LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA versus R. DHANDAPANI

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 25-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 
v. 
R. DHANDAPANI 
NOVEMBER 25, 2005 
[ARIIlT PASA YAT ANIJ> .. ~ V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
,·· .;'). 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947~S&ction 11-A-Employee going on 
medical leave for long period without furnishing medical certificate-
C Employee removed from service after holding domestic enquiry-Industrial 
Tribunal directing reinstatement of employee with back wages-High Court 
reversing the Award of the Tribunal but directing employer to pay 
proportionate pension to employee for the service put in-Correctness of-
Held, on facts, the employee is not entitled to pensi?n under the Service 
Rules-Life Insurance Corporation of India (EmployeeS/Pension Rules, 1995. 
D 
Respondent-employee of appellant-Corporation was transferred to 
another city-branch during the course of service.The respondent, without 
joining duty after transfer, went on privileged leave. Thereaft~r, he went on 
medical leave without submitting a required medical certified from a 
designated doctor of the appellant as per Service RegulatiOf!!i· The appellant 
E issued directions to furnish the requisite medical ~rtjflci't,e (~r availing 
medical leave. Since the .respondent failed to comply With~tie'dir.~tions for a 
long period, the appellant issued a ·charge sheet t~ hi~ setting oi:tihis 
misconduct of disobedience to lawful order, insubordination and unauthorized 
absence from duty. The r~pondent submitted a reply to the charge sheet but 
F did not take part in enquiry proceedings on the ground that it was not needed. 
The enquiry officer gave a report finding that the charges levelled against 
the respondent had been proved. Disciplinary authority of the appellant, after 
taking not of the enquiry report, directed removal of the respondent from 
service. On reference, Industrial Tribunal, after finding that the enquiry 
proceedings had been properly held by the appellant and that the respondent 
G was stubborn and adamant to report for duty after transfer, held that the 
punishment of removal from service imposed on the respondent was harsh 
and hence directed the appellant to reinstate him with back wages. A Writ 
Petitioner was filed by the appellant before High Court challenging the award 
of the Tribunal. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. 
H 
488 
•
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. R. DHANDAPANI 
489 
The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court The High A 
court allowed the appeal but directed the appellantto pay proportionate pension 
to the respondent for the years of service put in. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the High Court was 
not justified in granting pension to the respondent as he was not entitled for 
it after the coming into force of the Life Insurance Corporation of India B 
(Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. 
The respondent contended that there was implied acceptance by the 
appellant to pay pension to him on the ground that the appellant filed certain 
calculations before the High Court as to what would be the amount of pension 
payable; and that the question whether the Pension Rules will apply or not, C 
did not arise. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes D 
Act, 1947 has to be exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or the 
Labour Court, as the case may be, is expected to interfere with the decision 
of a management under Section 11-A of the Act only when it is satisfied that 
punishment imposed by the management is wholly and shockingly 
disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the workman concerned. To support 
its conclusion, the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the case may E 
be, has to give reasons in support of its decision. The power has to be exercised 
judiciously and mere use of the words 'disproportionate' or 'grossly 
disproportionate' by itself will not be sufficient. (493-F-G) 
1.2. The reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and 
tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the F 
criticism that the jurisdiction of the Court tends to degenerate into misplaced 
sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the 
integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must 
emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be 
s·een to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicia

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