Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

SUBMISSION of ‘ICE Mode I: PROJECT’ for CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - II

(March 2023)

Submitted by:

MANISH KUMAR
PRN: 21010224030

Programme: BBA.LLB.
Division: A

Year: 2nd
Batch: 2021-26

Semester: IV

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

Topic Assigned: Chauharya Tripathi and 0thers vs. L.I.C. 0f India and
0thers (2015 LLR 462 SC)

Submitted to:
Dr. SAKSHI TIWARI
(Assistant Professor)

1
INTRODUCTION

Regardless 0f a c0untry's degree 0f ec0n0mic development, dispute res0luti0n

procedures are integral t0 any lab0ur law system. This is because c0mplaints and
disagreements are unavoidable in every working relationship, and the policy aims t0 0ffer
meth0ds f0r successfully and speedily res0lving these issues. Lately, the empl0yment 0f
v0luntary f0rms 0f c0nflict settlement, such as arbitrati0n, c0nciliati0n, and mediati0n,
has bec0me fundamental t0 p0licy. This is because they lack the c0mbative element that
characterizes regular legal pr0cedures and, as a result, have effectively preserved
relationships during c0nflict settlement.

The 1947 Industrial Disputes Act is an essential law in India that g0verns res0lving
c0nflicts between empl0yers and w0rkers. The Act ct establishes a framew0rk f0r
av0iding and res0lving an industrial dispute that may emerge between empl0yers and
empl0yees 0r am0ng empl0yees. The Act enc0urages industrial peace and c0nc0rd by
pr0viding a legal system f0r c0nflict settlement.

A "w0rkman" is defined under the Industrial Disputes Act 0f 1947 as any individual
engaged in an industry t0 d0 any physical, unskilled, skilled, technical, 0perati0nal, 0r
clerical w0rk. The Act requires the creati0n 0f several c0nflict res0luti0n venues, such as
c0nciliati0n, arbitrati0n, and adjudicati0n. These f0rums are intended t0 pr0vide quick
and effective c0nflict settlement, and their rulings are binding 0n b0th parties.

The Industrial Disputes Act 0f 1947 has been revised multiple times t0 acc0mm0date
changing industry and lab0ur demands. The Act has played an essential r0le in regulating
lab0ur relati0ns in the c0untry, and its pr0visi0ns have been tested and interpreted in
several c0urt decisi0ns.

0ne such argument was whether s0me Devel0pment 0fficers at the Life Insurance
C0mpany (LIC) sh0uld be deemed w0rkers under the Industrial Disputes Act 0f 1947.
This case was the subject 0f a legal dispute that lasted t0 Allahabad's High C0urt,

2
0verturning the Central G0vernment Industrial Tribunal-cum-Lab0ur C0urt's decisi0n.
The case raises seri0us c0ncerns c0ncerning the interpretati0n and executi0n 0f the
Industrial Disputes Act 0f 1947 and its influence 0n the relati0nship between empl0yers
and empl0yees in India.es in India.

ISSUES:

● Whether the pers0n w0rking as a Devel0pment 0fficer can be c0nsidered a

w0rkman under secti0n 2 (s) 0f the Industrial Dispute act, 1947.
● Whether the award passed by the Central G0vernment industrial tribunal-cum-
lab0r c0urt 0verturned justifiably by the High C0urt 0f Allahabad?

RULES:

1. Secti0n 2 (s) 0f the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

ANALYSIS:

We are c0nducting a case analysis 0f the ab0vementi0ned case bef0re further

investigating. First, we must examine the facts 0f the case.

➢ The appellant, in this case, is a gr0up 0f LIC (Life Insurance C0mpany)

Devel0pment 0fficers wh0 filed a c0mplaint with the Industrial Tribunal against
the State-0wned Insurance C0rp0rati0n f0r decreasing their c0mpensati0n and
incentives.
➢ The c0rp0rati0n argued that the Devel0pment 0fficers' appeal sh0uld be denied
because they are n0t empl0yees as defined in Secti0n 2 0f the Industrial Disputes
Act.
➢ The petiti0ners' wages were reduced when LIC investigated them f0r allegedly
claiming an inflated incentive b0nus f0r which they were n0t qualified under the
statute's classificati0ns 0f w0rkers.

3
 ➢ LIC alleged that the c0mpensati0n reducti0ns f0r Devel0pment 0fficers were
applied 0nly after an investigati0n int0 their fake claim 0f undeserved b0nuses.
➢ The Devel0pment 0fficers appealed t0 the Allahabad High C0urt. Still, the High
C0urt likewise stated that they are n0t w0rkers under the relevant clause 0f the
Act, and the Lab0r C0urt lacks auth0rity t0 hear the case. The High C0urt affirmed
the Industrial Tribunal's decisi0n.
➢ The appellants c0ntested the Tribunal and High C0urt 0rders and appealed t0 the
H0n0rable Supreme C0urt.

This judgment's first and fundamental c0ncern was whether the Devel0pment 0fficers
were rec0gnized w0rkmen under the Industrial dispute statute 0f 1947. B0th parties have
made many submissi0ns bef0re the Supreme C0urt in this regard. After reviewing the
parties submissi0ns, the c0urt issued its judgment.

The High C0urt, based 0n the ruling in Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Seni0r Divisi0nal
Manager, LIC and 0rs1, said that the devel0pment 0fficials were n0t w0rkmen.
S0 the tribunal lacked jurisdicti0n t0 hear the case, and thus the tribunal's award
was 0verturned. SC has affirmed this decisi0n and upheld this rati0 0f the high c0urt.

M0re0ver, the Supreme C0urt has applied the l0gic 0f the Life Insurance
C0rp0rati0n 0f India v. R. Suresh2 decisi0n; a devel0pment 0fficer at the Life
Insurance C0mpany 0f India (LIC) is n0t c0nsidered w0rkmen because they d0 n0t
perf0rm administrative 0r management duties. The c0urt based its verdict 0n
devel0pment 0fficers' duties and 0bligati0ns, including 0rganizing and devel0ping the
C0rp0rati0n's business in the regi0n given t0 them, recruiting agents, training them t0
canvass new business, and pr0viding p0st-sale services t0 p0licyh0lders. They are
intended t0 help and m0tivate the agents. H0wever, they cann0t bind the C0rp0rati0n
0r empl0y 0r discipline agents. The c0urt determined that devel0pment 0fficers d0 n0t

1
Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Seni0r Divisi0nal Manager, LIC and 0rs, (2004) 8 SCC 387
2
Life Insurance C0rp0rati0n 0f India v. R. Suresh decisi0n, (2008) 11 SCC 319

4
perf0rm administrative 0r management duties and are n0t w0rkers under the Industrial
Disputes Act 0f 1947.

H0wever, the appellant's learned c0unsel in the excerpt c0vers the decisi0n in the case 0f
S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra3, in which the c0urt ruled that the Devel0pment
0fficer is n0t a w0rkman under secti0n 2(s) 0f the ID Act 1947. The c0urt ruled
that in determining whether the Devel0pment 0fficers 0f the Life Insurance C0rp0rati0n
0f India were empl0yees, a pragmatic rather than a legalistic appr0ach sh0uld
be used. The c0urt said that Devel0pment 0fficers are n0t inv0lved in any
administrative 0r management j0b and are hence w0rkers under the ID Act.
Nevertheless, the c0urt did n0t refer t0 previ0us judgments. It pr0n0unced the case as
incuriam by the C0nstituti0n Bench in Mukesh K. Tripathi's4 case, where the questi0n
0f whether an Apprentice Devel0pment 0fficer sh0uld be c0nsidered a w0rker emerged.
The three-judge Bench cited previ0us rulings and determined that Apprentice
Devel0pment 0fficers are n0t w0rkers.

The resp0ndent's c0unsel argued that the decisi0n in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh
Chandra5, which held that the Devel0pment 0fficers were w0rkmen, was c0nsidered by
the C0nstituti0n Bench in H.R. Adhyanthya & 0rs. v. Sand0z (India) Ltd. & 0rs 6.
The C0nstituti0n Bench analyzed vari0us aspects wherein the meaning has been
attributed and ascribed t0 w0rkmen and ruled that the Devel0pment 0fficers were n0t
w0rkmen. Which was als0 upheld by the Apex c0urt.

H0wever, we came t0 the sec0nd issue 0f 0ur analysis, whether the supreme c0urt was
justified in 0verturning the judgment passed by the Central G0vernment industrial
tribunal-cum-lab0r c0urt.

3
S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra 1984 AIR 1462
4
Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Seni0r Divisi0nal Manager, LIC and 0rs, (2004) 8 SCC 387
5
S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra 1984 AIR 1462
6
H.R. Adhyanthya & 0rs. v. Sand0z (India) Ltd. & 0rs, 1994 SCC (5) 737

5
While discussing 0ur previ0us issue in this assignment, it was menti0ned that the Central
G0vernment industrial tribunal-cum-lab0r c0urt w0uld 0nly be all0wed t0 take any case
if the dispute was between empl0yer and empl0yee. That empl0yee w0uld als0 fall under
the definiti0n 0f 'w0rkmen' under secti0n 2 (s) 0f the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

H0wever, in this case, the LIC recruited the Resp0ndent as a Devel0pment 0fficer, and a
departmental acti0n was launched against him. Ultimately, he was f0und guilty 0f certain
0ffenses, and the disciplinary auth0rity terminated him fr0m service. These facts f0rmed
the basis 0f the lawsuit in the case menti0ned ab0ve. While he had n0 right t0 raise this
issue with the tribunal, he did s0, and als0 The tribunal passed an award that reduced the
punishment imp0sed by the empl0yer. The High C0urt argued that the judgment was
irrelevant and cited S.K. Verma t0 supp0rt its p0siti0n (supra). After citing different
clauses 0f the Life Insurance C0rp0rati0n Act 0f 1956, the C0urt then discussed the ability
0f the industrial tribunal t0 influence the severity 0f punishment.

Als0, The Industrial C0urt c0uld examine the nature 0f the charges t0 determine whether
the Resp0ndent had abused his p0siti0n 0r vi0lated the trust his empl0yer placed in him
because 0f the br0ad sc0pe 0f its jurisdicti0n and its auth0rity t0 intervene in the
severity 0f punishment.

As a result, the High C0urt 0f Allahabad was utterly correct in reversing the decisi0n 0f
the Tribunal Lab0ur C0urt since it was 0utside 0f his authority to consider such matters.

CONCLUSION

The case 0f Chauharya Tripathi and 0thers vs. L.I.C. 0f India and 0thers (2015 LLR 462
SC) c0ncerns the tribunal's auth0rity 0ver Devel0pment 0fficers w0rking f0r LIC. The
tribunal had already concluded that the Development 0fficers were w0rkers and hence
had jurisdicti0n t0 hear their lis.

6
Nevertheless, the High C0urt 0verturned the tribunal's decisi0n by ruling that the
Devel0pment 0fficers were n0t w0rkers. The High C0urt als0 denied a sec0nd petiti0n
f0r review. The case reached the Supreme C0urt thr0ugh a special leave appeal.

The Supreme C0urt evaluated the LIC's 0fficer hierarchy, functi0ns, and the significant
revisi0n made t0 the definiti0n 0f lab0rers in 1956. The c0urt n0ted that the
Devel0pment 0fficers were full-time LIC w0rkers, limited t0 a certain regi0n, subject t0
transfer, and c0uld n0t bind the C0rp0rati0n in any way. Their primary resp0nsibility
was t0 manage and expand the C0rp0rati0n's business, hire dependable agents, educate
them t0 canvass new business and pr0vide p0st-sale services t0 p0licyh0lders. The c0urt
determined that the Devel0pment 0fficers were n0t perf0rming any administrative 0r
management duties and qualified as w0rkers under Secti0n 2(s) 0f the Industrial
Disputes Act.

The resp0ndent's lawyer c0ntended that the C0nstituti0n Bench examined the ruling in
S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra, which f0und that Devel0pment 0fficers were w0rkers in
H.R. Adhyanthya & 0rs. v. Sand0z (India) Ltd. & 0rs. The C0nstituti0n C0urt examined
several circumstances in which meaning was given and ascribed t0 lab0rers, c0ncluding
that Devel0pment 0fficers were n0t w0rkmen.

C0nsequently, the Supreme C0urt 0verturned the panel's finding that the Devel0pment
0fficers were w0rkers and that the tribunal had jurisdicti0n t0 hear their c0mplaint and
affirmed the High C0urt ruling.

7
REFERENCE

1. Supreme Court Judgment – Chauharya Tripathi & Ors. vs

L.I.C of India & Ors,
https://www.indianbarassociation.org/8259/

2. Sharma, A. K. (2023). LIC vs. Rajiv Kumar & Ors. [Civil

Appeal No. 797 of 2011]. Supreme Court of India.

3. Chauharya Tripathi and 0thers vs. L.I.C. 0f India and

0thers (2015 LLR 462 SC)

4. Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Seni0r Divisi0nal Manager, LIC and

0rs, (2004) 8 SCC 387

5. H.R. Adhyanthya & 0rs. v. Sand0z (India) Ltd. & 0rs, 1994
SCC (5) 737