ASSOCIATION Vs. ALL INDIA INSURANCE EMPLOYEESTHE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION HIGHER GRADE ASSISTANTS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four writ appeals arise out of W.P. Nos. 825 and 826 of 1972 filed by (1) The Life Insurance Corporation Higher Grade Assistants' Association and (2) Thomas Mathew, a higher grade assistant in the Life Insurance Corporation, but who is not a member of the aforesaid Association, seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the National Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi (sixth respondent) to hear and determine the dispute relating to item No. 7 of the reference N.I.T. 2 of 1969 relating to the rules of promotion and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Zonal Manager of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (respondent 1 and 2) from enforcing the new rules of promotion embodied in the agreement dated 15-10-1971. The facts are not in dispute and we shall briefly refer to the same. The Life Insurance Corporation of India is a Corporation established by the Life Insurance Corporation Act, Act XXXI of 1956. Section41 of the said Act empowers the Corporation to frame regulations governing the terms and conditions of service of the employees, subject to the condition that they are made with the previous approval of the Central Government. Clause 5 of the Staff Regulations sets out the various classes and categories of posts in the Life Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Life Insurance Corporation. So far as the present writ petitions are concerned classes I and III consist of the following categories of posts : Class I. (a) Assistant Administrative Officer. Class III. (a) Superintendents, (b) Higher Grade Assistants, (c) Section Head, (d) Assistants.

(2.) UNDER the rules in force, a section head is entitled to be promoted as a Higher Grade Assistant or Superintendent, and a Higher Grade Assistant is entitled to be promoted as Superintendent or an Assistant Administrative Officer (Class I). The promotions are popularly called two-tier promotions. Such promotions were made on a selection basis and after the eligibility of the candidates was decided in a departmental test and further test on merit and ability. There were a large number of disputes between the employees and the management of the Life Insurance Corporation. On 28-11-1968 six items of disputes were referred to the National Industrial Tribunal (N.I.T. 1 of 1969) (sixth respondent). On 22-8-1969 seven more items of disputes were referred to the same Tribunal (N.I.T. 2 of 1969). In the second reference the seventh item related to "Rules regarding promotions". The Tribunal went into the disputes. Mean-while the management of the Life Insurance Corporation persuaded the various employees' Associations to come to an understanding on the various items of disputes, as they considered that a reasonable set of rules governing promotions which would be fair and equitable to all categories of employees could be arrived at in that manner. On this basis on 20-6-1970 joint applications were filed before the sixth respondent (N.I.T.) requesting that an award may be passed in terms of the settlement. The said joint application, however, stated in respect of item No. 7 as follows : "The workmen withdraw the item from this reference. The management agrees to hold discussions before 31-12-1970 with the representatives of the 4 parties representing workmen in this reference for a review of the existing rules". The application further stated that the period of settlement would be 1-4-1969 to 31-3-1973 and added : "All the demands raised by the workmen before the Honourable National Industrial Tribunal, which constituted the subject-matter of this reference are hereby fully and completely settled and disposed of". On 13-7-1970 the sixth respondent (N.I.T.) embodied the terms of the settlement contained in the joint application and passed an Award and the same was published in the Gazette on 22-7-1970.

(3.) THE above writ petitions were heard by Ramaprasada Rao, J., who held that : (1) the N.I.T. without determining the issues referred to it and without applying its mind as to the fairness or justness of the request of the parties to leave open item 7 unresolved, failed to discharge its public duty. (2) Even if such a settlement was possible, the resultant arrangement entered into between the Corporation and the 3 Associations other than the Life Insurance Corporation Higher Assistants' Association and a non-member of the Association, not a party to the arrangement, is not only violative of the enforceable award made in N.I.T. 1 of 1969, but is contrary to the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and the regulations made thereunder. (3) THE private settlement between one section of the employees and the Corporation is prima facie likely to affect the services of the Higher Grade Assistants in the Corporation and is violative of the terms of the award. (4) THE new rules, in effect abrogating or repealing the existing regulations which were made by the Corporation under the existing law, have been made by the Chairman of the Corporation and the contention that these rules are administrative rules cannot be accepted.(5) THE so-called rules or administrative instructions are violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the Life Insurance Corporation is a "State" within the meaning of Art. 12. In the view that the learned Judge took, he felt it unnecessary to go into the question whether factually any prejudice had resulted to the Higher Grade Assistants even if the rules were implemented. In the result, the learned Judge issued a writ of mandamus directing the N.I.T. to hear and determine the dispute regarding item No. 7 of the reference in N.I.T. 2 of 1969 relating to the rules of promotion after notice to all the parties concerned and pass an award in accordance with the law. In the result, both the writ petitions were allowed.