Disposed

Arunkumar P.S. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Kerala HC15 Jun 2016WP(C)/17594/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily wage employees filed a writ petition seeking regularisation and permanent absorption by Life Insurance Corporation alleging unfair labour practice. The Court held that petitions raising claims under the Industrial Disputes Act should be adjudicated by the appropriate statutory forum, not by writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners were directed to approach competent authorities under the ID Act; disengagement dismissed unless not for accommodating others.

Arunkumar P.S. Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/25TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 17594 of 2015 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ARUNKUMAR P.S., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. P.K.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, PATTARAMADATHIL HOUSE, KADAYIRIPPU P.O., KOLENCHERY, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. DIMPLE K @ DIMPLE BABY, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O. BABY P.M @ MATHAI P.M., PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERY P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, YOGAKSHEMA, JEEVAN BEEMA MARG, MUMBAI - 400 021.

¶12

2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, L.I.C OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶13

3. THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, L.I.C OF INDIA, THRIPPONITHURA - 682 301.

¶14

4. THE BRANCH MANAGER L.I.C OF INDIA, KOLENCHERRY - 682 311.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 17594 of 2015 (Y)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TEMPORARY CLASS III, IV EMPLOYEES ON DAILY WAGES FOR MARCH, 2014 IN THE THRIPOONITHURA, KOLENCHERY AND MULANTHURUTHY BRANCHES UNDER THE SENIOR MANAGER, THRIPOONITHURA, SENT BY HIM TO THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶22

P1(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TEMPORRY CLASS III, IV EMPLOYEES ON DAILY WAGES FOR MARCH, 2014 IN THE THRIPOONITHURA, KOLENCHERY AND MULANTHURUTHY BRANCHES UNDER THE SENIOR MANAGER, THRIPOONITHURA, SENT BY HIM TO THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶23

P1(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TEMPORARY CLASS III, IV EMPLOYEES ON DAILY WAGES FOR MARCH, 2014 IN THE THRIPOONITURA, KOLENCHERY AND MULANTHURUTHY BRANCHES UNDER THE SENIOR MANAGER, THRIPOONITHURA, SENT BY HIM TO THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶24

P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF B.COM FROM MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶25

P3TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN COMPUTERIZED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING USING TALLY WITH PRACTICAL TRAINING ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶26

P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRE-DEGREE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶27

P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR DIPLOMA IN COMPUTER APPLICATIONS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶28

P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT OF WAGES OF APRIL 2015 RECEIVED BY 1ST PETITIONER.

¶29

P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF WAGES RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 2015.

¶30

P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF WAGES FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶31

P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF WAGES RECEIVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2015.

¶32

P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE WAGES RECEIPT FOR MAY 2015, RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

.....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 17594 of 2015 (Y)

¶37

P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27.8.12 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶38

P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE PASS BOOK OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶39

P13TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM APPLICATION SENT BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶40

P13(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SENT BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶41

P13(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SENT BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶42

P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM APPLICATION SENT BY 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.

¶43

P14(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SBNT BY 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

P14(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SENT BY 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶45

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA J.

--------------------------------------------

¶52

W.P.(C) No.17594 of 2015

¶53

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2016

¶54

J U D G M E N T

¶55

Petitioners claim that they have been working in Life Insurance Corporation of India ('LIC' for short), in its Kolencherry Branch from 23.10.2008 onwards on daily wages. It is claimed that the first petitioner was posted as Assistant and the second petitioner was posted as sweeper and they were being regularly engaged, initially on wages at the rate of Rs.100 and 60 respectively which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.300 and 100, respectively. Producing various documents in respect of their engagement, petitioners claimed that they have been in continuous employment. The writ petition was flied on 09.06.2015 seeking mainly for the following relief:

¶56

“to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to absorb and regularize the petitioners into the permanent available appropriate posts considering that they are qualified and they have entered into service within

¶57

W.P.(C) No.17594 of 2015

¶58

¶59

the age limit.”

¶60

Petitioners have produced their certificates to show that both of them are fully qualified for appointment to the respective posts. According to them, they have been requesting for enhancement of wages and for regularization, submitting representations like Exts.P13 and P14 before respondents 2 and 3. It is pointed out that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition they are denied employment. The writ petition was filed alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents under Section 25 T, which is punishable under Section 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the ID Act'). Petitioners rely on various judgments of the Apex Court including the judgment dated 18.3.2015 in Civil Appeals No. 6915 of 2009 and connected cases in support of their claim for regularisation.

¶61

The contention raised by the petitioners is that they are permanent workers as defined under the ID Act and the subsequent termination of their services at a time when they approached this Court to wreak vengeance for

¶62

W.P.(C) No.17594 of 2015

¶63

¶64

having filed the writ petition.

¶65

The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the claim of the petitioners that they are employed by the LIC of India which is an Industry is to be considered by the appropriate Forum as provided in the ID Act and this Court cannot grant any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further it is stated that the claim of the petitioners cannot be granted in the light of the Apex Court judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [2006 (4) SCC 1]. It is stated that the petitioners were engaged by the Branch Office as casual labours on daily wages for carrying out the works of cleaning dust, upkeep of records, etc., and cleaning and sweeping of office premises, purely on daily wages. It is stated that engagement of temporary employees in LIC is governed by LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993, according to which the selection and appointment are made from the eligible candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges after conducting interview and verifying their eligibility

¶66

W.P.(C) No.17594 of 2015

¶67

¶68

conditions. According to respondents petitioners who were not engaged after conducting any test or interview and do not have any order appointing them have no right to regularisation. The petitioners have to work out the remedy under the ID Act.

¶69

The petitioners have filed reply affidavit disputing the contentions in the counter affidavit, however, reiterating the contentions regarding the unfair labour practice and their claim for regularization in the light of various judgments. All along the contention is that the mandatory provisions under the ID Act are not complied with by the respondents. It is also stated that they are denied employment since they filed this writ petition.

¶70

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the LIC.

¶71

When the petitioners are raising their claims under the provisions contained in the ID Act and the respondents also submit that the remedy is under the ID Act, and when there is a statutory forum to adjudicate

¶72

W.P.(C) No.17594 of 2015

¶73

¶74

their claims under the ID Act there is no meaning in keeping the writ petition pending before this court. Petitioners are free to approach the competent authorities to ventilate their grievances, as provided under the ID Act.

¶75

It is pointed out that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners have been disengaged. In case their disengagement is not for accommodating those appointed on regular or temporary basis, the petitioners shall be permitted to continue in the same manner as they were being engaged till their disengagement after filing of this writ petition. In case temporary appointment is being made they shall also be considered, with due preference towards experience and if necessary granting relaxation from upper age limit.

¶76

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶77

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶78

AS/17/06/16

Arunkumar P.S. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunkumar P.S. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Anitha Thomas R.

Biju R Vs the Commandant

Hamsa Haji Vs the State of Kerala

Ragesh Kumar K. Vs the Ministry of Commerce and Industry

Jayakrishnan.R Vs Indian Institute of Management

T K Ratnakaran Nair Vs National Institute of Technology