thataction of the Employer/Party II in dismissingthem from service w. e. f. 2-8-99 is illegaland unjustified?

3. Whether the Employer/Party II proves thatthe statement of claim filed by theWorkmen/Party I is not maintainable?

4. Whether the Employer/Party II proves thatthe workman Shri Indal Prasad Gupta hasresigned from service and his dispute issettled?

5. Whether the Employer/Party II proves thatthe Workmen/Party I are guilty of thecharges of misconduct levelled againstthem in the charge sheet?

6. Whether the Workmen/Party I are entitledto any relief?

7. What Award?

7. In terms of order dated 16-10-08 (Exb. 38), itwas held by this court that Party II has dismissedthis workmen without holding the enquiry andtherefore the onus of proving the charges levelledagainst the workmen justifying the action ofdismissal is on Party II and therefore the Party II isrequired to begin first and adduce evidence on issueNo.5 and only then the burden would shift onParty I to prove that the action of the dismissal isillegal or unjustified. It is therefore clear from theabove observations made in Exb.38 that in caseParty II fails to prove issue No. 5, Party I is notrequired to prove issue No. 2. Thus, in terms of aboveorder the evidence was first led by Party II.

8. In its evidence Party II examined Shri K.Raghvendran as witness No.1, Shri Y. K. Govil aswitness No. 2, Shri T. K. Tickoo as witness No. 3 andShri Alexander A.C. Rodrigues as witness No.4.Party I did not adduce any evidence.

9. Heard ld. Adv. Shri G. K. Sardessai for Party IIand learned advocate Shri M. P. Almeida for Party I.

10. In his arguments ld. Advocate for Party IIstated that since the assault was on the superiorofficers of Party II, the court should not interfere inthe punishment imposed. In support of hissubmissions, he relied on the judgments such asKolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha Utpadak Sangh,Kolhapur v/s Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & Anr.2009 I CLR 286, Hombe Gawda Educational Trustand another v/s State of Karnataka and others(2006) I SCC 430, Madhya Pradesh ElectricityBoard v/s Jagdish Chandra Sharma 2005 I CLR1074, Orissa Cement Ltd., and AdikandaSahu 1960 SC 518, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.,v/s N.B. Narawade 2005 I CLR 803, New ShorrockMills v/s Maheshbhai T. Rao (1996) 6 SCC 590,and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v/sSubhash Chandra Sharma and others AIR 2000SC 1163. He stated that in domestic enquiry thestrict and sophisticated rules of evidence may notapply and all materials which are logically probativefor a prudent mind are permissible. In support of


330

his above statement, Ld. advocate for Party II reliedon the judgment in the case of State of Haryanaand another v/s Rattan Singh 1977 Lab 845.

11. On the other hand ld. Advocate for Party Istated that there is no iota of evidence before thiscourt to say that the charges of misconduct levelledagainst Party I workmen are established. He furtherstated that once Party II fails to prove issue No. 5relating to misconduct by Party I/Workmen, thequestion of proving issue No. 2 which is on thesubject of justification and legality of dismissal fromservice w. e. f. 2-8-99, does not arise. By referring tothe judgments relied upon the ld. advocate forParty II, he stated that facts in the above cases aretotally different from the facts in the instant caseand therefore the observations made in thosejudgments though are correctly made in thosepeculiar set of facts, cannot be applied to theinstant case. Thus, according to him, the ratios inthe above judgments cannot be made applicableto the case in hand.

12. I have gone through the records of the caseand have duly considered the submissions madeby both the learned advocates.

13. I now proceed to answer the issues with myfindings on the same and the reasons thereof:

Issue No. 1 … Partly in the positive.

Issue No. 2 … Does not arise.

Issue No. 3 … In the negative.

Issue No. 4 … In the positive.

Issue No. 5 … In the negative.Issue No. 6 … Workman Mr. Mestrilal

R. Sajiwan is entitledto total compensationof Rs.1,60,000/-

Issue No. 7 … As per order below.

REASONS

14. Issue No. 1: In para 5 of the claim statement,it is pleaded that Party I Union has its managingcommittee comprising of Shri Vincent Dias asPresident, Shri Agnelo Esteibero as GeneralSecretary, Shri Indal Prasad Gupta as Treasurer, ShriUmashankar Yadav and Shri Jayaprakash Yadavboth as the members of the Executive Committee.In reply to the above para, vide para 1 in the writtenstatement, the contents of this para are said to besubstantially correct by further stating that the saidoffice bearers did not remain to be the office bearersas on 1-3-00 because the said union has held a freshelection and new office bearers were elected and

therefore the said so called office bearers had noauthority of representative character or otherwiseto represent the workers. It is therefore clear that itis for Party II to establish that the above officebearers did not remain to be the same as on1-3-2000 because the union held a fresh electionand elected new office bearers. It is apparent thatParty II has not proved their above plea throughtheir witnesses or otherwise and thus in my view,Party I has succeeded in proving that Party IWorkmen are the office bearers of the Party I union.

15. As regards the above office bearers also beingthe protected workmen, it is the case of Party II thatthe workmen in this reference are not the protectedworkmen. In their rejoinder Party I has denied theabove plea of Party II. No evidence is adduced byParty I to indicate that they have complied withthe requirements of section 61 of the IndustrialDisputes (Central) Rules, 1957 to getParty I Workmen recognized as “protectedworkmen”. Even otherwise, no arguments areadvanced by the ld. advocate for Party I on the abovesubject as regards proof of Party I workmen beingthe protected workmen. Thus, though Party I hasproved that they are the office bearers of Party Iunion, they have failed to prove that these officebearers are the protected workmen.

Hence my findings.

16. Issues No. 4 and 5: Undoubtedly, theworkmen in this reference were dismissed from theservices by Party II vide orders dated 2-8-99. Thereis otherwise no dispute that the workman Mr. IndalPrasad Gupta has resigned from the services of thecompany and has signed settlement u/s 2(p) of theAct and in terms of this settlement his entiredispute with Party II has been conclusively settledand he has given up the claim of reinstatement orre-employment and therefore nothing survives inthe present reference as regard the Indal PrasadGupta. Even otherwise, in the course of theproceedings Party II filed an application dated7-8-3 (Exb. 19) stating that out of the threeworkmen in the present dispute, two have settledthe matter with management i.e. Mr. Indal PrasadGupta signed the settlement with management on23-2-2000 and Shri Agnelo Estebeiro has signed thesettlement with management on 10-6-2003. Party IIhas also produced on record both the abovesettlements and has stated that as both theseworkmen have given up their claim in thereference, no dispute award be passed as they havealready settled the matter. Ld. Advocate for Party IIdid not dispute the above position. This being thecase, the present reference needs to be decided


331

only as regards the workman Shri Mestrilal R.Sajiwan. It therefore follows from above discussionthat the dispute as regards the workman IndalPrasad Gupta and also the workman AgneloEstebeiro, has been settled.

17. The order dated 2-8-1999 vide which theworkman in this reference was dismissed isproduced by Shri K. Raghavendran at Exb. 110.Reading of order at Exb.110 makes it clear thatenquiry on the charge sheet dated 18-3-99 issuedto Mestrilal Sajiwan, was being conducted and oneof the dates of the enquiry was fixed on 1-8-99. Thaton 31-7-99 an affidavit was received from thewitness Shri P. Suresh Rao mentioning amongstother things that he was unable to attend theenquiry as he cannot stay in Goa to give furtherevidence in the enquiry due to threats of direconsequences given to him. It is also stated in theaffidavit that apart from Shri P. Suresh Rao otherwitnesses were also threatened of direconsequences. Exb.110 further reveals that thewitnesses of the management are being threatenedso that they cannot give evidence in the enquiry. Itis further stated in Exb.110 that in suchcircumstances management finds that it is notpractically possible to continue with domesticenquiry and has therefore decided in the interestof the organization not to retain this workman inservices and therefore he is dismissed from thecompany’s services with immediate effect.

18. It is therefore clear from above contents ofExb.110 that Party II did not complete the enquiryinitiated against the workman vide charge sheetdated 18-3-99. It however cannot be dispute thatin terms of the observations in the judgment in thecase of M/s. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. India(Pvt.) Ltd., v/s The Management and others 1972I LLJ 278, even if no domestic enquiry is held or ina case where the domestic enquiry is held but isfound to be defective, the employer can leadevidence before the Tribunal in justification of thedismissal or discharge of the workmen, which inother words means that the employer can leadevidence before the Tribunal to prove misconductsagainst the workmen. In the instant case, thedomestic enquiry did not reach its logicalconclusion and therefore it is as good as not holdingof the enquiry by the management. In suchsituation, the employer gets an opportunity ofleading evidence before the court to prove themisconduct enlisted in the charge sheet. It istherefore required to see if Party II has by leadingsufficient and convincing evidence before thiscourt, has proved the misconducts as envisaged inthe charge sheet dated 18-3-99. Apparently, charge

sheet dated 18-3-99 is at Exb.M2(colly) in theenquiry file. The charges levelled against the ShriMestrilal Sejwan are as under:

“ It is reported that on 24-02-99, when you werein general shift at about 12.45 p.m., you alongwith Mr. Agenelo Estebeiro C.No. 5082,Mr. Anthony F. Dias C. No. 5249, Mr. FlorencePereira C. No.3075 and Mr. Indal Prasad Gupta,C.No. 5017 went to the SMS Control Room andinstructed that Mr. Manu Singh, First Hand, toslow down the operation and further pressurizedhim not to change the taps and increase thespeed and to continue the slow down.Subsequently, you along with the above personswent round the other sections of SMS and CCMand instructed the employees to resort to slowdown. This resulted in total disruption of theentire activities of SMS.

It is further reported that at about 2.30 p.m. youalong with a group of workmen instructed theemployees in the LRF to completely stop whenthe liquid metal in LRF was ready for casting.Inspite of the shift incharge advise to you thatthe liquid metal in the LRF can result in seriousdanger to the safety of employees on the shopfloor, can result in huge loss to the company anddamage to the machinery and equipments, youcontinued to be adamant and did not allow anyemployees to perform their normal duties. As thesituation was very grave with the liquid metalin the LRF, the shift incharge at about 4:00 p.m.decided to operate the LRF to ensure that theliquid metal is removed from the LRF. When theLRF was in the process of being switched on inthe control room, you along with Mr. Indal PrasadGupta, Mr. Jayaprakash Yadav, Mr.UmashankarYadav and along with a group of workmenentered the LRF control room and physicallyassaulted to Mr. Suresh Rao, Dy. Manager (SMS),causing grievous injuries and threatened himwith dire consequences if he attempted tooperate the LRF. You further switched off the LRFand left the control room.

It is further reported that at about 5.30 p.m., youwent to Admn. Block along with Mr. AgneloEstebeiro, Mr. Indal Prasad Gupta and threatenedMr. Suresh Rao, Dy. Manager (SMS) that he willbe killed if the furnace operation is not startedimmediately.

The above act if proved will amount to followingmisconducts under the certified standing orders ofthe company, which is applicable to you.


332

28.1 Will full insubordination or disobedience(whether or not in combination withanother) of any lawful and reasonable orders of superior.

28.2 Going on illegal strike or abetting, inciting,instigating or acting in furtherance thereofor resorting to obstruction aimed at or resulting in paralyzing the normal conductor work of the company.

28.11 Riotous, disorderly, indecent or improperbehaviour on the premises of theestablishment if it adversely affects theworking or discipline of the establishment.

28.12 Commission of any act subversive ofdiscipline or good behaviour on theprecincts of the establishment.

28.17 Damage or loss whether willful or due toirresponsible action or damage due tonegligence or carelessness to or/of anyproperty of the establishment.

28.28 Willful interference with the work of otherworkmen.

28.37 Use of impolite or insulting or abusivelanguage, assault or threat of assault,intimidation or coercion within thecompany premises against any employeesof the company.

28.41 Pursuance of conduct against the interestof the company.

28.44 Instigating or demonstration on company’sproperty.

19. Shri K. Raghvendran has in his evidence notdeposed on the subject of the contents of chargesheet dated 18-3-99 and what he has stated is thatduring the conduct of the enquiry the chargesheeted workman and the union were notco-operating with the enquiry and wanted to delaythe same. He has stated that company observed thatthese workmen were entering the company’s maingate and were threatening the other workers andofficials of the company of dire consequences andwere asking the willing workmen not to co-operatewith the management in production. He has statedthat the workmen did not want to adhere to thesettlement dated 17-3-99 and wanted to delay theenquiry. He has stated that the workers threatenedone Mr. Suresh Rao of dire consequences makingimpossible for the company to bring the witnessesin the enquiry and that company observed that adeliberate and systematic attempt was followed bythe workers so that the enquiry is not completed atall. He has stated that the company therefore in the

interest of the organization decided not to retain theconcerned workmen in the services andaccordingly dismissed them w. e. f. 2-8-99 whichdismissal according to him is fully legal andjustified.

20. In his cross-examination, he has stated thathe has not seen the incident where in Shri SureshRao was allegedly assaulted by the workmen. Hehas also made it clear that he was not an eyewitness to any of the incidents.

21. From the nature of above evidence of Shri K.Raghvendran, it becomes clear that his testimonyis of no assistance to Party II to prove themisconduct levelled against the workman hereinin the charge sheet dated 18-3-99 as also in theletter dated 2-8-99, as this witness does not haveany personal knowledge of the incidentsmentioned therein.

22. The other witnesses namely, Y. K. Govil, ShriT. K. Tickoo and Shri Alexander Rodrigues have notat all deposed about the incident mentioned in thecharge sheet dated 18-3-99 and also about the othercontents of the letter dated 2-8-99. It may bementioned here that, Party II examined Shri Y. K.Govil and Shri T. K. Tickoo only to bring on recordthe facts relating to an incident dated 30-8-99 toshow the involvement of Party I workman andothers in an incident of assault on the officers ofParty II, post termination of their services andtherefore their testimonies are of no help to Party IIto prove misconducts mentioned in the chargesheet dated 18-3-99 and in the letter dated 2-8-99.Shri Alex Rodrigues has been examined to establishthat the financial condition of Party II is not soundand hence the testimony of this witness too is of nohelp to Party II to prove the charges of misconductlevelled against Party I workman.

23. I have gone through the judgments reliedupon by the ld. advocate for Party II. In the judgmentin the case of Kolhapur Zilla (supra), the workmanwas a temporary workman and he was dismissedfrom service, for misconduct duly proved indisciplinary enquiry, as there was confession ofguilt in the enquiry. His complaint of unfair labourpractice was dismissed by the labour court. Inrevision the Industrial Court directed hisreinstatement without back wages. However, in thewrit petition before the Hon’ble High Court ofBombay, it was held that the Industrial Court hasvir tually re-appreciated the evidence in itsrevisional jurisdiction; that admission of guilt byworkman in the enquiry proceedings was categoricand unambiguous and thus the punishment ofdismissal cannot be regarded as disproportionate.


333

It is in the above context, observed by the Hon’bleHigh Court that Labour and Industrial Courts,when they deal with challenges to findings indisciplinary enquiries must reflect a robustawareness of the realities of the economic situation;that serious cases of misconduct such as those ofinvolving theft of the property of the employer haveto be dealt with severely and that once a seriousact of misconduct is proved, in a fair enquiry, theapproach of the Labour Courts should not be toembark upon a search to find just any technicallapse or lacunae to vitiate the enquiry.

24. Viz-a-viz the above observations made in theset of facts in the above mentioned case, in theinstant case (where it is as good as not conductingof an enquiry by Party II in the charge sheet dated18-3-99), the burden was on Party II to prove themisconduct alleged in the charge sheet dated18-3-99 by leading evidence before this court,which Party II has failed. Thus, at no stretch ofimagination, the observations made in the abovecase can be imported in the instant case.

25. In the judgment in the case of Homba Gowda(supra), the observations therein are on the subjectof jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal u/s 11-A of theAct, while dealing with punishment. This judgmentindicates that the jurisdiction to interfere with thequantum of punishment could be exercised onlywhen, inter alia, it is found to be grosslydisproportionate. It also indicates that theinterference at the hands of the Tribunal should beinter alia on arriving at a finding that no reasonableperson could inflict such punishment. It also statesthat assaulting a superior at a work place amountsto an act of gross indiscipline. Similar is the casewith the judgment in the case of U.P. State RoadTransport Corporation (supra) in which the driverof the Corporation was held guilty of themisconduct of abusing and threatening to assaultthe cashier and was awarded punishment ofremoval from service. The Labour Court set asidethe order of removal and substituted it by thepunishment of stoppage one wage increment andpayment of 50% of the back wages. The WritPetition filed before the Hon’ble High Court wasdismissed summarily, The Hon’ble Apex Courthowever held that the charge against the driverwas a serious charge and thus the discretionexercised by the Labour Court was capricious andarbitrary. It was also held that the punishmentawarded was not shockingly disproportionate tothe nature of charge found proved against the saiddriver.

26. It may be mentioned here that the facts inthe above cases are totally different from the factsin the instant case, though the observations madein the above judgments which are in those peculiarfacts cannot be disputed. However, saidobservations cannot be applied to the instant casewhere in Party II has failed to prove the misconductby Party I as envisaged in the charge sheet dated18-3-99, by leading convincing evidence before thisCourt. In such scenario, it would be inappropriateto conclude that punishment of dismissal imposedon Party I workman vide letter dated 2-8-99, couldbe the one imposed by a reasonable person. This ismore because, Party II has failed to establish thatthere was assault by Party I workman on Shri P.Suresh Rao, at the workplace resulting into grossindiscipline. Thus, the observations in the above--mentioned judgment are of no help to Party II toadvance its case.

27. In the judgment in the case of MadhyaPradesh Electricity Board (supra), a muster rolllabourer in the appellant organization hadphysically assaulted his superior officer and afterdomestic enquiry, his services were terminated.Labour Court held that the said punishment washarsh and directed his reinstatement with backwages. In appeal, the Industrial Court restored theorder of termination and in the writ petition theHon’ble High Court upheld the order of the LabourCourt. However, in civil appeal, the Hon’ble ApexCourt set aside the orders of Labour Court and theHon’ble High Court and upheld the order passedby the Industrial Court by observing that whenpunishment of termination is awarded for hittingand injuring a superior officer, with no extenuatingcircumstances established, it cannot be said to benot justified and it cannot be termed unduly harshor disproportionate.

28. As stated in the preceding paras, theobservations above do not apply to the set of factsin the instant case in which Party II has failed toprove the charges of misconduct levelled againstParty I workman in the charge sheet dated 18-3-99as well as in the letter dated 2-8-99.

29. In the case of Orissa Cement (supra), theworkman was sought to be dismissed from servicesfor abusing his superior officer in vulgar and filthylanguage. The domestic enquiry was not held butin the application for permission, the employeradduced evidence and the Industrial Court held theworkman guilty of misconduct alleged against himbut refused to grant permission on the grounds thatthe concerned workman had tendered an apologyto the concerned officer, which apology was found


334

by the Hon’ble Apex Court to be conditional onlyand as such the order of Tribunal refusingpermission prayed for, was set aside.

30. It is noted that the fact situation in the abovecase is totally different from the fact situation inthe instant case and therefore the ratio in the abovecase, cannot be applied to the instant case.

31. In the case of Mahindra and Mahindra(supra) the employee of the appellant wasdismissed from service after inquiry for misconductof using abusive and filthy language against hissuperior in the presence of subordinates not onlyonce but twice. Labour Court held that punishmentwas harsh and thus ordered reinstatement with2/3rd back wages. The Hon’ble Apex Court in appeal,restored the order of dismissal by observing thatthe language used by the workman is such that itcannot be tolerated by any civilized society and theuse of such abusive language against a superiorofficer in the presence of subordinates, cannot betermed to be an indiscipline calling for lesserpunishment in the absence of extenuating factor.Similar are the facts in the case of New ShorrockMills (Supra) in which badli workman was foundguilty in the departmental enquiry for abusing thedeputy manager and threatening that the MillOfficers would not be safe outside the mill and thathe might murder a few of them and therefore hewas discharged. The Labour Court though came tothe conclusion that the finding of the departmentalenquiry was legal and proper; that the order ofdischarge was not by way of victimization; that theworkmen had misbehaved and the workman wasthus guilty of misconduct, interfered with thepunishment awarded and ordered hisreinstatement with 40% backwages. In thesecircumstances it was held that the punishment ofdischarge imposed upon the workman was held asnot disproportionate so as to warrant judicialinterference. The Labour Court should not have setaside the order of discharge by substituting thesame with the order of reinstatement, as thepunishment imposed by the management was notdisproportionate warranting interference by thelabour court.

32. As pointed out by me in discussion supra,the facts in both the above cases are totallydifferent from the facts in the case in hand in whichParty II has failed to prove the charges ofmisconduct levelled against Party I workman andhence the observations above cannot be appliedto the instant case.

33. Thus, discussion supra makes it clear thatParty II has totally failed to prove issue No. 5. Hence

my findings on issue Nos. 4 and 5. It thereforefollows that dismissal of Party workman fromservices w. e. f. 2-8-99, is illegal and unjustified.

34. Issue No. 2: Since Party II has failed to proveissue No. 5, the question of Party I proving this issuedoes not arise and hence my findings.

35. Issue No.3: I have already discussed whileanswering issue No.1 above, that Party I workersare the office bearers of Party I union. It is also clearfrom the pleadings in para 5 of the claim statementthat Shri Agnelo Estebeiro at the relevant time wasthe General Secretary of the union. In para 3 of thewritten statement it is the plea of Party II that onlythe President/General Secretary as on the date offiling claim statement can have authority to signthe statement of claim. This being the case, the claimstatement signed by Party I, is maintainable.

36. Even otherwise, records reveal that my ld.predecessor vide order dated 25-8-04 (Exb.25) onthe application for interim relief filed by Party I//Workmen had directed Party II to pay to Party I//Workmen certain amount as subsistenceallowance as per the dates mentioned in the orderand this order was challenged by Party II beforethe Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in whichParty I/Union was one of the respondents. It isapparent from the records that said Party I unionwas represented before the Hon’ble High Court bythe very same advocate Shri M. P. Almeida who hasbeen representing the said union before this Courtand Adv. Shri M. P. Almeida also submitted acrossthe bar that the office bearers of the unionrepresented by him before the Hon’ble High Courtand before this Court are the same. This being thecase, it becomes clear that the objection raised byParty II on the maintainability of the claimstatement on the grounds that the so called officebearers have no authority to represent the workers,merit no consideration. Hence my findings.

37. Issue No. 6: Party I workman has prayed tohold the action of management in discharging hisservices w. e. f. 2-8-99 as illegal and bad in law andto direct the management to reinstate him back inthe services with continuity of services and fullback wages w. e. f. 2-8-1999. Discussion supramakes it clear that Party II has failed to prove thatParty I workman is guilty of misconduct. Thus, hisdismissal from service w. e. f. 2-8-99 is apparentlyillegal and unjustified.

38. As regards the claim of Party I workman ofback wages, ld. advocate for Party II stated that thelaw on the subject is well settled, which is thatupon holding the termination as illegal and


335

unjustified, back wages is not a naturalconsequence. He stated that for claiming backwages the person concerned has to show that hewas not gainfully employed and that the initialburden lies on him. He stated that after theconcerned person places material in that regard,the employer can bring on record materials to rebutthe claim. He relied on the judgment in the case ofKendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another v/sS. C. Sharma (2005) 2 SCC 363, in which the aboveprinciple has been culled out.

39. It may be mentioned here that in the claimstatement Party I workmen have pleaded that tilldate they are unemployed. Workman herein has notstepped in the witness box and thus there is nostatement by him on oath, to the effect that he isunemployed till date. Pleadings without proofcannot be accepted. Thus, I have every reason tohold that this workman has failed to discharge theinitial burden resting on him. Being so, the questionof Party II bringing on record materials to proveotherwise, does not arise. Consequently, it followsthat Party I workman has failed to establish that heis unemployed. Thus, he is not entitled to claimback wages.

40. As regards the claim of Party I workman toreinstate him with continuity in service, ld.advocate for Party I submitted that once it isestablished that the termination was illegal andunjustified, Party I/Workman is bound to bereinstated with continuity in service. However, Ld.advocate for Party II submitted that presentreference is of the year 2000 and thus long periodhas lapsed by now. He stated that by now the ageof Party I workman has also been advanced.According to him, relation between Party Iworkman and Party II is now strained and that thefinancial condition of Party II establishment is alsonot sound. Thus, he stated that the question ofreinstatement of Party I workman with continuityin service, does not arise.

41. Ld. advocate for Party II also referred to theevidence of Shri Y. K. Govil and Shri T. K. Tickoocontending that on 30-8-99 both these witnessesand one Mr. Sharma, who are the officers of Party IIwere assaulted by Party I workers and others andtherefore the conduct of Party I workman posttermination of his services also needs to be lookedinto for deciding the aspect of his reinstatement inservice. However, Ld. Advocate for Party I statedthat Party II has failed to show the involvement ofParty I workman in the alleged incident dated30-8-99 and even otherwise, the said incident hasno bearing on the dispute being adjudicated. Assuch, according to Ld. Advocate for Party I, the

alleged incident dated 30-8-99 cannot come in theway of Party I workman for claiming reinstatementin service.

42. In their evidence both Shri Y. K. Govil and ShriT. K. Tickoo, have in short stated that on 30-8-99the workmen namely, Mr. Caitano J. Fernandes,Mr. Caitano M. Fernandes, Mr Conceicao Hilario,Mr. Umashankar Yadav, Mr. Jayaprakash Yadav,Mr. Agnelo Estebeiro and Mr. Mestrilal R. Sajiwanassaulted, abused and gave them threats of killing.They have stated that the aforesaid workmen alsoassaulted Mr. K. K. Sharma, due to which all of themsuffered injuries and they were hospitalized.However, both these witnesses have categoricallystated that they were unable to produce the policecomplaints as well as the medical reports, as thecompany is unable to trace the same.

43. In his cross-examination, Shri Y. K. Govil hasstated that apart from workers whose names arestated by him, there were another 50 persons at thespot and 30 amongst them were the workers. Hehas stated that he did not file written complaintwith the management but orally informed Mr. R. K.Radhakrishanan and Mr. K. Raghavendran aboutthis incident. He has denied the suggestion thatthey were beaten by the people of locality and notby the workmen, as they were keeping the furnaceon and polluting the atmosphere, throughout theday.

44. In his cross-examination Shri T. K. Tickoo hasstated that he had given the names of the workersas stated by him in the chief examination alongwith other names, to the police. His cross--examination further reveals that he does not knowas to how many persons by name Caetano,Conceicao, Yadav and Sajiwan were working withParty II at the relevant time.

45. It may be mentioned here that Shri K.Raghavendran has produced the copy of a letterdated 30-8-1999 by Mrs. Gyan D’sa, the ExecutiveSecretary addressed to Executive Director of Party IIinforming about the incident which occurred on 30-8-99, at Exb.64. He has also produced a copy ofcomplaint dated 30-8-99 by Shri Chandra BhushanMishra made to Police and other authorities, atExb.64 and copy of F.I.R. dated 30-8-99 at Exb.66,despite Shri Govil and Shri Tikoo stating that theywere unable to produce police complaint as thecompany is not able to trace the same.Nevertheless, reading of all the above threedocuments make it clear beyond doubt that namesof Party I workmen are not reflected in the sameand therefore these documents cannot lead the caseof Party II any further to show the involvement ofthe workman herein in the incident dated 30-8-99.


336

46. This being the case, I find force in thesubmissions of ld. advocate for Party I that there isno any documentary evidence on record showingthe involvement of Party I workman in the incidentnarrated by Shri Govil and Shri Tickoo. Admittedly,both the above witnesses have also not producedcopies of any medical records to substantiate theircase that they and Mr. K. K. Sharma were seriouslyinjured on account of the assault by Party I//workmen. No doubt, there is admission by Party Ito the effect that Shri Govil and Shri Tickoo werebeaten by people of the locality but this by itselfcannot relieve Party II from proving their case ofassault by Party I/ workman. That apart, Shri Govilhas stated that he had orally informedMr. Radhakrishnan and Mr. K. Raghavendran aboutthis incident but Shri Radhakrishanan who hasbeen examined by Party II, is silent on this aspectof the matter. Further, it appears from thestatements made by Shri Tickoo that he does noteven know as to how many persons by nameCaetano, Conceicao, Yadav and Sajiwan wereworking with Party II at the relevant time and thisstatement of Shri Tickoo casts serious doubt on theidentification of the workers who are stated to haveinvolved in this incident, from amongst totalnumber of 50 and odd persons who were presentat the spot, at the relevant time.

47. Being so, I am of the considered opinion thatthe evidence adduced by Party II in support of proofof incident dated 30-8-99 is not at all convincing tosay that Party II has succeeded in establishing eventhe probable occurrence of this incident, withinvolvement of the workman herein.

48. As regards the evidence of Shri AlexanderRodrigues, he has produced on record copy ofbalance sheet and profit and loss account ofParty II for the period from 1-4-09 to 31-3-13(Exb.124-colly), letter dated 19-6-13 fromElectricity Department (Exb.125), copy of orderdated 20-8-99 (Exb.126) and copy of order dated1-8-13 by BIFR (Exb.127) passed during reviewhearing, to establish that financial condition ofParty II is not sound. In his cross examination, tothe suggestion that all the above documents arefalse and fabricated and that BIFR has been misledon the basis of such documents to declare Party IIas sick unit, has been denied by Shri AlexanderRodrigues.

49. No doubt, it appears from the abovedocumentary evidence that Party II is notfinancially stable, but this by itself cannot be aground to reject relief to Party I workman, to whichhe is legally entitled. This is because, once it is

established that termination is illegal andunjustified, the natural consequence that follows isof reinstatement in service and Party I workmancannot be deprived of the same. Even for that matter,lapse of time, advanced age, strained relations orweak financial condition of company cannot be thegrounds for rejecting the relief of reinstatement towhich Party I workman is legally entitled.Nonetheless, the above factors can definitely belooked into to mould the relief to which the Party Iworkman is entitled to and this is because Party Iworkman has not established that he is notgainfully employed. This in other words mean thatParty I workman must be earning his livelihood andit is precisely for this reason the statement on thesubject of gainful unemployment is not made by himon oath.

50. In the judgment in the case of InchargeOfficer & Anr v/s Shankar Shetty 2010(9) SCC126 and Senior Superintendent Telegraph(Traffic) Bhopal v/s Santosh Kumar Seal & OrsAIR 2010 SC 2140, the Apex Court has reiteratedthat “It is true that the earlier view of this Courtarticulated in many decisions reflected the legalposition that if the termination of an employee wasfound to be illegal, the relief of reinstatement withfull back wages would ordinarily follow. However,in recent past, there has been a shift in the legalposition and in a long line of cases, this Court hasconsistently taken the view that relief by way ofreinstatement with back wages is not automaticand may be wholly inappropriate in a given factsituation even though the termination of anemployee is in contravention of the prescribedprocedure. Compensation instead of reinstatementhas been held to meet the ends of justice ...”

51. In the light of above position of law viz-a-vizthe fact situation in the instant case, I am of theopinion that grant of reasonable compensation toParty I workman, would meet the ends of justice.

52. In para 2 of the claim statement, it is pleadedthat Shri Mestrilal Sajiwan was appointed on1-10-94; was confirmed w. e. f. 1-4-95 and hereceived a salary of Rs. 2,550/- p.m. and there wereincrements.

53. Considering the totality of the facts such asthe quantum of salary paid to Party I workman, thenumber of years he has worked, the period of timetaken for disposal of the present reference and themental and physical hardships undergone by theworkman during the pendency of adjudication ofthis dispute, I am of the considered opinion thatends of justice would be met by granting him totalcompensation of Rs.1,60,000/- which compensationin my view shall be appropriate, just and equitablein the circumstances of this case.


337

54. Records reveal that vide order dated25-08-04 (Exb.25) my ld. predecessor had partlyallowed the application for interim relief filed byParty I workmen, by ordering that Party II shall payto Party I workmen 50% of their last drawn wagesas subsistence allowance from the date of theirdismissal from service i.e. from 2-8-99 till the finalaward is passed in this reference. It is also observedin this order that payment of this subsistenceallowance is subject to the final order that may bepassed in the award on the issue of back wages.Records further reveal that Party II challenged theabove order before the Hon’ble High Court ofBombay at Goa in W. P. No.460/2004 and the orderwas stayed subject to deposit of entire monetaryliability flowing from the impugned order within10 weeks from the day of the passing of the orderwhich was passed by the Hon’ble High Court on2-8-06. It is observed in this order that in the eventof such deposit, the Registry is directed to investthis amount in any nationalized bank, initially for aperiod of 36 months and shall keep the saidinvestment renewed from time to time until furtherorders. Records also reveal that vide order dated10-6-13, the Hon’ble High Court while directingthis Tribunal to dispose off the present reference asexpeditiously as possible and in any event on orbefore 31-6-14, ordered that during the pendencyof this reference the interim order passed on2-8-06 shall continue until disposal of this referenceand the amount deposited pursuant to the saidinterim order shall be subject to the final result inthe reference proceedings. Ld. advocates howeverwere not able to state during the arguments beforethis court, about quantum of amount depositedbefore the Hon’ble High Court.

55. Nevertheless, since discussion supra makesit clear that the workman is not entitled to claimback wages but to the compensation, as statedabove, I am of the considered view that the amountif deposited before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.460 of 2004, pursuant to order dt. 2-8-2006, shallbe adjusted towards the above amount ofcompensation awarded to the workman. In case thesaid amount along with interest accrued on it, ismore than what has now been awarded to theworkman, the balance amount shall to be refundedto Party II and in case the said amount along withinterest accrued on it, is less than what has nowbeen awarded to the workman, than Party II shallpay the said balance amount to the workmanaccordingly. Hence my findings.

56. In the result and in view of discussion supra,I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the action of themanagement of M/s. Marmagoa SteelLimited, Curtorim (Employer), in dismissingfrom the services Mr. Mestrilal R. Sajiwan,who is the office bearer of the recognizedTrade Union, with effect from 02-08-99, isillegal and unjustified.

2. It is hereby further held that the referenceas against the workmen Mr. AgneloEstebeiro and Mr. Indal Prasad Gupta, doesnot survive.

3. The Party II is directed to pay to theworkman Mr. Mestrilal R. Sajiwan monetarycompensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees onelakh sixty thousand only), within twomonths from the date of publication of Awardfailing which the same shall carry interestat the rate 9% p.a.

Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-(Ms. Bimba K. Thaly)

Presiding OfficerIndustrial Tribunal-cum-

-Labour Court-I________

Notification

No. 28/1/2014-Lab/261

The following award passed by the LabourCourt-II, at Panaji-Goa on 12-03-2014 in referenceNo. LC-II/IT/27/2013 is hereby published asrequired by Section 17 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).



Porvorim, 5th May, 2014._________

IN THE LABOUR COURT-IIGOVERNMENT OF GOA

AT PANAJI

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

Case No. Ref. LC-II/IT/27/2013

Shri Deepak S. Shinde,Rep. by the President,Goa Trade and Commercial Workers’ Union,Velho’s Bldg., 2nd Floor,Opp. Municipal Garden,Panaji - Goa …… Workman/Party I

V/s


338

M/s. Apna Bazar Co-operative,Aquem,Margao-Goa …… Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Adv. Shri SuhasNaik.

Employer/Party II represented by Adv. Shri A. K.Dessai.

Panaji, Dated: 12-03-2014.

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause(d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), theGovernment of Goa by Order dated 21-08-2013,bearing No. 28/36/2013-LAB/578, referred thefollowing dispute for adjudication by the IndustrialTribunal of Goa at Panaji-Goa. The Hon’ble PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I,Panaji-Goa in turn assigned the present referencefor its adjudication to this Labour Court-II,Panaji-Goa vide its order dated 22-08-2013.

“(1) Whether the severance of employee--employer relationship between ShriDeepak S. Shinde, Shop Assistant, and themanagement of M/s. Apna Bazar Co-operative,Aquem, Margao, Goa, with effect from01-11-2010 is a consequence of refusal ofemployment by the said management or aninstance of voluntary resignation by theworkman?

(2) In either case, to what relief the workmanis entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, a case wasregistered under No. LC-II/IT/27/2013 andregistered A/D notice was issued to the Parties. Inpursuance to the said notice, the Parties put in theirappearance. That neither the Workman filed hisclaim statement nor did the Employer file itswritten statement. That on 07-01-2014, the Ld.Advocates appearing for the respective partiesorally submitted that the matter is likely to besettled amicably between the parties and soughttime to settle the matter amicably. Accordingly on11-03-2014, both the parties along with theiradvocates respectively remained present and fileda joint application for consent award which is onrecord at Exb.7. The terms of settlement as statedin the said application for consent award arereproduced hereunder:

1. The Employer/Party II has agreed to pay tothe workman Shri Deepak Shinde sum ofRs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousandonly) vide Cheque No. 002837 dt.12-03-2014,

Bank of India Branch towards his full andfinal settlement arising out of employmentwith Party II/Employer.

2. The Workman agrees to accept the same andaffirms that he has no dispute of whatsoevernature against the Employer.

3. The Employer also agrees to issue BonafideService Certificate to the Workman.

I have carefully perused the said application forconsent award, jointly filed by the parties. I am ofthe opinion that the said terms of settlement arebeneficial to the Workman and hence consentedfor the same. Since the dispute under reference issettled between the parties I hold that the disputeunder present reference does not survive.

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

ORDER

It is held that in view of amicable settlementbetween the parties, the dispute as to whether theseverance of employee-employer relationshipbetween Shri Deepak S. Shinde, Shop Assistant,and the management of M/s. Apna BazarCo-operative, Aquem, Margao, Goa, with effect from01-11-2010 is a consequence of refusal ofemployment by the said management or aninstance of voluntary resignation by the workman,does not survive.

2. The workman, Shri Deepak S. Shinde is notentitled to any relief.

3. No order as to costs.

4. Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-(Suresh N. Narulkar)

Presiding Officer,Labour Court-II.

________

Notification

28/1/2014-LAB/112

The following award passed by the IndustrialTribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on10-12-2013 in reference No. IT/79/02 is herebypublished as required by Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).



Porvorim, 10th February, 2014.


339

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDLABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOA AT PANAJI

(Before Ms. Bimba K. Thaly, Presiding Officer)

Ref. No. IT/79/02Workman rep. byGeneral Secretary,Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,3rd Floor, Shetia Sankul, Tisk,Ponda, Goa ....Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Nestle India Ltd.,Usgao, Goa ....Employer/Party II

Adv. Shri P. Anaonkar with Shri P. Gaonkar forWorkmen/Party I.

Adv. Shri R. Pai with Adv. Shri M. S. Bandodkarfor Employer/Party II.

AWARD

(Passed on 10th day of December, 2013)

By order dated 28-11-2002, bearing No. 28/62//2002-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise ofpowers conferred by Section 10(1)(d) of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (for short The Act), has referredthe following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

“(1) Whether the 25 points of Charter of Demandsserved by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh onbehalf of the workman on the managementof M/s. Nestle India Ltd., Usgao, Goa, isgenuine and justified?

(2) If the answer to (1) above is in the affirmative,then, whether the action of the managementof M/s. Nestle India Ltd., Usgao, Goa in notsettling the above demands of the Union islegal and justified?

(3) If the answer to (2) above is in the negativethen what relief the workmen are entitledto?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registeredas IT/79/02 and registered AD notices were issuedto both the parties. Pursuant to service of noticesAdv. Shri P. Gaonkar appeared for Party I and Adv.Shri M. S. Bandodkar appeared for Party II. Party Ifiled the claim statement at Exb. 3 and Party II filedthe written statement at Exb. 5. Party I then filedthe rejoinder at Exb. 6.

3. In the claim statement it is in short the case ofParty I that Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh (for short theSangh) is a registered trade union under the IndianTrade Union’s Act, 1926 and it has been representingpractically all the workmen of Party II. It is stated

that the factory of Party II is engaged inmanufacturing various types of chocolates, a fastselling consumer product in the country. It is statedthat Party II has been implementing various unfairlabour practices. It is stated that if the workersdecide themselves to organize, the managementimmediately pressurized the workers and fix themin fake, false and fabricated cases. It is stated thatthe company also pressurized the workers to workon overtime but not paid the overtime wages inaccordance with the provisions of Factory Act anddue to all such activities of Party II the workersjoined the Sangh and became the members of theSangh. It is stated that thereafter the GeneralSecretary of the Sangh informed the company ofthe formation of the union and submitted thecharter of demands on their behalf. It is stated thatdespite requests from the union, the companyrefused to negotiate and unilaterally gave rise tothe workers to break the union. It is stated that inorder to avoid the confrontation the Sangh signedminutes of conciliation on 20-1-01 howeverthereafter the management started harassing theoffice bearers, committee members and activemembers. It is stated that in the month of October,2001 the notice of termination of the understandingwas served as the same was for the period of oneyear and a fresh charter of demand dated 14-10-01was served. It is stated that the company refused tonegotiate with the union and hence an industrialdispute was raised before the Asstt. LabourCommissioner, Ponda but due to adamant attitudeof the company the matter ended in failure. It isstated that the company has made huge profit andthey are increasing every year and thus thecompany’s financial position is excellent and thecompany can easily bear financial burden that maybe imposed upon it. Party I has mentioned thedemands made in the claim statement which areas under:

Demand No. 1: Pay scales:

Grade I: 1000-60-1300-70-1650-80-2050-90-2500--100-3000-110-3550.

Grade II:1100-65-1425-75-1800-85-2225-95-2780--105-3305-115-3880.

Grade III: 1200-70-1550-80-1960-90-2400-100-2900--110-3450-120-4050.

Grade IV: 1300-75-1700-85-2125-95-2600-105-3125--115-3700-125-4325.

Grade V:1500-80-1900-90-2350-100-2850-110-3400--120-4000-130-4650.


340

Demand No. 2: Flat Rise:

Union demands that all the workmen shall be givenflat rise at the rate of Rs. 1000/-. The above amountsshall be added to the existing basic and thereafterfitted in the respective revised pay scale in thehigher stage.

Demand No. 3: Seniority increments:

Union demands that the workmen should be paidgiven seniority increments as mentioned below:

Service upto 3 years : One increment.Service from 3 years to five years : Two increments.Service above 5 years : Three increments.

Demand No. 4: Variable Dearness Allowances:

Union demands that present rate of the VDA is veryless and hence the same shall be paid at the revisedrate of Rs. 4/- per point rise beyond 1900 points(1960=100) the computation of VDA shall be madequarterly based on the average consumer priceindex of preceding quarter. The amount of VDAupto 1900 points shall be merged with the existingFDA.

Demand No. 5: House Rent Allowance:

Union demands that HRA should be paid at therevised rate of 60% of Basic, FDA and VariableDearness Allowance, as the cost of accommodationis very high in Goa due to Tourist State.

Demand No. 6: Education Allowance:

The Union demands that the Education Allowanceshall be paid @ Rs.1000/- per workmen per monthconsidering the high cost of education in Goa.

Demand No. 7: Transport Allowance:

The Union demands that those workmen who arenot provided with the transport facility shall bepaid Transport Allowance at the rate of Rs. 2500/-per month.

Demand No. 8: Paid Holidays:

Union demands that all the workmen shall begranted paid holidays at the rate of 15 days peryear.

Demand No. 9: Leave:

Union demands that all the workers should begiven leave on following basis:

A) Earned Leave: Union demands that at allthe workmen should be given earned leaveat the rate of 35 days E. L. per year withaccumulation upto 150 days and leave shallbe allowed to be taken 10 times in a year.

B) Casual Leave : Union demands that all theworkmen should be given Casual Leave atthe rate of 15 days per year.

C) Sick Leave: Union demands that all theworkmen should be given Sick Leave atthe rate of 20 days per year, and accumulationup to 60 days be given.

Demand No. 10: Leave Travel Assistance:

Union demands that LTA should be paid at therevised rate of three months gross wages, everyyear.

Demand No. 11: Medical Allowance:

Union demands that those workmen who are out ofside the purview of ESIC shall be reimbursed all themedical expenses incurred by him for self and shallbe paid @ 10% of Basic, FDA and VDA per monthtowards the medical expenses for their dependentsby the management.

Demand No.12: Promotion Policy:

Union demands that separate promotion policyshould be promulgated in consultation with theunion. The detail promotion policy will be submittedto the management at the time of negotiations.

Demand No. 13: Gifts:

Union demands that the workmen should be givenservice award as mentioned below:Service up to 5 years: Gift worth Rs. 5000/- withservice certificate.

Service above 5 years: Gift worth Rs.7500/- withservice certificate.

Demand No.14: Bonus/Ex-Gratia:

Union demands that all the workers shall be paid25% of Bonus/Ex-gratia without any ceiling beforeDiwali every year.

Demand No. 15: Festival Advance:

Union demands that all the workers should begranted festival advance at the rate of Rs. 5000/-once in a year to be deducted in 10 equal installments.

Demands No.16: Accident Benefits:

Union demands that those workers who meet in theaccident while on duty shall be granted specialleave and shall be reimbursed all the medicalexpenses.

Demand No. 17: Welfare Fund:

Union demands that separate welfare fund shall beconstituted and the equal contribution shall beremitted by the management. The detail of the fundand their object and regulation will be given at thetime of negotiations.

Demand No.18: Outstation Allowance:

Union demands that those workmen who arerequired to work on Outstation duty within Goa,


341

they shall be paid Outstation Allowance at the rateof Rs. 150/- per day and Rs. 300/- per day for out ofState. In addition to the actual travelling andlodging expenses.

Demand No. 19: Payment of Gratuity:

Union demands that all the workmen who haveworked for more than 5 years shall be paid gratuityat the rate of 30 days wages per year of service.

Demand No. 20: Special Compensatory Allowance:

The union demands that all the workers shallbe paid Special Compensatory Allowance at therevised rate of Rs. 1500/- per month.

Demand No. 21: Free Transport Facility to and froin all shifts:

Union demands that the public transport is notavailable in shifts, hence free transport facilityshould be provided to the workmen. The detailroutes shall be submitted at the time of negotiations.

Demand No. 22: Dormitory:Union demands that those workmen who arerequired to work in shifts and transport facility isnot given, Dormitory facility to be provided to suchworkmen near the factory.

Demand No. 23: Shift Allowance:

Union demands that those workmen who areworking in shift shall be paid Shift Allowance atthe rate of Rs. 50/- per day in 1st shift & 2nd shift andRs. 60/- per day in the third shift.

Demand No. 24: Special Allowance:

The Union demands that those workmen who aredoing the multiskilled work shall be paid allowance@ Rs. 750/- per month.

Demand No. 25: Compensatory Off:

Union demands that those workmen who arerequired to work on weekly off days and holidaysshall be given compensatory off and overtime attwice the rate of normal wages.

4. Party I in the claim statement has given itsjustification for each of its demands and has prayedto declare that the demands are genuine andreasonable and to grant the same from the date ofcharter of demands.

5. In the written statement Party II has raised thepreliminary objections by stating that the order ofreference is incompetent and bad in law as thedispute is not covered by Sec. 2-A of the Act; thatthe Sangh has no locus standi or representativecharacter to raise any dispute on behalf of theworkmen of Party II and that the dispute has notbeen validly and properly espoused to take the

character of an industrial dispute. It is also statedthat the order of reference is vague and lacksmaterials particulars; that no details of thedemands have been given in the first item of theschedule to the order of reference; that the courtderives jurisdiction from the order of reference andthe matter/demands on which the adjudication issought for must be mentioned in the order ofreference and must form a part and parcel of theorder of reference. It is stated that no demand hasbeen referred for adjudication to this court. It isstated that pursuant to mutual agreement theemoluments of the workmen are revised everyyear and therefore the demands raised purported tobe on behalf of the workmen are barred in view ofthe mutual agreement between the company andits workmen. It is stated that Mr. P. Gaonkar whohas signed the claim statement as the GeneralSecretary of the Sangh is not competent andauthorized to sign the claim statement on behalf ofthe workmen and that the workmen are not entitledto any relief whatsoever. It is stated that the demandscontaining matters which are governed byspecific statutes are incapable of adjudication. Itis stated that from the inception of the factory themanagement has revised the emoluments of theworkers each year on the basis of the performanceof the workers and considering the emolumentspaid by other concerns in the region on the basisof well established principle of industry cum region.It is stated that through a letter from GeneralSecretary, GMS claiming that the workers haveformed a union was received by the company, nodocumentation of authenticity was shown to thecompany to that effect. It is stated that the companyfiled its written comments before the Asstt. LabourCommissioner in response to the charter of demandsand that the minutes of presentation to the unionshows that the Sangh had accepted the system asmentioned in the minutes dated 20-1-01 signedbefore the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Ponda. It isstated that having given increase in emoluments inreference to minutes dated 20-1-01 all the demandsof the Sangh in the claim statement do not standany value and ought to be rejected on this groundalone. It is stated that the union has no power toterminate the written settlement or understandingand the charter of demands dated 14-10-01 is notmaintainable and is bad in law. It is stated that theworkmen have accepted the revision of theiremoluments every year and therefore the questionof negotiations of charter of demand dated 14-10-01does not arise. It is stated that the factory ofcompany at Usgao has not derived any profits and isinfact running in losses. It is stated that the increasein production is also due to the fact of the investment


342

made by the company in extensive training fordevelopment of the skill of workforce to meet thenorms of productive standard, which was otherwiselow and thus the credit cannot be taken by theworkers alone. It is stated that the profit of thecompany has nothing to do with the contributionof the factory at Usgao. It is stated that Party IIdid not receive any letter from workmen sayingthat they joined the union.

6. As regards the demands raised by Party I it isstated by Party II that there is no justification formaking such demands and that they areunreasonable. It is stated that the union has failedto make out any case and that no case exist forgranting/considering any of the demands made bythe union so also that the demands are not genuine,rational and hence ought to be rejected.

7. In the rejoinder Party I has controverted thedefence set up by Party II in their written statement.

8. On the basis of above pleadings of therespective parties issues dated 3-7-03 were framedat Exb. 7.

9. In the course of evidence Party I examined ShriP. Gaonkar as witness No. 1, Shri SomnathPrabhudessai as witness No. 2 and Shri PrakashRane as witness No. 3. On the other hand Party IIexamined Shri Vivek Kumar as witness No. 1 andShri Naresh Prabhu as witness No. 2 and closed thecase.

10. Heard at length Adv. Shri P. Anaonkar forParty I and Ld. Adv. Shri R. Pai for Party II. Both theparties have also filed written submissions.

11. I have gone through the records of the caseand have duly considered the arguments advanced.I am reproducing herewith the issues along withtheir findings and reasons thereof.

Sr. Issues FindingsNo.

1. Whether the Party I/union proves In the negative.that it has locus standi to espousethe dispute on behalf of the work-men and whether Mr. P. Gaonkaris competent and authorized tosign the claim statement on behalfof the workmen?

2. Whether the Party I/union proves In the negative.that the demands served by it onthe employer/Party II are genuineand justified?

3. Whether the Party I/union proves In the negative.that the action of the employer//Party II in not settling thedemands is not legal and justified?

4. Whether the employer/Party II In the positive.proves that the disputes referredis not an industrial disputewithin the meaning of Sec. 2(k) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947?

5. Whether the employer/Party II In the positive.proves that the reference is notmaintainable because the deman-ds are barred in view of mutualagreement between them and theworkmen?

6. Whether the employer/Party II In the positive.proves that the order of referenceis vague and incapable of adjudi-cation?

7. Whether the workmen are entitled..In the negative.to any relief?

8. What Award? As per Orderbelow.

REASONS

12. Issue No.1: In order to prove this issue, Party I//Union has to show nexus between it and theworkmen on whose behalf the dispute has beenespoused by it and also that the workmen haveauthorized Shri P. Gaonkar to sign the claimstatement. Party I in para 8 of the claim statementhave pleaded that after all the workers becomingthe members of the Sangh, the General Secretaryof the Sangh informed the company about theformation of the union and also submitted theCharter of Demands on their behalf. In reply tothis para vide para 8 of the written statement,Party II has admitted of having received the aboveletter from the General Secretary of the Sangh buthas further stated that no documentation ofauthenticity were shown to the company tosubstantiate the contents of the said letter. In hisexamination in chief Shri P. Gaonkar had producedletters dated 24-9-00 signed by the workers ofParty II stating that they are joining the Sangh andauthorizing him to represent them before themanagement and other authorities, at Exb. W-1colly. He has stated that in all 122 workers signedthe above letters. He has produced xerox copy ofletter dated 25-9-00 written by him to Party IIinforming that their workers have joined the Sangh,at Exb.W-2 colly. In his cross examination he hasstated that does not remember the exact date onwhich the letter dated 24-9-00 at Exb. W-1 collywas received by him. He has denied the suggestionthat he has not enrolled the workers as themembers of the union and that he has sentthe letter dated 25-9-00 at Exb. W-2 colly withoutenrolling the workers as the members of the union.


343

He has also denied the suggestion that the letterdated 24-9-00 at Exb. W-1 colly was not receivedby him on the date when the letter at Exb. W-2colly was sent to Party II.

13. In his arguments Ld. Adv. for Party I invitedmy attention to para 7 and 8 of the claim statementwherein Party I has pleaded that all the workersjoined the Sangh and accordingly became themembers of the Sangh and after they became themembers, the General Secretary of the Sanghinformed the company about the formation of theunion and submitted the charter of demands ontheir behalf. He stated that in para 1 and 4 of thewritten statement Party II has stated that thesubject matter of the dispute referred foradjudication to this court is regarding the charterof demands raised by GMS and that the statementof claim has been signed by Mr. P. Gaonkar as theGeneral Secretary of the Sangh. Thus, accordingto him, the above pleadings made by Party II makeit clear beyond doubt that the workers to thisreference have joined the Sangh and that Shri P.Gaonkar is the General Secretary of the Sanghand therefore he is competent and authorized tosign the claim statement on behalf of the workmen.By referring to the contents of letters at Exb. W-1colly which are signed by about 122 workers andaddressed to the General Secretary of the GMSinforming that they would like to join GMS; thatthey shall abide rules and regulations of the unionand that they authorize the General Secretary ofthe GMS to represent them before themanagement the Ld. Adv. for Party I submittedthat the workers have authorized Shri P. Gaonkarwho is the General Secretary of the union torepresent then and to espouse the dispute ontheir behalf and consequently Shri P. Gaonkar iscompetent and is authorized to sign the claimstatement on behalf of the workmen. He theninvited my attention to the charter of demandsdated 14-10-01 at Exb. W-3 colly signed by ShriP. Gaonkar as General Secretary and also thesettlements dated 29-12-09 and 29-12-10 signedby Shri P. Gaonkar as General Secretary. Hestated that the written settlement/understandingdated 20-01-01 (Exb. 55) is also signed by Shri P.Gaonkar and thus according to him the companyhas accepted Shri P. Gaonkar as the GeneralSecretary of the Sangh.

14. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for Party IIby referring to Exb. W-1 colly stated that in thisdocument the workmen have only stated that theywould like to join their union and not that theyhave joined the union and therefore these letters

are not the letters indicating that the workmenhave joined Party I/union. By referring to schedule1 to the terms of reference, Ld. Adv. for Party IIstated that this schedule states that 25 points ofcharter of demand are served by GMS on behalf ofthe workmen and it does not say that the sameare served by the workmen. He stated that letterat Exb.W-2 colly does not indicate as to when theworkers had become the members of the Sanghprior to sending Exb. W-2 colly to Party II. Thus,according to him the letter dated 25-9-00 atExb. W-2 colly vide which Shri P. Gaonkar asGeneral Secretary of GMS has written to Party IIinforming that almost all the workmen of Party IIfactory have joined their union is of no significanceto say that as on the date of sending of this letter,the workers had become the members of the union.He also stated that there is no convincing evidenceto indicate that the workers herein were themembers of the union in the year 2001 when thedemands were raised, as, failure report dated18-9-02 at Exb.94 reveals that it was the GeneralSecretary who had informed the Asstt. LabourCommissioner that Party II was informed aboutworkers joining the union, vide their letter dated25-09-2000 and thereby there is no material onrecord to suggest that as in the year 2001 theseworkers were the members of Party I union. Insupport of his submissions made as above he reliedon the judgements in the case of SindhuResettlement Corporation v/s IndustrialTribunal, Gujarat 1968(1) LLJ 834 and in the caseof Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v/sDimakuchi Tea Estate 1958 SCR 1156 theobservations in which indicate that an industrialdispute, as defined, must be a dispute betweenemployers and employers, employers andworkmen, workmen and workmen and accordingto him since in the case in hand there is nothingto indicate that the workmen and espoused thedispute, it has to be held that Shri P. Gaonkar hadno any authority on behalf of the workmen andthat Party I union has no locus standi to espousethe dispute.

15. On the basis of the pleadings in para 8of the claim statement and para 8 of the writtenstatement, it becomes clear that Party II hasdisputed the fact of workers joining the Sangh priorto Party I sending letter at Exb. W-2 colly to Party II.Undoubtedly, pleadings in the claim statement aresilent on the date on which the workers joined theSangh. No documentary evidence is on record toindicate that the letters at Exb. W-1 colly werereceived by the Sangh on a particular date thoughthese letters are dated 24-09-2000. In his cross


344

examination Shri P. Gaonkar has also made it clearthat he does not remember the exact date onwhich letters dated 24-09-2000 were received byhim. He has however denied the suggestions thathe has not enrolled the workers as the membersof the union and that he sent Exb.W-2 collydated 25-09-2000 without enrolling the workers asthe members of the union.

16. Apparently, no any particular document hasbeen produced by Party I such as resolution bythe workmen authorizing the Sangh and Shri P.Gaonkar as its General Secretary to raise thedispute and also to indicate that the workmenhave joined GMS. Ld. Adv. for Party II relied onthe judgment in the case of A. Mathur v/sAllahabad Bank and others 1991(1) LLJ 273 inwhich it is observed that “....all the employees donot, as a matter of fact, becomes parties to theagreement. But the settlement signed by suchrepresentatives bind those whom they represent.”,and contended that in view of above observations,the representative who claims that the settlementbinds certain number of employees has to producematerial on record that he represents thoseemployees or that those employees have authorizedhim to represent them.

17. He also relied on the judgment in the caseof Deepak Industries Ltd., v/s State of WestBengal 1975(1) LLJ 293 in which it is observed asunder “....if a group of workmen raise a disputethat can also constitute an industrial dispute withinthe meaning of the Act, which may be referred tothe Tribunal in due course. But when the disputeis sponsored or espoused by a union, it seems tohave been uniformly held by the judicial decisionsthat when the authority of the union is challengedby the employer, it must be proved that the unionhas been duly authorized either by a resolution bythe members or otherwise that it has the authorityto represent the workmen whose cause it isespousing.”

18. Ld. Adv. for Party II then relied on thejudgment in the case of Air India Employees’Guild v/s Air India Ltd., 2007 II LLJ 207 (Bom.)in which the employers decision to verify themembership of staff by secret ballot waschallenged by the employees and while dealingwith this subject the Hon’ble Court by referring toClause 9 of Code of Discipline stated thatmembership of the union for the purpose ofrecognition has to be counted on the basis ofpayment of subscription by the workers. Byreferring to the above judgment, Ld. adv. forParty II stated that Party I ought to have produced

subscription towards membership by the workers,to establish that they were the members of theunion.

19. It may be mentioned here that the letters atExb. W-1 colly produced by Shri P. Gaonkar, whenread in entirety give clear indication that theworkmen have authorized the General Secretaryof GMS to represent them before the managementand the Government officials including the Tribunalor any other forum in their labour dispute andtherefore the words “would like to join your union”found in these letters could be read as havingmeaning that the workmen have joined the union.Nevertheless,, for this purpose, it was required ofParty I to have produced cogent and convincingevidence before the court to indicate that the letterdated24-09-2000 (Exb. W-1 colly) was received bythe Sangh prior to writing letter dated25-09-2000 (Exb. W-2 colly) to Party II. Shri P.Gaonkar was unable to give the date on whichthe Sangh received the letter at Exb. W-1 colly. Asregards statements made by Party II in para 1 ofthe written statement, the same cannot beconstrued to mean that there is admission on thepart of Party II about Sangh raising demands onbehalf of the workmen and on the contrary readingof this para in totality makes it clear beyond thatParty II has challenged the very locus standi ofthe Sangh to raise such demands. As far aspleadings in para 4 of the written statement areconcerned, reading of the same makes it clear thatParty II has challenged the competency and theauthority of Shri P. Gaonkar to sign the claimstatement on behalf of the workmen.

20. Demands dated 14-10-01 at Exb. W-3 collyare signed by Shri P. Gaonkar in the capacity asGeneral Secretary of the Sangh and in hiscross examination Shri P. Gaonkar has not ruledout the possibility of sending Exb. W-3 colly bypost but has made it clear that he was unable toproduce the acknowledgment as according to himthe records are old. Nonetheless, since Party I hasnot established by way of convincing evidencethat it had authority from the workers to raise thedemands either by way of a resolution orotherwise, mere signing of Exb. W-3 colly byShri P. Gaonkar as General Secretary of the Sanghis of no avail to say that the charter of demandsraised are maintainable. It may be thatsettlements dated 29-12-09 and 29-12-10 are signedby Shri P. Gaonkar as the General Secretary of theSangh but it is not the case of Party I in theirpleadings nor it is stated by Shri P. Gaonkar inhis evidence that representation of workers by theSangh or by him as General Secretary of the Sangh


345

at the time of raising of the charter of demands atExb. W-3 colly stands established by virtue to theabove settlements. Similar is the case with writtensettlement/understanding at Exb. 55/Exb.W-12,signed by Shri P. Gaonkar.

21. In the judgement in the case of DeepakIndustries (supra) it is observed that what isrequired by the union to espouse the dispute onbehalf of the workmen is either a resolution orauthorization by individual workmen. In theinstant case it is not established that Exb. W-1colly which bear the signature of each of theworkmen authorizing the General Secretary ofGMS to represent them before the variousauthorities mentioned therein was sent to theSangh prior to Sangh sending Exb. W-2 colly toParty II or for that matter if at all it was sent to theSangh. This is more because in the letter dated25-9-00 (Exb. W-2 colly) Party I has stated that itwould submit the list of members in due courseand there is nothing on record to indicate that thesaid list was thereafter submitted. Even noresolution by the members authorizing the Sanghis on record and therefore it is not justified to saythat Party I union has locus standi to espousethe dispute or that Shri P. Gaonkar wasauthorized to sign the claim statement on behalfof the workmen. Thus, the observations in thejudgement in the case of Sindhu Resettlementand Dimakuchi Tea Estate (both cited supra)squarely apply to the situation discussed suprabecause the dispute herein cannot be termed asthe one between the employer and the workmen.Even for that matter since the authority of theSangh to espouse the dispute is challenged byParty II and as the Sangh has failed to establishthat it has been duly authorized either by theresolution by the members or otherwise or that ithas authority to represent the workmen whosecause it is espousing, the observations in thejudgment in the case of Deepak Industries (Supra)also apply to the instant case. Further, what isapparent from the observations in the judgmentin the case of Air India (Supra) is that subscriptiontowards membership establishes that theconcerned workers are the members of the unionand apparently such documentary evidence is notproduced by Party I herein and therefore Party Ihas failed to prove the aforesaid fact.

22. It therefore follows from above discussionthat Party I has failed to prove that it has locusstandi to espouse the dispute on behalf of theworkmen and consequently that Shri P. Gaonkaris competent and authorized to sign the claimstatement on behalf of the workers and hence myfindings.

23. Issue Nos. 2, 4 and 6: All these issues areanswered together for the sake of conveniencebeing interconnected.

24. Ld. Adv. for Party I submitted that thegenuineness and justification of the demandsdepends upon the paying capacity of the employeras per region-cum-industry. He referred to thesettlement dated 17-10-01 between Cadbury IndiaLtd.. and its workmen at Exb. 35, settlementbetween Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., KundaimIndustrial Estate, Goa and their Workmenrepresented by GMS at Exb. 36 and settlementdated 28-5-00 between M/s. Glaxo SmithlineConsumer Healthcare and their workmen atExb.37 and stated that the wages/benefits paidin these companies are much higher in relationto the workmen engaged by Party II. He alsoinvited my attention to Exb. 56 colly which isWage Progression Grade-wise from 2001 to 2011of Party II and stated that there has been nosubstantial increase in the basic of the workmenas per these documents. He stated that if there isa rise in CPI the workmen are bound to get a riseand in support of his above submission he reliedon the judgement in the case of TransportCorporation of India Ltd., Bombay v/sMaharashtra Rajya Mathtadi Transport andGeneral Kamgar Union 2002 III LLJ 835 theobservations in which indicate that increase inCPI justifies an upward rise revision and it is forthe employer to prove before the Tribunal that itwould not be possible for it to bear the burdenthat would be cast on it if the demands areallowed. He statad that financial condition ofParty II is very much sound and pointed to thebalance sheet of the company at Exb. W/4colly to substantiate his above statement. Byreferring to the judgement in the case ofTransport Corporation (supra) he stated that theburden is on the employer to show that he has nofinancial capacity to withstand the burden on himas it is he who knows his financial position andthat though Party II claims that it has given riseto its employees on the principle of region-cum-industry, no evidence is led by Party II on thissubject. By referring to the judgement in the caseof Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v/s IndustrialTribunal and others 2008 III CLR 141 he statedthat there is nothing in the industrial dispute actthat a dispute to be a industrial dispute should beraised by a recognized union or a majority unionand it would suffice if there is a controversybetween the employer on one side and theworkmen on the other side and what is essentialis that on account of the controversy, there is


346

potential cause for disharmony, which is likely toadversely affect industrial peace and substantialnumber of workmen raises a dispute about it.As regards non mention of demands in theschedule to the reference Ld. Adv. for Party I reliedon the judgment in the case of Sheshrao BhadujiHatwar v/s Presiding Officer, First Labour Court& ors 1990 II CLR 726, Delhi Cloth and GeneralMills Company, Ltd. v/s Their workmen andother 1967 I LLJ 423 contending that the referencecannot be held as untenable only because thedispute is not reflected in the reference and thatthe entire pleadings of the parties are to beexamined to find out the exact nature of thedispute.

25. On the other hand Ld. Adv. for Party II byreferring to Sec. 10 (1) of the Act stated thatreference of the dispute to the Tribunal is madeby the Appropriate Government when it forms theopinion that the industrial dispute exist or isapprehended. He also stated that the Tribunal hasto confined the adjudication strictly to the termsof reference in terms of section 10(4) of the Act.He then by referring to schedule 1 to the termsof reference stated that this schedule reads as“whether the 25 points of the charter of demandsserved by the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh on behalfof the workmen on the management of M/s NestleIndia Ltd., Usgao, Goa, is genuine and justified?”and submitted that the schedule does not speakabout the date of demands or the nature ofdemands and hence the question of AppropriateGovernment forming an opinion that an IndustrialDispute exist or is apprehended, or for that matterthe Tribunal confining the adjudication to theterms of reference, does not arise. By referring tothe failure report at Exb. 94, Ld. Adv. for Party IIstated that no deatils of the demands are foundeven in this document. Thus, according to himno actual dispute is referred for adjudication. Tohighlight as to what is an industrial dispute u/s2(k) of the Act, he relied on the very samejudgment in the case of workmen of DamakuchiTea Estate (supra) by stating that the workmenraising the dispute must have nexus with thedispute, either because thay are personallyinterested or because they have taken up thecause of another person in the general interest ofLabour Welfare. He also relied on the judgment inthe case of M/s Shalimar Works Ltd.v/s TheirWorkmen 1959 SC 1217, The management ofHindustan Lever Ltd., New Delhi v/s theAdministrator, Delhi Administration 1977Lab. IC 681, Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat v/sThe Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd., AIR 1979 SC 1356,

Mukund Ltd., v/s Mukund Staff and OfficersAssociation 2004 (101) FLR 129 and in the caseof M/s India Tourism Development CorporationNew Delhi v/s Delhi Administration 1982 Lab.I.C. 1309 to canvas the proposition that the disputeraised has to be definite and clear and if the sameis indefinite and vague it might disqualify itselfas an industrial dispute. By referring to the abovejudgment he also submitted that the jurisdictionof the Tribunal in industrial disputes is limited tothe points specifically referred for its adjudicationand to the matters incidental thereto and theTribunal cannot go beyond the terms of referenceso also that the Tribunal cannot adjudicate thematters not within the purview of disputereferred. Thus, according to him in the absenceof the mention of the demands in the scheduleto the reference, the court cannot go into thegenuiness of the demands.

26. As pointed out by the Ld. Advocate forParty II, there is no material in the claim statementand in the rejoinder on the subject of genuinenessand justifiability of the demands, which are notmentioned in the terms of reference. Thus, suchdemands listed in the claim statement cannotbe termed as genuine demands.

27. Apparently, there is revision of salary videwritten settlement/understanding dated 20-1-01(Exb. 55) w.e.f. 01-01-01 to 30-12-01. The charterof demand dated 14-10-01 is for revision of wagesfor the year 2002. Further, there has been revisionof salary by the management by notice dated22-12-01 (Exb. 66) w.e.f. 01-01-02. It is apparentfrom records that the workers have voluntarilyaccepted the increase in wages w.e.f. 01-01-02and also thereafter till the year 2009. Thus abovesequence of events, therefore is a pointer to factthat the dispute is not espoused by the workmenand this is because they have accepted therevision of salary as mentioned above.

28. In his cross examination Shri P. Gaonkarhas admitted that in the schedule to the orderof reference the date of the charter of demandsserved on Party II as well as which are the 25points of the charter of demands is not mentioned.He has however denied the suggestions thatthe said schedule to the reference is vague andnot capable of adjudication and therefore thequestion of deciding genuineness and justificationof the said demands does not arise. Undoubtedly,for adjudication of a dispute, the same has to bedefinite and this is because courts cannot enlargethe scope of reference or travel beyond the pointsspecifically referred for its adjudication. It is only


347

after the court comes to the conclusion that thedispute is definite, it would be possible for thecourt to look into the other aspects such as thepaying capacity of the employer or if the wagesare not in consonance with Consumer Price Index.Admittedly, the terms of reference do not containthe date of charter of demands comprising of 25points or as to what are those 25 demands. It maybe that in terms of failure report dated 18-9-02(Exb. 94) the General Secretary of Sangh hadsubmitted that the Sangh had raised an industrialdispute against Party II pertaining to charter ofdemands vide letter dated 14-10-01 and that themanagement adopted delaying tactics, butExb. 94 makes it clear that none on behalf of themanagement attended the discussion before theconciliation officer. Even for that matter, no detailsof the so called 25 points of COD served onmanagement are mentioned in Exb. 94. Thingswould be different if the details of so called 25points of COD were found in Exb. 94 as in suchcase this court would come to the conclusion thatthe demands listed in the claim statement andthe one mentioned in Exb. 94 were the same andthereby could hold that it were the same demandswhich were served by the union on themanagement. Thus, it was only in such situation,this court in the absence of details of the demandsin the order of reference could say that exactnature of dispute is apparent from the pleadingsof Party I. That apart, there is nothing in Exb. 94to show that the 25 demands alleged to havebeen submitted on 14-10-01 by the union wereforwarded by the Conciliation Officer to theAppropriate Government and consequently therewas nothing before the Appropriate Governmentto satisfy itself as to the nature of the demandsor their genuineness. This by itself makes thereference vague. Interestingly no steps have beentaken by Party I to get the said mistake correctedor to get the reference amended.

29. Be that as it may, in the judgment in thecase of Bharat Sanchar Nigam (supra) no doubt,it is observed that a dispute raised by a recognizedunion or a majority union would be an industrialdispute but the observations in this judgmentalso indicate that there has to be a controversybetween the employer on one side and theworkmen on the other side. I have alreadydiscussed while answering issue No. 1 that thereis nothing on record to indicate that the disputeis raised on behalf of the workmen and thereforethe controversy here cannot be said to be betweenthe employer on one side and the workmen onother side. Even otherwise, in the absence of

details of demands in the order of reference or inthe failure report, it is rather hard to conclude thatthere is any controversy between the employeron one side and the workmen on the other sideor for that matter if at all there is any controversywhat is it or on which exact subject matter, thesame is. Thus, in this peculiar situation, the ratioin the above judgement cannot be madeapplicable to the instant case.

30. As regards the judgment in the case ofSheshrao (supra) it is observed that the order ofreference should be liberally construed and areference should not be rendered incompetentmerely because it is made in general terms andthat it is always permissible for the labour courtsor the Tribunals to construe the reference in thelight of the backdrop against which it is madeand to bring out the real dispute for its decision.The reference in this case was through relating totermination of services of an employee and hisclaim for reinstatement, back wages andcontinuity of service, it was not properly worded,in as much as, it was contended by the employerthat there was abundant material to conclude thatthe workmen had voluntarily abandoned theservice. Labour Court upheld the contention of theemployer and came to the conclusion that thereference was vitiated due to non application ofmind by Deputy Commissioner. It was in thesituation pointed out above the observations inthis judgement were made by the Hon’ble HighCourt. Undoubtedly, the fact situation in the instantcase is totally different from the facts in the abovejudgment as in the instant case it is thecontention of Party I union that the COD servedon the management were not accepted by themanagement and therefore in such situation itwas very much essential that the order of referencecontained the details of those demands, moreparticularly to enable the court to know that thesewere the very same demands which Party Iclaimed to have served on the management. Thus,in the situation pointed out above, it cannot besaid that the order of reference in the instant caseis made in general terms and hence is notincompetent. Being so, the ratio in the abovejudgement is not applicable to the instant case.

31. Coming to the judgement in the case ofDelhi Cloth and General Mills (supra) theobservations in this judgement otherwise favourthe stand taken by Party II as it is held that thetribunal is not free to enlarge the scope of thedispute referred to it but it must confine itsattention to the points specifically mentioned and


348

anything which is incidental thereto. As pointedout by me supra, the dispute referred in the instantcase is a vague dispute and therefore in suchsituation the question of this court confining itsattention to the points specifically mentioned inthe dispute, does not arise. Thus, this judgmentcannot be of any help to advance the case ofParty I.

32. In the judgment in the case of M/s. ShalimarWorks (supra) there was wholesale discharge ofworkmen in breach of Sec. 33 of the Act; that thematter was referred after three years and in thereference no names of the discharged workerswere given and in such situation it was observedthat the reference was vague as the names of theworkmen to be reinstated were not sent to theindustrial tribunal. Like in the above case thedemands are not specified in the reference andtherefore the reference in this case too is vague.

33. Coming to the judgment in the case of theManagement of Hindustan Lever (Supra)though the facts in this case are different fromthe facts in the instant case, the ratio thatemerges from this judgment is that there has tobe direct nexus between the workmen and thedispute they would raise and that no abstractdispute could be raised. It is thus held in thisjudgment that if the dispute is indefinite and vagueit might disqualify itself as an industrial dispute.In the instant case as the dispute is vague, itis not understood as to what is the nexus betweensuch vague, dispute and the workmen. This beingthe case, as observed in this judgment this by itselfdisqualifies the dispute herein, as an industrialdispute.

34. Even in the judgment in the case of PotteryMazdoor (supra) it is observed that the tribunalcannot go beyond the terms of reference and beingso it is not open for this court to look into thedemands enlisted in the claim statement to saythat they form the part of the terms of referenceand doing so would amount to enlarging the scopeof the reference. Similar is the case in thejudgment in the case of Mukund Ltd.,(supra) inwhich it is held that the tribunal being a creatureof the reference, cannot adjudicate matters notwithin the purview of the dispute actually referredto it by the order of reference. Thus, it is clearthat it is not permissible for this court to importthe demands enlisted in the claim statement ofParty I herein as forming the terms of reference.

35. In the judgment in the case of M/s IndiaTourism Development (supra) it is observedthat the jurisdiction of the Labour Court/IndustrialTribunal in industrial dispute is limited to thepoints specifically referred for its adjudication andthe matters incidental thereto and it is notpermissible to go beyond the terms of reference.In the instant case since the demands to beadjudicated are not specified in the terms ofreference it is beyond the reach of this Tribunalto consider the matter incidental thereto andwhat follows from the above observations is thatpoints to be adjudicated have to be specificallyreferred for adjudication.

36. Reference also deserves to be made to thejudgment in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. v/s State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2013 LLR1157, the observations in which indicate thatthere cannot be proper adjudication in theabsence of clear terms of reference. Thejudgments in the case of M/s. India TourismDevelopment Corporation and SindhuRe-settlement (both cited supra) have beenconsidered in this case while coming to theconclusion, as above. I would also refer to thejudgment in the case of Suresh Chandra v/sGeneral Manager, Rajasthan State Bridge andConstructions Corporation 2002 (94) FLR 843,in which it is observed that Labour Court lackscompetent to correct/modify/amend/alter theterms of reference and if it does so the awardbecomes nullity being without jurisdiction.Reference is also made to the judgment in thecase of Hanjar Cinema v/s General MazdoorSangh and Ors. 2013 III CLR 153, in which it isheld that the terms of reference u/s. 10(1) of theAct, cannot be bye-passed or expanded by theIndustrial Tribunal or Labour Court, which has toattend the dispute, referred to it, within the termsand wording of the reference only.

37. Discussion above therefore makes it clearthat in the absence of mention of specific demandsin the terms of reference the question of Party Iunion proving that the said demands are genuineand justified on the basis of the paying capacityof the employer, does not arise and on the contraryit is clear that the dispute referred, cannot beconstrued as an industrial dispute and the orderof reference being vague and incomplete, isincapable of adjudication. Hence my findings.

38. Issue Nos. 3 & 5: Both these issues areanswered together for the sake of conveniencebeing interconnected.


349

39. Shri P. Gaonkar has stated that the companywas informed of the formation of the union videtheir letter dated 25-9-00 and the union alsosubmitted the COD on their behalf. The said CODdated 25-9-00 is brought on record in the crossexamination of Shri P. Gaonkar at Exb. 25. Shri P.Gaonkar has also stated that despite severalrequests the management refused to negotiatewith the union and as such the union raiseddispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner,Ponda. He has stated that during the proceedingsthe attitude of management was adamant but toavoid confrontation, the union signed the minutesof conciliation on 20-1-01. Shri P. Gaonkar hasproduced on record the said minutes ofconciliation at Exb. W/12. Even Shri Vivek Kumarthe witness of Party II has produced the saidminutes at Exb. 55. Shri P. Gaonkar has deniedthe suggestion that the COD at Exb. 25 culminatedin minutes at Exb. 55. Though in his cross--examination Shri. P. Gaonkar has stated that nosettlement has been arrived at on the COD at Exb.25, but he has admitted that the minutes at Exb.W/12 were with reference to the COD submittedin the year 2000. Nevertheless, in his argumentsLd. Adv. for the Party I stated that Exb.W/12/Exb. 55 is not a settlement as in terms ofSection 2(p) of the Act the settlement has to besigned by the parties thereto in such manner asmay be prescribed and a copy there of has to besent to the Appropriate Government and theConciliation Officer. By inviting my attention toExb. W 12/Exb. 55 he stated that it is not in theformat prescribed i.e. FORM H and that it alsodoes not refer to the COD raised by the union andtherefore it is just a presentation and hence notrequired to be terminated as required under sec.19(2) of the Act. In support of his submissions, herelied on the judgment in the case of APSRTCNational Mazdoor Union v/s APSRTC and Anr.2008 CLR 431, Parke-Davis (India) Ltd. v/sMahadev Bhiku Jadhav and Anr. 2008 II CLR638 and in the case of Gajanan Gangaram Patil(Shree) v/s Relene Petrolchemicals Ltd., 2012III CLR 829.

40. On the other hand Ld. Adv. for Party II urgedthat Exb. W 12/Exb. 55 is a settlement pertainingto COD dated 25-9-2000 and therefore the samewas required to be terminated in terms of Section19(2)/19(7) of the Act before raising the furtherCOD. In support of his statement that Exb. W12//Exb. 55 is a settlement Ld. Adv. for Party II reliedon the judgment in the case of RaghvendraMathur v/s Allahabad Bank 1991(1) LLJ 273and in the case of Punjab Kesri Printing Pressv/s Ratan Singh and Ors. 1991 II CLR 123.

41. Be that as it may, reading of the claimstatement (Para 13) makes it appear that theminutes of conciliation at Exb.W12/Exb. 55 wasinfact a written settlement entered into after theCOD at Exb. 25 was raised. Even Shri P. Gaonkarhas in his cross examination has stated that thedemands submitted in the year 2000 were settledby signing minutes and the said settlement wasfor a period of one year. It is equally correct thatExb. W12/Exb. 55 is not in the prescribed formatbut it is clear from the observations in thejudgment in the case of Raghvendra Mathur(supra) that even if the settlement is not inaccordance with the prescribed form ascontemplated under rule 58 of the IndustrialDisputes (Central) Rules, 1957 it does not sufferfrom any defects. Also in the judgment in the caseof Punjab Kesri Printing Press (supra) it isobserved that a settlement under section 2(p)need not necessarily be written or jotted down onFORM H prescribed under rule 58 and it issufficient that it contains all the ingredientsrequired by FORM H. Thus merely because Exb.W12/Exb. 55 is not in the required format, it cannotbe said that it is not a settlement.

42. In the judgment in the case of APSRTC(supra) an agreement dated 1-7-05 was enteredinto before the Transport Minister whichagreement was sought to be called as settlementby the petitioner, however it is observed that toconstitute a settlement the written agreementmust be signed by the Employer and the workmanand that the Petitioner did not plead that theyand Respondent No.1 signed on the agreement.Contrary to this, perusal of Exb.W12/Exb. 55reveals that the same is signed by the Employeras well as the representatives of the workmanbefore the conciliation officer and therefore theobservations in the above judgment are notapplicable to the case in hand.

43. In the judgment in the case of Park-Davis (supra) the settlement was signed inconciliation on 16-11-90 and it was madeapplicable to all permanent workmen includingprobationers and it was to remain in force upto31-3-93. However there was a meeting betweencompany and the union on 6-5-91 which resultedin minutes being recorded with respect toconfirmation of temporary and badli workmen inservice and the arrangement as above was toremain in force upto 31-3-93. It was contendedby the Petitioners that the workmen were boundby these arrangements and as such it was heldthat the said minutes dated 6-5-91 are not a


350

settlement as defined u/s 2(p) of the Act andcannot be binding on the workman. It is thereforeclear from above facts that the observations inthis judgment were made in a totally differentcontext in relation to the minutes and they inno way could be imported to say that Exb. W12//Exb. 55 is not a settlement.

44. In the judgment in the case of GajananGangaram Patil (supra) it is dated that lettersfrom employer or minutes of discussion, onarriving at certain conclusions in the meeting,held between employer/management and theworkers/union of workers, would not take placeof arrangement/settlement, as contemplated u/s2(p) of the I.D. Act. I have already mentionedabove the nature of Exb. W12/Exb. 55 which in noway could be said to be a letter or minutes ofdiscussion and therefore the observations abovecannot be applied to the instant case.

45. Having come to the conclusion thatExb.W12/Exb. 55 is a settlement, it is now requiredto see if the same is terminated as required u/s19(2)/19(7) of the Act. It may be mentioned herethat in para 13 of the claim statement Party I haspleaded that the Sangh in the month of October,2001 sent notice of termination of writtensettlement/understanding as the same was for aperiod of one year and submitted the fresh CODdated 14-10-01. In reply to this para vide reply atpara 13 of the written statement Party II amongstother things has pleaded that union has no powerto terminate any written settlement orunderstanding and the COD dated 14-10-01 isnot maintainable and is bad in law. It is clearfrom the nature of above pleadings that Party IIhas not denied in particular the act of Party Igiving notice of termination but has challengedthe powers of Party II to terminate. Thus, whatParty I is required to establish is that it hadpowers to terminate i.e. it could legally terminatethis settlement.

46. In his arguments Ld. Adv. for Party I reliedon the judgment in the case of Workmen ofWestern India Match Co.v/s Western IndiaMatch Co. 1962 1 LLJ 661 (SC) in which it hasobserved that various representations made onbehalf of the workmen and the presentation of theCOD were sufficient to terminate the COD andthat formal notice u/s 19(2) of the Act terminatingthe settlements was not required. He also reliedon the judgment in the case of M/s. ShuklaManseta Industries Pvt. Ltd. v/s The Workmen1977 LAB I.C.1541, in which it is held thatadvance notice can be given to terminate a

settlement or an award provided the requisiteperiod of two months required u/s 19(2) expireson the date of expiry of the settlement or awardor thereafter. He then relied on the judgment inthe case of Cochin State Power, LightCorporation Ltd. v/s its Workmen 1964 II LLJ100 in which after expiry of period of settlementby afflux of time, the union, submitted a CODstating that they had resolved to terminate thesettlement and submit the present demands. It isheld that there was specific statement madetherein that the settlement was being terminatedand hence it was sufficient notice as requiredu/s 19(2) of the Act. He further relied on thejudgment in the case of M/s. Bharat TextileWorks v/s Workmen 1994 Lab. I.C. 2045 inwhich it is held that there is no formal orprescribed mode of termination and if there isany correspondence from which termination canbe culled out with reference to particular date,that can be treated as a notice terminating thesettlement. He then relied on the judgment in thecase of Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v/sWorkmen 2012 III CLR 446 in which it isobserved that if the notice culls out the clearintention of termination of the agreement thesame could be construed as termination u/s 19(2)of the Act.

47. On the other hand Ld. Adv. for Party II byrelying on the judgment in the case of Employeesof Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v/s TheWorkmen and another (1974) 3 SCC 167contended that the termination of the previoussettlement has to be fixed with reference to aparticular date as the certainty regarding the dateis essential to calculate the period of two months.

48. To resolve the above controversy, it isessential to refer to section 19(2) and 19(7) of theAct, which reads as under:

Section 19(2):

“Such settlement shall be binding for suchperiod as is agreed upon by the parties, and ifno such period is agreed upon, for a period ofsix months (from the date of which thememorandum of settlement is signed by theparties to the dispute), and shall continue to bebinding on the parties after the expiry of theperiod aforesaid, until the expiry of two monthsfrom the date on which a notice in writing of anintention to terminate the settlement is given byone of the parties to the other party or parties tothe settlement.”


351

Section 19(7):

“No notice given under sub-section (2) orsub-section (6) shall have effect, unless it is givenby a party representing the majority of personsbound by the settlement or award, as the casemay be.”

49. In the case at hand the settlementat Exb.W-12/Exb. 55 was for a period of one yearwhereas the so called notice of termination isdated 14-10-01 (Exb. W-3 colly). The period of twomonths in terms of notice dated 14-10-01 wouldexpire on or about 14-12-01 which is much priorto the date of expiry of Exb. W-12/Exb. 55, whichwould be 31-12-01 as per Exb. W-3 colly. In termsof the judgment in the case of M/s. ShuklaManseta (supra) an advance intimation aboutthe intention to terminate the settlement couldbe given provided the requisite period of twomonths required u/s 19(2) expires on the date ofexpiry of the settlement or award or thereafter. Ihave already pointed out supra that the requisiteperiod of two months required u/s 19(2) in termof Exb. W-3 colly expired on 14-12-01 which ismuch prior to the date of expiry of settlementat Exb. W-12/Exb. 55. Thus, the observations inthis judgment are not applicable to the casetried to set up by Party I.

50. Coming to the judgment in the case ofWorkmen of Western India (supra), it is apparentfrom this judgment that a part of the disputerelating to dearness allowance was referred foradjudication and the conciliation proceedingsregarding other disputes was resumed after theaforesaid reference was made and that only theissue relating to grades and pay scales could notbe settled and as such it was agreed that the samebe referred for adjudication to the same tribunalwhich was dealing with the question of dearnessallowance. It was in this situation and uponraising the objection that there was no validtermination u/s 19(2) of the Act held that a formalnotice u/s 19(2) of the Act was immaterial. It istherefore clear that the facts in the above case aretotally different from the facts in the instant caseand hence the ratio in it cannot be applied to theinstant case.

51. As regards the judgment in the case ofM/s. Bharat Textile (supra) though it is observedherein that no formal or prescribed mode oftermination could be insisted upon and if there isany correspondence from which termination canbe culled out with reference to a particular date,the same could be treated as a notice terminatingthe settlement, it is seen that in the instant case

there is nothing specific in Exb.W3 colly statingthat Party I intended to terminate the settlementfrom a particular date though a mention hasbeen made therein that the existingunderstanding was expiring on 31-12-01. In thecase of Fomento Resorts (supra) the subsistingsettlement dated 3-2-05 was to expire on 31-1-08and hence the notice dated 1-11-07 was givenstating that said settlement shall standterminated on and from 31-1-08 and afresh charterof demand shall be presented. The Hon’ble HighCourt in this situation held that the above noticeitself states that the settlement would standterminated on 31-1-08 i.e. the date of expiry ofthe settlement and thus rejected the contentionof the petitioners that no appropriate notice undersection 19(2) of the Act was served on them toterminate the settlement.

52. Thus, the factors which are very muchapparent from the observations in the abovementioned judgments are that the requisite periodof two months envisaged in Sec. 19(2) of the Actshould expire either on the date of expiry ofthe settlement or award or thereafter and thatthere has to be clear intention to terminate thesettlement from a particular date in the notice//letter and which is so stated in the judgment inthe case of Employees of ThungabhadraIndustries (supra), relied upon by the Ld.Advocate for Party II.

53. I have already pointed out above that therequisite period of two months as required u/s19(2) of the Act in this case expires on 14-12-01whereas Exb. W-12/Exb. 55, as stated in Exb.W-3 colly expires on 31-12-01. Legally thesettlement would continue to be binding on theparties even after its expiry of the periodmentioned in Sec. 19(2) until the expiry of twomonths from the date on which a notice in writingof an intention to terminate the settlement is givenand therefore even if the other party admits thatthe settlement has been terminated, the same ifnot terminated as required by Sec. 19(2) of theAct, it cannot be considered as termination in theeyes of law and in such situation the settlementwould continue. This is because admissions byparties cannot byepass the law. Thus, thedemands now raised would be barred in view ofthe mutual agreement between the parties sincenotice under section 19(2) or 19(6) if expireswithin the period of award or settlement, it isinvalid under the law. It is therefore necessary tofind out if the alleged termination of the settlementvide letter dated 14-10-01 at Exb. W-3 colly istermination in the eyes of law.


352

54. Be that as it may, in the letter dated14-10-01 what has been mentioned about thewritten settlement/understanding is that “theexisting understanding regarding the wagerevision and improvement in other service, isexpiring on 31-12-01, and in order to arrive at anamicable understanding we are enclosing herewiththe demands of the workers for your acceptance.”It is therefore clear from the above wordings thatthere is no specific mention in it stating thatParty I union ‘was terminating’ or was ‘intendingto terminate’ the existing settlement on 31-12-01and this was required because even otherwise thesettlement at Exb. W-12/Exb. 55 was for a periodof one year. It was therefore required of Party I tohave expressed its clear intention to terminatethe settlement from a particular date in terms ofthe observations in the judgment in the case ofThungabhadra (supra). This being the situation,the COD is not maintainable as there is alreadysubsisting settlement and as there is nocompliance of Sec. 19(2) of the Act, the questionof negotiating on demands does not arise.

55. As regards section 19(7) of the Act, there isnothing on record indicating that the union wasauthorized by the majority of the workmen by aresolution to terminate the settlement as requiredby this section.

56. Thus, it is clear from the above discussionthat Party I has failed to prove that the action ofParty II in not settling the demands is illegal andunjustified and on the contrary Party II hassufficiently established that the reference is notmaintainable because the demands are barredin view of mutual agreement between the parties.Hence my findings.

57. Issue No. 7: In view of the findings on allthe above issues, the question of granting anyreliefs to the workmen does not arise. Hencemy findings.

58. In the result and in view of discussion supra,I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the 25 points of charterof demands served by Gomantak MazdoorSangh on behalf of the workmen on themanagement of M/s. Nestle India Ltd., Usgao,Goa, are not genuine and justified.

2. It is hereby further held that the actionof the management of M/s. Nestle India Ltd,Usgao, Goa, in not settling the abovedemands is legal and justified.

3. Party I/union is therefore not entitled to anyrelief.



Sd/-(B. K. Thaly)

Presiding OfficerIndustrial Tribunal--cum-Labour Court.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2013-Lab/739

The following award passed by the IndustrialTribunal and Labour Court, at Panaji-Goa on24-09-2013 in reference No. IT/4/10 is herebypublished as required by Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor ofGoa.


Porvorim, 4th November, 2013.

________

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALAND LABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOAAT PANAJI

(Before Ms. Bimba K. Thaly, PresidingOfficer)

Ref. No. IT/4/2010

Shri Francis D’Costa,H. No. 428/1, Godar Macazana, … Workman/Party ISalcete-Goa

V/s

M/s. Costa and Company Pvt. Ltd.,Aquem Alto,Margao, Salcete-Goa Employer/Party II

Party I/Workman present at the time of filing ofthe pleadings but absent, not represented at thetime of evidence and arguments.

Adv. Shri G. B. Kamat present for Employer/Party II,present at the time of filing of the pleadings,evidence and arguments.


353

AWARD

(Passed on 24th day of September, 2013)

By order dated 10-05-2010, bearing No. 28/12//2010-LAB, the Government of Goa in exercise ofpowers conferred by Section 10 (1) (d) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act),has referred the following dispute to this Tribunalfor adjudication:

“(1) Whether the action of the management ofM/s. Costa & Company Pvt. Ltd., Margao,Goa, in terminating the services of itsworkman, Shri Francis D’ Costa, semi--skilled, with effect from 8th July, 2007, islegal and justified?

(2) If not, what relief the workman is entitledto?”

(2) Upon receipt of the reference, it wasregistered as IT/4/10 and registered AD noticeswere issued to both the parties. Pursuant to serviceof notices, Party I filed the claim statement atExb. 6 and Party II filed the written statement atExb. 7. Party I then filed the rejoinder at Exb. 9.

3. In the claim statement, it is in short the caseof Party I that he was employed as a semi skilledworker by Party II who is doing the business ofmanufacturers, wholesalers and exporters ofquality food. It is stated that he has been workingas a workman for Party II for last seventeen years.It is stated that in July, 2007 the ProductionManager of Party II informed him that the employerhad directed him not to allow him for duties anddirect him to leave the work forever where uponhe contacted the General Manager but he tooexpressed inability to allow him for duties. It isstated that the Party I thereafter regularly attendedthe work place for about a month but was notallowed to perform the work and as such he satoutside the gate of the Company. It is stated thatthe acts of Party II of not allowing him to attendthe work amounts to illegal termination of theservice and or dismissal from the service withoutdue process of law. It is stated that the Party I ispresently unemployed. It is stated that Adv. ShriR. Shirodkar appointed by Taluka Legal Services,Margao, on his behalf, issued legal notice dated22-2-08 to Party II to settle his dues to which hewas entitled due to illegal termination of hisservices but Party II neither settled the dues norresponded to the legal notice and as such Party Ifiled complaint dated 28-3-08, to the Dy. LabourCommissioner who called the parties for jointdiscussion but the management did not attend andsent written submission dated 22-7-08 and deniedthe contentions made by Party I in his complaint

dated 28-3-08. That Party I filed reply dated14-8-08 and claimed lumpsum amount ofRs. 3,00,000/- from Party II for wrongful dismissalfrom services and towards entire benefitsconcerning his work with the employer for lastseventeen years. It is stated that though the matterwas admitted in conciliation, as no representativeof Party II was present, the proceeding ended ex-parte. Hence the reference praying to directParty II to pay to Party I the monthly wages fromJuly, 2007 till this date of October, 2010 or tilladjudication of this dispute between Party I andParty II and to direct Party II to pay to Party I thegratuity, provident fund, pensionary benefits etc.,accrued to Party I due to his more than 17 yearsservices with Party II.

4. In the written statement Party II has deniedthe case setup by Party I and has stated that thereference has been drawn up without applicationof mind as at all the time it is/was the case ofParty II that the services of Party I were notterminated but that the Party I did not report forduties and subsequently collected all his legaldues without any protest and the allegation aboutillegal termination of his service was purely byway of afterthought. It is stated that admittedly nodispute about termination of his services, illegalor otherwise, was raised by Party I at any point oftime and even in the notice dated 22-2-08addressed by Adv. Shri R. Shirodkar, Party Icomplained about non-settlement of legal dues dueto him and the Company for the first time wascalled upon to settle the said dues within 10 daysof the receipt of the said notice. It is stated thatupon receipt of the said letter, the Companyforwarded a cheque for Rs. 49,868/- drawn on Bankof India, Margao branch towards gratuity due toParty I along with their covering letter dated25-03-08 which was duly received by Party I andthe cheque was also encashed by Party I on28-3-08. It is stated that the Party I was alsorequested to submit Form 19, Form 10-C duly filledin and signed by him for claiming his providentfund dues and pension fund dues from theProvident Fund Office at Panaji, Goa. Itis stated that Party I also collected bonus ofRs. 3,750/- due to him from the office of companyon 18-12-07 without protest or withoutcomplaining about alleged illegal termination ofhis services in any manner. It is stated that in viewof notice dated 22-02-08, it is evident that Party Iwas only interested in settlement of his legal duesand he was not at all interested in the employmentwith the company and therefore the disputeregarding alleged illegal termination of services


354

could not have been referred for adjudication. It isstated that in view of settlement of all the dues ofParty I by Party II and acceptance thereof byParty I, relationship of employee-employer cameto an end and thus the dispute regarding allegedtermination of services could not have been referredfor adjudication. It is stated that at no point of timethe services of Party I were terminated and on thecontrary Party I started remaining absent w.e.f.08-07-2007 without intimation or prior permissionfrom the company. It is stated that thereafterParty I attended the office on 16-7-07 and informedthe Production Manager that he was sick whereupon Party I was asked to get examined by Dr. M.Soares and produce medical certificate howeveron making enquiry with said Dr. Soares on the nextday, it was revealed that Party I did not approachthe said doctor at all either on the said date or atany time thereafter and that Party I also did notreport for duties at any time thereafter andsubsequently collected all his legal dues withoutany protest. It is stated that in such circumstances,question of termination of services of Party I bythe company did not arise at all and therefore alsothe Party I is not entitled to any reliefs as prayedfor or to any other relief.

5. In the rejoinder Party I denied the contentionsmade by Party II in the written statement.

6. On the basis of averments of the respectiveparties, following issues dated 1-03-2011 (Exb. 10),were framed:

1. Whether the Party I proves that the Party IIhad terminated his services illegally w.e.f.8-7-2007?

2. Whether the Party II proves that the Party Ifailed to report to work w.e.f. 8-7-2007?

3. Whether the Party II proves that thereference is not maintainable for reasons setout in para 2 of the written statement?

4. What relief? What order?

7. In the course of proceedings the matter wasfixed for evidence and Party I placed on record hisaffidavit-in-evidence at Exb. 12. It may bementioned here that Party I did not tender Exb.12before the court, on oath and as such the matterwas fixed for examination in chief as well as thecross examination of Party I. Records reveal thatParty I thereafter stopped appearing before thecourt and also he was also not represented beforethe court. Thus, after giving several opportunitiesto Party I, his evidence was closed vide order inthe roznama dated 16-7-13 and the matter wasfixed for the evidence of Party II. Ld. Advocate for

Party II on the date when the matter was fixed forevidence of Party II stated that Party II does notwish to lead evidence.

8. Arguments of Ld. Advocate for Party II wereheard.

9. I have gone through the records of the caseand have duly considered the submissions madeby Ld. Advocate for Party II. Though Party I hasfiled the claim statement and has also placed onrecord his affidavit in evidence, as he has notremained present before the court for tenderinghis affidavit in evidence, on oath and consequentlynot made himself available for cross examination,no weightage could be given to his affidavit inevidence, placed on record vide Exb.12 as the samecannot be considered as legal evidence. Even forthat matter, as Party II has also not lead evidence,there is no material before the court to answer theissues framed vide Exb.10. As such, this court isnot in a position to adjudicate the dispute referredto it by the appropriate Government.

10. Reliance is placed on the judgment in thecase of Baldev Singh v/s the Judge, CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court& Ors 2007 II CLR 685 in which by referring tothe judgment in the case of Virendra Bhandriv/s Rajasthan State Road Corporation Ltd., &ors (2002) 9 SCC it is observed as under:

“….. a reference of certain Industrial Disputewas made to the Industrial Tribunal-cum--Labour Court. The workman did not appearbefore the Tribunal, therefore, Tribunal held thatthere remains no Industrial Dispute. However,subsequently, the Appropriate Governmentagain referred the dispute to the Tribunal onthe same question and on this occasion, theTribunal adjudicated the matter and made anaward. The High Court held that the findingrecorded by the Tribunal in the first referenceamounted to an “award” and, therefore, secondreference was incompetent. The HonourableApex Court held that all that was stated wasthat the parties concerned had not appearedbefore the Tribunal and in such an event, theTribunal should have noted its inability torecord the finding on the issue referred to it,not that the dispute itself does not exist. Whenthere is no adjudication of the matter on meritsit cannot be said that the industrial disputedoes not exist. If the industrial dispute still existsas is opined by the Government, such a mattercan be referred under Section 10 of the I. D. Act,as Industrial Disputes are preferred to theLabour Court or the Industrial Tribunal formaintenance of industrial peace and not merely


355

for adjudication of the dispute between twoprivate parties. Therefore, it was permissible forthe Government to have made the secondreference .......”

11. Since in the instant case, the dispute raisedby the Party I before the conciliation officer hasnot been proved by Party I before the court byadducing evidence, there is no adjudication of thedispute this court and as such this court is unableto record any finding on the reference forwardedto it.

12. In the circumstances, I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that this court is unable torecord the finding on the issue referred bythe Appropriate Government.



Sd/- (B. K. Thaly)

Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-

-Labour Court-I

——— ———

Department of Official Language andPublic Grievances

Directorate of Official Language__

Order

No. 12/22/2013/DOL/Periodical-Scheme/838

Directorate of Official Language, Governmentof Goa hereby constitutes Expert AppraisalCommittee as required under the scheme,“Financial Assistance to the Goan Publishers forpublication of periodicals/magazines” consisting

of eminent personalities in the concerned field forthe purpose of selection as below:

1. Director of Official — Chairman.Language

2. Shri Kishor Naik, — Member.President, Goa Union ofJournalist

3. Shri Hiru Naik, — Member.Rutu Prakashan, Volvoi,Savoi Verem, Ponda-Goa

4. Shri Sanjay Dhavalikar, — Member.Editor, Dainik Herald

5. Shri Prabhakar Bhide, — Member.Rajhans Prakashan,Panaji-Goa

6. Assistant Director — Member(Marathi) Secretary.

The terms of reference of this Committee shallbe as under:

(i) This committee shall meet as and whenrequired to examine the proposals andrecommend the same on case to case basis.

(ii) In exceptional cases, the committee isauthorized to relax the eligibility conditionsmentioned at Clause VI of the notifiedscheme, indicating the reasons thereof inwriting.

(iii) The tenure of the committee shall be forthe period of three years.

(iv) The non-official members of the committeeshall be entitled for seating honorariumas per the rates made applicable byGovernment from time to time.


Dr. Prakash Vazrikar, Director & ex officio JointSecretary (Official Language).

Panaji, 21st July, 2014.

——— ———

Department of Panchayati Raj andCommunity Development

Directorate of Panchayats __

Notification

No. 19/35/DP/BYE-ELECTION/14/4005

In pursuance of sub-section (8) of Section 7 ofthe Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Goa Act 14 of

1994), read with Rule 58 of the Goa Panchayat andZilla Panchayat (Election Procedure) Rules, 1996,it is hereby notified for the information of thepublic that the persons specified in column No. 3of the Schedule appended hereto have been dulyelected as member of the Panchayat mentionedin the corresponding entry in column No. 2 fromthe ward shown against the name in column No.4 of the said schedule in the bye-election held on13-7-2014.


356

SCHEDULE

Sr. Name of the Village Name and address of the Ward No.No. Panchayat/Block the elected member Reservation

1 2 3 4

1. V. P. Salvador-do-Mundo, Shri Hemant Lavu Borkar, VIBardez-Goa H. No. 453, Chodan Wado,

Salvador-do-Mundo, Bardez-Goa

2. V. P. Agonda, Canacona-Goa Shri Barsat Narendra Naik Gaunkar, VIH. No. 626, Karashirmol, Agonda,Canacona-Goa

3. V. P. Bandora, Ponda-Goa Shri Sukhanand Raghoba Gaude, IH. No. 94/A, Kurpas, Nageshi,Bandora, Ponda-Goa

4. V. P. Usgao-Ganjem, Ponda-Goa Smt. Sunanda Dyaneshwar Naik, IIIH. No. 431, Tiral, Usgao-Goa (Reserved for

Women)

5. V. P. Se-Old-Goa, Tiswadi-Goa Shri Siddesh Shripad Naik, IH. No. 111, “Vijayshree” (Reserved forSt. Pedro, Old-Goa, Tiswadi OBC)

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

Narayan S. Navti, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Panchayats).

Panaji, 25th July, 2014.________

Notification

No. 19/DP/V.P. Harvalem/14/4024

In pursuance of sub-section (8) of Section 7 ofthe Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Goa Act 14 of1994), read with sub-rule 58 of the Goa Panchayatand Zilla Panchayat (Election Procedure) Rules,1996, it is hereby notified for the information of the

public that the persons specified in column No. 3of the Schedule appended hereto have been dulyelected as members of the Panchayats mentionedin the corresponding entry in column No. 2 fromthe wards shown against their names in columnNo. 4 of the said Schedule in the elections held on13-7-2014.

SCHEDULE

Sr. Name of the Village Name and address of the Ward No.No. Panchayat the elected member

1 2 3 4

1. Bicholim Shri Sagar Sagun Malik, IHarvalem R/o H. No. 473, Varchawada,

Harvalem, Sakhali-Goa

Smt. Sharada Sharad Malik, IIR/o H. No. 926, Varchawada, Reserved forHarvalem, Sakhali-Goa women

Shri Mahesh Tulshidas Divkar, IIIR/o H. No. 1200, ShivkrupaColony, Harvalem, Sakhali-Goa

Shri Guruprasad Ganpat, Naik, IVR/o H. No. 968, Pratap Nagar, Reserved forHarvalem, Sakhali-Goa OBC


357

Smt. Priya Pramod Thakur VR/o H. No. 1607, Pausawada Reserved forVarche, Harvalem, Sakhali-Goa women

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

Narayan S. Navti, Director & ex officio Jt. Secretary (Panchayats).

Panaji, 25th July, 2014.

——— ———

1 2 3 4

Department of Personnel__

Order

File No. 6/16/2014-PER/4283

The ad hoc appointment of the followingOfficers in Junior Scale of Goa Civil Service, isextended further for the period indicated againsttheir names or till the appointment is made onregular basis, whichever is earlier:

Sr. Name of the Ad hoc appointmentNo. officer extended upto

1. Smt. Neetal P. Amonkar 05-07-2014 to04-07-2015.

2. Shri Yeshwant D. Kamat -do-Khadye

3. Smt. Olga Menezes -do-

4. Shri Gaurish Shankwalkar -do-

5. Shri Mahadev Araundekar -do-

6. Shri Harish N. Adconkar -do-

7. Smt. Sarita Sadashiv Marathe -do-

This is issued with the approval of GPSCconveyed vide their letter No. COM/II/11/42(5)//2012/697 dated 22-07-2014.


Umeshchandra L. Joshi, Under Secretary(Personnel-I).

Porvorim, 23rd July, 2014.________

Order

File No. 7/30/2014-PER

Read: Notification No. 7/30/2014-PER dated04-06-2014.

In partial modification of the GovernmentNotification read in preamble, the Governor of Goais pleased to order the allocation of following

work/Departments to Shri Prashant Goyal, IAS(AGMU:93), Secretary to Government, withimmediate effect, until further order:

1. Labour & Employment.2. Legal Metrology.3. Protocol.


R. Aga, Under Secretary (Personnel-I).


——— ———

Department of PlanningDirectorate of Planning, Statistics & Evaluation

__

Order

No. 4-2-14/PLG/DPSE(Part file)/5123

On recommendation of the Goa Public ServiceCommission vide their letter No. COM/II/11/38(1)//2013/615 dated 23-06-2014, the Government ispleased to promote Shri J. N. Shirodkar, StatisticalOfficer of Common Statistical Cadre as Dy.Director, Group ‘A’, Gazetted in the pay scale ofPB—III ` 15,600-39,100+5,400/- on regular basiswith immediate effect, against the vacancy ofShri Gurudas J. Gaundalkar, retired onsuperannuation and is posted in the Div. IV(Co-ordination), Directorate of Planning, Statistical& Evaluation, Panaji.

Shri Shirodkar will be on probation for a periodof two years from his date of joining.


Anand Sherkhane, IES Director & ex officioAddl. Secretary (Planning).

Panaji, 25th July, 2014.


358

Department of Public Grievances__

Order

No. DPG/Committee/2014/1191

The Government of Goa is hereby pleased toconstitute a three member committee, namely,“Committee on Simplification of Procedures forEffective Delivery of Public Services” under theChairmanship of Shri N. D. Agarwal, a retired GoaCivil Service Officer, for the purpose of examiningall public services coming within the purview ofthe Goa (Right to Citizens to Time-bound Deliveryof Public Services) Act, 2013 (Goa Act 19 of 2013)and rules framed thereunder and to recommendsuitable measures for simplification of theprocedure for delivery of public services in theState of Goa, with immediate effect.

The Committee shall:

(i) examine the existing procedures followedby various authorities for delivery of publicservices in the State of Goa and suggest//recommend suitable measures to simplifythe procedure by cutting down the numberof points in the public service deliverysystem and dispense with unnecessary//irrelevant documentation. The Committeeshall also suggest/recommend alternatedocuments for receiving public services;

(ii) submit it’s monthly report to theGovernment in respect of the selectedservices.

The other two members of the Committee shallbe appointed by the Government in consultationwith the Chairman and the term of the Committeeshall be one year commencing from the date ofissue of this Order.

The terms and conditions of appointment of theChairman and other members of the Committee,including remuneration, shall be determined asper the rules in force.


P. Mathew Samuel, Secretary (Public Grievances).


——— ———

Department of Public Health__

Order

No. 44/19/2008-I/PHD

Government is pleased to accept the technicalresignation dated 25-06-2014 tendered by

Dr. Krupa Vaman Jog, Jr. Pathologist underDirectorate of Health Services w.e.f. 25-06-2014(a.n.) in order to enable her to join the post ofSr. Pathologist in Directorate of Health Servicesw.e.f. 26-06-2014. (f.n.).


Maria Seomara Desouza, Under Secretary(Health-II).


——— ———

Department of Revenue__

Order

No. 3/5/2014-RD

In view of proposal of the Administrator ofDevasthans, Bicholim Taluka and order dated23-05-2014 passed by Hon’ble AdministrativeTribunal Goa, Panaji-Goa, in Devasthan PetitionNo. 7/2013, the Government hereby appointsAd hoc Managing Committee under Article 45 ofthe Devasthan Regulation, to look after the workof Shree Devi Sharvani Vetal PanchayatanSaunsthan, Salgaonwada, Advalpal Bicholim, fora period of six months.

The Ad hoc Managing Committee of above--mentioned Devasthan shall comprise of EffectiveCommittee and Substitute Committee, as under:

Effective Managing Committee:

Sr. Name PostNo.

1 2 3

1. Shivanand Vassudev Shenai President.Salgaoncar

2. Ganpat Purshottam Naik Secretary.Salgaoncar

3. Chandrakant Rama Petkar Treasurer.Salgaoncar

4. Ramchandra Shrikrishna Prabhu Attorney.Salgaoncar

Substitute Managing Committee:

Sr. Name PostNo.

1 2 3

1. Rajesh Narayan Prabhu President.Salgaoncar

2. Dnyaneshwar Govind Petkar Secretary.Salgaoncar


359

3. Prabhakar Dattaram Shenai Treasurer.Salgaoncar

4. Shrikrishna Shantaram Dhond Attorney.Salgaoncar

The abovesaid Ad hoc Committee of theDevasthan shall finalize the catalogue inaccordance with the governing law. The Ad hocCommittee shall prepare fresh catalogue/list of theMahajans/election roll for the purpose of electionand submit report to the Administrator once intwo months. Besides carrying out routineadministrative activities and conducting religiousceremonies, no decision impinging on policy, shallbe taken by the Ad hoc Committee without theprior permission of the Government. The aboveprocess shall be completed within six monthsin order to conduct election for electing newCommittee of the said Devasthan for the Triennium2013-2016, so that the new Committee can startthe functioning.


Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Revenue-II).

Porvorim, 21st July, 2014.________

Notification

No. 23/25/2013-RD

Whereas, by Government NotificationNo. 23/25/2013-RD dated 03-10-2013 published onSeries II No. 29 of the Official Gazette dated17-10-2013 and in two local newspapers, namely,“The Times of India” and “Goa Doot” both dated08-10-2013, it was notified under Section 4 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894)(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), thatthe land specified in the Schedule appended tothe said Notification (hereinafter referred to as thesaid land), was needed for public purpose, viz.Land Acquisition for extension of sewer linein Central Zone (South Sector) in FatordaConstituency, Margao Phase-II.

And whereas, the Government of Goa(hereinafter referred to as “the Government”) afterconsidering the report made under sub-section (2)of Section 5-A the said Act is satisfied that theland specified in the Schedule hereto is neededfor the public purpose specified above (hereinafterreferred to as “the said land”).

Now, therefore, the Government herebydeclares under the provisions of Section 6 of thesaid Act that the said land is required for thepublic purpose specified above.

The Government also hereby appoints underclause (c) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Dy.Collector (L.A.), South Goa, Margao, Goa to performthe functions of the Collector for all proceedingshereinafter to be taken in respect of the said land.

A plan of the said land can be inspected at theoffice of the Dy. Collector (L.A.), South Goa District,Margao-Goa, till the award is made underSection 11.

SCHEDULE

(Description of the said land)Taluka: Salcete City: Margao

P.T.S. No./ Name of the person Area in/Chalta No. believed to be interested sq. mts.

1 2 3

154/67 (part) O: Agnelo Anthony Alvares. 221.

Boundaries:

North : Road, Ch. No. 10, P.T.S. No. 154.

South : Ch. No. 67 of P.T.S. No. 154.

East : Ch. No. 66 & 67 of P.T.S. No. 154.

West : Ch. No. 8, 9 & 10 of P.T.S. No. 154.

Total: 221


Anju S. Kerkar, Under Secretary (Revenue-II).

Porvorim, 22nd July, 2014.

——— ———

Department of Women & ChildDevelopment

Directorate of Women & Child Development__

Order

F. No. 4-3-2000/W&CD/Part/06889

Government is pleased to promote the followingMukhya Sevika to the post of Child DevelopmentProject Officer/Social Welfare Officer (Group ‘B’,Gazetted) in the pay scale of ` 9,300--34,800+Grade Pay of ` 4,200/- purely on ad hoc

1 2 3


360

basis initially for period of one year or till the postis filled on regular basis whichever is earlier:

1. Smt. Pratibha Malik (General).

Upon the above promotion, Government isfurther pleased to order the posting of the aboveOfficial as under:

Sr. Name of the Place of PostingNo. Officer

1 2 3

1. Smt. Pratibha Malik, Child DevelopmentDevelopment Project Project OfficerOfficer/Social Welfare Dharbandora againstOfficer newly created post.

She should report toHead Office till officeis set up at Dharban-dora.

The promoted officer shall convey heracceptance within one month from the date ofpromotion and this ad hoc promotion shall take

effect from the date upon her joining. The official,Smt. Pratibha Malik shall report at the headquarter till joining at office of Child DevelopmentProject Officer, Dharbandora against newly createdpost. She should report to head office till office isset up at Dharbandora.

The expenditure in respect of above postshall be debited to the Budget Head of Account“2235—Social Security & Welfare; 102—ChildWelfare; 03—Integrated Child Development ProjectScheme including Health Cover (Plan)(A);01—Salaries.”

The above ad hoc promotion shall not bestowany substantive right for regular appointment orregularization of the promotion.


Vikas S. N. Gaunekar, Director & ex officio JointSecretary (WCD).

Panaji, 2nd July, 2014.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

Published and Printed by the Director, Printing & Stationery,Government Printing Press,

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 36.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–137/360–7/2014.

reg. no. gr/rnp/goa/32 rni no. goaeng/2002/6410 › downloads › 1415 › 1415-18-sii-og-0.pdf ·...

Documents