Skip to main content

SC: Development Officers Working in LIC Not 'Workmen'

The Supreme Court has held that development officers working in Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) cannot be put in the category of "workmen" under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

A bench of justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant upheld the decision of Allahabad High Court which had said that the development officers could not be treated as workmen.

"We conclude and hold that the development officers working in LIC are not 'workmen' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and accordingly we do not find any flaw in the judgment rendered by the High Court," the bench said.

The apex court was hearing an appeal by few development officers of LIC, who had challenged the decision of the high court which had overturned the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that that the aggrieved persons were not adjudicable by the tribunal as it had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

The high court had held that they could not be treated as workmen under the context of the Act and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.

The state-run insurance behemoth had reduced the salary of the petitioners after conducting an enquiry against them for allegedly claiming inflated incentive bonus to which they were not entitled.

Before the tribunal, the state-run insurance behemoth had contended that the proceeding before it was not maintainable as the development officers could not be put under the category of workmen under the Act.

The tribunal had declined the plea of maintainability and answered the other issues in favour of the development officers and directed restitution of pay-scale and payment of the arrears that was due to the development officers.

 Article referred: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/development-officers-working-in-lic-not-workmen-supreme-court-746700

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more