G.L. Pahwa vs The Chairman, The New India ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 327 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Petitioner was appointed as Trainee Inspector with Anand Insurance Company Limited, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi w.e.f. 1st April, 1971. This Company later on got merged with New India Assurance Company Limited respondent No. 2 on 1st January, 1973. Consequently, the Petitioner's services were taken over by respondent No. 2 Company. While the petitioner was working with respondent Company, on 21st June, 1980 he was suspended on ground of detection of serious irregularities allegedly committed by him. Charge-sheet dated 3rd July, 1980 was thereafter served upon him. Petitioner replied denying said charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed at this stage supplementary charge-sheet dated 9th March, 1981 was also served upon petitioner and the same enquiry officer was asked to conduct the enquiry in respect of these charges also. Enquiry was conducted as per which charges stood proved against the petitioner. Petitioner was, consequently dismissed from service vide order dated 11th January, 1981. Petitioner challenged the said dismissal and filed appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected by Appellate Authority vide order dated 21st September, 1982. Petitioner raised industrial dispute challenging the dismissal order dated 21st September, 1982 which was referred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CGIT, for short) for adjudication with the following terms of reference:-

"Whether the action of the management of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., in dismissing the services of Sh. G.L. Pahwa, Inspector w.e.f. 21.12.1981 is fair, justified and legal? If not, what relief the worker concerned is entitled to?"

2. The Industrial Tribunal gave its award dated 14th September, 1998 in industrial dispute No. 27/89 in which it held that the petitioner was not a "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) and reference was held to be not maintainable.

3. The relevant portion of the Award dealing with this aspect reads as under:-

"The most important point urged by both the parties before this Tribunal was as to whether the claimant was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act or not. The claimant in his statement of claim has alleged that he was an inspector. The Inspector in an Insurance Company is equivalent to the Development Officer as admitted by both the representatives for the Parties. The claimant in his statement of claim has not given any ground making him a workman except describing him as such the fact of his being a workman was denied in written statement by the management and in his rejoinder the claimant again did not give any reason of his defining himself as a workman in the whole case. In fact in his rejoinder he has only explained that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra 1983 Lab. I.C. 1483(148) S.C. has held that a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation was a workman. He has also admitted that the post of Development Officer was equivalent to that of Inspector in New India Insurance company where a Principle duty was to organise and develop business of the company within the area allotted by the company.

The sole point now rests on the conclusion regarding the claimant being a workman or otherwise. The Management has brought to my notice the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in H.R. Adyanthaya etc. Etc. Vs. Sandoz (India) Limited etc., etc., in which it was held that the Development Officer working in LIC was not a workman. The said case has also been cited by the workman in his rejoinder to the written arguments of the management and The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:-

"Further no finding is given by the Court whether the Development Officer was doing clerical or technical work. He was admittedly not doing manual work. We may have, therefore, to treat this decision as per incuriam."

It has now been finally settled that a Development Officer of the LIC was not a workman as even the workman in the rejoinder stated that his duties were to procure business for the management and to organise and develop the business within the allotted area. He has nowhere alleged that he was performing the duties which a workman who comes under the definition under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act was performing. His main reliance was on the case of S.K. Verma earlier decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but later on the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a different view of the matter. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the claimant G.L. Pahwa was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and, therefore, a reference by the Government under section 10 of the I.D. Act was not maintainable regarding the action of the Management against him. It would be futile exercise to go on the merits of the case and I hold that the present reference was not maintainable and this Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the same. The reference is answered accordingly. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this dispute in the circumstances of this case."

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Award the petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the findings of the CGIT holding that petitioner is not a "workman". Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned Award is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the learned CGIT has simply relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sandoz (India) Limited (supra) without discussing the nature of duties being performed by the petitioner. It was submitted that if the duties of the petitioner are seen, the same would show that petitioner was "workman" within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The duties of the petitioner, according to him were essentially clerical in nature. The counsel referred to the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner which according to him, itself described the nature of duties and particularly referred to allegations for charge no.1 as per which petitioner had issued documents and collected cash premium from the insured but the same were not deposited with the Companies account i.e. M/s. Canara Bank. From this he submitted that as per respondent themselves his duties were essentially to issue document and collected cash premium from the insured and nature of these duties clearly prove that the petitioner was a "workman". Accordingly, he submitted that the award of the CGIT is liable to be set aside and it should be held that the Petitioner was a "workman".

5. On the other hand Shri J.R. Midha, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the approach taken by the learned CGIT was correct. His submission was that the entire case of the petitioner in the pleadings was that he was a "workman" in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shri S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra reported in 1983 Lab. I.C. 1483(148) and this judgment was specifically overruled in Sandoz (India) Limited (supra). The judgment in Sandoz (India) Limited (supra) case therefore was a complete answer to the contention of the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner was admittedly working as Trainee Inspector with respondent Company which was equivalent to the post of Development Officer in the LIC and this position was admitted by both the parties before CGIT. He also referred to the pleadings before the CGIT in support of his submission.

6. The admitted position is that petitioner was working as Inspector with the respondent, which is an insurance company. It is also an admitted position, as recorded in the impugned Award as well, that the post of Inspector in respondent Company is equivalent to that of Development Officer in LIC. In the statement of claim filed by the petitioner before CGIT he had described himself as workman only on the ground that persons like the petitioner were declared "workman" as per judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shri S.K. Verma (supra). Thus the claim of the petitioner that he was a "workman" was essentially based on the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court. This judgment came up for reconsideration before the Constitutional Bench of the apex Court in Sandoz (India) Limited (supra) and the Supreme Court in this case observed that its earlier judgment of S.K. Verma (supra) was per incuriam. CGIT therefore rightly relied upon the Constitutional Bench judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sandoz (India) Limited (supra) and came to the conclusion that the reliance of the petitioner on the case of earlier judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shri S.K. Verma (supra) was ill founded. Thereafter, CGIT had observed in the impugned award that the Development Officer of LIC was not a "workman". It has also observed that even the petitioner in his rejoinder had stated that his duties were to procure business for the Management and to organise and develop the business within the allotted area. In Sandoz (India) Limited (supra) such duties are treated to be that of sales promotion which do not fall within the definition of "workman" as defined in Section 2(s) of the IDA. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

"The most important point urged by both the parties before this Tribunal was as to whether the claimant was a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act or not. The claimant in his statement of claim has alleged that he was an inspector. The Inspector in an Insurance Company is equivalent to the Development Officer as admitted by both the representatives for the parties. The claimant in his statement of claim has not given any ground making him a workman except describing him as such the fact of his being a workman was denied in written statement by the management and in his rejoinder the claimant again did not give any reason of his defining himself as a workman in the whole case. In fact in his rejoinder he has only explained that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra 1983 Lab. I.C. 1483 (148) S.C. has held that a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation was a workman. He has also admitted that the post of Development Officer was equivalent to that of Inspector in New Indian Insurance Company where a principle duty was to organise and develop business of the company within the area allotted by the company.

The sole point now rests on the conclusion regarding the claimant being a workman or otherwise. The Management has brought to my notice the case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in H.R. Adyanthaya etc. Etc. V. Sandoz (India) Limited etc. etc., in which it was held that the Development Officer working in LIC was not a workman. The said case has also been cited by the workman in his rejoinder to the written arguments of the management and The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as follows:-

"Further no finding is given by the Court whether the Development Officer was doing clerical or technical work. He was admittedly not doing manual work. We may have, therefore, to treat this decision as per incuriam."

It has now been finally settled that a Development Officer of the LIC was not a workman as even the workman in the rejoinder stated that his duties were to procure business for the management and to organise and develop the business within the allotted area. He has nowhere alleged that he was performing the duties which a workman who comes under the definition under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act was performing. His main reliance was on the case S.K. Verma earlier decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but later on the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a different view of the matter. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the claimant G.L. Pahwa was not a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and therefore, a reference by the Government under section 10 of the I.D. Act was not maintainable regarding the action of the Management against him. It would be futile exercise to go on the merits of the case and I hold that the present reference was not maintainable and this Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the same. The reference is answered accordingly. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of this dispute in the circumstances of this case."

7. If in the process of procuring business petitioner was collecting cash and giving receipt also, it was only an incidental duty being performed by the petitioner, alongwith his main duties which were to procure business and to organise and develop the business within the allotted area. Therefore, the conclusion of the CGIT after analysing the duties being performed by the petitioner as it came on record in holding that petitioner was not a "workman" was proper and valid. In view of above, I find no infirmity in the impugned award. The writ petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

There shall be no order as to costs.