The judgment establishes the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to decide the legality of termination of services governed by statutory provisions and regulations, and emphasizes the limitations of applying compromise terms from a different dispute.

JUDGMENT

S. Panda, J. - The award passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Odisha dated 22.06.1993 in Industrial Disputes Case No.5 of 1991 (Central) under Annexure-2, is being impugned in this writ application by the petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India.

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred upon them by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2-A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had referred the following dispute for adjudication of the Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rourkela Branch Office, Sector-19, Rourkela in terminating the services of Shri Paramananda Sahu, Sub-staff with effect from 12.4.1990 is lawful and justified. If not, to what relief, the workman is entitled to?"

2. The case of the workman before the Tribunal was that he had been appointed on 30.09.1985 by the Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India, Rourkela Branch as a sub-staff on daily wage basis and had been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his employer. During the period of his employment for four and half years, he had been paid bonus, house rent allowance as admissible to the permanent staff but suddenly he was served with a notice of termination on 12.04.1990. It was his further case that in a dispute between the Corporation and some of its workers, the Supreme Court had prohibited any recruitment to various posts until finalization of the matter but that prohibition having been withdrawn, the Life Insurance Corporation of India started the recruitment process. During that time, the General Secretary of the Union representing Class III and Class IV employees of Sambalpur Division had submitted a list of daily and Badli workers for absorption on regular basis but the Management though absorbed all other daily workers but did not absorb the petitioner on the ground that he had crossed the prescribed age limit. It is accordingly contended that the petitioner having entered the services of the Corporation while he was within the age limit, he could not have been excluded from consideration on the ground of overage. 3. The Management contended before the Tribunal that the service conditions of the staff of the Life Insurance Corporation is governed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Under the Regulations, Class-III and Class-IV employees were appointed on temporary basis to meet the exigencies of the work load and such temporary employees cannot claim any right of permanent absorption against any permanent post. It was further urged that in view of the ban on recruitment of new employees imposed by the National Industrial Tribunal, to meet the work load of the Corporation, a few temporary sub-staff had been engaged in the Division Office and the petitioner was one of such employees who had been engaged on 30.09.1985 as a temporary hand. He was being paid his wages daily. He had no right to the post and in accordance with the terms of contract, his services stood terminated. It was also urged that the compromise between the management and workmen in the Supreme Court was in relation to temporary and part-time Badli workmen, who had been recruited between the period 01.01.1982 and 20.05.1985 and the present workman was neither a party to the litigation which was entered into compromise in the Supreme Court nor would he be governed by the terms of the said compromise.

4. The Industrial Tribunal though came to the conclusion that the workman was not a party to the reference which had been adjudicated upon by the National Industrial Tribunal and subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by virtue of the compromise but those principles should have been applied to the present workman's case and the present workman should have been absorbed on permanent basis. Non-consideration of the case of the workman for regular absorption on the basis of overage was held to be unsu