# TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA& ORS

- **Citation:** [2015] 5 S.C.R. 806
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-03-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.6950of2009
- **Bench:** V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tamilnadu-terminated-full-time-temporary-uc-employees-association-v-life-30858
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

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 workmenB
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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,990 of 76,978. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39990 for what follows._

[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 workmenB
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; 835C
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 I pule 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
0 the Single Judge was erroneously upheld by the Division
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] [845B
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
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;
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
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)
SCALE 360 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
· (2001) 2 Suppl. JT 143
Referred to.
Para 14
2006 (3) SCR 953
Referred to.
Para 17
1981 (1) SCR 1083
Referred to.
Para 18
1950 SCR 459
Referred t~.
Para 19
1977 (2) SCR 15
Referred to.
Para 20
c
0
E
F
G
H
812
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 5 S.C.R.
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
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, 194 7 (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.
H
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.
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-cumpump 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 I is, 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:-
E
F
"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
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
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.
0 (supra) and G. Sudhakar & Ors. (supra) and thereafter, held
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 parttime 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
NIT Awards 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 subsection(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 1 O and 12 of the Act by the concerned
workmen who have been working as temporary, bad Ii and parttime 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
0 of Service for Change of which Notice is to be given by the
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.