Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, JJ.
Ranbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corp. of India & Anr. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 1150 of 2019 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1921 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1151 of 2019 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1868 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1862 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1861 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1874 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1873 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1660 of 2018 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1940 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1882 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1883 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) Nos. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1876 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1888 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1866 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1860 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1860 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1875 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1660 of 2018 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1765 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1944 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6956 of 2009; with MA 1402 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1965-1967 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6953 of 2009; with MA 1859 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1869 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1870 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1864 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1872 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009 with W.P.(C) No. 43 of 2020; with MA 1867 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1889 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1878 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1884 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1887 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1891 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1880 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1886 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1893 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1894 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1892 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1895 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1987 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) Nos. 1968-1969 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6953 of 2009 with W.P.(C) No. 110 of 2020; with MA 2085 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1965-1967 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6953 of 2009; with MA 2339 of 2019 in C.A. No. 6951 of 2009; with MA 557 of 2020 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1965-1967 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6953 of 2009; with MA 858 of 2020 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1965-1967 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6953 of 2009; with MA 412 of 2021 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1968-1969 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6953 of 2009; with MA 1865 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1879 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1881 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1890 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009; with MA 1885 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009 and with MA 1877 of 2019 in Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 1921 of 2017 in C.A. No. 6950 of 2009
Decided On : 27-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of employment and regulations (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. compromise terms regarding employment (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. awards and judicial orders influence (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. initiation of litigation due to claims (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. interpretations of employment standards (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. verification and eligibility for absorption (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. context of temporary and regular employment (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. nature of legal challenges against decisions (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. background on tulpule and jamdar awards (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 10. court's obligations towards workers' claims (Para 44 , 45 , 47 , 48) |
| 11. implementation of critical judicial directives (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 12. conflict of judicial directions (Para 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 13. relating id act and lic regulations (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 14. verification processes and enforcement of rights (Para 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 15. unique legal standing of lic workers (Para 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 16. provisions for forming new recruitment processes (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 17. final resolutions and directives (Para 75 , 76 , 77) |
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are:
A Introduction
B Dogra Report
C LIC’s objections to the Dogra Report
D The E Prabavathy Group
E Sequel to E Prabavathy
F Submissions
G Prelude – Tulpule and Jamdar Awards, and their Aftermath
H Srivastav Award and the Judgement of this Court
I Validity of the verification in the Dogra Report
J The Interplay between the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and Section 48 of the LIC Act 1956
K Structuring the Relief
A Introduction
1. This litigation has a long and chequered history. The dispute, a familiar terrain in service jurisprudence, pertains to the claim for absorption of persons who were engaged by the Life Insurance Corporation of India1[LIC] as temporary/badli/part-time workers. Section 2 3(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act 19562[LIC Act] enables LIC to employ such number of persons as it thinks fit to discharge its functions. Pursuant to clauses (b) and (d) of Section 49 (2), LIC has framed the Life Insurance Corporation of India ( STAFF REGULATIONS ) 19603[ STAFF REGULATIONS ]. Regulation 8 empowers LIC to appoint persons on a temporary basis in Class III and Class IV posts. After an amendment which was notified on 7 August 1971, Regulation 8 provides as follows:
"8. Temporary Staff: -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations the Managing Director or Executive Director (Personnel), a Zonal Manager or a Divisional Manager may employ staff in classes III and IV on a temporary basis, subject to such general or special directions as may be issued by the Chairman from time to time.
(2) No person appointed under sub-regulation (1) shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled to absorption in the services of the Corporation or claim preference for recruitment to any post."
2. On 31 January 1981, Sections 48 and 49 were amended to impart statutory force to the STAFF REGULATIONS . According to LIC, its staff and employees are governed by the parent enactment and fall outside the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act 19474[ID Act]. The validity of the amendment to Sections 48 and 49 has been upheld by this Court in A V Nachane v. Union of India,5[(1982) 1 SCC 205 (A V Nachane). See also: M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, LIC, Machilipatnam, (1994) 2 SCC 323; and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raghavendra Seshagirirao Kulkarni, (1997) 8 SCC 461].
3. On 13 August 1982, an industrial dispute was raised by the Western Zonal Insurance Employees Association alleging that LIC had been engaging in unfair labour practices by employing temporary, badli and part-time workers and was restricting their empl
The court found that the Labour Court exceeded the scope of reference and set aside the impugned award.
The court confirms that eligibility for absorption of contract workers must be evaluated against their documented employment in abolished categories under the Industrial Disputes Act and associated g....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
Monetary compensation in lieu of job regularization is affirmed for eligible employees based on past judicial directives, while regularization through verification processes is mandated for historica....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
