Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The Petitioners claim that they were fully covered by the Award of CGIT, New Delhi and were entitled to be absorbed since they were fulfilling the qualifying service criteria prescribed by the Award. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 20 are similarly situated to those employees whose cases were before the CGIT, New Delhi and even Petitioner No.21 had represented them along with other Unions.

11. Certain employees working in the Pune Office of the LIC in the category of Sweeper, Watchman and Peon filed Writ Petition (L) No. 65 of 1999 before the Bombay High Court, through the Insurance Employees Union and made out a case on the basis of the matter pending before the CGIT, New Delhi . The Hon'ble High Court by order dated 1/02/2000 directed that the Union should make an application before the CGIT, New Delhi and till the reference is decided and for a period of two weeks thereafter in case the decision is adverse, none of the workmen who was party to the Petition shall be discontinued. Ultimately, the Petition was disposed of on 1/02/2000, with the aforesaid direction.

49. In view of the law laid down 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 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 LIC v. Workmen and the scheme formed in E Prabavathy and G. Sudhakar do not amount to substitution of the 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 CGIT is based on the terms and conditions laid down in the Awards passed by 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 CGIT. The said 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 the aforesaid cases.

50. The Award passed by NIT is binding upon the Corporation till it is substituted by another Award or replaced by another settlement in relation to the Ashish 12/20 904 WP 723-21.doc service conditions of the workmen of the Corporation in accordance with law as provided under Section 12 read with Section 18(3) of the ID Act or another Award that is required to be passed by the jurisdictional CGIT in 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 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 CGIT and it could 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 CGIT and the said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been further erroneously affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The said judgments of the High Court are clearly contrary to law and legal principles laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside by allowing these appeals and restoring the Award of CGIT."

15. When the judgment passed by the Apex Court to the aforesaid effect was not implemented, contempt petition was filed by the Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association and also by the All India National Life Insurance Employees Federation.

The chairman of LIC filed an affidavit in the said contempt petition on 15/09/2015, when it sought to restrict the benefit with the Award to the persons appointed prior to 1985 only. It thus became clear that the LIC was not desirous of extending the benefit of the Judgment of the Apex Court to those who were appointed after 1985 and this constrained the Petitioners to address a legal notice to the Zonal Manager of LIC to comply with the directions contained in the Judgment of the Supreme Court and confer the benefits as per the CGIT Award dated 18/06/2001. However it received no response.