9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of termination during the probation period. 2. Applicability of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Interpretation of Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. 4. Overriding effect of amendments to the Life Insurance Corporation Act over the Industrial Disputes Act. Summary: 1. Legality of Termination During the Probation Period: The appellant was appointed as a Development Officer on probation for one year, which was extended for another year. The order of appointment included clauses regarding the code of conduct, tours, business targets, and confirmation criteria. The appellant failed to meet the minimum business targets, leading to his termination before the expiry of the extended probation period. The High Court initially quashed the termination, but the Division Bench reversed this decision, stating that the termination did not amount to "retrenchment" u/s 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act due to clause (bb). 2. Applicability of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act: Section 2(oo) defines "retrenchment" and includes exceptions. Clause (bb) was introduced to exclude termination due to non-renewal of the contract or termination under a stipulation in the contract. The appellant's termination was under such a stipulation, thus falling within the exception provided by clause (bb). Therefore, the termination did not constitute "retrenchment" and did not require compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. Interpretation of Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960: Regulation 14 allows the Corporation to terminate the service of a probationer without notice. This regulation is considered a statutory term of the employment contract. The appellant's failure to meet the performance targets justified his termination under Regulation 14, which was deemed a stipulation of the employment contract. 4. Overriding Effect of Amendments to the Life Insurance Corporation Act Over the Industrial Disputes Act: Amendments to the Life Insurance Corporation Act, particularly Section 48(2)(cc) and subsections (2-A), (2-B), and (2-C), give the Central Government the power to make rules regarding the terms and conditions of service, with retrospective effect and overriding the Industrial Disputes Act. Regulation 14, thus deemed a rule under Section 48(2)(cc), has an overriding effect, excluding the applicability of Section 2(oo) and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The amendments were upheld as constitutional and not violative of Article 14. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the termination of the appellant during the probation period, stating it was in accordance with the terms of the appointment and Regulation 14, which now has overriding effect due to amendments in the Life Insurance Corporation Act. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
