M. VENUGOPAL versus THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MACHILIPATNAM, ANDHRA AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 31-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

M. VENUGOPAL 
v. 
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE 
CORPORATION OF INDIA, MACHILIPATNAM, ANDHRA 
PRADESH AND ANR. 
JANUARY 31, 1994 
[AM. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 2(00)-Clause (bb) and Section 
25-F-Retrenchment-Exception-Termination of Service Contract under a C 
stipulation in Employment Contract-Held not retrenchment-Order not 
vitiated for non-compliance with section 25. 
Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956-Section 48(2)-As amended by 
Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 198l~onstitutional nlidity 
of;-Held not violative of Article 14. 
D 
Life Insurance Corporation of India(Staff) Regulations, 196o-R.egula-
tion 14--Termination of service under-Held valid. 
Interpretation of Statutes: Deeming clause-Effect of~on- obstante 
clause-Effect of 
E 
Service Law-Probation-Termination of se1vice during-Validity of 
The appellant was appointed as Development Officer by the Respon-
dent-Corporation on probation for one year which was extended for one 
more year. The appointment order specifically stipulated that on F 
appellant's satisfactorily completing the period of probation and on his 
achieving the minimum business target fixed in the appointment order, he 
will be confirmed in the service of the Corporation. However, before the 
expiry of the extended period of probation his contract of employment was 
terminated on the ground that he had not reached the minimum business G 
target fIXed and his services were not to the satisfaction of competent 
authority. 
The appellant challenged the termination order and a Single Judge 
of the High Court quashed the same holding that as the appellant should 
be deemed to be ''workman" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes H 
433 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A Act 1947, his termination would amount to "retrenchment" under Section· 
2(oo) of the Act, which was null and void for non-compliance with Section 
-r-
25-F of the Act. On appeal by Corporation, a Division Bench of the High 
Court held that in view of clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act, the 
appellant's termination was not retrenchment under Section 2(00). 
B 
Against the judgment of the High Court, appeal was preferred in this 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. With the introduction of one more exception to Section 
C 2(00), under clause (bb), the Legislature has excluded from the purview of 
the "retrenchment" (i) termination of the service of the workman as a result· 
of non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and 
the workman concerned on its expiry; (ii) such contract being terminated 
under a stipulation in that behalf contained in contract of employment. 
D 
[439-F-G] 
1.2. In the present case, the termination of service of the appellant 
is as a result of the contract of employment having been terminated under 
the stipulations specifically provided under Regulation 14 of the Life 
Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and the order of 
the appointment of the appellant. In this background, the non-compliance 
E 
of the requirement of Section 25-F shall not vitiate or null;fy the order of 
termination of the appellant. [440-A] 
State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, A.I.R. (1976) S.C. 
1111 = [1976] 1 S.C.C. 822 and Santosh Gupta v. State }Jank of Patiala, 
F 
A.l.R. (1980) S.C. 1219 = [1980] 3 S.C.C. 340, referred to. 
2. The Industrial Disputes Act as ~ell as the Corporation Act both 
have been framed by the Parliament. But amendments have been intro-
duced in the Corporation Act in Section 48 with effect from 31.1.1981 with a 
non obstante clause. The framers of the Corporation Act through the 
G amendments hrlve given the provisions of the Corporation Act an overrid-
ing effect over the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, so far as the 
provisions relating to the terms and conditions of employment, which are in 
conflict with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were considered. 
Unless the said attempt is held to be ultra vires, being in conflict with any of 
H the provisions of the Constitution, it was open to the Parliament to treat the 
,! 
VENUGOPAL v. DIV.MANAGERL.l.C.AP. 
435 
employees and agent~ of the Corporation, as a separate class for purpose of A 
-t' 
fixing their terms and conditions of service. [ 442-F -H; 443-A] 
Ashwini Kumar Ghose v.Arabinda Bose, A.I.R. (1952) S.C. 369;A.V. 
-J 
Fernandez v. The State of Kera

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