SISH RAM(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. vs. RAGHBIR

CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 1 NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION …PETITIONER Vs. S.K. ROY, THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. …CONTEMNORS WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 634 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6956 OF 2009, REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 3846 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6950 OF 2009, JUDGMENT REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 2994 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6953 OF 2009, REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 2991 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6956 OF 2009, CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 637 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6953 OF 2009, REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 2990 OF 2015 Page 1 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 2 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6954 OF 2009, REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 2993 OF 2015

IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6952 OF 2009, REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 2989 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6951 OF 2009 AND CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 21 OF 2016 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6950 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. Delay condoned in filing the Review Petitions. 2. These Review Petitions arise from the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009 and connected appeals, whereby it was held that the Award passed by Page 2 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 3 Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi (CGIT) in I.D. No. 27 of 1991 is legal and valid and the same be restored and implemented by the Life

as the “LIC”) by absorbing the concerned workmen in the permanent posts. It was further held that the Corporation would be liable to pay all consequential benefits including monetary benefits taking into consideration the revised pay scale in the cases of those workmen who had attained the age of superannuation. 3.As the facts of the case are already stated in the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009, the same need not be reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. JUDGMENT The following contentions were advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties in support of their case: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the review petitioner-LIC contends that this Court, while passing the judgment Page 3 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 4 and order dated 18.03.2015, failed to appreciate that the Tulpule and Jamdar awards stood substituted by the “Terms of Compromise” way back on 01.03.1989, which

07.02.1996 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1790 of 1989. It is further contended that this Court failed to appreciate the effect of settlement of an award, in the light of the decision of this Court in 1 the case of Herbertsons Ltd. v. Workmen , which has further been followed by this Court in the cases of 2 Transmission Corpn., A.P. Ltd. v. P. Ramchandra Rao and 3 ITC Ltd. Workers Welfare Assn. v. ITC Ltd. 4.The learned Attorney General further submits that under Section 24 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 JUDGMENT (hereinafter referred to as the “LIC Act, 1956”), the Central Government does not allocate any fund for LIC, 1 (1976) 4 SCC 736 2 (2006) 9 SCC 623 3 (2002) 3 SCC 411 Page 4 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 5 and the funds for LIC are generated from the payments made to it and that the Central Government does not contribute towards the funding of LIC. It is further

95% of the surplus of LIC is to be allocated to or reserved for its life insurance policy-holders. Thus, the contention that LIC has a huge surplus and is in a position to implement the order of this Court is misconceived as the same goes against the statutory provisions of the LIC Act, 1956. 5.The learned Attorney General further submits that the financial implications on LIC in complying with the impugned judgment and order of this Court cannot be ignored. JUDGMENT At this stage, we would deem it fit to point out that the same, however, does not find any mention in the Review Petition filed by LIC before this Court and does not form a part of its pleadings. 6.The learned Attorney General further submits that as on 31 03.2015, LIC had 55,427 Class III employees and Page 5 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 6 5,190 Class IV employees. If LIC is directed to consider the absorption of the workmen to the advertisement, then the number of Class III employees

56.65% and the same will affect the employee’s ratio in addition to the increase in its financial burden and that the same will be contrary to the interests of the policyholders. The learned Attorney General estimates the financial liability for implementing the order of this Court at approximately Rs.7087 crores, with the annual liability at around Rs.728 crores per year and that this will be a huge financial burden for LIC to bear. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on JUDGMENT behalf of the respondents-workers submit that it becomes clear from a perusal of the Review Petitions filed by LIC that it is trying to re-agitate the case on merits. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Enviro Legal 4 Action v. Union of India wherein this Court elaborated 4 (2011) 8 SCC 161 Page 6 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 7 the scope of the review power of this Court under Article 137 of the Constitution. It was held as under:

Further reliance is placed on the decision of this 5 Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati , wherein JUDGMENT this Court held as under: “20.1 When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; 5 (2013) 8 SCC 320 Page 7 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 8 (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason.

20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. JUDGMENT (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi)The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. Page 8 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 9 (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 8.The learned counsel contend that the ground raised in the review petitions filed by LIC do not warrant any interference by this Court in the name of exercise of power of review under Article 137 of the Constitution, as all the averments in the Review petition are nothing but attempts made by the review petitioner-LIC to JUDGMENT protract the implementation of the order passed by this Court. 9.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. At this stage, it would be useful to reiterate what this Court had held in the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2015: Page 9 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 10

JUDGMENT Page 10 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 11

JUDGMENT The review petitioner-LIC has not submitted anything on record to suggest that the impugned judgment and order suffers from an error apparent in law. While in the Page 11 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 12 review petitions the factual and legal submissions urged in the Civil Appeal have been reiterated, in the written submissions placed before us, the emphasis shifted to

of this Court. It has been well settled by this Court that a mere repetition of the same arguments which were urged in the appeal and have been rejected, is not sufficient to justify the exercise of power of review under Article 137 of the Constitution by this Court. In the case of Kamlesh Verma (supra), this Court has held as under: “Review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to re-open concluded adjudications. This Court, in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 501, held as under: JUDGMENT 11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been Page 12 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 13

10. While ordinarily, the aspect of financial hardship would not be a sufficient ground to warrant our interference in the instant case, but keeping in view the fact that LIC is a statutory JUDGMENT Corporation operating in the interest of the public at large, on the limited point of payment of full back wages to the temporary and badli workers who are entitled for regularisation, we may reconsider the same. A constitution bench of this Court in the 6 case of Keshav Mills Co . v. CIT held as under: 6 AIR 1965 SC 1636 Page 13 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 14

JUDGMENT Page 14 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 15

11. For the limited purpose of modifying the relief granted in the Civil Appeal only with regard to the JUDGMENT Back wages, we directed Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner-LIC to submit a document containing the pay scales indicating the basic pay and other emoluments payable to the concerned workmen. The same were furnished with the periodic revisions in Page 15 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 16 the years 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2012, without furnishing the other component figures which would be the gross salary of the different classes of

revisions of pay of basic salary, along with other component figures comprising the gross salary including Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance etc. etc., as applicable, must be accounted for while computing the amount due to the workmen towards the back wages. 12. The temporary and badli workers of LIC, who are entitled for regularisation as permanent workmen in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated JUDGMENT 18.03.2015 passed by this Court, by applying the terms and conditions of the modified award dated 26.08.1988 passed by Justice Jamdar, are held to be entitled to full back wages as well. However, keeping in mind the immense financial burden this would cause to LIC, we deem it fit to modify the relief only with regard to the back wages payable Page 16 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 17 and therefore, we award 50% of the back wages with consequential benefits. The back wages must be calculated on the basis of the gross salary of the

periodical revisions of pay scale as stated supra. The computation must be made from the date of entitlement of the workmen involved in these cases, that is, their absorption, till the age of superannuation, if any concerned workman has attained the age of superannuation as per the regulations of the review petitioner-LIC, as applicable to the concerned workman. 13. With the above modifications to the judgment and order sought to be reviewed, these review JUDGMENT petitions are disposed of in the terms as indicated above. Since the judgment and order is passed in favour of workmen and their dispute is being litigated for nearly twenty five years, the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 18.03.2015 with the above modifications shall Page 17 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 18 be complied with by the review petitioner-LIC within eight weeks of the receipt of the copy of this order.

Petitions, the Contempt Petitions are also disposed of, but in case of non-compliance of the above order within the stipulated time, the parties will be at liberty to file Contempt Petitions afresh. All pending applications are disposed of. …………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA] …………………………………………………J. [C. NAGAPPAN] JUDGMENT New Delhi, August 9, 2016 Page 18 CONT. PETN. (C) NO. 459/2015 19 JUDGMENT Page 19