LexTAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA& ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 806 A TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA& ORS. 8 (Civil Appeal No.6950of2009 etc.) MARCH 18, 2015 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.) c Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 19(6), s.12 rw s. 18(3), 2(ra), 36A - Industrial dispute between workmen and management of the Corporation - Workmen rendering service to the Corporation in the perennial nature of work between 01.01.1982 to 20.05.1985-C/am for absorption as D regular and permanent service employees in their respective posts-Award passed by Justice R.D. Tu/pule and the same was clarified by Justice S. M. Jamdar upon reference made by Central Government u/s. 36A that the Award directs absorption of workmen and does not mean recruitment - E Aggrieved thereagainst, SLP filed by Corporation - Disposal of SLP, in view of the compromise between the parties - Management and members of eight out of nine workmen Unions permitted to implement the terms of compromise without any prejudice to the rights and obligations of the F members of other Union- Claim of similarly placed workmen appointed by Corporation as temporary, badli and part-time workmen after 20. 5. 1985 disputed by Corporation - Reference of industrial dispute to CG/T - CGIT in terms of Award by Justice R.D. Tu/pule and Justice S.M. Jamdar, G passed directions to the Corporation for their absorption in their respective posts -Single Judge set aside the Award passed by CG/Tin relation to the concerned workmen - Division Bench of the High Court upheld the same - Held: It H is clear from the order passed in SLP that the award by Justice 806 T. N. TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY UC EMP. 807 ASSN. v. LIC OF INDIA R.D. Tu/pule and Justice S. M. Jamdar was neither set aside - A by the Court nor substituted the compromise terms in the place of the Award except the order passed in SLP- CGIT rightly adjudicated the industn'al dispute referred to it- CGIT has rightly overridden the compromise arising out of SLP and passed the Award in favour of the concerned workmen- B Further, the Awards passed by NIT is binding upon the Corporation till it is substituted by another Award or replaced by another settlement in relation to the service conditions of the workmen of the Corporation in accordance with law as provided uls. 12 read with s. 18(3) or another Award that is C . required to be passed by the Jurisdictional CGIT in relation to the subject matter after the Awards which are in operation are terminated by either of the parties as provided u/s. 19(6) - Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court is set aside 0 and Award of CGIT is restored. Allowing the appeals, the Court 'HELD: 1.1 From the perusal of the order of this Court in SLP 14906of1988, nowhere it has been stated E in the terms of the compromise between the parties that the Award of Justice R.D. Tulpule which was clarified upon reference made by the Central Government under Section 36A of· the Industrial Disputes Act by Justice Jamdar, is either set aside by this Court or substituted F the compromise terms in the place of the Award except the order passed in SLP. In fact, on the other hand it is clearly stated that the compromise terms are between the parties to the said SLP and that it shall not prejudice the respective rights and obligations in relation to the G members of the other union. Therefore, the effect of the Award of Justice R. D. Tulpule with regard to the direction given to the Corporation regarding absorption of badli, temporary employees as permanent employees has not H 808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A been substituted by terms and conditions of the compromise. The Award of Justice R.D. Tulpule reiterated by way of clarification in the Award passed by Justice Jamdar in the dispute subsequently has been operative even after the compromise arrived at between B the parties to the compromise in the SLP before this Court. Therefore, the submission that the said Awards are not in operation and that only the terms and conditions of compromise and orders of this Court are binding upon the concerned workmen is not both C factually and legally correct. The submission is not tenable in view of the categorical statement made by this Court in its orders passed in SLP wherein, this Court has permitted the management and members of the said D 8 Unions to implement the terms of comprom
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.