Department of Agriculturegoaprintingpress.gov.in/downloads/1617/1617-48-SII-OG-0.pdf · allowed to...

Panaji, 2nd March, 2017 (Phalguna 11, 1938) SERIES II No. 48

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Suggestions are welcomed on e-mail: [email protected] 1067

RNI No. GOAENG/2002/6410Reg. No. G-2/RNP/GOA/32/2015-2017

GOVERNMENT OF GOADepartment of Agriculture

Directorate of Agriculture__

Order

No. 2/12/98-AGR/Part II/317

Ex-post facto approval of the Government isconveyed with regard to acceptance of theresignation of Shri Kiran M. Kandolkar, Chairman ofGoa State Horticultural Corporation Ltd., andrelieve him w.e.f. 09-01-2017 as per his request.

By order and in the name of the Governorof Goa.

U. B. Pai Kakode, Director & ex officio JointSecretary (Agriculture).

Tonca-Caranzalem, 27th February, 2017.

——— ———

Department of Labour__

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/92

The following award passed by the IndustrialTribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on28-11-2016 in reference No. C-IT/37/10 is hereby

published as required by Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of1947).


Georgina Saldanha, Under Secretary (Labour).

Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.______

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDLABOUR COURT

GOVERNMENT OF GOAAT PANAJI

(Before Mr. Vincent D’Silva, Hon’ble PresidingOfficer)

Case No. C-IT/37/10Mr. Sagar Naik,Rep. by the General Secretary,Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,Ponda-Goa. … Complainant

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,Fatorda, Margao, Goa … Respondent

Complainant represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.Respondent represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.Bandodkar.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 28th day of the monthof November of the year 2016)

This is a complaint filed under Section 33-A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. In short, the case of the Complainant is thathe was transferred from Margao to Mapusaworkshop with effect from 16-03-2009 with malafideintention in order to harass him as he along withothers joined Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh to whichhe protested vide his representation. TheComplainant raised a dispute before AssistantLabour Commissioner, Margao asking herintervention in the matter. The Complainant on19-11-2010 reported for work, however he was not

Note:- There are two Extraordinary issues to theOfficial Gazette, Series II No. 47 dated 23-02-2017as follows:—

(1) Extraordinary dated 26-02-2017 from pages1063 to 1064 regarding Notification from GoaLegislature Secretariat.

(2) Extraordinary (No. 2) dated 01-03-2017 frompages 1065 to 1066 regarding Notification fromGoa Legislature Secretariat.

OFFICIAL GAZETTE — GOVT. OF GOASERIES II No. 48 2ND MARCH, 2017

1068

allowed to resume his duties. The action ofRespondent in refusing him to join duties amountsto violation of Section 33 of the Industrial DisputesAct, hence the complaint.

3. In the written statement at Exhibit 4, theRespondent has stated that the allegations madeby the Complainant are totally false. The transferof the Complainant was done due to businessexigencies and as per Certified Standing Orders.The Respondent has not violated any provisions oflaw and therefore the complaint be dismissed.

4. The Party I filed a rejoinder at Exhibit 5denying the case put forth by Party II in the writtenstatement.

5. Issues came to be framed at Exhibit 8.

6. In the course of further proceedings, theparties filed an application wherein they haveagreed that in view of the settlement in referenceIT/2/13 & IT/5/11, the Complainant, Shri Sagar Naikwithdraws the complaint against the Respondentand that the Respondent is not guilty ofcontravention of Section 33 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 as contained in the saidcomplaint and that the complaint is voluntarilywithdrawn.

7. The above application is signed by ShriHumberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri HillaryFernandes for Complainant, so also Shri PutiGaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak MazdoorSangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Respondent. Ihave gone through the said application and therecords of the case and I am convinced that inview of the settlement in reference No. IT/2/13 &IT/5/11, the Complainant has voluntarilywithdrawn the complaint against the Respondent.Hence, I have no difficulty in allowing the saidapplication.

8. In view of above, I pass the following:

ORDER

1) The application at Exhibit 20 forwithdrawal of the above complaint standsgranted. Consequently, the complaintstands withdrawn.

2) No order as to costs.

3) Inform the Government accordingly.

Sd/-(Vincent D’Silva)Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal andLabour Court.

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/93

The following award passed by the IndustrialTribunal and Labour Court at Panaji-Goa on28-11-2016 in reference No. IT/37/09 is herebypublished as required by Section 17 of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of1947).







Ref. No. IT/37/09Shri Sagun Naik & 11 Ors,Rep. by the General Secretary,Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,G-5, Macedo Apartment,Tisk, Ponda-Goa-403 401 … Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,V. V. Naik Road, Fatorda,Margao, Goa-403 602 … Employer/Party IIWorkmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.S. Bandodkar.

AWARD


By Order dated 25-11-2009, bearing No. 28/29//2009-LAB/ 1191, the Government of Goa in exerciseof powers 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. Narcinva Damodar Naik, Fatorda,Margao, Goa in refusing employment to the12 workmen (mentioned below) andrepresented by the Gomantak MazdoorSangh, with effect from 01-09-2008 is legaland justified?

1. Mr. Sagun Naik 5. Mr. Olvish Cruz2. Mr. Pankaj Naik 6. Mr. Gloria Paugo3. Mr. Rohidas Talekar 7. Mr. Jayesh Naik4. Mr. David Paugo 8. Mr. Rajan Achari


1069

9. Mr. Santosh Betkikar 11. Mr. Ankush Gaonkar10. Mr. Sanjay Parab 12. Mr. Suresh Mhalsekar

(2) If not, what relief the workmen are entitledto?”

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registeredas IT/37/09 and registered A/D notices were issuedto both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,Party I filed a claim statement at Exhibit 4 andParty II filed a written statement at Exhibit 5.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is thatParty I workmen were working with Party II sincelast several years in their main workshop at Fatordacontinuously till their refusal of employment/dateof termination. The Party II has not revised theirwages and allowances and their services were notconfirmed and accordingly in June, 2008 theyjoined the union viz. Gomantak Mazdoor Sanghand thereafter submitted a charter of demandsdated 28-6-2008, however Party II refused tonegotiate with the union and on contrary, startedharassing and threatening the workers. Theworkers were not allowed to resume their dutiesw.e.f. 1-9-2008 as they joined the union. The Party IIhas not conducted any enquiry and were not paidor offered retrenchment compensation, notice payand other dues and therefore their refusal ofemployment is illegal.

4. In the written statement, the Party II has statedthat there was no employer-employee relationshipbetween them. The entire reference is notmaintainable and bad-in-law as the managementhas not terminated the services of workmenconcerned in the reference. The workmen werenever employed in the firm but were employed bythe service provider, P. B. Human Resources.



7. In the course of further proceedings, theparties arrived at an amicable settlement and filedconsent terms along with Annexure-A at Exhibit30 colly.

8. The consent terms read as follows:

(1) It is agreed between the parties thatfollowing workmen concerned in thereference namely Mr. David Paugo atserial No. 4, Mr. Olivish Cruz at serialNo. 5, Mr. Gloria Paugo at serialNo. 6, Mr. Santosh Betkikar at serialNo. 9, Mr. Suresh Mhalsekar at serialNo. 12 are workmen employed by P. B.Human Resources and not employed byParty No. II and have settled all their dues

with P. B. Human Resources and that thereexists no employee-employer relationshipbetween the Party No. II and aboveworkmen.

(2) The union does not press their demands asthey have already settled their entiredispute in connection with employmentand non-employment and condition oflabour with the said employer.

(3) It is further agreed between the partiesthat the workmen whose names arementioned in Annexure-A shall have noclaim of whatsoever nature against theParty No. II including any claim of benefitwhich can be computed in terms of moneyand/or claim of re-instatement orre-employment against the Party No. II.

(4) In so far as the workmen concerned inabove reference namely Mr. Sagun Naikat serial No. 1, Mr. Pankaj Naik at serialNo. 2, Mr. Rohidas Talekar at serial No. 3,Mr. Jayesh Naik at serial No. 7, Mr. RajanAchari at serial No. 8, Mr. Sanjay Parab atserial No. 10, Mr. Ankush Gaonkar at serialNo. 11 who are concerned in the referenceand whose names are mentioned inAnnexure-A of the settlement shall be paidmoney mentioned against their names infull and final settlement of all their claimsarising out of their employment with PartyNo. II and they further confirm that theirentire claim arising out of their referenceincluding any claim/benefit which can becomputed in terms of money has been fullyand satisfactorily settled in terms ofsettlement and they shall not claim anyre-instatement or re-employment.

9. The above consent terms are signed byShri Humberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and ShriHillary Fernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also ShriPuti Gaonkar, General Secretary, GomantakMazdoor Sangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar forEmployer/Party II. I have gone through the recordsof the case and the above consent terms and I amconvinced that the consent terms filed by theparties are just and fair and are in the interest ofthe Workmen/Party I and Employer/Party II andtherefore, the same are accepted.


ORDER

1) The reference stands disposed of in viewof the consent terms filed by the parties,at Exhibit 30 colly.


1070





________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/94








Ref. No. IT/05/11Shri Loyal Fernandes & 4 Ors,Rep. by the General Secretary,Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,G-5, Macedo Apartment,Tisk, Ponda-Goa-403 401 … Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,V. V. Naik Road, Fatorda,Margao, Goa-403 602 … Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M.S. Bandodkar.

AWARD


By order dated 22-3-2011, bearing No. 28/3/2011--LAB/104, 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. Narcinva Damodar Naik, Fatorda, Goa,in transferring Shri Loyal Fernandes,Shri Narendra Naik, Shri Abhay Jambaulikar,Shri Sagar Naik and Shri Abhit Naik videorder dated 03-03-2009 is legal and justified?


2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registeredas IT/05/11 and registered A/D notices were issuedto both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,Party I filed the claim statement at Exhibit 4 andParty II filed the written statement at Exhibit 5.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that Party Iworkmen were working with Party II continuouslysince last several years and that on 03-03-2009 allthe workmen concerned were issued transfer ordertransferring them to the Party II’s Mapusa workshopw.e.f. 16-3-2009 as majority of the workmen hadjoined the union viz. Gomantak Mazdoor Sanghwho had submitted a charter of demands as therewas no proper wage structure or consistent wagerevision. The said transfers were illegal andmalafide and done only to victimize them. Theworkers made letters to withdraw the transferletters as workshop at Mapusa is of different naturethan the workshop at Margao. The transfer of theworkmen is highly improper, illegal and amountedto victimization for trade union activities.

4. In the written statement, the Party II has statedthat the entire reference is bad-in-law and notmaintainable. The workmen were issued individualtransfer orders without changing the serviceconditions including remuneration package. Thetransfer of workmen concerned in the reference islegal and justified having regards to transfer clausementioned in appointment letter issued toworkmen concerned and that the workmen weretransferred to Mapusa due to exigency of workw.e.f. 16-3-2009. No case has been made out forgranting any relief claimed by Party I.



7. In the course of further proceedings, theparties arrived at an amicable settlement and filedconsent terms along with Annexure at Exhibit 23colly.


(1) It is agreed between the parties thatMr. Loyal Fernandes, Mr. AbhayZambaulikar, Mr. Sagar Naik and Mr. Abhit


1071

Naik shall be paid each Rs. 10,000/- in fulland final settlement of their all claimarising out of reference and they shall nothave any claim of whatsoever natureincluding any claim which can becomputed in terms of money.

(2) It is agreed between the parties that sinceMr. Narendra Naik workmen concerned inreference has resigned from services ofcompany and by accepting his dues in fulland final settlement arising out of hisemployment that nothing is due andpayable to him arising out of reference interms of money or otherwise.

9. The above consent terms are signed byShri Humberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and ShriHillary Fernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also ShriPuti Gaonkar, General Secretary, GomantakMazdoor Sangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar forEmployer/Party II. I have gone through the recordsof the case and the above consent terms and I amconvinced that the consent terms filed by theparties are just and fair and are in the interest ofthe Workmen/Party I and Employer/Party II andtherefore, the same are accepted.


ORDER






________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/95




Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.




Ref. No. IT/30/09

Shri Chidanand Volvoikar & 5 Ors,Rep. by the General Secretary,Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,G-5, Macedo Apartment,Tisk, Ponda-Goa 403 401 … Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,Fatorda,Margao, Goa 403 602 … Employer/Party II


AWARD


By Order dated 7-9-2009, bearing No. 28/7/2009--LAB/909, 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. Narcinva Damodar Naik of refusingemployment to Shri Chidanand Volvoikar,Shri Vinod A. Chari, Shri Aditya C. Naik andShri Ziy-aul S. Shaikh with effect from01-08-2008 and to Shri Krishnanand Gajinkarand Shri Prashant Bandekar with effect from04-08-2008 is legal and justified?



3. In short, the case of the Party I is that Party Iworkmen were working with Party II since lastseveral years in their sales and service workshopand to carryout maintenance and repairs of thevehicles, they were employed at their mainworkshop at Fatorda continuously till their refusalof employment/date of termination. The Party II


1072

has not revised their wages and allowances andtheir services were not confirmed and accordinglyin June, 2008 they joined the union viz. GomantakMazdoor Sangh and thereafter submitted Charterof Demands dated 28-6-2008, however Party IIrefused to negotiate with the union and oncontrary, started harassing and threatening theworkers. The workers were not allowed to resumetheir duties as they joined the union. The Party IIhas not conducted any enquiry and were not paidor offered retrenchment compensation, notice payand other dues and therefore their refusal ofemployment is illegal.

4. In the written statement the Party II statedthat since Party II is dealing with vehicles of ‘TataMotors Ltd.’, it was engaging various contractorsto provide expert services including P. B. HumanResource and Services, who was deployingmanpower as and when required. The workmanShri Chidanand Volvoikar accepted all his duesand severed his relationship with Party II. The otherworkmen viz. Shri Vinod A. Chari, Shri Aditya C.Naik & Shri Ziy-aul S. Shaikh are not the employeesof Party II as they are the workers of P. B. HumanResources and Services. The workshop has beenpermanently closed and the workers have beenpaid all the legal dues.



7. In the course of further proceedings, theparties arrived at an amicable settlement and filedconsent terms at Exhibit 27 colly along withAnnexure.


(1) It is agreed between the parties thatShri Chidanand Volvoikar having resignedfrom the services of the Party No.II is notentitled to any relief of whatsoever nature,arising out of reference as he had alreadyaccepted all dues arising out of hisemployment and nothing is due andpayable to him by the Party No. II. Theunion does not press their demands of ShriChidanand Volvoikar.

(2) It is further agreed between the partiesthat Shri Vinod A. Chari, Shri Aditya C.Naik, Shri Ziy-aul S. Shaikh the workmenconcerned in the reference being employeeof P. B. Resources, another employer andnot being workmen of the Party No. II, theGomantak Mazdoor Sangh, the union do

not desire to press their claim as all ofthem already settled their all claims withP. B. Resources and therefore they do nothave any claims against the Party No. II asthere is no employee-employer relationshipbetween them.

(3) In so far as Shri Krishnanand Gajinkar andShri Prashant Bandekar is concerned, it isagreed between the parties that theseworkmen shall be paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-each as full and final settlement of all theirclaims arising out of their employment ofthe Party No. II which includes Notice Pay,Retrenchment Compensation, Gratuity, Ex-Gratia etc. and nothing further due andpayable to them arising out of employmentand/or reference.

(4) It is further agreed between the partiesthat 2 workmen mentioned above as wellas other workmen who are concerned inthe reference shall have no claim ofwhatsoever nature which can be computedin terms of money and this settlement isfull and final settlement of all their claimsarising out of reference including claim ofre-instatement or re-employment.

9. The above consent terms are signed by ShriHumberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri HillaryFernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also Shri PutiGaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak MazdoorSangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Employer/Party II.I have gone through the records of the case andthe above consent terms and I am convinced thatthe consent terms filed by the parties are just andfair and are in the interest of the Workmen/Party Iand Employer/Party II and therefore, the same areaccepted.


ORDER







1073

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/96








Ref. No. IT/2/13

Workmen,Rep. by the General Secretary,Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,G-5, Macedo Apartment,Tisk, Ponda-Goa 403 401 … Workmen/Party I

V/s

M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,V. V. Naik Road,Fatorda, Goa – 403 602 … Employer/Party II

Workmen/Party I represented by Shri P. Gaonkar.Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri M. S.Bandodkar.

AWARD


By Order dated 25-02-2013, bearing No. 28/3//2013-Lab/90, the Government of Goa in exerciseof powers 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. Narcinva Damodar Naik, Fatorda, Goa,in terminating the services of the belowmentioned workmen, with effect from01-08-2012 is legal and justified?

(1) Shri Humberto Cardoso, Mechanic.(2) Shri Manuel Vaz, Lathe Room (IN).(3) Shri Gokuldas Naik, Mechanic.(4) Shri Agnelo Rodrigues, Tool Room In-charge.(5) Shri Shivaji Tanavji, Mechanic.(6) Shri Mahadev Naik, Mechanic.(7) Shri Hillary Fernandes, Mechanic.(8) Shri Freddy Fernandes, Tool Room In-charge.(9) Shri Sandesh Kawlekar, Mechanic.

(10) Shri Uttam Chodankar, Tin Smith.(11) Shri Narayan Naik, Tin Smith.(12) Shri Milagres Pachaco, Mechanic.(13) Shri Abhay Zambaulikar, Mechanic.(14) Shri Loyal Fernandes, Mechanic.(15) Shri Abit Naik, Mechanic Helper.(16) Shri Sagar Naik, Mechanic Helper.



3. In short, the case of the Party I is that Party Iworkmen were working with Party II since lastseveral years in their sales and service workshopand to carry out maintenance and repairs of thevehicles, they were employed at their mainworkshop at Fatorda. The Party II has not revisedtheir wages and allowances and their services werenot confirmed and accordingly in June, 2008 theyjoined the union viz. Gomantak Mazdoor Sanghand thereafter submitted a Charter of Demandsdated 28-6-2008, however Party II refused tonegotiate with the union and on contrary, startedharassing the workers and has illegal terminatedtheir services. The action of management interminating the services and engaging new workersis an unfair labour practice. The Party II has notconducted any enquiry and were not paid or offeredretrenchment compensation, notice pay and otherdues and therefore their termination of employmentis illegal.

4. In the written statement the Party II statedthat the termination of services of workmen isarising out of permanent closure of establishmentunder Section 25 FFF of the Industrial DisputesAct and therefore the said termination cannot beconsidered as retrenchment as contemplated underIndustrial Disputes Act. The entire closure is fullylegal and justified. The Party I had not made outany case and therefore the reference be dismissed.



1074


7. In the course of further proceedings, the partiesarrived at an amicable settlement and filed consentterms along with Annexure-A at Exhibit 11 colly.

8. The Consent terms read as follows:

(1) It is agreed between the parties that theworkmen concerned in the reference shallbe paid money as per Annexure-A in fulland final settlement arising out ofemployment and reference and the amountmentioned in Annexure-A shall includeNotice Pay, Retrenchment Compensation,Gratuity, Ex-Gratia, etc. and these workmenshall not have any further claim againstthe Party No. II other than what ismentioned in Annexure-A or as also anybenefit which can be computed in terms ofmoney, including re-instatement and re-employment.

(2) It is further agreed between the partiesthat the workmen concerned in the abovereference shall have no other claim otherthan amount mentioned against inAnnexure-A of the settlement and theirentire matter in connection with theemployment, non employment andcondition of labour is full and finalsettlement arising out of the reference andnothing is due and payable to them andthat they are not entitled to claim any re-instatement or re-employment to the PartyNo. II.

(3) It is agreed between the parties that sincethe workman concerned in the referenceat serial No. 5 Shri Shivaji Tanavji hasalready settled with the Party No. II bytaking his dues by full and final settlement,the union does not press his demand ascontained in the order of reference and hewould not get his claim for any moneywhich can be computed in terms ofmoney is fully and finally settled and hegave up his claim for re-instatement//re-employment.

9. The above Consent terms are signed by ShriHumberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri HillaryFernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also Shri PutiGaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak MazdoorSangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Employer/Party II.I have gone through the records of the case andthe above consent terms and I am convinced thatthe consent terms filed by the parties are just and

fair and are in the interest of the Workmen/Party Iand Employer/Party II and therefore, the same areaccepted.


ORDER






________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/97








Ref. No. IT/31/09Workmen,Rep. by the General Secretary,Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,G-5, Macedo Apartment,Tisk, Ponda-Goa 403 401 … Workmen/Party I

V/s

The Managing Director,M/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik,Fatorda,Margao, Goa 403 602 … Employer/Party II



1075

AWARD


By Order dated 7-9-2009, bearing No. 28/7/2009--LAB/910, 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 following demands raised bythe Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh vide letterdated 28-06-2008 before the management ofM/s. Narcinva Damodar Naik, Fatorda,Margao, Goa are legal and justified?

Demand No. 1: Pay Scales

Grade Pay Scales

I 1750-60-2050-70-2400-80-2800-90-3250--100-3750-110-4300-120-4900

II 1850-65-2175-75-2550-85-2975-95-3450--105-3975-115-4550-125-5175

III 1950-70-2300-80-2700-90-3150-100-3650--110-4200-120-4800-130-5450

IV 2050-75-2425-85-2850-95-3325-105-3850--115-4425-125-5050-135-5725

V 2150-80-2550-90-3000-100-3500-110-4050--120-4650-130-5300-140-6000

Demand No. 2: Flat Rise

It is demanded that all the workmen should begiven a flat rise of Rs. 1000/- and the same shall beadded to the existing basic and thereafter fitted inthe revised pay scale in the higher stage.

Demand No. 3: Seniority Increments

It is demanded that the workmen shall be givenseniority increments as mentioned below:

Service up to 4 years Two increments

Service above 4 years and Three incrementsupto 8 years

Service above 8 years and Four incrementsupto 13 years

Service above 13 years Five increments

Demand No. 4: Variable Dearness Allowances

It is demanded that the Variable DearnessAllowance shall be paid at the revised rate of Rs.3/- per point rise above 2000 points (1960=100).The computation of Variable Dearness Allowanceshall be made quarterly based as per existingsystem.

Demand No. 5: House Rent Allowances

It is demanded that the House Rent Allowanceshall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 30% of basicand Dearness Allowance, as the cost ofaccommodation is very high in Goa on account ofit being a Tourist State.

Demand No. 6: Children Education Allowance

It is demanded that the Children EducationAllowance shall be paid by adding an amount ofRs. 500/- to existing allowance per month.

Demand No. 7: Conveyance Allowance

It is demanded that all workmen shall be paidConveyance Allowance at the rate of Rs. 750/- permonth.

Demand No. 8: Paid Holidays

It is demanded that all the workmen shall begranted paid holidays at the rate of 16 days peryear. It is further demanded that the festivalholidays that fall on weekly off day shall bechanged to next day or one day earlier, which shallbe finalized in consultation with the union.

Demand No. 9: Leave

It is demanded that all the workers shall begiven leave on following basis:

(A) Earned Leave:- It is demanded that all theworkmen shall be given earned leave at therate of 30 days Earned leave per year withaccumulation up to 120 days and leave shallbe allowed to be taken 10 times in a year.

(B) Casual Leave:- It is demanded that all theworkmen shall be given casual leave at therate of 15 days per year with encashmentfacility.

(C) Sick Leave:- It is demanded that all theworkmen shall be given sick leave at therate of 15 days per year with accumulationof 60 days.

Demand No. 10: Leave Travel Assistance

It is demanded that Leave Travel Assistanceshall be paid at the revised rate of Rs. 5000/- perannum, with minimum of four days earned leave.The amount shall be paid one week before thecommencement of leave.

Demand No.11: Medical Reimbursement/MedicalAllowance

Workmen are working in the dusty place, whichcauses major hazards to the health of the workers,and as such the cost of medicine is very high whichcannot be met with the wages paid to the


1076

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

workmen. It is, therefore demanded that the cost ofall medical expenses of the workmen and theirfamily shall be reimbursed and an amount ofRs. 4500/- should be paid as medical allowance tomeet the day to day needs of the family membersof the workmen.

Demand No. 12: Festival Allowance

It is demanded that all the workmen shall begranted festival allowance of Rs. 3500/- once in ayear at the time of festival to meet the additionalexpenses incurred by him for such festival.

Demand No. 13: Bonus/Ex-Gratia

It is demanded that all the workers shall be paidBonus/Ex-gratia at the rate of 20% of gross wagesevery year, before Diwali.

Demand No. 14: Canteen Subsidy

It is demanded that all the workmen shall bepaid canteen subsidy @Rs.500/- per month.

Demand No. 15: Washing Allowance

It is demanded that the existing washingallowance shall be revised to Rs. 350/- per month.

Demand No. 16: Daily Bhatta/Outdoor Allowance

It is demanded that those workmen who arerequired to work on outstation duties, they shallbe paid actual travelling and accommodation andthe daily bhatta at the rate of Rs. 350/- per day.

Demand No. 17: Special Sick Leave

It is demanded that those workmen who meetwith accident while on duty shall be grantedspecial sick leave for the period they are undermedical treatment.



3. In short, the case of the Party I is that theParty II was engaged in sales and service of vehiclesof Tata Motors in Goa. The Party I submitted aCharter of Demands as the wages of workers arevery low and not revised for many years. Thefinancial position of the company is very soundand they can bear additional cost of demands madeby the workers. The other comparableestablishments functioning in Goa are paying muchhigher wages and allowances to the workmen. The

workers have joined the union and on account ofthat the management started implementing variousunfair labour practices. The Party II failed to resolvethe issue of Charter of demands. The dispute raisedbefore the Dy. Labour Commissioner ended infailure. Hence, the reference.

4. In the written statement, the Party II has statedthat the entire reference is vague and imaginary.The Party II has permanently closed its workshopsundertakings at Fatorda and Mapusa. The demandsmade by Party I are bad in law, illegal andunjustified. Party I has not made out any case andtherefore the entire demands and reference berejected.



7. In the course of further proceedings, theparties arrived at an amicable settlement and filedconsent terms at Exhibit 28.

8. The Consent terms read as follows:

(1) In view of the settlement in referenceNo. IT/30/09, IT/37/09, IT/5/11 and IT/2/13,Complaint No. C-IT/37/10 and ApprovalApplications No. A-IT/42/11 and A-IT/43//11, and since all the workmen have givenup their claims for employment, matters inconnection with the employment and nonemployment and conditions of labourhaving been settled in above matters andsince no more employee- employerrelationship exists between the workmenconcerned in the above reference,complaint and applications, the union//workmen do not press their demands ascontained in the reference.

9. The above Consent terms are signed by ShriHumberto Cardozo, Shri Manuel Vaz and Shri HillaryFernandes for Workmen/Party I, so also Shri PutiGaonkar, General Secretary, Gomantak MazdoorSangh and Adv. M. S. Bandodkar for Employer//Party II. I have gone through the records of thecase and the above consent terms and I amconvinced that the consent terms filed by theparties are just and fair and are in the interest ofthe Workmen/Party I and Employer/Party II andtherefore, the same are accepted.


1077


ORDER

1) The reference stands disposed of in viewof the consent terms filed by the parties,at Exhibit 28.





________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-LAB/98








Ref. No. IT/22/03

Shri Dinesh V. Velingkar,Near Primary School,Mangueshi, Goa. … Workman/Party I

V/s

M/s. Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd.,G-20, Angarki Bldg.,Ponda-Goa. … Employer/Party II

Workman/Party I represented by Ld. Adv. Mrs.Suvarna Naik.

Employer/Party II represented by Ld. Adv. Shri S.M. Tendulkar along with Ld. Adv. Shri SarveshNaik.

AWARD

(Delivered on this the 9th day of the monthof December of the year 2016)

By Order dated 04-04-2003, bearing No. 28/11//2003-LAB/108, the Government of Goa in exerciseof powers 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. Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd., Hubli,having their branch at Ponda-Goa, interminating the services of Shri Dinesh V.Velingkar (Mktg. Executive), with effect from22-08-2002, is legal and justified?

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

2. Upon receipt of the reference, it was registeredas IT/22/03 and registered A/D notices were issuedto both the parties. Pursuant to service of notices,Party I filed a Claim statement at Exhibit 4 andParty II filed a Written statement at Exhibit 13.

3. In short, the case of the Party I is that he wasa workman employed with Party II at its unit atPonda and was appointed on probation for a periodof six months w.e.f. 8-10-2001 as a Sales Executiveon a fixed salary of Rs. 4000/- per month. The Party Iworked for about 11 months and during the saidperiod he had not received either a letter ofextension of probation period or confirmation ofservices in the organization. The employer had notconducted appraisal test and had also not madethe performance report during the period of 11months service in the said organization. Theemployer had issued him one warning memo dated8-6-2002 during the period of 11 months advisinghim to improve his performance and that he wouldbe kept on close observation of his performanceand activities. There was no other memo sent tohim regarding his performance, however on20-8-2002 without any reason, the managementforced him to resign his services and on the samedate faxed him a termination letter. The workmanhad raised a dispute before the Assistant LabourCommissioner, Ponda on 23-8-2002 for injustice doneon him by the management by illegally terminatinghis services.

4. In the written statement at Exhibit 6, theParty II has stated that the Government of Goa isnot the Appropriate Government to refer anydispute to the Tribunal. The Party II is a companyduly registered under Companies Act havingregistered office at Murudeshwar Bhavan, Gokula


1078

Road, Hubli and its factory at Krishnapur Village,Hubli, Karnataka. The Regional and Administrativeoffice of Party II is also at Hubli. The Party I wasemployed at Hubli and was placed underDy. General (Marketing) at Hubli and was directedto report at the office at Hubli. The Party I joinedat Hubli and his salary and other amounts due andpayable under the appointment letter were paidby the Accounts Department, Hubli. The Party I,though was initially stationed at Goa, all hisactivities were supervised and controlled by Hublioffice of Party II. The termination letter was issuedat Hubli by Dy. General Manager, Hubli andtherefore the Government of Goa has no jurisdictionto refer the dispute to the Tribunal.

5. The Party I was never a workman as definedin Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is not entitledfor any relief under the Act. The duty andresponsibility while in employment of Party I wassupervisory and promotive in nature and requiredinitiative to promote sales. The Party I was employedas Sales Executive which required skilled workand creative ideas to supervise and control thebusiness. The Party I vide its application dated31-8-2001 addressed to Party II at Hubli applied forthe post of Sales Executive and the Party IIappointed him as a Sales Executive upon the termsand conditions mentioned in the appointmentletter and was directed to report at Hubli. TheParty I during the period of employment was unableto discharge the duty to the satisfaction of Party IIand was always negligent which promptedParty II to extend his probation and consequently,the services of Party I were terminated andtherefore, the claim of Party I be rejected.

6. The Party I filed a rejoinder denying the caseput forth by Party II in the written statement. TheParty I has claimed that his services were in Goaand was stationed at Goa as Sales Executive. Healso claimed that he is a permanent resident ofMangueshi, Goa and is entitled to institute a case//dispute before the Court/within the jurisdictionwhere the workman resides. All the letters wereaddressed to him by Party II at his residentialaddress at Mangueshi, Goa and that he wasworking under Area Manager posted at Goa andwas directed to sign attendance register and toinform day-to-day sales and other activities to AreaManager, Ponda, Goa. The Party II deliberately andintentionally avoided to issue a confirmationletter even after the prescribed work period. TheDy. General Manager has no power and authorityto terminate the services.

7. Issues framed at Exhibit 16 are as follows:

(1) Whether the Party I proves that he was a“Workman” within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947?

(2) Whether the Party I proves that terminationof his services is illegal and unjustified?

(3) Whether the Party I proves that theappropriate Government was Government ofKarnataka?

(4) Whether the Party II proves that this Tribunalhas no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon thedispute?

(5) Whether the Party II proves that the servicesof the Party I were terminated duringprobation period for unsatisfactoryperformance?

(6) What relief? What Award?

8. In the course of evidence Party I Shri DineshVelingkar examined himself as witness No. 1 andproduced on record a copy of appointment letterat Exb. W-1, a copy of letter dated 26-9-2001 atExb. W-2, a copy of pay slip at Exb. W-3, a copy ofwarning memo at Exb. W-4, a copy of reply towarning memo at Exb. W-5 and a copy oftermination letter dated 21-08-2001. On the otherhand, the Party II examined Shri Anand Shetty astheir witness and produced on record a copy ofappointment letter dated 8-10-2001 at Exb. 29, copyof complaints dated 23-8-2002 and dated 4-10-2002filed before the ALC, Ponda at Exb. 30 & 31respectively, a copy of notice dated 3-9-2002 issuedby ALC, Ponda at Exb. 32, a copy of reply dated4-10-2002 to ALC, Ponda at Exb. 33, a copy ofminutes of conciliation proceedings dated20-12-2002 at Exb. 34 and a copy of extract ofresolution passed by Party II authorizing him todepose, etc in the matter at Exb. 35.

9. Heard arguments. Notes of written argumentscame to be placed on record by the parties.

10. I have gone through the records of the caseand have duly considered the submissions madeby the learned advocates for Parties. I amreproducing herewith the issues along with theirfindings and reasons thereof.

Sr. Issues FindingsNo.

1 2 3

1. Whether the Party I proves In the affirmativethat he was a “Workman”within the meaning of Sec. 2(s)of the I. D. Act, 1947?


1079

2. Whether the Party I proves In the negativethat termination of hisservices is illegal andunjustified?

3. Whether the Party II proves In the negativethat the appropriate Govern-ment was Governmentof Karnataka?

4. Whether the Party II proves In the negativethat this Tribunal has nojurisdiction to adjudicateupon the dispute?

5. Whether the Party II proves In the affirmativethat the services of the Party Iwere terminated duringprobation period for unsatisfac-tory performance?

6. What relief? What Award? As per orderbelow.

REASONSIssue No. 1:

11. Ld. Adv. Mrs. Suvarna Naik for the Party Ihas submitted that Party I workman worked onprobation for 11 months without any extensionletter or confirmation letter from the management.Even though Party II has designated Party I asSales Executive but no power and authority wasgiven to him. The designation without power hasno meaning and therefore he does not fall in thecategory of management but in the categoryof workman. The Party II deliberately andintentionally avoided issuing a confirmation lettereven after the prescribed work period. He wasemployed as Sales Executive only after consideringhis skilled work and creative ideas.

12. Ld. Adv. Shri S. M. Tendulkar for Party II hassubmitted that Party I was never a workman asdefined under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Theduty and responsibility while in employment withParty I was supervisory and promotive in natureand required initiative to promote sales. The Party Iwas employed as Sales Executive which requiredskilled work and creative ideas to supervise andcontrol the business. The nature of business ofParty I clearly show that Party I does not fit intothe definition of a “workman” and therefore noreference could be validly considered.

13. It is well settled that for a person to be a“workman” under the Act, he must be employedto do the work of any of the categories mentioned

in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.It would therefore be useful to consider thedefinition of workmen given in section 2(s) of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. The definition readsas under:-

Section 2(s). “Workman” means any person(including an apprentice) employed in anyindustry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,technical, operational, clerical or supervisory workfor hire or reward, whether the terms ofemployment be express or implied, and for thepurposes of any proceeding under this Act inrelation to an industrial dispute, includes anysuch person who has been dismissed, dischargedor retrenched in connection with, or as aconsequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,but does not include any such person.

14. In the present case, the workman Shri DineshVelingkar has claimed that he joined his dutiesat Hubli on 8-10-2001 pursuant to the letter atExb. W-2. He has however not specified the natureof duties which he was performing in terms ofappointment letter dated 8-10-2001 at Exb. W-1 northere is any annexure to appointment letterspecifying the nature of duties which the workmanhad to perform. The workman has produced onrecord Warning Memo at Exb. W-4 which stipulatesthe shortfalls regarding his performance during8 months of duty with Party I wherein it has beenstated that he had not increased business to thecompany and also fared poorly in activities like,enquiry generation, follow-up, reporting to H.O.letters and has not improved his performance inachieving his target nor generated enquiries andthe reports submitted by him are just like activitychart and not sales report, although he wasinformed about how to write sales report giving alldetails asked for and other shortfalls.

15. The above Warning memo clearly shows thenature of duty the Party I/workman had to performincluding achieving the sales target, makingenquiries, furnishing sales report, responding toI.O.Ms, circulars sent by H.O., following instructionsfrom H.O., planning for days sales activities, takingprior appointment, informing the Area Manager,reporting to the Area Manager about dayshappenings, which are indication that the natureof the duty of the Party I Workman is of clericaltype involving manual, skilled, technical,operational or supervisory work which the Party Iwas doing during his employment with Party II.Therefore, considering the nature of duty whichwas expected from Party I which is reflected in

1 2 3


1080

Warning memo at Exb. W-4, it is more than clearthat the Party I was performing the duty of clericalin nature and therefore covered by the definitionof workman given in Section 2(s) of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947. The Party I therefore provedthat he was a “workman” within the meaning ofSection 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 andtherefore Issue No. 1 is answered in affirmative.

Issue Nos. 2 & 5:

16. Ld. Adv. Mrs. Suvarna Naik for the Party Ihas submitted that the termination of services ofthe workman employed by Party II was illegal andunjustified. The employer did not conductappraisal test nor made performance report duringthe period of 11 months service in the above namedorganization. The employer had issued only onewarning memo dated 8-6-2002 for period of onemonth advising him to improve his performanceand that he was kept on close observation of hisperformance and activities and that the said periodof one month was completed on 8-7-2002 afterwhich there was no other memo issued to himregarding his performance. The employer withoutany reason thereafter on 20-8-2002 forced him toresign his service and on the same day faxed himthe termination letter without giving himreasonable opportunity to represent his casethereby denying him natural justice. The workmanwas on probation for 11 months without anyextension letter or confirmation letter from themanagement and as per law if the workman putsin attendance of 240 days in one organizationwithout break in service then the workmanautomatically gets confirmed in the organization.In support of her contention, she relied upon thecase of The State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh,1968 3 SCR 1.

17. Per contra, Ld. Adv. S. M. Tendulkar for theParty II has submitted and righty so that theParty I was placed under probation for a period ofsix months from the date of joining duty and thesaid probation period could be extended furthertill the Party I was issued a letter in writingconfirming him in service and that during theprobation period the Party II could terminate theservices of Party I without assigning any reasonand/or without notice and/or compensation.Discernibly, Clause 1 of the appointment letter atExb. W-1 dated 8-10-2001 clearly states that Party Iwould be on probation for a period of six monthsfrom the date of joining duty and during theprobation the services can be terminated withoutassigning any reason and/or without notice and/orcompensation. Importantly, in the said clause it is

stated that the Party I would be confirmed inservices of the company only if he is intimated tothat effect in writing. The Party I in his crossexamination has admitted that as per theappointment letter dated 8-10-2001 at Exb. W-1, hewas on probation for a period of six months fromthe date of joining duty and that he was nevergiven any letter by Party II stating that he wasconfirmed in the services of the company.

18. The Workman/Party 1 also admitted that hehad signed the appointment letter at Exb. W-1 forhaving accepted the terms and conditions of thesaid appointment letter. The documents andevidence on record clearly point out that the Party Iwas initially appointed for the period of six monthsand that his services could be confirmed only if hewas intimated to that effect in writing. Admittedly,the Party I was never issued any letter in writingby Party II indicating the confirmation of theservices in the company. The Party I has acceptedthe terms and conditions of the appointment letterwhich clearly states that his services would beconfirmed only if he is intimated in writing by thecompany. There was admittedly no letter ofconfirmation issued to Party I by the company. Ittherefore cannot be said that the services of PartyI was confirmed as claimed by Party I. It thereforefollows that the Party I was on probation duringhis services with Party II.

19. The next question is whether the terminationof Party I is illegal and unjustified and whether theservices were terminated for unsatisfactorilyperformance. The Appointment letter at Exb. W-1clearly indicates that during the period ofprobation the services of Party I could beterminated without assigning any reasons and/orwithout notice and/or without compensation. TheParty I was issued a warning memo dated 8-6-2002which has not been replied to by him. His serviceswere terminated by Party II from 21-8-2002 and headmitted that he did not reply to the terminationletter. The termination letter at Exb. W-6 showsthat the management was displeased with hisperformance inspite of their warning memo listingout therein various deficiencies and that they aretherefore constrained to terminate his services w.e.f.22-8-2002. The termination letter at Exb W-6 cannotbe termed illegal as reasonable opportunity wasgiven to Party I to improve his performance. Hewas issued warning memo as well as inter officememo at Exb. W-5 dated 18-6-2002 and was kept onclose observance on his performance and activities.He has not produced on record any evidencecontrary to the memos issued to him to improve hisperformance. The workman inspite of opportunity


1081

and warnings given to him, failed to show anyimprovement nor replied to the memo dated8-6-2002 or termination letter dated 22-8-2002.Moreover, the Party II as per terms and conditionsof appointment letter dated 8-6-2001 was notrequired to give any reason for termination ofservice since the Party I was under probationperiod.

20. The documents and evidence on record areindication of the fact that termination of theservices of the Party I Workman was legal andjustified as the termination letter clearly states thatsince the management was not satisfied with theperformance of Party I, the services wereterminated and was also offered salary of one monthin lieu of notice period which was paid to him. Theservices of Party I were terminated during probationperiod for the reasons mentioned in the saidtermination letter after following the principles ofnatural justice and therefore the submission ofParty I that there were no other memos; noappraisal tests; no performance reports or that hewas forced by Party II to resign without givingopportunity to represent himself or there has beenviolation of principle of natural justice cannot beaccepted. Moreover, the claim of Party I ofRs. 50,000/- by way of compensation also cannotsustain which Party II is not liable to pay. Theservices of Party I are lawfully terminated as theperformance of Party I who was under probationwas found unsatisfactory and therefore the claimof Party I cannot be granted. Hence, the issueNo. 2 is answered in negative and issue No. 5 isanswered in the affirmative.

Issue Nos. 3 & 4:

21. Ld. Adv. S. M. Tendulkar for the Party II hassubmitted that the Tribunal has no territorialjurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of thedispute between Party I and Party II as industrialdispute has arisen outside the jurisdiction of theCourt, more so when the Party II is a company dulyregistered under Companies Act and is havingregistered office, its factory so also regional andadministrative office at Hubli, Karnataka. The Party Iis employed at Hubli and placed under Dy. General(Marketing) at Hubli. The Party I had joined atHubli as per appointment letter. The salary andother amounts due and payable under theappointment letter were paid by the AccountsDepartment at Hubli and all his activities weresupervised and controlled by the Hubli office ofParty II. The termination letter by Party II was alsoissued at Hubli and therefore the AppropriateGovernment under the Industrial Dispute Act

would be Government of Karnataka and notGovernment of Goa. In support to his contention,he relied upon cases of (1) J. & J. DechaneDistributors vs. State of Kerala and others, 1974II L.L.J. 9 and (2) Association of MedicalRepresentatives (M.&V.) vs. Industrial Tribunal,Madhya Pradesh, Indore and another, 1966 IL.L.J. 614.

22. Per contra, Ld. Adv. Mrs. Suvarna Naik forthe Party I has submitted that the Party I was apermanent resident of Mangueshi, Goa and all thecorrespondence were addressed to Party I at hisresidential address including appointment letter,warning memo and termination letter. The Party Iwas working under Area Manager posted at Goaand was directed to sign attendance register everyday in the morning and in the evening and toinform day-to-day sales and activities to AreaManager at Ponda and was directed to handoverall the records and belongings of the company toone Mr. Ratan Gajendragad, Area Manager, Goaand therefore the Appropriate Government is theGovernment of Goa and not the Government ofKarnataka. In support of her contention, she reliedupon the cases of (1) Pritam Singh vs. PresidingOfficer, Labour Court, 2004 0 Supreme (P&H) 638and (2) Lohia Starlinger Limited and Anr. vs.Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors., 2006(3) SCT 214(Delhi).

23. Needless to mention, the provisions of theIndustrial Dispute Act need to be interpretedliberally to achieve the legislative intent. Theprovisions of the Act are silent with respect to anoccurrence of a cause of action, yet the principleslaid down for determining territorial jurisdiction ofa Civil Court can ordinarily be borrowed andpressed into service for seeking reference to anindustrial dispute. Even, if part of cause of actionhas arisen in the territory of a State, its Governmentis competent to refer the dispute and if the factsculminating into occurrence of “cause of action”are scattered in the territories of more than oneState, it is open to the aggrieved party to approachany one of the State Governments for getting thedispute referred. That being the case even anindustrial dispute and occurrence of an industrialdispute does not necessarily depend only uponthe situs of the employment where the worker wasemployed or where the order of dismissal of hisservice, suspension or retrenchment is received asobserved in the case of Pritam Singh, supra.

24. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in LalbhaiTricumlal Mills vs. Vin (D.M) and Ors. 1956(I)LLJ 557 has held that the Act did not deal with


1082

the cause of action nor did it indicate what factorswill confer jurisdiction upon the court andconsequently the well known tests of a jurisdictionwould require to be complied with to which thecourt or tribunal would have jurisdiction in thematter. It also held that a Court or Tribunal wouldhave jurisdiction if the parties reside withinjurisdiction or if the subject-matter of the disputesubstantially arose within jurisdiction.

25. The workman, Shri Dinesh Velingkar hasproduced on record the appointment letter dated8-10-2001 addressed to him at his residentialaddress at Mangueshi. There is no dispute thatParty I is a permanent resident of Mangueshi-Goaand all the correspondence were addressed to hisresidential address at Mangueshi and that he wasstationed at Goa as Sales Executive on behalf ofParty II for achieving the sales target of the productof Party II and that he was relieved from office forfailing to achieve the targets. The cause of actiontherefore had arisen in the territory of State of Goaas he was working on behalf of Party II in Goa.Moreover, the Party I resided within the jurisdictionof State of Goa and the subject matter of disputesubstantially arose within the jurisdiction of Stateof Goa and therefore, it was open to Party I toapproach any of the State Governments for gettingthe dispute referred and therefore the State of Goais competent to refer dispute to this Tribunal. Thecontention of Ld. Adv. Shri S. M. Tendulkar and thereliance placed on the above citations turned onits own facts and therefore are not applicable tothe case at hand. The Tribunal has thereforeterritorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputereferred by the Government being the Governmentof Goa and not the Government of Karnataka. It is,therefore, issue No. 3 & 4 are answered in negative.

26. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

1. It is hereby held that the action of themanagement of M/s. MurudeshwarCeramics Ltd., Hubli, having their branchat Ponda-Goa, in terminating the servicesof Shri Dinesh V. Velingkar (Mrkg.Executive), with effect from 22-08-2002, islegal and justified. The Party I, is thereforenot entitled to any relief.

2. No order as to costs.

3. Inform the Government accordingly.



Notification

No. 28/1/2016-Lab/Part-IV/79

The following compromise memorandum ofsettlement signed on 12-11-2016 before the NationalLok Adalat in case No. P-IT/50/16 is herebypublished under Section 17 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947).

By order and in the name of the Governor ofGoa.



NATIONAL LOK ADALAT

COMPROMISE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENTIN CASE No. P-IT/50/16 FILED UNDERSECTION 33 (1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL

DISPUTES ACT, 1947

Case No. P-IT/50/16

M/s. Elsteel Modular ProductsIndia Pvt. Ltd.,Plot No. 3, Phase 3,Honda Industrial Estate,Satari Goa 403530 .... Applicant/Party I

V/s

Shri Sarvesh Malik,H. No. 194, Near Petrol Pump,Pratap Nagar, Sanquelim-Goa .... Opponent/Party II

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

Dispute in brief is that pursuant to thesuspension orders dated 28-09-2016 made by theCompany M/s. Elsteel Modular Products (I) Pvt. Ltd.,Honda, Satari Goa, suspending the workmennamely, S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, VithalGawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik, RajendraNarulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh Rawal, KiranSawant, Prakash Gaonkar, Pundalik Dessai, VishwasMalik and Mahadev Jaiwant Narvekar (For short thesaid workmen) pending permission of the Hon’bleIndustrial Tribunal of Goa, Panaji in referenceNo. IT/21/2016, the Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh,Ponda Goa espoused the cause of the said workmenbefore the company vide its letter dated 02-10-2016.The Union also endorsed a copy of the said noticeto this office i.e. the Assistant Labour Commissionerand Conciliation Officer, Mapusa for intervention.The union/said workmen challenged theirsuspension pending permission and payment ofsubsistence allowance @ 50% of the last drawnwages. The Union also gave a notice of strike by allthe workmen w.e.f. 17-10-2016 if the matter of thesaid workmen is not resolved.


1083

A notice for discussion was served on themanagement of the Company and the Union toappear before this office on 07-10-2016. Themanagement and the union alongwith the saidworkmen attended the discussions accordingly on7-10-16, 13-10-16, 14-10-16, 20-10-16, 25-10-16 and28-10-16. The matter is admitted was admitted inconciliation and further discussions were held. Themanagement had contended that the suspensionof the said workmen was pending permission todismiss the said workmen. The applications dated28-9-16 have been simultaneously filed by thecompany before the Industrial Tribunal of Goa,Panaji before whom the main adjudication onCharter of demands by the Union is pending.

The proposals were exchanged between theparties on the settlement of the dispute of theUnion/said workmen amicable. The managementstated that the management shall not take back thesaid workmen and that they are ready to settle thematter of the said workmen on monetary basis.

The said workmen and the union had separatediscussions on the proposals given by the companyin respect of the settlement of the dispute of thesaid workmen on monetary terms. The managementhas also contended that the criminal complaintfiled by the Union/workmen has to be withdrawnbefore setting the matter.

The union informed this office that the saidworkmen as well as the workmen of the Companyhave agreed and decided to settle the dispute onterms spelt out below.

TERMS OF COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT

1. It is agreed between the parties that theworkmen of M/s. Elsteel Modular Products India Pvt.Ltd., Honda Goa, namely, S/Shri Sanjay Hilekar,Sarvesh Malik, Vithal Gawas, Pratap Nagvekar,Pravin Naik, Rajendra Narulkar, Amit Ekawade,Rupesh Rawal, Kiran Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar,Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas Malik and MahadevJaiwant Narvekar shall be deemed to have resignedfrom the service w.e.f. 28-10-16.

2. It is agreed between the parties that each ofthe workmen above named shall be paid an amountof Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs & fifty thousandonly) in full and final settlement of their legal dues,except gratuity and leave encashment, Bonus andearned wages which will be paid separately on thelast drawn wages as on 31-8-2016. It is agreedbetween the parties that all the said workmen shallbe issued bonafide service certificate.

3. It is agreed between the parties that in viewof Clauses (1) and (2) above named the applications

filed by the Company, for permission to dismiss thesaid workmen, shall be withdrawn.

4. It is agreed and declared by the Union and thesaid workmen that the amount payable by thecompany to the said workmen in the mannerhereinabove provided for are in full and finalsettlement and satisfaction of all the claims of thesaid workmen against the Company includingclaims for compensation for loss of office orotherwise whatsoever.

5. It is agreed between the parties that theComplaint filed by the Union/Workmen before thePolice Inspector at Valpoi Police Station, Valpoi,against the General Manager, Mr. Kalidas Jadhavshall be withdrawn on or before 15-11-2016.

6. It is agreed between the parties that the saidamount payable to the said workmen shall be paidon or before 15-11-2016.

Signed on this 12th day of November, 2016.

________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-Lab/Part-IV/80




Porvorim, 22nd February, 2017.


1084

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT

COMPROMISE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENTIN CASE No. P-IT/49/16 FILED UNDER SECTION

33 (1) OF THE INDUSTRIALDISPUTES ACT, 1947

Case No. P-IT/49/16

M/s. Elsteel Modular ProductsIndia Pvt. Ltd.,Plot No. 3, Phase 3,Honda Industrial Estate,Satari Goa (403530) … Applicant/Party I

V/s

Shri Rupesh Pandurang Rawal,H. No. 40, Dhab-Dhaba,Bicholim Goa … Opponent/Party II


Dispute in brief is that pursuant to thesuspension orders dated 28-09-2016 made by theCompany M/s. Elsteel Modular Products (I) Pvt.Ltd., Honda, Satari Goa, suspending the workmennamely, S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, VithalGawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik, RajendraNarulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh Rawal, KiranSawant, Prakash Gaonkar, Pundalik Dessai, VishwasMalik and Mahadev Jaiwant Narvekar (For shortthe said workmen) pending permission of theHon’ble Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Panaji, inreference No. IT/21/2016, the Gomantak MazdoorSangh, Ponda Goa espoused the cause of the saidworkmen before the company vide its letter dated02-10-2016. The Union also endorsed a copy of thesaid notice to this office i.e. the Assistant LabourCommissioner and Conciliation Officer, Mapusafor intervention. The Union/said workmenchallenged their suspension pending permissionand payment of subsistence allowance @ 50% ofthe last drawn wages. The Union also gave a noticeof strike by all the workmen w.e.f. 17-10-2016 if thematter of the said workmen is not resolved.


The proposals were exchanged between theparties on the settlement of the dispute of theUnion/said workmen amicable. The managementstated that the management shall not take backthe said workmen and that they are ready to settlethe matter of the said workmen on monetary basis.

The said workmen and the union had separatediscussions on the proposals given by the Companyin respect of the settlement of the dispute of thesaid workmen on monetary terms. The managementhas also contended that the criminal complaintfiled by the union/workmen has to be withdrawnbefore settling the matter.



1. It is agreed between the parties that theworkmen of M/s. Elsteel Modular ProductsIndia Pvt. Ltd., Honda Goa, namelyS/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, VithalGawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik,Rajendra Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, RupeshRawal, Kiran Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar,Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas Malik and MahadevJaiwant Narvekar shall be deemed to haveresigned from the service w.e.f. 28-10-16.

2. It is agreed between the parties that each ofthe workmen above named shall be paid anamount of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs &fifty thousand only) in full and finalsettlement of their legal dues, except gratuityand leave encashment, bonus and earnedwages which will be paid separately on thelast drawn wages as on 31-8-2016. It is agreedbetween the parties that all the said workmenshall be issued bonafide service certificate.

3. It is agreed between the parties that in viewof Clauses (1) and (2) above named theapplications filed by the Company, forpermission to dismiss the said workmen, shallbe withdrawn.

4. It is agreed and declared by the Union andthe said workmen that the amount payableby the company to the said workmen in themanner hereinabove provided for are in fulland final settlement and satisfaction of allthe claims of the said workmen against theCompany including claims for compensationfor loss of office or otherwise whatsoever.


1085

5. It is agreed between the parties that theComplaint filed by the Union/workmenbefore the Police Inspector at Valpoi PoliceStation, Valpoi, against the General Manager,Mr. Kalidas Jadhav shall be withdrawn on orbefore 15-11-2016.

6. It is agreed between the parties that thesaid amount payable to the said workmenshall be paid on or before 15-11-2016.


________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-Lab/Part-IV/81





NATIONAL LOK ADALAT



Case No. P-IT/48/16


V/s

Shri Rajendra Dharma Narulkar,H. No. 101, Dhab-Dhaba,Bicholim Goa … Opponent/Party II


Dispute in brief is that pursuant to thesuspension orders dated 28-09-2016 made by theCompany M/s. Elsteel Modular Products (I) Pvt.Ltd., Honda, Satari Goa, suspending the workmennamely S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, VithalGawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik, RajendraNarulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh Rawal, KiranSawant, Prakash Gaonkar, Pundalik Dessai, VishwasMalik and Mahadev Jaiwant Narvekar (For shortthe said workmen) pending permission of theHon’ble Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Panaji, inreference No. IT/21/2016, the Gomantak MazdoorSangh, Ponda Goa espoused the cause of the saidworkmen before the company vide its letter dated02-10-2016. The Union also endorsed a copy of thesaid notice to this office i.e. the Assistant LabourCommissioner and Conciliation Officer, Mapusa forintervention. The Union/said workmen challengedtheir suspension pending permission and paymentof subsistence allowance @ 50% of the last drawnwages. The Union also gave a notice of strike by allthe workmen w.e.f. 17-10-2016 if the matter of thesaid workmen is not resolved.




1086

The said workmen and the union had separatediscussions on the proposals given by the Companyin respect of the settlement of the dispute of thesaid workmen on monetary terms. The managementhas also contended that the criminal complaintfiled by the union/workmen has to be withdrawnbefore settling the matter.



1. It is agreed between the parties that theworkmen of M/s. Elsteel Modular ProductsIndia Pvt. Ltd., Honda Goa, namely,S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, VithalGawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik,Rajendra Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, RupeshRawal, Kiran Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar,Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas Malik and MahadevJaiwant Narvekar shall be deemed to haveresigned from the service w.e.f. 28-10-16.







________

Notification

No. 28/1/2016-Lab/Part-IV/82





NATIONAL LOK ADALAT



Case No. P-IT/47/16


V/s


1087

Shri Amit Anand Ekwade,H. No. 92, Van New Wada,Maulingem, Bicholim Goa … Opponent/Party II


Dispute in brief is that pursuant to thesuspension orders dated 28-09-2016 made by theCompany M/s. Elsteel Modular Products (I) Pvt.Ltd., Honda, Satari Goa, suspending the workmennamely S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, VithalGawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik, RajendraNarulkar, Amit Ekawade, Rupesh Rawal, KiranSawant, Prakash Gaonkar, Pundalik Dessai, VishwasMalik and Mahadev Jaiwant Narvekar (For shortthe said workmen) pending permission of theHon’ble Industrial Tribunal of Goa, Panaji, inreference No. IT/21/2016, the Gomantak MazdoorSangh, Ponda Goa espoused the cause of the saidworkmen before the company vide its letter dated02-10-2016. The Union also endorsed a copy of thesaid notice to this office i.e. the Assistant LabourCommissioner and Conciliation Officer, Mapusa forintervention. The Union/said workmen challengedtheir suspension pending permission and paymentof subsistence allowance @ 50% of the last drawnwages. The Union also gave a notice of strike by allthe workmen w.e.f. 17-10-2016 if the matter of thesaid workmen is not resolved.



The said workmen and the union had separatediscussions on the proposals given by the Companyin respect of the settlement of the dispute of the

said workmen on monetary terms. The managementhas also contended that the criminal complaintfiled by the union/workmen has to be withdrawnbefore settling the matter.



1. It is agreed between the parties that theworkmen of M/s. Elsteel Modular ProductsIndia Pvt. Ltd., Honda Goa, namely,S/Shri Sanjay Hirlekar, Sarvesh Malik, VithalGawas, Pratap Nagvekar, Pravin Naik,Rajendra Narulkar, Amit Ekawade, RupeshRawal, Kiran Sawant, Prakash Gaonkar,Pundalik Dessai, Vishwas Malik and MahadevJaiwant Narvekar shall be deemed to haveresigned from the service w.e.f. 28-10-16.







1088


——— ———

Department of Law & JudiciaryLaw (Establishment) Division

__Notification by the High Court of Judicature

Appellate Side, Bombay.

No. A-1205/G/2017/680

In exercise of the powers conferred bysub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (No. 2 of 1974), the High Court ispleased to appoint the following Assistant SessionsJudges as the Additional Sessions Judges toexercise jurisdiction in the Courts of Sessions withimmediate effect.

Name of the Judicial Officers and present posting

Sr. Name of Judicial OfficersNo.

1. Ms. Vijaya V. Ambre,Ad hoc District Judge-2 & Assistant SessionsJudges (F.T.C.), Panaji.

2. Ms. Bela N. Naik,Ad hoc District Judge-1 & Assistant SessionsJudge (FTC), North Goa, Mapusa.

High Court, Bombay, Mangesh S. Patil

Dated: 16th February, 2017. Registrar General

Department of TransportDirectorate of Transport

__

Notification

No. D. Tpt/EST/1997/(PF) 2015/441

Read: Notification No. D.Tpt/EST/2002/2012/1619dated 26-04-2012.

Government is pleased to accept the resignationstendered by Shri Jose Luis Carlos Almeida, Vascoas Chairman on the Board of Directors of KadambaTransport Corporation Ltd.

Consequently said Shri Jose Luis Carlos Almeida,Vasco ceased to be the Chairman on the Board ofDirectors of Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd.with effect from 16-01-2017.


Sunil Masurkar, Director & ex officio JointSecretary (Transport).

Panaji, 22nd February, 2017.

________

Notification

No. D. Tpt/EST/1997/(PF) 2016/445

In pursuance of Article 68 read with Article 78of the Articles of Association of the KadambaTransport Corporation Limited, the Government ispleased to appoint Shri Dharmendra Sharma, IAS,Secretary (Transport) as Chairman of the KadambaTransport Corporation Limited w.e.f. 16-01-2017vice Shri Jose Luis Carlos Almeida, former Chairmanof Kadamba Transport Corporation Limited.


Sunil Masurkar, Director & ex officio JointSecretary (Transport).

Panaji, 22nd February, 2017.

www.goaprintingpress.gov.in

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

Mahatma Gandhi Road, Panaji-Goa 403 001.

PRICE–Rs. 22.00

PRINTED AT THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS, PANAJI-GOA–354/350–3/2017.

Department of Agriculturegoaprintingpress.gov.in/downloads/1617/1617-48-SII-OG-0.pdf · allowed to...

Documents

Transcript of Department of Agriculturegoaprintingpress.gov.in/downloads/1617/1617-48-SII-OG-0.pdf · allowed to...