LexLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus SHRI RAG HA VENDRA SESHAGIRI RAO KULKARNI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR. A v. SHRI RAG HA VENDRA SESHAGIRI RAO KULKARNI SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B Life Insurance Corporation of India (Stajj) Regulations, 1960 . Regulation 14 (4)-Probationer-Termination of service-Writ Petition-High Court quashed the order relying on a judgment of this Court*- C Held, High Court erred in taking the view that case of probationer was not different from that of the permanent employee; and it wrongly applied the law laid down by this Court*-Services of a probationer cannot be equated with that of a permanent employee-Appointment letter issued to the probationer clearly stipulates that he could be discharged from service at any time during D the period of probation or extended period of probation, without any notice or without assigning any cause-The requirement to hold a regular departmental inquiry before dispensing with the services of a person cannot be invoked in the case of a probationer especiaily when his services are terminated by an innocuous order which does not cast any stigma on him- E However, if the termination is punitive in nature and is brought about on the ground of misconduct. Article 311 (2) of the Constitution would be attracted and in that situation it would be incumbent upon the employer to hold a regular departmental inquiry-Termination would not amount to retrenchment within the meaning ofs.2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Regulations would be deemed to be Rules made by the Central Government and shall be F deemed lo have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 311 (2)-life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956-S. 48-Jndustrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 2(00)- Retrenchment. *Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd & Anr. v. Brojo Nath Gangu/y & Anr. etc., [1986) 3 SCC 156, explained and held inapplicable. A. V Nachane and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., AIR (1982 ) SC 1126 = [1982) 2 SCR 246 = [1982) 1 SCC 205; Moti Ram Deka etc. v. General 207 G H 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Manager N.E.F. Railways, Maligaon, Pandu etc., (1964) 5 SCR 683; Gurdev · Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab and Anr., [1964] 7 SCR 587 =AIR (1964) SC 1585; West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors. v. D.B. Ghosh & Ors., [1985[ 2 SCR 1014 =AIR (1985) SC 722; Workmen of Hindustan Steel Ltd, & Anr. v. Hindustan Steel Ltd & Ors., [1985] 2 SCR 428 =AIR (1985) SC B 251; O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourist Development Corporation, (1984) 4 SCC 337; Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Ors., AIR (1991) SC= 10 (1990) Supp. 1 SCR 142 = (1991) SCC Supp. 1 600; Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, [1958) SCR 828; Shamsher Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, [1975) 1SCR814 = [1974) 2 SCC 831; State of Maharashtra v. Veerappa R .. Sacoji & Anr., AIR (1980) SC 42 = [1980) C 1 SCR·551 = [1979) 4 SCC 466; Oil & Natural Gas Commission and Ors. v. Dr. Md. S. lskander Ali, AIR [1980) SC 1242 = [1980) 3 SCR 603 = (1980] 3 SCC 428; The Union of India and Ors. v. P.S. Bhatt, AIR [1981[ SC 957 = [1981) 2 SCC 761; Bishan Lal Gupta v. The State of Haryana and Ors., AIR, [1978] SC 363 = [1978) 2 SCR 513 = [1978) 1 SCC 202 and M Venugopal D v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Machi/ipatnam A.P. & Anr., [1994) 2 SCC 323, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1345 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.87 of the Karnataka High Court E in W.A. No 3141of1986. F Harish N. Salve, C.K. Sasi, K.K. Sharma and Kailash Vasdev for the Appellants. S.S. Javali, R. Jaganath Goulay and M.K. Dua for the Respondent. ·The following Order of the Court was delivered : Respondent was appointed as Assistant Development Officer on 4th September, 1985. After completion of the period of Apprenticeship, he was G placed on probation as Development Officer with effect from 4th December, 1985. While he was still a probationer, his services were tenninated by order dated 22.5.1986 which was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court f- of Kamataka. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Central Inland Water H Transport Corporation Ltd, & Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr. etc., [ 1986] L.I.C. OF INDIA v. R.S.R. KULKARNI 209 3 SCC 156, a learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated A 12.8.1986 allowed the writ petition and quashed t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.