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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more