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

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more