Supreme Court of India
TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATIONversusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA& ORS.
- Citation
- 2015 INSC 235
- Decided
- 18 March 2015
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- V GOPALA GOWDA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the NIT awards directing absorption of temporary/badli workers remain operative and binding despite the compromise, and the CGIT award correctly upheld those awards and must be restored.
Summary
The case concerned workmen of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) who had been employed as temporary, badli and part‑time staff after 20 May 1985 and sought absorption as regular employees. Earlier awards of the National Industrial Tribunal (NIT) by Justice R.D. Tulpule (1986) and clarified by Justice S.M. Jamdar (1988) directed such absorption for workers employed between 1 Jan 1982 and 20 May 1985. A compromise in SLP 14906/1988 between LIC and eight of nine unions was permitted by the Supreme Court as an interim measure, but it did not replace the NIT awards. The Central Government referred the dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), which upheld the workers' right to absorption. The Delhi High Court set aside the CGIT award, a decision the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the NIT awards remained operative, the compromise did not extinguish them, and the CGIT correctly exercised its power to override contracts. Consequently, the CGIT award was restored, directing LIC to regularise the workmen and pay all consequential benefits.
Issues considered
- The effect of the compromise entered into in SLP 14906/1988 on the operative status of the NIT awards.
- Whether the CGIT had authority to override the compromise and enforce the NIT awards directing absorption of temporary workers.
- Whether the awards of Justice Tulpule and Justice Jamdar remained binding under Sections 12, 18(3) and 19(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether the corporation’s employment of temporary/badli workers after 20 May 1985 constituted an unfair labour practice under Section 2(ra) and Sections 25T/25U of the Act.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10(1)(d), s. 12, s. 18(3), s. 19(6), s. 23, s. 25T, s. 25U, s. 29, s. 2A, s. 2(ra), s. 36A
- Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956s. 48, s. 49(1), s. 49(2)
Subjects
Industrial disputeAbsorption of temporary workersUnfair labour practiceCGIT awardCompromise settlementIndustrial Disputes ActSection 19(6)Section 25TSection 25UNational Industrial TribunalEmployment regularisation
Judgment
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 806
A TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
v.
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA& ORS.
8 (Civil Appeal No.6950of2009 etc.)
MARCH 18, 2015
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.)
c Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 19(6), s.12 rw s.
18(3), 2(ra), 36A - Industrial dispute between workmen and
management of the Corporation - Workmen rendering
service to the Corporation in the perennial nature of work
between 01.01.1982 to 20.05.1985-C/am for absorption as
D regular and permanent service employees in their respective
posts-Award passed by Justice R.D. Tu/pule and the same
was clarified by Justice S. M. Jamdar upon reference made
by Central Government u/s. 36A that the Award directs
absorption of workmen and does not mean recruitment -
E Aggrieved thereagainst, SLP filed by Corporation - Disposal
of SLP, in view of the compromise between the parties -
Management and members of eight out of nine workmen
Unions permitted to implement the terms of compromise
without any prejudice to the rights and obligations of the
F members of other Union- Claim of similarly placed workmen
appointed by Corporation as temporary, badli and part-time
workmen after 20. 5. 1985 disputed by Corporation -
Reference of industrial dispute to CG/T - CGIT in terms of
Award by Justice R.D. Tu/pule and Justice S.M. Jamdar,
G passed directions to the Corporation for their absorption in
their respective posts -Single Judge set aside the Award
passed by CG/Tin relation to the concerned workmen -
Division Bench of the High Court upheld the same - Held: It
H is clear from the order passed in SLP that the award by Justice
806
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 807
ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA
R.D. Tu/pule and Justice S. M. Jamdar was neither set aside - A
by the Court nor substituted the compromise terms in the
place of the Award except the order passed in SLP- CGIT
rightly adjudicated the industn'al dispute referred to it- CGIT
has rightly overridden the compromise arising out of SLP
and passed the Award in favour of the concerned workmen- B
Further, the Awards passed by NIT is binding upon the
Corporation till it is substituted by another Award or replaced
by another settlement in relation to the service conditions of
the workmen of the Corporation in accordance with law as
provided uls. 12 read with s. 18(3) or another Award that is C
.required to be passed by the Jurisdictional CGIT in relation
to the subject matter after the Awards which are in operation
are terminated by either of the parties as provided u/s. 19(6)
- Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court is set aside
0
and Award of CGIT is restored.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
'HELD: 1.1 From the perusal of the order of this
Court in SLP 14906of1988, nowhere it has been stated E
in the terms of the compromise between the parties that
the Award of Justice R.D. Tulpule which was clarified
upon reference made by the Central Government under
Section 36A of· the Industrial Disputes Act by Justice
Jamdar, is either set aside by this Court or substituted F
the compromise terms in the place of the Award except
the order passed in SLP. In fact, on the other hand it is
clearly stated that the compromise terms are between
the parties to the said SLP and that it shall not prejudice
the respective rights and obligations in relation to the G
members of the other union. Therefore, the effect of the
Award of Justice R. D. Tulpule with regard to the direction
given to the Corporation regarding absorption of badli,
temporary employees as permanent employees has not H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A been substituted by terms and conditions of the
compromise. The Award of Justice R.D. Tulpule
reiterated by way of clarification in the Award passed by
Justice Jamdar in the dispute subsequently has been
operative even after the compromise arrived at between
B the parties to the compromise in the SLP before this
Court. Therefore, the submission that the said Awards
are not in operation and that only the terms and
conditions of compromise and orders of this Court are
binding upon the concerned workmen is not both
C factually and legally correct. The submission is not
tenable in view of the categorical statement made by this
Court in its orders passed in SLP wherein, this Court
has permitted the management and members of the said
D 8 Unions to implement the terms of compromise by way
of interim measure without any prejudice to the rights
and contentions of the members of other Union who have
not entered into compromise with the management of
the Corporation. This Court in the order passed in the
E said SLP has made it very clear that the said compromise
entered into between unions therein, but it does not
prejudice the rights and contentions of the concerned
workmen whose disputes are in relation to their
absorption in their respective posts who were appointed
F after 20.05.1985. Further, even if some of the workmen
are bound under the said compromise that arose out of
SLP, this in no way deters their right to raise the industrial
dispute and get the same adjudicated vide order of
reference by the appropriate Government to the CGIT.
G The Award of the CGIT was concluded after rightly
examining the facts, circumstances of the case and the
legal principles laid down in the Awards passed by
Justice Tulpule and Justice Jamdar. More importantly
the CGIT Award was passed after rightly appreciating
H the points of dispute referred to it and on the merits of
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 809
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA
the case. The Industrial Court while adjudicating an A
ind.ustrial dispute has the right to override contracts and
create rights which are opposed to contractual rights.
The CGIT rightly adjudicated the industrial dispute
referred to it by the Central Government at the instance
of the concerned workmen on the points of dispute, on B
the basis of pleadings and evidence on record and legal
principles laid down in the Awards passed by the NIT.
The CGIT has rightly overridden the compromise arising
out of SLP and passed the Award in favour of the
concerned workmen. [Para 25] [833-8-H; 834-A-H; 835- C
A; 837-D]
1.2 The Award of Justice Tulpule reiterated by way
of clarification Award by Justice Jamdar are still
operative as the same are not terminated by either of the D
parties as provided under Section 19(6) of the Act. The
compromise between the parties in the SLP and the
Scheme formed in E. Prabhavathy & Ors. and G.
Sudhakar & Ors.case do not amount to substitution of
the Awards passed by Justice R. D. Tulpule and by E
Justice S. M. Jamdar. Hence, in view thereof, the
submissions made by the amicus curiae, in justification
of the Award passed by the CGIT based on the terms
and conditions laid down in the Awards passed by the F
NIT (by Justice Tu Ipule and Justice Jamdar) in favour of
the workmen for absorption as they have been rendering
their service to the Corporation in the perennial nature
of work for a number of years, the High Court was not
justified in interfering with the said Award passed by the G
CGIT. The impugned judgment and order of the High
Court is contrary to the Awards, the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act and the law laid down by this
Court. The Awards passed by the NIT is binding upon
the Corporation till it is substituted by another Award or H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A replaced by another settlement in relation to the service
conditions of the workmen of the Corporation in
accordance with law as provided under Section 12 read
with Section 18(3) of the Act or another Award that is
required to be passed by the Jurisdictional CGIT in
B relation to the above subject matter after the Awards
which are in operation are terminated by either of the
parties as provided under Section 19(6) of the Act. Until
then, the said Award passed by the NIT will still be
operative in law. Therefore, the same has been rightly
C applied to the fact situation on hand in the Award passed
by the CGIT and it could not have been set aside by the
High Court. Thus, the Single Judge erroneously set aside
the Award passed by the CGIT and the said judgment of
the Single Judge was erroneously upheld by the Division
0
Bench. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside. [Para
27) [842-D-H; 843-A-C]
1.3 This is a clear case of unfair labour practice as
defined under Section 2(ra) of the Act which is statutorily
E prohibited under Section 25T of the Act and the said
action of the Corporation amounts to penalty under
Section 25U of the Act. Thus, the findings and reasons
recorded in the Award of the CGIT in answering ~he points
F of dispute referred to it by Central Government in favour
of the concerned workmen is legal and valid. The High
Court erred in not noticing the said important, relevant,
factual and legal aspect of the case of the concerned
workmen and erroneously set aside the Award of the
G CGIT passed in favour of the concerned workmen in
exercise of its judicial Review power. [Para 28) (843-F-H;
844-A]
1.4 Since the Award passed by the CGIT is legal
H and valid, it is restored and implemented by the
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 811
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA
Corporation by absorbing the concerned workmen in A
the permanent posts and if they have attained the age of
superannuation, the Corporation would be liable to pay
all consequential benefits including monetary benefits
taking into consideration the pay scale and revised pay
scale from time to time by the Corporation. [Para 29] [845- B
B-C]
L/C of India & Ors. v. G Sudhakar & Ors. (2001) 2 Suppl.
JT 143; Secretary, State of Kamataka v. Uma Devi2006
(3) SCR 953: (2006) 4 SCC 1; The Life Insurance c
Corporation of India v. D. J. Bahadur & Ors. 1981 (1)
SCR 1083: (1981) 1 SCC 315; Bharat Bank Ltd. v.
Bharat Bank Employees Union AIR 1950SC188: 1950
SCR 459; Herbertsons Ltd. v. Workmen of Herbertsons
Ltd. 1977 (2) SCR 15 : (1976) 4 sec 736; 0
Transmission Corporation, A.P Ltd. v. P Ramachandra
Rao 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 18: (2006) 9 SCC 623; ITC
Ltd. Workers' Welfare Association v. ITC Ltd. 2002 (1)
SCR 711: (2002) 3 SCC 411; Jaihind Roadways v.
Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport & General E
Kamgar Union 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 820: (2005) 8
SCC 51; Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing
Corporation 2010 (1) SCR 591: (2010) 3 SCC 192;
Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2015(1)
F
SCALE 360 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
· (2001) 2 Suppl. JT 143 Referred to. Para 14
G
2006 (3) SCR 953 Referred to. Para 17
1981 (1) SCR 1083 Referred to. Para 18
1950 SCR 459 Referred t~. Para 19
H
1977 (2) SCR 15 Referred to. Para 20
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 18 Referred to. Para 20
2002 (1) SCR 711 Referred to. Para 20
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 820 Referred to. Para 20
2010 (1) SCR 591 Referred to. Para 28
B
2015(1) SCALE 360 Referred to. Para 28
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
6950 of 2009.
C From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2007 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 690 of 2004.
WITH
D C.A. Nos. 6951, 6952, 6953, 6954 and 6956 of 2009.
M. N. frishnamani, V. Kanagaraj, M.A. Chinnasamy,
V. Senthil Kumar, Asha Jain Madan, Mukesh Jain, Amit
Mishra, S. Nanda Kumar, R. Satish Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy,
B. K. Pal, KawaljitKochar, Kusum Chaudhary, Atul Sandhu,
E Varun Kumar, Bankey Bihari Sharma, Chandan M., M. Vijay
Bhaskar, Ashok Panigrahi for the Appellants.
Kailash V~dsev, Ashok Panigrahi, Santosh Kumar,
Ashmi Mohan, Shreyans Singhvi, M. Vijaya Bhaskar for the
F Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. This group of appeals
G has been filed by various appellant-Associations questioning
the correctness of the common impugned judgment and order
dated 21.03.2007 passed in Letters PatentAppeal No. 690
of 2004 along with batch matters by the Delhi High Court in
dismissing the appeals of the appellanUconcerned workmen
H by issuing certain directions contained at para 20(a) of the
said impugned judgment in affirming the judgment and order
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMP. 813
ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.J
of learned single Judge in allowing the Writ Petitions filed by A
the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short
"the Corporation"). The appellant-Associations have filed these
appeals urging various relevant facts and legal contentions
with a prayer to restore the Award dated 18.06.2001 passed
by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi (for B
short "the CGIT") in l.D. No.27of1991.
2. The facts of the case are stated here under for the
purpose of appreciating the factual and rival legal contentions
urged on behalf of the parties with a view to ascertain whether C
the appellants/concerned workmen are entitled to the relief as
prayed for in these appeals:-
The concerned workmen are the members of the
appellant-Associations, Federation of Employees Association, D
Workers Association and other concerned individual workmen
who were working in the branches of the Corporation at various
places in the country have raised the existing industrial dispute
between the concerned workmen and the management of the
Corporation regarding their absorption as regular and E
permanent service employees in their respective posts of the
Corporation. The concerned workmen in all these appeals
have been working as temporary, bad Ii and part-time workmen
claiming that they have been appointed by the management
of the Corporation on daily wage basis against the !eave F
vacancies and other vacancies of its employees in Class Ill
and IV posts in various branch offices and Divisions of the
Corporation. Their claim for regularisation were based on two
Awards passed of the National Industrial Tribunal (for short
'the NIT') (i) the Award passed by Justice R.D. Tulpule on G
17.04.1986 with regard to absorption of similarly placed
workmen by the Corporation who had been working on
temporary/badli/part-time basis in Class Ill and IV category
posts in their respective branches of the Corporation and (ii)the H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A Award passed by Justice S.M. Jamdar dated 26.08.1988, in
pursuant to the reference made by the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, under Section 36A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'), where the NIT clarified
and affirmed the Award dated 17.04.1986 passed by Justice
B R. D. Tulpule.
The present dispute that arose between the concerned
workmen and the Corporation was referred to the CGIT by the
Ministry of Labour, Central Government, in exercise of its
C statutory power under Section 10(1 )(d) read with Section 2A
of the Act vide Order No. L-17011/107/90-IR-B(ll) dated
04.03.1991 on the basis of the report of the Conciliation Officer
for its adjudication on the following question :-
D "Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance
Corporation of India in not absorbing Badli/temporary
and part time workmen employed in the establishment
of LIC after 20.5.1985 is justified, if not, to what relief the
workmen are entitled?"
E
3. The said industrial dispute has been raised by the
Associations, Federation of workmen and concerned workmen
in their individual capacity which was supported by the Unions
and Associations of these workmen of the divisions and zones
• F of the Corporation across India and workmen who have
represented their case on individual basis. Apart from the said
Unions, Associations, Federation of some of the workmen from
Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees
Association and E. Prabhawati and Ors. had also been
G impleaded as parties in the dispute before the CGIT. E.
Prabhawati and Ors. were impleaded vide order dated
01.12.1993 and The Tamil Nadu Terminated Temporary Full
Time UC Association was impleaded in the pending reference
case vide order dated 06.04.1995.
H
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMP. 815
ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
4. The Corporation is a creature of the Statute, namely, A
Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (for short "the LIC Act").
Section 48 of the LIC Act enables the Central Government to
make rules to carry out the performance of the Act by notification
in the official gazette. Section 49(1) of the LICAct empowers
the Corporation to make regulations not inconsistent with the B
provisions of the LIC Act and the rules made there under
provide for all matters for which provision is expedient for the
purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the LIC Act with
the previous approval of the Central Government by notification
.in the gazette of India. Section 49(2) of the LICAct lists certain C
matters for which Regulations may be made without prejudice
to the generality of the power conferred by sub-section (1 ).
The LIC Act was amended by the Amendment Act 17 of 1957
with retrospective effect by incorporating sub-clause (bb) of
0
sub-section 2 of Section 49 of the Amended Act, 1957 which
was omitted later by Act 1of1981 (w.e.f. 31.1.1981) which
provides for terms and conditions of service of the persons
who have become employees of the Corporation under its
Section 11 sub-Section ( 1) of the Act. By the authority vested E
in the Corporation under clause (bb) of sub-Section (2) of
Section 49 of the amended Act, the Corporation framed
Regulations defining the terms and conditions of service of
the staff of the Corporation known as LIC of India (Staff)
Regulations, 1960 (for short "the Staff Regulations, 1960") F
which was notified in the Gazette of India No. IV dated
23.7.1960 and came into force with effect from 1.7.1960. It is
pertinent to note that although according to the Staff
Regulations, 1960 there are only two types of employment that
have been provided for in the Regulations (i) regular and (ii) G
temporary. The employment in the capacity of badlis, part-time
is not provided thereunder. There is no specific nomenclature
in the Staff Regulations, 1960, in this regard, but the said type
of employment is prevalent in the Corporation both in the Center
H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A and also in various Divisions, Zonal offices throughout India.
The concerned workmen have been continuously working in
different capacities such as peons, hamals, watchman-cum-
pump man, lift man, house attendants, sweepers, cleaners,
assistant typist etc. on daily wage basis against permanent
B and other vacancies during that period.
5. Between the years 1981-85, a large number of
employees of Class Ill and IV posts were employed by the
Corporation in the capacity of badlis, temporary and part-time
C workers. Their wage, conditions for the absorption into the
regular cadre and other conditions of service were the subject
matter of the Industrial Dispute. Thus, the reference was made
in this regard to the National Industrial Tribunal as reference
No. NTB-1 of 1985. At the initial stage, the Western Zone
D Insurance Employees Association, Bombay and the Central
Zone National Life Insurance Corporation Employees
Association, Kanpur were the only parties to the reference
besides the Corporation. Later on, all the Unions of all the
Regions and the Zones in the country joined as parties and
E filed their respective claim statements before the NIT. During
the course of said proceedings an interim Award was passed
by the National Industrial Tribunal on the prayer of the workmen,
restricting the Corporation from recruiting or absorbing any
F person in the posts without prior permission of the Tribunal.
According to the interim Award passed by the NIT, the
Corporation was restrained from making any new
appointments except where persons had to be appointed over
and above the then existing vacancies against which posts
G the badli, temporary or part-time workmen who had been
working or had worked with the Corporation and those who
would be concerned in the reference had to be appointed from
amongst the bad Iis, temporary or part-time workmen against
any vacancy continued, provided an undertaking is given to
H the Corporation by such workmen stating that no benefit would
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 817
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
be claimed. A
6. After adjudication of the said Industrial Dispute
between the parties, the Award was passed by Justice R.D.
Tulpule on 17.4.1986. The said Award was based on the
suggestions invited both from the workmen and from the B
management of the Corporation. The parties had given the
mandate to the NIT to base its Award on any of the suggestions
given by the parties after making necessary modifications.
7. In the Award dated 17.04.1986, it was held that only c
those workmen who had worked in the Corporation during the
period January 1, 1982 to May 20, 1985, the date of the
reference was to be considered as eligible for absorption. The
Award held that the workmen claiming absorption in Class Ill
posts should have worked for 85 days in a period of two D
calendar years and the workman claiming absorption in Class
IV post should have worked for 70 days in a period of three
calendar years. It was further held by the NIT that the calculation
of the number of days of work should be up to the date of
reference. The Corporation was further directed to appoint a E
screening committee to consider suitability and desirability of
such eligible workmen for their absorption in the posts of the
Corporation. It was also directed by the NIT to the Corporation
that the workmen considered to be suitable and desirable for
the absorption should be absorbed against vacancies which F
existed in the Corporation as on 31.3.1985 and those which
may arise subsequently. The Corporation was also directed
not to recruit outsiders in a particular Division till such lists of
workmen were exhausted. Directions given in the Award on
the question of absorptions have been mentioned in paras 40 G
to 60 and 66 of the Award of Justice R.D. Tulpule.
8.Aggrieved by the said Award of Justice R.D. Tulpule
dated 17.4.1986, the Corporation filed Writ Petition No. 1801
of 1986 before the High Court of Judicature of Bombay H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A challenging its legality. The Writ Petition of the Corporation
was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 14.8.1986,
but at the same time, the High Court gave a certificate to the
Corporation for seeking clarification of the said Award under
Section 36A of the Act. In compliance with the Award dated
B 17.04.1986, the Corporation, while interpreting the Award with
respect to the absorption of the workmen as recruitment, had
issued six circulars commencing from 17.9.1986 to 25.2.1987.
The Workers Union and Associations disputed the aforesaid
instructions issued by the Corporation. Therefore, an Industrial
C Dispute was raised once again. The Central Government in
the Ministry of Labour made a reference under Section 36A of
the Act to the NIT being presided over by Justice S.M. Jamdar
and the same was registered as NTB(1) of 1987, which reads
D thus:-
"Can the Award dated 17.4.1986 with special reference
to paragraphs 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56,. 57,
60, 64 and 66 and the interim order dated 14.3.1986 be
interpreted to mean that the Central Office of the Life
E Insurance Corporation of India is empowered to issue
instructions/guidelines as contained in their circular
issued in this behalf to implement the directions of the
Award. If not, what could be the correct interpretation of
various directions covered by the said paragraphs in the
F
circumstances of the case. Whether the term "absorption"
referred to at various places in the Award can be
interpreted in mean "recruitment".
9. During the course of the hearing of the said reference,
G an interim order was passed by the NIT restraining the
Corporation to make any recruitment from the open market
during the pendency of the proceedings. The NIT, after hearing
the parties and examining the points of dispute, answered the
H term of reference and gave its own interpretation of the earlier
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 819
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
Award passed by Justice R.D. Tulpule holding that the A
observations contemplated by the earlier Award did not mean
recruitment. An Award dated 26.8.1988 was passed
accordingly by Justice S.M. Jamdar clarifying the Award
passed by Justice Tulpule that absorption of workmen does
not mean recruitment. B
10. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Corporation
preferred SLP No. 14906 of 1988 titled The Management of
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Their Workmen
before this Court urging various legal contentions. It is the case C
of the Corporation that during the course of the said SLP, a
compromise was entered into between the Corporation and 8
out of the 9 Unions of the above SLP. Accordingly, this Court
passed an order dated 1.3.1989 on the basis of the said
compromise. The terms and conditions of the said compromise D
between the parties therein will be extracted in the reasoning
portion of this Judgment.
11. In pursuant to the said compromise between the
parties in the SLP, as directed by this Court, the Corporation E
gave appointments to a large number of such workmen working
on temporary, bad Ii and part-time basis to the posts in the Class
Ill as well as Class IV in various Divisions of the Corporation.
The said appointments were given to the persons recruited
on temporary basis between 1.1.1982 to 20.5.1985. F
Thereafter, the employees who were employed as temporary,
badli and part-time workers after20.5.1985 raised the demand
for their absorption and regularisation of their service as
permanent employees. When their demands were not
accepted by the Corporation, several writ petitions in this G
respect were filed before the High Court of Madras between
the years 1989 to 1991. The writ petition No. 10367 of 1989
filed between the Terminated Full Time Temporary UC Welfare
Association and Senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Khanjawar, H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A along with 18 other writ petitions were listed for hearing before
the full bench of the High Court of Madras. After hearing the
parties of all the writ petitions, the High Court dismissed the
same which decision is reported in 1993 (1) LLJ 1030.
B 12. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, SLP (C)
Nos. 10393-10413 of 1992 titled E. Prabhawati and Ors. v.
L/C of India & Ors. were filed before this Court. In the said
SLPs, on the direction of this Court, the Corporation framed a
Scheme for the regularization of the employees in their service
C who were granted ad-hoc appointments for 85 days at intervals
from time to time and placed the same before this Court. After
hearing the parties, this Court by means of an interim order
dated 23.1.1992 found the Scheme to be reasonable and
approved clauses (a) to (d) of paragraph 1 of the said Scheme
D and the Corporation was directed to proceed to regularize the
employees eligible in their service in accordance with the said
Scheme.
13. It is also pertinent to note that during the pendency
E of the writ petitions before the High Court of Madras, the
industrial dispute that arose between the concerned workmen
and the Corporation in these appeals were referred to the CGIT
by the Ministry of Labour vide order dated 4.3.1991. Further,
during the continuance of the proceedings of the present
F reference E. Prabhawati and Ors. their impleadment
application was allowed vide order dated 1.12.1993. However,
they did not imp lead in the above dispute proceedings.
14. Thereafter, G. Sudhakar and Ors. (similarly placed
G employees) approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
seeking relief for the absorption in their employment of the
Corporation in the Divisions where they were working. The
High Court of Andhra Pradesh after hearing the parties gave
directions to the Corporation to frame a Scheme on par with
H the E. Prabhavathy Scheme for regularisation of such
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 821
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
workmen. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation filed A
C.A. No. 2104 of 2000 titled LIC of India & Ors. v. G.
Sudhakar & Ors. 1 before this Court which was disposed of
by observing that the Scheme as has been passed in the case
of E. Prabhavati & Ors. case (supra) will also be applicable
to the case of G. Sudhakar and Ors. B
15. The CGIT conducted an inquiry to answer the points
of disputes arising from the industrial dispute raised by the
con.cerned workmen in this case. The CGIT on the basis of the
pleadings, evidence on record and also on the basis of the C
Award passed by Justice R.D. Tulpule which was clarified in
the Award passed by Justice S.M. Jamdar referred to supra,
held that the same are applicable to the concerned workmen
in this dispute. Accordingly, the CGIT passed an Award dated
18.06.2001 in terms of Justice R.D. Tulpule and Justice S.M. D
Jamdar, giving directions to the Corporation for their absorption
in their respective posts.
16. The Corporation being aggrieved by the Award
passed by the CGIT filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4346 of 2001 E
before the Delhi High Court placing strong reliance upon the
order passed by this Court wherein it accepted the terms and
conditions of the compromise arrived at between the parties
in the The Management of Life Insurance Corporation of
India v. Their Workmen (SLP No 14906 of 1988) referred to F
supra which was filed by the Corporation against the Awards
of the NIT by Justice R.D. Tulpule and Justice S.M. Jamdar
Awards. Further, reliance was placed on E. Prabhavati & Ors.
case (supra) which was disposed of as per the Scheme
worked out by the Corporation pursuant to the orders of this G
Court in that case. The said Scheme was as per the decision
in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh &
Ors. wherein, this Court indicated how regularisation of ad-
' (2001) 2 Suppl. JT 143 ! •
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A hoc/temporary employees in the Government and Public
Sector Undertakings should be effected. Thereafter, the case
of G. Sudhakar & others (supra) was also disposed of as
per terms in the E. Prabhavathi Scheme. Further, it was
contended by the Corporation before the learned single Judge
B of the High Court that the CG IT without accepting the said order/
Scheme which is binding upon it under Article 141 of the
Constitution of India has erroneously answered the points of
dispute in favour of the concerned workmen. The said
contention of the Corporation was opposed by the Association,
C Unions, the Federation and concerned workmen involved in
these appeals. The learned single Judge accepted the
contention raised by the Corporation by relying on decisions
rendered by this Court in the case of E. Prabhavathy & Ors.
(supra) and G. Sudhakar & Ors. (supra) and thereafter, held
0
that on plain reading of the above said decisions of this Court,
the term of reference before the CGIT stood answered when
this Court decided E. Prabhavathy & Ors. (supra), which
again was concluded and reiterated in the decision of this Court ·
E in G. Sudhakar & Ors. (supra). Consequently, the Award
passed by the CGIT in relation to the concerned workmen of
these appeals was set aside by the learned single Judge by
assigning his reasons in judgment and order passed by him.
F 17. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by
the learned single Judge of the High Court, the concerned
workmen challenged the same by filing LP.A. No. 690 of2004
and other connected appeals before the Division Bench of
the Delhi High Court inter a/ia urging that the findings and
G reasons recorded by the learned single Judge in his judgment
are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from error in law
as the learned single Judge has accepted the binding
settlement between the Corporation and the similarly placed
workmen. It was further contended that Section 18 (3) and
H Section 19 (3) & (6) of the Act were not properly examined
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 823
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
keeping in mind that the said settlement arose out of the A
Awards of the NIT being challenged before this Court in SLP
No. 14906 of 1988, however this Court at no point set aside
the NIT Awards in spite of the compromise arrived at between
the parties therein, therefore, the learned single Judge failed
to consider that the said Awards were still binding upon the B
Corporation. Therefore, it was contended by the concerned
workmen before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi
that the learned single Judge was not right in setting aside the
Award passed by the CGIT in favour of the concerned workmen
involved in these appeals and prayed for setting aside the same C
by allowing the Letters Patent Appeals. The Division Bench of
High Court of Delhi examined the points of dispute arising out
of the Industrial Disputes raised by the workmen of the
Corporation, facts and rival legal contentions and the D
correctness of the finding recorded by the learned single Judge
in setting aside the Award of the CGIT. It was held by the
Division Bench that the appointment letters issued to the various
employees specifically stipulated that their appointments are
temporary for a specified period and the same would be E
terminated on the expiry or the period specified therein and
that during the period of the temporary appointment none of
the provisions of the UC (Staff) Regulations, 1960 would apply.
It was further held that the appellants had accepted the
aforesaid terms of appointment and therefore, they cannot F
raise a claim for their regularisation or automatic absorption
in the permanent posts. It was further held that this Court in the
decisions of E. Prabhavathy & Ors. and G Sudhakar & Ors.
(supra) also declined regularisation of workmen and directed
the Corporation for conducting selection process for regular G
appointment and that none of the appellants as on the date of
raising of the industrial dispute were continuing in their
respective posts as their services stood terminated on the
expiry of the tenure of their temporary employment and even if
H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A they had continued to serve it was because of orders passed
by various courts. It was further held by the Division Bench that
the reliance placed on paragraph 53 of the Secretary, State
of Karnataka v. Uma Devi2 by the appellants was misplaced
as the ratio laid down in the said case is not applicable to the
B facts of the present case under any circumstance. It was further
held that in the present cases, there is a specific rule which
provides as to how recruitment has to be made to the vacant
posts on regular basis, and the workmen herein were recruited
under different set of instructions altogether which were meant
C for engagement of workmen on temporary basis and permit
recruitment of temporary staff who would not be entitled for
absorption in the posts of Class 111 and IV of the Corporation.
Therefore, the Division Bench held that none of the cases of
D the appellants would attract for issuance of the direction to the
Corporation to absorb them automatically in their posts and
dismissed the Letter Patent Appeals filed by the concerned
workmen. Hence, the present appeals urging various legal
grounds.
E 18. The correctness of the said findings of the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench
are challenged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the concerned workmen in these appeals inter a/ia, contending
F that the Award of the CGIT passed after adjudication of points
of dispute was in relation to the concerned workmen who have
been appointed by the Corporation as temporary, badli and
part-time workmen after 20.5.1985. These workmen have been
appointed by following the procedure under the LIC (Staff)
G Regulations issued by the Corporation from time to time and
they have been discharging permanent nature of work against
permanent and regular vacancies as temporary, bad Ii and part-
time workmen in the various offices, Zones and Divisions of
the Corporation across India. Further, it is contended that the
H Awards passed by the NIT by Justice R.D. Tulpule, the same
2 (2006) 4 sec 1
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 825
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
being clarified and affirmed by Justice S.M. Jamdar vide A
reference under Section 36A of the Act, were passed after
determination of the points of dispute in relation to the industrial
dispute raised by similarly placed workmen of the Corporation
who were appointed and had been working on such permanent
and regular posts on temporary, badli and part-time basis in B
Class 111 and IV categories of employees of the Corporation
between 01.01.1982 to 20.05.1985. Therefore, the NIT Awards
clarified that those similarly placed workmen were entitled for
absorption in terms of the direction given in the Award of Justice
R.D. Tulpule which was clarified subsequently by the Award C
passed in 1988 by Justice S. M. Jamdar. Of course, the said
Awards by the NIT were challenged before this Court in the
SLP No. 14906 of 1988 at the end of which eight out of nine
unions therein entered into a compromise with the Corporation
0
and the same was permitted by this Court by way of an interim
measure without any prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the members of the other Union who had not entered into such
compromise. Accordingly, the said SLP was disposed of by
this Court vide order dated 01.3.1989. Further, it is contended E
by the learned counsel that the CGIT has rightly placed reliance
upon the terms and conditions of the Awards of Justice Tulpule
and Justice Jamdar. Though the said Awards were challenged
before this Court and the matter was disposed of in terms of
the compromise arrived at between the parties therein, the F
NITAwards were not set aside or terminated by the Corporation
or by any other Award or order passed by NIT or any other
Court. Hence, the same will be operative and binding between
the parties under Section 18(3)(d) read with Section 19 sub-
section(3) & (6) of the Act. In support of their contention, reliance G
was placed upon the decision of The Life Insurance
Corporation Of India v. D. J. Bahadur & Ors. 3•
19. It is also contended by Mr. Shekhar Naphade,
learned amicus curiae on behalf of the workmen that the H
• (1981) 1 sec 315
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A industrial dispute was raised under the provision of Section
2(k) read with Section 1Oand 12 of the Act by the concerned
workmen who have been working as temporary, bad Ii and part-
time workmen in the posts of Class Ill and Class IV of the
Corporation for their absorption in the permanent posts. The
B said claim of the concerned workmen was disputed by the
Corporation; the Central Government referred the existing
industrial dispute to the CGIT for adjudication of the points of
dispute as it has got the jurisdiction to adjudicate the said
industrial dispute. He placed strong reliance upon Schedule
C IV of the Act and invited our attention to Item No. 6 in Schedule
II under which matters other than those specified in the Ill
Schedule are within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and
also Item No. 11 of Schedule IV which provides for Conditions
of Service for Change of which Notice is to be given by the
0
Corporation in case of any increase or reduction (other than
casual) in the number of persons employed or to be employed
in any occupation or process or department or shift, [not
occasioned by the circumstances over which the employer has
E no control]. Since the Corporation is a Statutory Body which
has come into existence under the UC Act, 1956, it is required
to follow the provisions of the Act with regard to service
conditions of the workmen, including better service conditions,
absorption, regularisation etc. He has also placed reliance
F upon the Item No. 10 of V Schedule to the Act, wherein it states
that it is an unfair labour practice on the part of the employer to
employ workmen as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and
continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving
them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen and
G the same is prohibited under Section 25T of the Act. Further,
strong reliance was placed by him upon the provisions under
Section 25T and 25U under Chapter VC of the Act, with regard
to the Unfair Labour Practices on the part of the employer
wherein it is stated that an employee or a workman and Trade
H Union shall not commit any unfair labour practice in relation to
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMP. 827
ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
the matter as enumerated in the V Schedule referred to supra A
and further Section 25U of the Act contemplates that any person
either employer or Trade Unions of Employers who commits
unfair labour practice as enumerated in the V schedule shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or B
both. Therefore, it is contended that in the case on hand, the
workmen concerned have been employed on temporary, badli
and part-time basis for several years, depriving them of the
privileges of permanent workmen which is a clear case of unfair
labour practice on the part of the Corporation under Item 10 C
Schedule V, which is prohibited under Section 25T of the Act
and the Corporation would be liable for penalty under Section
25U of the Act. Therefore, the CGIT has got.ample power to
adjudicate the existing industrial dispute between the parties D
on the basis of the points of dispute referred to it with respect
to the claim raised by the concerned workmen. Further, in
justification of the Awards passed by the NIT in giving direction
to the Corporation to absorb similarly situated workmen from
01.01.1982 till 20.05.1985, strong reliance was placed by him E
upon the case of Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Bharat Bank
Employees Union 4 wherein, this Court discussed the powers
of Industrial Tribunal to override the contracts. Therefore, the
aforesaid Awards passed by the NIT are binding between the
parties under Section 18(3) of the Act. The Awards passed by F
the NIT in a similar dispute are still operative as the same are
not terminated by either of the parties as provided under
Section 19(6) of the Act, even after the expiry of the period of
operation under Section 19(3) of the Act, & therefore, the
Awards shall continue to be operative & binding on the parties G
until a period of two months has elapsed from the date on which
notice is given by the Corporation intimating its intention to
terminate the Awards. He further contended that in the case
on hand, no such notice is issued by either of the parties and
'AIR 1950SC 188 H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A therefore the Awards are operative and binding in law upon
the parties.
20. The aforesaid contentions, are rebutted by the
learned senior counsel Mr. Kailash Vasdev, appearing on
B behalf of the Corporation, placing strong reliance on a series
of judgments of this Court to show that the compromise was
entered into between the Corporation and 99% of the
employees on behalf of the workmen involved in the SLP
14906 of 1988 filed by the Corporation questioning the
C correctness of the Awards passed by Justice RD. Tulpule and
Justice S.M. Jamdar. Therefore, the said compromise is
binding between the parties as provided under Section 18(3)
of the Act. Further, he has urged thatthe case of D. J. Bahadur
(supra), upon which reliance has been placed by the learned
D counsel for the appellants, is sought to be distinguished by
him by relying on paragraphs 43 and 47 of the said judgment
in support of the case of the Corporation contending that the
said decision does not render any assistance to the workmen
in these appeals. He placed reliance on the decisions of this
E Court in the case of Herbertsons' 5, Transmission
Corporation, A.P. Ltd. v. P. Ramachandra Rao 6, ITC Ltd.
Workers' Welfare Association v. ITC Ltd.7 and Jaihind
Roadways v. Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi Transport &
F General Kamgar Union 8 to contend that the said Award of
Justice RD. Tulpule and clarified by Justice S.M. Jamdar
Award are replaced and merged with the compromise arrived
at between the parties before this Court in SLP 14906 of 1988,
and the said compromise is binding on the Corporation and
G the parties to the compromise thatAwards are not in operation,
therefore, the CGIT has erred in placing reliance upon the same
• (1976) 4 sec 736
• (2006) g sec 623
H '(2002) 3 sec 411
• (2005) a sec 51
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 829
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
to grant relief in favour of the workmen which has been rightly A
set aside by the High Court. It is further contended by him that
in the SLP filed against the judgment of full Bench of the High
Court of Madras by E. Prabhavati and Ors., wherein, the
Scheme was framed by the Corporation in these cases on the
direction of this Court, which was accepted by the parties and B
the Special Leave Petition was disposed of in the aforesaid
terms by this Court by its order dated 23.10.1992. Further, it is
contended that thereafter, the decision of the High Court of
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in the Writ Petition filed by G.
Sudhakar and Ors. (supra) was also challenged by the C
Corporation before this Court and disposed of in the same in
terms of the Scheme as in E. Prabhavathy & Ors.(supra)
case. Further, it is submitted that the Award of absorption of
the concerned workmen passed by the CGIT has been rightly D
set aside by the learned single Judge and the said decision of
the learned single Judge has been rightly affirmed in the
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court by giving cogent and valid reasons and therefore,
the same does not call for interference by this Court in exercise E
of its Appellate Jurisdiction.
21. In view of the factual and rival legal contentions
urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties and the
amicus curiae, we have to answer the same by recording our F
reasons as to (i) whether the setting aside of the Award passed
by the CGIT by the learned single Judge by placing reliance
upon compromise reached between the parties in SLP
No.14906of1988, which was filed againsttheAward of Justice
Tulpule, which Award was clarified and affirmed by Justice S.M. G
Jamdar is justified, legal and valid?, (ii) whether the judgment
and order of the learned single Judge being affirmed by the
Division Bench of High Court in its judgment is legal and valid?
and (iii) what Award/Order the appellants are entitled to in law?
H
We answer point (i) and (ii) together as the same are
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A interrelated by assigning the following reasons-
22. Undisputedly, the concerned workmen in the above
references before the CGIT have been working in different
offices and Zones, Divisional offices of the Corporation in
B various posts namely peons, hamals, watchman-cum-pump
man, lift man, house attendants, sweepers, cleaners, assistant
typist etc in different parts of the country who were appointed
by following the Rules and Instructions of the Corporation which
were relevant at that point of time. The concerned workmen in
C industrial dispute referred to the CGIT have been discharging
perennial nature of work against the regular permanent posts
in the Corporation. The industrial dispute raised by similarly
placed workmen, who were appointed between the period
01.01.1982 till 20.05.1985 was adjudicated on the points of
D dispute by the NIT with regard to the justification of absorption
of the said workmen as permanent workmen in their respective
posts by Justice R.D. Tulpule. The relevant portion oftheAward
is extracted as under for better appreciation of rival legal
submissions made by the learne0 counsel on behalf of the
E parties with a view to examine the correctness of the findings
recorded by the High Court:-
"65. In the light of the directions above with regard to
observation and creation of additional post by the
F Corporation I do not think that there would be any
occasion in future for the corporation to employ workman
in the temporary and bad lee categories existing for the
occasional and temporary increase in work which
necessitate employment of temporary staff in all
G probability would be only amongst class II I cadre, in which
case there could be no occasion and there need not be
I think any case or situation require consideration or grant .
of any other benefit apart from the wage to such workman.
H 66 .. I hope and expect that in the light of what has been
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 831
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
said and a past exercise of the corporation situation A
where a large number of such employees could be
engaged without adherence to any formalities or
procedures by the various local managements would be
completely eliminated and done away with and this kind
of employment in the corporation history would be the B
· last occasion. Excepting the temporary employment the
corporation will have no occasion or necessity to employ
badly workmen it is hoped in future. Though part time
employees will continue to be in existence for some more
time as I have indicated, the corporation will also see its c
own way to absorb the part time employees in its regular
employment as far as possible and reduce the number
of part time employees to the minimum however,
whenever, hereafter any occasion or vacancy arises of
D
regular employment in part time categories and
employment, then those who have worked part time in
accordance with their seniority should be given
preference for absorption in the regular cadre of the
Corporation's employment. This should be irrespective E
of the qualifying age for the entry into corporation's
service qualification but subject to his being found
suitable."
23. Upon the reference under Section 36A of the Act F
being made by the Ministry of Labour to Justice S. M. Jamdar
to clarify the Award of Justice R.D. Tulpule, it was held thatthe
Award of Justice Tulpule was very clear as the same directs
only for the absorption of the workmen concerned in the said
dispute in the various offices, Divisions and Zones throughout G
the country. Therefore, it does not amount to recruitment.
24. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Corporation had
filed SLP No. 14906of1988 before this Court urging various
grounds. In the said SLP, this Court in its order dated 1.3.1989 H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A has observed that eight out of the nine workmen Unions said
to be representing about 99% of the workers have entered
into a compromise with the management of the Corporation.
This Court further in the course of the order has observed and
permitted the management of the Corporation and the said
B eight Unions to implement the said compromise by way of an
interim measure without any prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the members of the other Union, who have not
entered into such compromise with the Corporation. The
relevant terms and conditions of the compromise read thus:-
C
"The Management agrees to consider the temporary/part-
tim/badli workmen employed by the petitioner for 85 days
in an two years in a Class 111 post and for 70 days in any
three years in a Class IV post in any of its establishments
D during the period 1.1.82 to 20.5.85, for regular
employment on the basis and in the manner stated
hereinbeloe .... the selection of the candidate shall be
made on the basis of the folioing qualifications, age, test,
interview and also having regard to the number of days
E worked by the candidates. A panel of selected candidates
shall be made and the selected candidates shall be
appointed in regular employment from the pane in the
order of merit propectivity from the dates to be notifdies
and when vacancies in sanctioned posts for regular
F
employment are filled from time to time"
Pursuant to the above compromise, this Court passed the
following order in SLP No. 14906of1988 on 1.3.1989 :-
G "Special leave is granted. It appears that out of nine
Unions eight Unions said to be representing about 99%
of the workers have entered into a compromise with the
Management. In the circumstances pending the final
disposal of the appeaL we permit the Management and
H the members of the said eight Unions to implement the
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMP. 833
ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
terms of compromise by way of interim measure without A
however. any prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the members of the other Union, who have not entered
into such compromise with the management."
(emphasis laid by this Court) B
25. From the perusal of the above order of this Court in
SLP 14906 of 1988, nowhere it has been stated in the terms
of the compromise between the parties that the Award of
Justice R.D. Tulpule which was clarified upon reference made c
by the Central Government under Section 36A of the Act by
Justice Jamdar, is either set aside by this Court or substituted
the compromise terms in the place of the Award except the
order referred to supra passed in the above SLP 14906 of
1988. In fact, on the other hand it is clearly stated that the D
compromise terms are between the parties to the said SLP
and that it shall not prejudice the respective rights and
obligations in relation to the members of the other union.
Therefore, the effect of the Award of Justice R. D. Tulpule with
regard to the direction given to the Corporation regarding E
absorption of badli, temporary employees as permanent
employees has not been substituted by terms and conditions
of the compromise. The Award of Justice R.D. Tulpule
reiterated by way of clarification in the Award passed by
Justice Jamdar in the dispute subsequently has been F
operative even after the compromise arrived at between the
parties to the compromise in the SLP No.14906 of 1988 before
this Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior
counsel on behalf of the Corporation that the said Awards are
not in operation and that only the terms and conditions of G
compromise and orders of this Court are binding upon the
concerned workmen in these appeals is not both factually and
legally correct. This above said argument of the learned senior
counsel on behalf of the Corporation is not tenable in view of H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A the categorical statement made by this Court in its orders
passed in SLP referred to supra, wherein, this Court has
permitted the management and members of the said 8 Unions
to implement the terms of compromise by way of interim
measure without any prejudice to the rights and contentions of
B the members of other Union who have not entered into
compromise with the management of the Corporation. It is not
the case of the Corporation in these appeals either before the
CGIT or before the High Court or in these proceedings the
concerned workmen have also accepted the said terms and
C conditions of the compromise arrived between the parties in
the SLP No. 14906of1988. This Court in the order passed in
the above said SLP which is extracted hereinabove has made
it very clear that the said compromise entered into between
unions therein, but it does not prejudice the rights and
0
contentions of the concerned workmen whose disputes are in
relation to their absorption in their respective posts who were
appointed after 20.05.1985. Further, even if some of the
workmen are bound under the said compromise that arose
E out of SLP No. 14906of1988, this in no way deters their right
to raise the industrial dispute and get the same adjudicated
vide order of reference by the appropriate Government to the
CGIT. The Award of the CGIT was concluded after rightly
examining the facts, circumstances of the case and the legal
F principles laid down in the Awards passed by Justice Tulpule
and Justice Jamdar. More importantly the CGIT Award was
passed after rightly appreciating the points of dispute referred
to it and on the merits of the case. Furthermore, as per the
legal principle laid down by this Court in the case of Bharat
G Bank (supra), the Industrial Court while adjudicating an
industrial dispute has the right to override contracts and create
rights which are opposed to contractual rights. The CGIT has
rightly adjudicated the industrial dispute referred to it by the
Central Government at the instance of the concerned workmen
H on the points of dispute, on the basis of pleadings and evidence
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMP. · 835
ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
on record and legal principles laid down in the Awards passed A
by the NIT. The relevant para from the above said case upon
which the learned amicus curiae has rightly placed reliance
reads thus:-
"9. The first contention is thatthe Industrial Tribunal cannot B
be said to perform a judicial or quasi-judicial function,
since it is not required to be guided by any recognized
substantive law in deciding disputes which come before
it. On the other hand, in deciding industrial disputes, it
has to override contracts and create rights which are C
opposed to contractual rights. In these circumstances, it
is said that the very questions which arose before the
Privy Council in Mosesv. ParkerEx-parte Moses(1896(
A.C. 245: (65 L.J.P.C. 19) arise in this case, these
questions being: D
(1) How can the propriety of the Tribunal's decision be
tested on appeal, and
(2) What are the canons by which the appellate court is E
to be guided in deciding the appeal?
Their Lordships of the Privy Council undoubtedly felt that
these were serious questions, but they had no hesitation
in saying that "if it were clear that appeals ought to be
F
allowed, such difficulties would doubtless be met
somehow". This, in my opinion, is a sufficient answer to
the difficulty raised. The Tribunal has to adjudicate in
accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act. It may sometimes override contracts. but so can a G
court which has to administer law according to the Bengal
or Bihar Money-lenders Act. Encumbered Estates Act
and other similar Acts. The Tribunal has to observe the
provisions of the special law which it has to administer
though that law may be different from the law which an H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A ordinary court of justice administers. The appellate court,
therefore, can at least see that the rules according to
which it has to act and the provisions which are binding
upon it are observed, and its powers are not exercised
in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
B
61. We would not examine the process by which an
Industrial Tribunal comes to its decisions and I have no
C hesitation in holding that the process employed is not
judicial process at all. In settling the disputes between
the employers and the workmen, the function of the
Tribunal is not confined to administration of justice in
accordance with law. It can confer rights and privileges
p on either party which it considers reasonable and proper,
though they may not be within the terms of any existing
agreement. It has not merely to interpret or give effect to
the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It can
create new rights and obligations between them which it
E considers essential for keeping industrial peace ..... The
Tribunal is not bound by the rigid rules of law. The process
it employees is rather an extended form of the process
of collective bargaining and is more akin to administrative
than to judicial function.
F
In describing the true position of an Industrial Tribunal in
dealing with labour disputes, this Court in Western India
Automobile Association v. Industrial Tribunal, Bombay,
and others [1949] F.C.R. 321 quoted with approval a
G passage from Ludwig Teller's well known work on the
subject, where the learned author observes that
"industrial arbitration may involve the extension of
an existing agreement or the making of a new one
H or in general the creation of new obligations or
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 837
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
modification of old ones, while commercial A
arbitration generally concerns itself with
interpretation of existing obligations and disputes
relating to existing agreements."
The views expressed in these observations were adopted B
in its entirety by this Court. Our conclusion, therefore, is
that an Industrial Tribunal formed under the Industrial
Disputes Act is not a judicial tribunal and its determination
is not a judicial determination in the proper sense of these
expressions." C
(emphasis laid by this Court)
Therefore, keeping in mind this principle laid down by this Court
in the above referred case, we are of the view that the CGIT
0
has rightly overridden the compromise arising out of SLP No.
14906 of 1988 and passed the Award in favour of the
concerned workmen.
26. Further, with respect to the E. Prabhavathy case
referred to supra, which was filed before this Court, on E
preliminary hearing of the said case, this Court directed the
Corporation to frame a Scheme for regularisation of those
employees who were granted ad hoc appointment for 85 days
at intervals from time to time. In accordance with the same, a F
Scheme was framed as per the deci~ion of this Court in the
case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (supra). The relevant
portion of the Scheme is extracted hereunder:
"(a) All those temporary employees who have worked for
85 days in any two consecutive calendar years with the G
Life Insurance Corporation between 20.5.1985 uptill date
and who confronted to the required eligibility criteria for
regular recruitment on the dates of their initial temporary
appointment will be permitted to compete for the next
H
regular recruitment to be made by the Life Insurance
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A Corporation after the regular recruitment for these posts
currently scheduled for November, 1992;
(b) These candidates will be considered on their merits
with all other candidates who may apply for such
B appointments, including those from the open market.
(c) These candidates will be given an age relaxation
for applying for regular recruitment provided that they
were eligible on the date of their first temporary
c appointment for securing regular appointment with the
. Life Insurance Corporation.
(d) If these candidates are otherwise eligible, they can
apply for regular recruitment in the normal course."
D Thereafter, this Court granted leave and disposed of the Civil
Appeals incorporating the essential features of the Scheme
as a part of its order. Further, this Court opined that the said
Scheme was also applicable to the case of G. Sudhakar &
Ors. (supra) and passed an order accordingly and disposed
E of that case also. The learned senior counsel for the
respondents has made his endeavour by taking us through
the said scheme which was framed on the basis of the decision
of this Court in the case of Piara Singh's case (supra) and
F that the same was prevalent in 1992. It is pertinent to note that
the said Scheme framed in the E. Prabhavathy case (supra)
was the outcome of the order passed in Writ Petition filed by
the concerned workmen in those cases and not the adjudication
of the industrial dispute as per points of dispute referred to the
G CGIT/NIT by the Appropriate Government as per Section 10
of the Act. Therefore, placing reliance on the above Scheme
by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the Corporation in
justification of the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court and the said Scheme formulated by the Corporation
H being accepted by the workmen in those proceedings does
· T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMP. 839
ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
not in any way take away the statutory and fundamental rights A
of the concerned workmen in these appeals, who have raised
the industrial dispute for their absorption into regular permanent
posts of Class Ill and Class IV of the Corporation. Further, by a
careful reading of the said order in the SLP No. 14906of1988,
it has been made clear that the Awards passed by the NIT (by B
Justice Jamdar and Justice Tulpule) after adjudicating the
points of dispute in the industrail dispute raised by similarly
placed workmen is not disturbed by substituting the terms and
conditions of compromise between the parties therein in SLP
No.14906 of 1988. Therefore, the Awards in relation to the C
absorption of the workmen as permanent workmen in the
Corporation have got statutory force. This is what is stated by
the CGIT in its Award on the basis of pleadings and evidence
on record, which was erroneously set aside by the High Court D
by assigning erroneous reasons which is sought to be justified
by the senior counsel on behalf of the Corporation by placing
reliance upon the orders and Scheme framed in E.
Prabhavathy & Ors. and G Sudhakar & Ors. cases which
scheme has no application to the case of the concerned E
workmen involved in these appeals referred to supra.
Therefore, the learned amicus curiae Mr. Naphade has rightly
placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of
D. J. Bahadur(supra) to substantiate his legal contention that
the Awards passed by Justice RD. Tulpule and reiterated by F
Justice Jamdar by clarifying the same in the reference under
Section 36AoftheActare still binding upon the partie.s as the
same have neither been set aside nor terminated by either of
the parties or orders of this Court or Scheme framed by the
Corporation. The relevant paragraphs of the above said case G
are extracted hereunder:
"138. The court then proceeded to consider specifically
the situation that would obtain in the 3rd period in relation
to an award and held: H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015) 5 S.C.R.
A "Quite apart from this, however, it appears to us that
even if an award has ceased to be in operation or in
force and has ceased to be binding on the parties
under the provisions of Section 19(6) it will continue
to have its effect as a contract between the parties
B that has been made by industrial adjudication in place
of the old contract. So long as the award remains in
operation under Section 19(3), Section 23(c) stands
in the way of any strike by the workmen and lock-out
by the employer in respect of any matter covered by
c the award. Again, so long as the award is binding on
a party, breach of any of its terms will make the party
liable to penalty under Section 29 of the Act, to
imprisonment which may extend to six months or with
fine or with both. After the period of its operation and
D
also the period for which the award is binding have
elapsed Section 23 and Section 29 can have no
operation. We can however see nothing in the scheme
of the Industrial Disputes Act to justify a conclusion
E that merely because these special provisions as
regards prohibition of strikes and lock-outs and of
penalties for breach of award cease to be effective
the new contract as embodied in the award should
also cease to be effective. On the contrary, the very
F purpose for which industrial adjudication has been
given the peculiar authority and right of making new
contracts between employers and workmen makes it
reasonable to think that even though the period of
operation of the award and the period for which it
G remains binding on the parties - in respect of both of
which special provisions have been made under
Sections 23 and 29 respectively - may expire, the
new contract would continue to govern the relations
between the parties till it is· displaced by another
H contract. The objection that no such benefit as claimed
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMP. 841
ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
could accrue to the respondent after March 31, 1959 A
must therefore be rejected."
139. It is the underlined portion of this paragraph which
impelled the High Court to come to the conclusion that
even a notice under Section 19(6) of the ID Act would not B
terminate a settlement (which, according to the High
Court, stands on the same footing as an award and, in
fact is indistinguishable there from for the purpose of
Section 19) but would have the effect of merely paving
the way for fresh negotiations resulting ultimately in a new c
settlement - a conclusion which has been seriously
challenged on behalf of the Corporation with the
submission that Chacko case has no application
whatsoever to the present controversy inasmuch as the
special law comprised of Sections 11 and 49 of.the UC D
Act fully covers the situation in the 3rd period following
the expiry of the 1974 settlements. The submission is
well based. In Chacko case_this Court was dealing with
the provisions of the ID Act alone when it made the
observations last extracted and was not concerned with E
a situation which would cover the 3rd period in relation
to an award (or for that matter a settlement) in accordance
with a specific mandate from Parliament. The only
available course for filling the void created by the Sastry
F
Award was a continuation of its terms till they were
replaced by something else legally enforceable which,
in the circumstances before the court, could only be
another contract (in the shape of an award .or a
settlement), there being no legal provision requiring the G
void to be filled otherwise. In the present case the law
intervenes to indicate how the void which obtains in the
3rd period shall be filled and, if it has been so filled, there
is no question of its being filled in the manner indicated
in Chacko case wherein, as already pointed out, no such H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R.
A law was available. The observations in that case must
thus be taken to mean that the expired award would
continue to govern the parties till it is displaced by another
contract or by a relationship otherwise substituted for it
in accordance with law."
B
In view of the statement of law laid down by this Court in the
above referred case, the reliance placed upon para 43 and
47 of D. J. Bahadur case and other cases relied upon by the
learned senior counsel for the Corporation are misplaced and
C the same do not support the case of the Corporation.
27. In view of the law laid by this Court in the case
referred to supra, both the Award of Justice Tulpule reiterated
by way of clarification Award· by Justice Jamdar are still
D operative as the same are not terminated by either of the
parties as provided under Section 19(6) of the Act. The
compromise between the parties in SLP No. 14906of1988
and the Scheme formed in E. Prabhavathy & Ors. and G.
Sudhakar & Ors. (supra) do not amount to substitution of the
E Awards passed by Justice R. D. Tulpule and by Justice S. M.
Jamdar. Hence, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the
submissions made by Mr. Naphade, learned amicus curiae,
in justification of the Award passed by the CG IT is based on
the terms and conditions laid down in the Awards passed by
F the NIT (by Justice Tulpule and Justice Jamdar) in favour of
the workmen for absorption as they have been rendering their
service to the Corporation in the perennial nature of work for a
number of years and hence, the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the said Award passed by the CGIT. The said
G contention urged by the learned amicus curiae is accepted by
us, as the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is
contrary to the Awards referred to supra, the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act and the law laid down by this Court in
H the aforesaid cases. The Awards passed by the NIT is binding
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMP. 843
ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
upon the Corporation till it is substituted by another Award or A
replaced by another settlement in relation to the service
conditions of the workmen of the Corporation in accordance
with law as provided under Section 12 read with Section 18(3)
of the Act or another Award that is required to be passed by
the Jurisdictional CGIT in relation to the above subject matter B
after the Awards which are in operation are terminated by either
of the parties as provided under Section 19(6) of the Act. Until
then, the said Award passed by the NIT will still be operative in
law. Therefore, the same has been rightly applied to the fact
situation on hand in the Award passed by the CGIT and it could C
not have been set aside by the High Court. Thus, we are of the
opinion that the learned single Judge erroneously set aside
the Award passed by the CGIT and the said judgment of the
learned single judge has been further erroneously affirmed by D
the Division Bench of the High Court. The said judg~ents of
the High Court are clearly contrary to law and legal principles
laid down by this Court in cases referred to supra. Hence, the
same are liable to be set aside by allowing these appeals and
restoring the Award of the CGIT. E
28. The learned amicus curiae rightly placed reliance
upon entry Item No.10 of ScheduleV of the Act in employing
the concerned workmen as temporary, badli and part-time
employees against permanent posts doing perennial nature F
of work and continuing them as such for number of years. This
is a clear case of unfair labour practice as defined under
Section 2(ra) of the Act which is statutorily prohibited under
Section 25T of the Act and the said action of the Corporation
amounts to penalty under Section 25U of the Act. For this G
reason also, the findings and reasons recorded in the Award
of the CGIT in answering the points of dispute referred to it by
Central Government in favour of the concerned workmen is
legal and valid. The High Court has erred in not noticing the
aforesaid important, relevant, factual and legal aspect of the H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 s:c.R.
A case of the concerned workmen and has erroneously set aside
the Award of the CGIT passed in favour of the concerned
workmen in exercise of its judicial power. The High Court has
erred in not following the legal principles laid down by this Court
in the case of Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State
B Warehousing Corporation 9, wherein it is held thus:-
"17. Before concluding, we consider it necessary to
observe that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles
226 and/or 227 of the Constitution in matters like the
c present one, the High Courts are duty bound to keep in
mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and other similar
legislative instruments are social welfare legislations and
the same are required to be interpreted keeping in view
the goals set out in the preamble of the Constitution and
D the provisions contained in Part IV thereof in general and
Articles 38, 39(a) to (e}, 43 and 43A in particular, which
mandate that the State should secure a social order for
the promotion of welfare of the people, ensure equality
between men and women and equitable distribution of
E material resources of the community to sub-serve the
common good and also ensure that the workers get their
dues. More than 41 years ago, Gajendragadkar, J, opined
that "the concept of social and economic justice is a living
concept of revolutionary import; it gives sustenance to
F
the rule of law and meaning and significance to the ideal
of welfare State" - State of Mysore v. Workers of Gold
Mines AIR 1958 SC 923."
The said principle has been reiterated by this Court
G recently in the case of Jasmer Singh v. State Of Haryana &
Anr. (C.A. No. 346 OF 2015).
For the aforesaid reasons also, the case of the
concerned workmen/appellants must succeed and the
H • (2010) 3 sec 192
T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 845
ASSN. v. UC OF INDIA [V. GOPALAGOWDA, J.]
impugned judgment and order must be set aside. Accordingly, A
it is set aside.
Answer to point (iii)
29. It is needless to mention that since we are of the
8
viewthattheAward passed by the CGITin l.D. No. 27of1991
is legal and valid, it shall be restored and implemented by the
Corporation by absorbing the concerned workmen in the
permanent posts and if they have attained the age of
superannuation, the Corporation will be liable to pay all c
consequential benefits including monetary benefits taking into
consideration the pay scale and revised pay scale from time
to time by the Corporation.
Mr. Shekar Naphade, learned amicus curiae has
0
rendered excellent assistance to this Court at our request to
arrive at just conclusions in these cases. The same is
appreciated and placed on record.
This Judgment and order shall be implemented within
eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment E
and the compliance report of the same shall be submitted for
perusal of this Court.
Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in the above said
terms. All the applications are disposed of. No costs. F
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Industrial dispute"Sign in to search