IMPORTANT POINTS
Development Officers working in the LIC are nor workmen.
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Suresh, (2008) 11 SCC 319 and S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra, (1983) 4 SCC 214 are per incuriam.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

In these appeals, the seminal question that emerges for consideration is whether the High Court of Allahabad in Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.21164 of 1998 has justifiably overturned the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) on the singular foundation that the aggrieved persons, at whose instance a reference was made under Sections 10(1) and 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act'), was not adjudicable by the tribunal, for the aggrieved persons were working as Development Officers in the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and hence, they could be treated as workmen under the schematic context of the Act and, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the lis in question.

2. Regard being had to the aforesaid issue, we are not required to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the Central Government had made a reference, vide notification MO E-17012/35/89-iB(B) dated 4.12.1989, of the following dispute for adjudication :

“Whether the action of the management of LIC of India in imposing penalty of reduction of salary of Shri R.C. Dubey, C. Tripathi, Nankoo Singh, D.K. Shukla and N.K. Misra, Development Offices by three steps in their time scale of pay is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned are entitled?”

3. Be it noted, such a reference was made as the concerned development officers were visited with the punishment of reduction of salary by three steps after conducting an enquiry in a disciplinary proceeding in respect of certain charges levelled against them and finding them guilty of the charges. It is apt to note here that the principal charge that was levelled against the officers was that they had claimed inflated incentive bonus to which they were not entitled to.

4. Before the tribunal, a plea was advanced by the LIC that the proceeding before it was not maintainable as the Development Officers could not be put in the compartment of workmen under the Act. Apart from the said issue of maintainability, justification was given as regards the punishment imposed by the LIC. The tribunal negatived the plea of maintainability and answered the other issues in favour of the Development Officers and resultantly, it directed restitution of pay-scale and payment of the arrears that was due to them.

5. The aforesaid award compelled the LIC to file the writ petition before the High Court and the High Court, as we find, relying on the decision in Mukesh K. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 387 expressed the view that the development officers were not workmen and, therefore, the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the lis and consequently, it unsettled the award passed by the tribunal. At this juncture, it is seemly to note, after the said decision was rendered on 18.04.2007, an application for review, being Civil Miscellaneous Review Application No.12736 of 2007, was filed stating, inter alia, that the order warranted a review in view of the subsequent pronouncement of this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. R. Suresh, (2008) 11 SCC 319. The High Court declined to entertain the application for review. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.

6. We have heard Mr. S.P. Singh, learned senior counsel and Mr. G. Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Rajappa, learned counsel for the respondents.

7. Keeping in view the question posed at the beginning, we are obligated to make a survey of the authorities that have been pronounced by this Court specifically pertaining to the Development Officers working in LIC. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in S.K. Verma vs. Mahesh Chandra & Anr., (1983) 4 SCC 214 adverted to the definition of 'workman' as originally defined under Section 2(s) of the Act and the substantial amendment that was brought in 1956 in r