9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representation of the agent. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the first four charges, but exonerated him on the fifth one. He was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority by an order dated 19.4.1989. 3. An industrial dispute was raised by him. The appropriate Government referred the following dispute for adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal: Whether the action of the Management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Thiruvananthapuram in removing from service of Sh. R. Suresh, Development officer with effect from 19.04.1989 is justified? If not what relief is the workman entitled to. 4. By an Award dated 6.2.1993, while holding that the principles of natural justice have been followed in the matter of holding the domestic enquiry against the respondent, in respect of charges 1 to 4, but having regard to the nature of charges vis-`-vis the admission of the respondent, it was held: IV. Admittedly there was no monetary loss to the management and no monetary gain to the workman by the issuance of a policy in the name of a dead person. It is pertinent to note that senior branch manager of the Punalur Branch office of the management has deposed befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of application of Section 25-F on the basis of which the termination of the service of the probationer can be held to be invalid. It was therefore that the Court found that the proceedings before the Tribunal were not justified. There again the reasoning is that in the case of conflict between the provisions in the Staff Regulation and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the former would prevail. Relying on a decision of this Court in S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and another [AIR 1984 SC 1462], it was held; .After considering the terms and conditions relating to appointment of Development Officers, it was found that the Development Officer, a whole time employee of the L.I.C. with liability for transfer is expected to assist and inspire the agents while exercising no administrative control over them. The agents are not his subordinates. In the circumstances, he is not a person in administrative or managerial cadre and as such was held to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act .. In regard to the question as to whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment, it was opined; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the regulation and control of the business of the Corporation and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 3 provides for the establishment and incorporation of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Section 4 provides for the constitution of the Corporation. Section 6 occurring in Chapter III of the Act enumerates the functions of the Corporation inter alia to carry on business in insurance and to carry on any other business which may seem to the Corporation to be capable of being conveniently carried on. Section 48 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules. Sub-Section (2) of Section 48 enumerates the power in respect whereof the Central Government can make rules in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred upon it under Section 1 thereof. Clause (cc) of sub-Section (2) of Section 48 reads as under:- (cc) the terms and conditions of service of the employees and agents of the Corporation, including those who became employees and agents of the Corporation on the appointed day under this Act; Sub-section (2B) of Section 48 of the Act elucidates as to what would be the matters which would be covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court shall be strictly construed. A presumption arises against the ouster of jurisdiction. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as also the provisions of the 1947 Act, an endeavour should be made to construe the provisions in such a manner so as to retain the jurisdiction subject, however, to the ouster of jurisdiction either expressly or by necessary implication. In Dwarka Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 220], it was stated:- 22. The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute under the provisions of the Companies Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon the civil courts to determine all dispute of civil nature unless the same is barred under a statute either expressly or by necessary implication. Bar of jurisdiction of a civil court is not to be readily inferred. A provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of civil court requires strict interpretation. The court, it is well-settled, would normally lean in favour of construction, which would uphold retention of jurisdiction of the civil court... 13. We have noticed hereinbefore that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conflict with the jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal to go into the question of validity or legality of an order of termination of service, we fail to see how the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court stood ousted. Reliance has also been placed on Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni [(1997 8 SCC 461], Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and Others [(2003) 2 SCC 111] and Dipak Chandra Ruhidas Vs. Chandan Kumar Sarkar [(2003) 7 SCC 66]. Each of the aforementioned decisions reiterate the aforementioned principles only and in the fact situation obtaining therein, the Rules made under the 1956 Act were held to be applicable. 15. A Development Officer has been held to be a workman in S.K. Verma (supra). We, however, are not unmindful of a decision of a three Judges Bench of this Court in Mukesh K. Tripathi Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Others [(2004) 8 SCC 387], wherein one of us (Sinha, J.) was a member, where the question was as to whether an apprentice would be a workman within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act. It is not a case where case of an apprentice is involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the former merely qualifies the word 'negligence' and not the expression 'neglect of work'. This argument has to be stated merely to be rejected. Mere neglect of work cannot be both. If it is so, it is a fault. If it is habitual that is, if it is repeated several times then only it is misconduct. It may well be that fault of one kind or the other as enumerated in Sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Standing Order 20(i) if repeated more than once may be habitual within the meaning of Standing Order 20(ii)(1), and especially in the light of the fourth fault being a misconduct within the meaning of Standing Order 20(a), but on the facts of this case, there was no charge against respondent No. 3 that he was guilty of habitual neglect of work. Moreover the Labour Court found that the negligence of the workman was not of a serious kind. Some others in the factory also contributed to it. We, therefore, reject point No. 2. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court being wide and it having been conferred with the power to interfere with the quantum of punishment, it could go into the nature of charges, so as to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the respondent had misused his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
