Life Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1197 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule has already been issued in the writ petition on 5th April, 1994.

2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.

3. This writ petition challenges the Award dated 29th January, 1993, passed in I.D. No. 39 of 1990 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi (in short the 'CGIT') by which the following industrial dispute was adjudicated upon by the CGIT:-

"Whether the action of the management of L.I.C. of India in terminating the services of Shri S.K. Verma, Ex-Development Officer, is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

4. There is long pending litigation between the parties. The respondent No. 3 had joined the services of the petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) on 1st February, 1962 and his services were terminated on 8th February, 1969, leading to a challenge thereto which led to an Order of the CGIT dated 10th February, 1984, directing the reinstatement of the respondent No. 3 with full back wages. The proceedings were prolonged due to the fact that on a question whether a Development Officer of LIC was a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held against the LIC. On the preliminary objection taken by the petitioner Corporation that a Development Officer is not a workman under the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra and Ors., held that a Development Officer of the petitioner Corporation is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act. Pursuant to the remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the termination of the services of the petitioner dated 8th February, 1969 was set aside and the respondent No. 3 stood reinstated by the Award dated the 10th February, 1984 with the following operative portion as under:-

"In the result of punishment imposed on the workman of dismissal from service is set aside, on the charges framed against him by the department being hold not proved. Mr. Verma will be entitled to all the back wages and shall be reinstated in service by the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He shall also have other benefit due to him on the basis that he continued to be in service of Life Insurance Corporation and his service were never terminated. The Life Insurance Corporation shall pay him Rupees One thousand as costs of this Reference and shall refund call charges recovered from Mr. S.K. Verma."

5. However, the services of the respondent No. 3 were thereafter again terminated by the Order dated 10th May, 1989 by the LIC on the ground that no reply to show cause notice dated 11th March, 1989, issued to the respondent No. 3 in terms of Schedule-III to the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 was filed by him.

6. The relevant portion of the order of termination dated 10th May, 1989 is self-explanatory and reads as follows:-

"We do not appear to have received any reply to the Show Cause notice dated 11th March 89 issued to you in terms of the schedule III to the L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. I am satisfied from the records of your performance that no further opportunity falls to be given to you to confirm to the expense limit in accordance with the provisions of schedule III to the L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.

I, therefore, hereby order that your services as a Development Officer shall be and are hereby terminated with immediate effect in terms of the said provisions of L.I.C. of India (Staff) Regulations 1960. Salary in lieu of 3 months notice period is being paid by Sr. Divisional Manager, Jalandhar."

The aforesaid termination of 10th May, 1989 has led to the award dated the 23rd January, 1993, impugned in the present writ petition.

7. In the meanwhile since there was some dispute about the promotion to the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 was driven to seek another reference which led to another award, passed in ID No. 70 of 1996, holding the respondent No, 3 to be entitled to promotion which led to a challenge in this Court by way of a Civil Writ Petition No. 1003 of 1997 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 14th May, 1997 with the following directions :-

"Thus it follows that Respondent No. 3 S.K. Verma shall be entitled to consideration for his promotion to Assistant Branch Manager (Development) under regulation 7.3 of the L.I.C. (Staff) Regulation, 1960 as on such date when he became eligible for being considered for promotion, that is when the employee next junior to him was considered for promotion with these observations the Writ Petition is disposed of."

8. In the present case the entire award turns on the service of the reply dated 8th May, 1989 addressed to the Zonal Manager, LIC by the respondent No. 3/workman seeking the extension of time by a week for submission of his reply to the show cause notice dated 11th March, 1989. The relevant portion of the said letter dated 8th May, 1989 reads as follows:-

"The Zonal Manager,

L.IC. of India,

Connaught Circus,

New Delhi.

Subject: Show cause notice of dated 11th March, 1989

Sir,

This is to inform you goodself the stay order of the above notice where the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi granted has been vacated by the Hon'ble Court today the 8th May, 1989. It is requested, that the time for submission of reply of Show-cause notice may kindly extended for a week. In the meanwhile it is humbly requested that this case is not a simplicitor as envisaged in the L.I.C. Staff Regulation and as such it would be in the interest of natural justice to appoint as L.O., to investigate the matter the ' roughly or it will be as nice of your goodself to give me personal hearing to avoid further litigations. I am giving this letter to Mr. K.K. Sharma A.A.O., of your office to deliver the same to your good-self, since Mr. Sharma is present before this Hon'ble Court."

9. The said letter has been placed on the record of the Tribunal with an endorsement of the Tribunal as under:-

"Place on the record.

Sd/-

8th May, 1989."

10. The whole award is based on the premise that since the workman/respondent No. 3 sought a week's time, the denial of such a period of time amounted to denial of just and reasonable opportunity to reply to the show-cause to the respondent No. 3/workman, leading to the impugned Order dated 10th May, 1989. The tribunal has taken into account the long history of the case between the parties on every score and concluded that the action of the petitioner Corporation in taking such hasty action showed clear mala fides. It was thus found by the Tribunal that the Order dated 10th May, 1989, terminating the services of the respondent No. 3 is an act of victimization. The entire award turns on the receipt of the letter dated 8th May, 1989. The discussion of the service of the letter dated 8th May, 1989 has to be found in the following findings of the Tribunal:-

"Receipt of this letter has been denied by Mr. Sharma in his affidavit has repeatedly asserted that the workman never handed over to him any much less a Letter on 9,5.1989 allegedly addressed to the Zonal Manager. Mr. M.P. Trehan has in para 10 of this affidavit stated that the workman requested for grant of extension of time to file a reply to show cause notice. Without referring to the letter of 8.5.1989, he has denied receipt of that letter. He is the senior Branch Manager of L.I.C. Jallandhar City. His evidence is of a consequence as the letter was neither said to have been delivered to him nor was it addressed to him.

The oral testimony of the workman and Mr. Sharma is totally opposite. It is an oath against oath and would have been difficult to determine who is telling the truth but the position in this case is different. The enforcement of the Tribunal on this letter of 8.5.1989 on the same date that the same be placed on record is decisive. The letter of the workman clearly states that it is being handed over to Mr. Sharma who was said to be present in the Court and a copy placed on record of the Tribunal. Hearing of the stay order by this Tribunal on 8.5.89 is admitted. Mr. Sharma in his affidavit has not denied his presence before the Tribunal. The workman has stated that after the Tribunal vacated the stay on 8.5.89 he addressed the letter to the Zonal Manager and handed it over to Mr. Sharma who was present in the Court. The statement of Mr. Sharma to the contrary does not inspire any confidence.

I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the letter dated 8.5.1989 addressed by the workman to the Zonal Manager, L.I.C. handed over to Mr. K.K. Sharma, A.O. (Legal) North Zone Office, New Delhi and 8.5.89."

11. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the Order of termination dated 10th May, 1989 and directed the reinstatement of the respondent No. 3/workman with full back wages and continuity of service. The counsel for the parties have not disputed that the decision of the case turns on the receipt of the letter dated 8th May, 1989 by the petitioner Corporation. In my view, while the Tribunal has rightly taken into account the history of the litigation between the parties and the embittered relations which led it to presume a vindictive action on the part of the petitioner, the said preposition cuts both ways. If the relations between the parties were so bitter which led to two industrial disputes and a litigation which went right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then a crucial document such as an opportunity to seek a week's time to file a reply to the show cause notice could not have been filed without an acknowledgment of Shri K.K. Sharma, A.O. (Legal), North Zone Office, New Delhi. In any case at least some proof of having sent the document to LIC should have been filed by the respondent No. 3/workman. In my view, the Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the version of Mr. K.K. Sharma and preferring that of the respondent No. 3, S.K. Verma, in the absence of any other collateral or contemporaneous proof. Merely because Mr. Sharma was present before the Tribunal cannot lead to a presumption that the copy of the letter dated 8th May, 1989 was served on Shri K.K. Sharma. The note of the CGIT placing the said letter dated 8th May, 1989 sent by respondent No. 3 said to be served on Shri K.K. Sharma also does not record the fact that a copy of the letter was served on K.K. Sharma. One cannot lose sight of the fact that on 25th April, 1989 in the presence of the counsel for both the parties all the ex-parte orders staying proceedings of the LIC issued by the CGIT were set aside. Even today in this Court after a passage of 14 years, Mr. Kapur, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3/workman is unable to say what reply the respondent No. 3 intended to file to the plea of the petitioner Corporation that for the last 7 years prior to the termination of the respondent No. 3 by the petitioner Corporation no business has been brought by the respondent No. 3 and accordingly respondent No. 3 had become liable for action under Schedule III of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Thus the whole award against the petitioner is based merely on the service of the letter dated 8th May, 1989 on Shri K.K. Sharma and thus cannot be sustained particularly when no satisfactory or contemporaneous proof of service of such letter seeking an opportunity to file a reply was filed.

12. Accordingly, I am unable to sustain the Award of the CGIT, dated 29th January, 1993, passed in I.D. No. 39 of 1990 on the presumption that the letter dated 8th May, 1989 was served on the petitioner Corporation particularly in the absence of any contemporaneous evidence save the mere oral testimony of the workman/respondent No. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Award dated 29th January, 1993, passed in I.D. No 39 of 1990 is quashed and set aside.

13. The writ petition stands allowed and stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.