CAUSE TITLE:
Ranbir Singh v SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr.
DATE OF ORDER:
27 April 2022
JUDGE(S):
The Hon’ble Dr. JusticeDhananjaya Y Chandrachud
The Hon’ble Mr. JusticeSurya Kant
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath
PARTIES:
Petitioner/Applicant: Ranbir Singh
Respondents: SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India &Anr.
SUBJECT
The Court was considering a dispute regarding the absorption of workers who were employed by the LIC as temporary/badli/part-time workers.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
The Constitution of India, 1950.
Article 14:
It grants equality of law to all the people.
Article 16
It grants equality of public employment opportunities for all the citizens.
OVERVIEW
- In 1982, a dispute arosedue to the unfair practices by LIC, wherein they used to recruit temporary workers for short tenures to deprive them of their claim topermanent posts.
- The Union government referred the dispute to Tulpule Tribunal. TheTribunal passed an award for the absorption of those temporary workers who were employed between 1 January, 1982 and 20 May, 1985.
- Following this, circulars were issued to implement the Tulpule Award, but the workers union disagreed. This resulted in another referral by the Union Government to interpret the dispute by theJamdar Tribunal, which stated that the recruitment was not implied under the absorption considered in the Tulpule Award.
- LIC challenged this before the Supreme Court.
- During the pendency of the litigation, LIC and all the unions (exceptone) compromised to substitute the Tulpule and Jamdar Awards. The Supreme Court, in LIC v Their Workmen, passed an order, accepting the assertion of LIC that since eight unions had compromised, in the interest of industrial peace, the last union should also compromise.
- The dispute relating to the instant appeal arose in 1991 when the unions demanded the claim for regularisation of the workers who were employed from 20 May 1985 till March 4, 1991. As a result, the Union government referred the dispute to another Tribunal named Srivastava Tribunal. In 2001, the Tribunal directed the absorption of the temporary workers who were employed from May 20, 1985.
- LIC challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Delhi High Court. The Court directed LIC to formulate a scheme for regularisation of workers.
- The Delhi High Court’s decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.
- InTamil Nadu Court Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (2015), the Court disposed the appeal that that the Srivastava Award was binding. The Supreme Court restored the Srivastav Award.
- In 2017, LIC found 245 workmen eligible. So they were offered absorption by the Zonal Offices of LIC. This prompted the Unions for the contempt proceedings.
- In 2018 an order was passed by the Supreme Court which directed the Dogra Committee (A Union Government Industrial Tribunal) to decide regarding the claims of the Unions. The years 1985 and 1991 were revised later. The Court found that there was no breach of the judgment in Tamil Nadu Employees.
- The Dogra Committee rejected the contention of LIC that out of the total 6,998 claims filed, 3,592 claims were false and duplicate.
- The Report also stated that the workers who were employed after March 4, 1991 would not be covered in the enquiry.
- This led to the present appeal, in which LIC raised several objections against the Dogra Report.
ISSUE
Whether a mass absorption ofpart-time workers by a public employer without following a recruitment process is incongruent with the fundamental rights of equality of opportunity guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The Dogra Report had been prepared in pursuance of the mandate of the Supreme Court. Thereport also permitted the absorption of the workers governed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in E Prabavathy. Further, the report noted that a majority of the workers had produced documents, which have been accepted after verification.
- The plea that workers employed after 4 March 1991 were not entitled to relief under the Srivastav Award was contrary to the provisions of Section 18(3)(d) of the ID Act. The purpose of Section 18(3)(d) is to ensure that an award governs not only those who are in service when it is made but to subsequent workers as well. In any event, at least the workers who were in employment on 18 June 2001, when the award was made, should be granted relief.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
- Instead of carrying out the task of verification, the Dogra Report only took a prima facie view and had merely stated the majority of the workers were eligible for absorption without carrying out the process of verification. In summary, the Dogra Report is flawed.
- As a consequence of the Dogra Report, LIC was required to regularise about 11,780 workers who claimed to had worked for a limited number of days. No verification of the claims were made either by the LIC or by the Dogra Report. This gives an illegal backdoor entry, contrary to the statutory regulations framed by the LIC.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- On the superiority status between the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 48 (Rule making power of the Central Government) of the LIC Act,1956, it was held that the rule made under the LIC Act shall precede over the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the workers who were recruited after 4 March 1991 were not entitled to make a claim for absorption.
- Further, it was also held that the Dogra Report was flawed due tothe failure of the committee to carry out accurate verification.
- The direction to LIC to conduct a mass absorption of part-time workers would nullify the principle of equal opportunity and fairness in public employment as laid down by the court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.
CONCLUSION
- It was held that a public employer like LIC could not be directed to carry out a mass absorption of over 11,000 part-time workers without following a recruitment process which is congruent with the fundamental rights of equality of opportunity guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
- The Court concluded that claims of workers who are eligible i.e. who were employed between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991, would be resolved by an award of monetary compensation, instead of absorption. The Court also formed a committee for the purposes of verification of the workers.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
