2008 (3) TMI 711 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Industrial Courts regarding dismissal orders by Life Insurance Corporation of India.
2. Whether the respondent, a Development Officer, qualifies as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Justification of the Industrial Tribunal's interference with the quantum of punishment.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of Industrial Courts:
The primary issue was whether the jurisdiction of the Industrial Courts is ousted concerning an order of dismissal passed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), a Corporation constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The Supreme Court held that the 1956 Act does not contain any provision ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or the Industrial Court. It was emphasized that any provision taking away the jurisdiction of a Court shall be strictly construed, and a presumption arises against the ouster of jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court must be held to be ousted only when the remedy sought by the workman is premised on a right under industrial laws in conflict with the right granted to an employee or agent of LIC.

2. Whether the Respondent is a "Workman":
The respondent, appointed as a Development Officer, was subjected to departmental proceedings and dismissed from service. An industrial dispute was raised, and the Industrial Tribunal adjudicated the matter. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments, including S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra, which held that a Development Officer is a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court reiterated that the respondent, being a Development Officer, qualifies as a "workman," thus falling under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. Justification of Industrial Tribunal's Interference:
The Industrial Tribunal, while acknowledging the principles of natural justice in the domestic enquiry, found the punishment of dismissal too harsh given the nature of the charges and the respondent's admission. The Tribunal ordered reinstatement without back wages, considering the respondent's carelessness rather than deliberate misconduct. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that negligence by itself may not constitute misconduct unless the consequences are irreparable or the resultant damage is significant. The Court also noted that the respondent had already suffered being out of service for over 20 years, and all lower courts had ruled in his favor. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent without back wages.