LIC OF INDIA versus R. SURESH

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 5 S.C.R. 208 
A 
LIC OF INDIA 
v. 
R. SURESH 
(Civil Appeal No. 2004 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 14, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s.11A - Respondent, 
Development Officer in Appellant, a Corporation constituted 
c and incorporated under the 1956 Act - Departmental 
proceedings against him -· Enquiry Officer finding him guilty 
of negligence in duty but exonerating him from charges of 
breach of trust and forgery - Respondent dismissed - He 
raised industrial dispute - Industrial Tribunal holding that the 
D punishment of dismissal was too harsh and ordering re-
instatement of Respondent, albeit without grant of back-wages 
- Dispute as to whether the Industrial Tribunal had any 
,.... 
;urisdiction in the matter and whether it was justified in 
interfering with the quantum of punishment - Held: The 1956 
E Act does not contain any provision in terms whereof the 
;urisdiction of Civil Court and/or Industrial Court is taken away 
- Hence, presumption arises against ouster of jurisdiction -
Industrial Court in terms of s.11A exercises a discretionary 
;urisdiction - In exercising such jurisdiction, nature of the 
F misconduct alleged, conduct of the parties, manner in which 
the enquiry proceeding h~d been conducted may be held to 
be relevant factors - In given cases, even the doctrine of 
,( 
proportionality may be invoked - Jurisdiction of the lndustria·I 
Court being wide and it having been conferred with the power 
G to interfere with the quantum of punishment, it could go into 
the nature of charges, so as to conclude as to whether 
Respondent had misused his position or his acts were in 
.. 
breach of trust conferred upon him by his employer - Life 
~..- _., 
Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. 
H 
208 
LIC OF INDIA v. R. SURESH 
209 
Respondent was employed as a Development Officer A 
in Appellant, a Corporation constituted and incorporated 
under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. 
Departmental proceedings were initiated against 
Respondent. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the 
charges of negligence in duty but exonerated him from s 
the charges of breach of trust and forgery. Respondent 
was dismissed from service. He raised industrial dispute 
against the Appellant-Corporation. The Industrial Tribunal 
held that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and 
ordered re-instatement of Respondent, albeit without c 
grant of back-wages. 
Dispute arose as to whether the Industrial Tribunal 
had any jurisdiction in the matter and that whether it was 
justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment. 
The contention of the Appellant is that in view of the D 
provisions of the 1956 Act, as amended in the year 1981, 
the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would 
have no application and that Respondent, in any event, 
being a Development Officer, was not a workman and, 
thus, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the E 
quantum of punishment awarded by the management. 
Respondent, on the other hand, urged that the 
jurisdiction of the Tribunal would be ousted only in regard 
to the terms and conditions of service and not in a case 
F 
of this nature; that in various decisions of this Court, an 
industrial dispute against LIC has been entertained and 
that the charges of breach of trust and forgery being the 
main charge and the Respondent having been 
exonerated therefrom, the Tribunal cannot be said to have G 
committed any illegality in interfering with the quantum 
of punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 
11A of the 1947 Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD:1.1. LIC is a "State" within the meaning of 
,.. 
Article 12 of the Constitution. Its duties and functions are 
provided for under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 
1956. A decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority under 
the 1956 Act ordinarily could have been a subject matter 
B of suit. The Civil Court, however, exercises a limited 
jurisdiction. If however, the concerned employee is a 
'workman' within thE! meaning of the provisions of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, his remedy apart from the 
common law remediEis may also lie before an industrial 
c court. When a right accrues under two statutes vis-a-vis 
the common law right, the concerned employee will have 
an option to chose his forum. (Paras 11, 12) (217-G & H; 
218-C, D & E] 
1.2. The 1956 Act does not contain any provision in 
D t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.