Date:21/08/2008 URL: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/08/21/stories/2008082151042100.htm

Back HC dismisses plea for LIC temporary staff regularisation

Our Legal Correspondent

Chennai, Aug. 20

The Madras High Court has rejected the claim of 163 temporary employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India for reinstatement and regularisation, holding that the demand was not legal and justified.

Mr Justice K. Chandru, who heard a writ petition from LIC Temporary Employees’ Association, Vellore, challenging the award dated October 21, 2002, of the Central Industrial Tribunal, held that the petitioners had not made out any case for setting aside their so-called termination and for absorption into regular employment.

They had not pointed out any provision of law under which even a term-based employee and who had put in less than 150 days of employment was eligible for absorption into regular employment.

On the contrary, the Judge ruled, the petitioners had not only lost their case before this Court, but the Supreme Court also refused to grant any relief.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, to whom the association’s case was referred by the Ministry of Labour, had said in its award that even before the tribunal no attempt was made by the employees to establish their credentials. Only by reason of employment of 85 days or more, one could not have a right for permanent employment or regularisation of service as claimed by the petitioner association.

The tribunal, rejecting the reference, held that it could not be said that these temporary employees could claim a right of appointment without going into any process of selection. It referred to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court and said that it had been clearly held that termination of temporary appointment did not amount to retrenchment. The Chairman of LIC had given instruction for recruitment of staff in 1992 itself. Without undergoing that procedure, the temporary workmen concerned could not ask for automatic absorption.

In view of the above, and there being no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent tribunal, the writ petition failed, and accordingly stood dismissed, the Judge ruled.