The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Union Of India And Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 2396 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) No. 9742/2009

%                       Date of Decision: 01 July, 2009


# The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.      ..... Petitioners
!         Through: Mr. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
                     Mr.Dinesh Mathur,Mr.Sindhu Sinha and
                     Mr.Nikhil Bhalla, Advs.

                                  Versus

$ UOI & Anr.
                                                    .....Respondent

^ Through: Mr.K.K.Sharma, Adv. for respondent No.1 Mr.O.P.Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.Yogendra Kumar Adv. for respondent No.2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

1. Mr.K.K.Sharma is present on behalf of respondent No.1 on advance

notice of this petition. Mr.O.P.Aggarwal accepts notice of this writ

petition on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. This writ petition has been taken up for final disposal with the

consent of counsel for both parties at admission stage itself.

3. The petitioners in this writ petition are four insurance companies,

namely, (i) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (ii) The New Assurance Co.

Ltd. (iii) The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and (iv) United India Insurance

Co. Ltd. The respondent No.2 is a Union of the employees of these

insurance companies.

4. The petitioners had formulated a Job Rotation, Transfer and

Mobility Policy for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff (hereinafter

to be referred as 'TMP' in short) for transferring its Class-III and Class-IV

employees from one station to another in different promotion zones. The

employees of the petitioners insurance companies through respondent

No.2 Union, in December 2006, filed a complaint under Section 33(A) of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against implementation of TMP to the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal and the said complaint filed by

respondent No.2/Union was registered as LCA No.23/2006. The

petitioners insurance companies are defending the complaint case

registered before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal as LCA

No.23/2006 which was listed for final arguments on 08.06.2009.

5. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioners submits that the CGIT on 08.06.2009 had simply

adjourned the matter for final arguments to be heard today. Pending LCA

case No.23/2006 before CGIT, the Central Government issued a

notification dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007 (Annexure P at page 226 of the

paper book) and referred the dispute relating to TMP of the Insurance

Companies to the National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Action

upon this notification dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007 was stayed by this

Court vide its order dated 21.09.2007 in W.P.(C) No.2782/2007 till the

time decision is taken by the High Powered Committee in respect of

disputes mentioned in the Central Government Notification dated

14.02.2007/29.06.2007. Pursuant to orders of this Court dated

21.09.2007 and also in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in ONGC & Anr. Vs. Collector of Central Excise reported as 1992

Supp (2) SCC 432 reiterated in ONGC & Anr. Vs. Collector of Central

Excise reported as 1995 Supp (4) SCC 541 and MTNL Vs. Chairman,

Central Board, Direct Taxes & Anr. reported as AIR 2004 SC 2434, the

dispute mentioned in the notification dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007 was

referred to the High Powered Committee and the said Committee has

now decided vide its decision dated 13.05.2008 conveyed to the

petitioners on 06.04.2009 that since the matter involves contentious

issues, permission was granted to the petitioners to pursue the appeal

before the High Court.

6. Admittedly, the dispute was referred by the Central Government to

the National Industrial Tribunal vide its notification dated

14.02.2007/29.06.2007 and subject matter of the said dispute is pending

for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New

Delhi which is listed for final hearing today. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, learned

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners insurance

companies contends that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal has

no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 33(A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in view of provisions contained in Sections

16, 17(A) and sub-section (6) of Section 17(A) of the General Insurance

Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972. It is not disputed that the

proceedings pending before the CGIT, New Delhi are being defended by

the petitioners (insurance companies) on the same ground of want of

jurisdiction of CGIT to entertain the complaint of respondent No.2 Union

under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the same

point which is being urged by the petitioners in the present case is

pending adjudication before the CGIT, it will be appropriate that the said

authority first decides the objection of the petitioners regarding its

jurisdiction as per law and in case either of the parties is aggrieved by

such decision of the CGIT, such party will be at liberty to take recourse to

legal remedies that may be available to them in law. At this stage, this

Court would not like to entertain the present writ petition till the time

adjudication takes place by the CGIT in proceedings that are pending for

final arguments before it. Since the hearing before the National

Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata pursuant to the notification of Central

Government dated 14.02.2007/29.06.2007 was stayed by this Court vide

its order dated 21.09.2007 in W.P.(C) No.2782/2007, it will be appropriate

that if the proceedings before the said Tribunal are kept in abeyance till

the time the parties exhaust their remedies against the decision of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi as per law. Hence, the

hearing before the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata is ordered to be

kept in abeyance till the time parties exhaust their legal remedies

available to them against the decision of the CGIT, New Delhi as per law.

Needless to state, that the petitioners (insurance companies) will be at

liberty to urge all such contentions as are available to them in law in

proceedings pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,

New Delhi.

7. In view of the above, the present writ petition and all miscellaneous

applications stand disposed of.

8. Order dasti to counsel for both the parties.

July 01, 2009                                     S.N.AGGARWAL
vg                                                   [JUDGE]