IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 20730 OF 2016

PETITIONERS:

• 1 FEDERATION OF LIC CLASS-I OFFICER'S ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, S.RAJKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. P. SIVARAJA PILLAI, RESIDING AT "VARANASYAM", NO. TC-TC7/1475/2, KOCHULLOOR, MCH P.O., TRIVANDRUM-690 011.
• 2 V. MANOJ KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS S/O. VIJAYAN MENON, BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA LIMITED, KAKKANAD, KOCHI- 682 030. RESIDING AT: D2/VB COURT, LFC ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.KALA T.GOPI SMT.T.N.SREEKALA

RESPONDENTS:

• 1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA CENTRAL OFFICE, "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI- 400 021.
• 2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BIMA MARG MUMBAI-400 021
• 3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BIMA MARG MUMBAI-400 021
• 4 THE CHIEF (PERSONNEL) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE "YOGAKSHEMA", JEEVAN BIMA MARG MUMBAI-400 021
• 5 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, CENTRAL ZONE, JEEVAN SHIKHA, 60-B,

: 2 :

HOSHANGABAD ROAD, BHOPAL-462011.

• 6 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, EASTERN ZONE, 4, C.R.AVENUE, HINDUSTHAN BUILDINGS, KOLKATA-700072.
• 7 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, EAST CENTRAL ZONE, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA-800001.
• 8 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA NORTHERN ZONE, JEEVAN BHARATI, TOWER 11 124, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110001.
• 9 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, NORTH CENTRAL ZONE, JEEVAN VIKAS, 16/275 MG MARG, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR-208001.
• 10 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, SOUTHERN ZONE, LIC BUILDING, ANNA SALAL, CHENNAI-600002.
• 11 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, SOUTH CENTRAL ZONE, JEEVAN BHAGYA, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-500063.
• 12 THE ZONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, WESTERN ZONE, YOGAKSHEMA, WEST WING, JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-400021.

: 3 :

• 13 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, "JEEVAN PRAKSH" PB.NO.1133, MG ROAD, KOCHI-682011, ERNAKULAM.
• 14 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, "JEEVAN PRAKSH" PB.NO.177, KOZHIKODE-673001, CALICUT.
• 15 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, POLACHIRACKAL MANSION, C.M.S.COLLEGE RD, PB.NO.609, KOTTAYAM-686001.
• 16 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, "JEEVAN PRAKSH" PB.NO.1001, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

BY ADV SRI.R.S.KALKURA

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 20th day of March, 2023

The Federation of LIC Class-I Officers' Association represented by its General Secretary and another are before this Court seeking to quash Exts. P5 and P6 and to command the 1st respondent-LIC of India to condone the absence of the members of the 1st petitioner-Federation including members in Kerala on 18.02.2010 for the purpose of grant of Normal Grade Increments (Annual Increments), Stagnation Increments, Confirmation, etc. and direct further to grant all the consequential benefits arising therefrom.

2. The petitioners submit that when the VIth Central Pay Commission Revisions were implemented in respect of all other Central Government Employees and Employees belonging to the Central Public Sector undertakings, the benefits were not extended to the officers of the LIC of India. The 1st petitionerFederation therefore resorted to agitation which was strictly peaceful. Ext.P1 Strike Notice was given to the respondents on 20.12.2009 proposing inter alia Hunger Strike by the General Secretary and President of the Federation in front of the Circle Office.

3. The petitioners state that the President of the Federation resorted to Hunger Strike on 16.02.2010. At the instance of the respondents, police intervened and the President of the Federation was arrested and removed on 16.02.2010.

4. In response to the said high handed action, the 1 st petitioner gave Ext.P3 notice of strike on 17.02.2010 proposing a one day strike on 18.02.2010. The petitioners would contend that Ext.P3 notice was given on 17.02.2010, in the morning itself. In response to Ext.P3, the respondents issued Ext.P4 communication on 17.02.2010 stating that those employees who participate in the said strike will have their absence treated as unauthorised and no wages will be paid to them on the principle of No Work No Pay. The demand made by the petitioners in respect of implementation of the VIth Central Pay Commission Recommendations was met by the 1st respondent-LIC of India subsequently.

5. However, to the surprise and predicament of the petitioners, the 1st respondent decided to postpone the Annual Increments, Stagnation Increments and Confirmation of the officers, who participated in the strike by one month. The petitioners would contend that in such instances, the 1st respondent had always condoned the absence of persons participating in strikes. In fact, Ext.P9 minutes would show that the higher officers of the LIC of India had recommended that the one day strike period be condoned as has been the practice followed in the past. However, the 1st respondent did not condone the period and condemned the officers who took part in the strike to get their Annual Increments, Stagnation Increments and Confirmation delayed by one year.

6. The counsel for the petitioner would urge that the one day token strike resorted to by the officers was after serving due notice on the morning of 17.02.2010 itself. The strike was warranted due to the high handed act of arresting the National President of the Federation while he was on Hunger Strike. As a matter of fact, as early as on 20.12.2009, another notice was issued. It was only when all efforts of the petitioners to arrive at an amicable settlement failed that the petitioners resorted to peaceful agitation including Hunger Strike. There is no case for the management that no notice was issued nor do they have a case that the period of notice was insufficient for reparative measures or for discussions.

7. The counsel for the petitioners further argued that in all cases of token strike of one day or two days, prior to and after 18.02.2010, the absence of striking employees has been condoned by the respondents for the purpose of grant of Normal Grade Increments, Stagnation Increments, Confirmation, etc. This is evident from Exts.P7 and P8. : 8 :

However, in respect of the one day strike held on 18.02.2010 alone, a different approach is taken, which is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 of the Constitution of India, contended the counsel for the petitioners.

8. The arrest of the National President of the Federation was unwarranted and unprovoked. It was a spontaneous response against the unwarranted arrest of the National President that resulted in a token strike for one day on 18.02.2010. Taking into consideration the circumstances under which the Federation was forced to call for one day strike, the 1 st respondent ought to have condoned the absence of Class-I Officers in that day following the earlier proceedings.

9. Standing Counsel for respondents entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel pointed out that as per Rule 25(A) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, ''no officer of the Corporation shall engage himself or participate in any demonstration which involves incitement to an offence nor shall he resort to or abet any form of strike''. Section 48(2)(CC) of LIC Act, 1956 authorised the Central Government to make rules including rules prescribing the terms and conditions of the service of the employees of the Corporation. Therefore, the proposal for implementation of VIth Central Pay Commission is also subject to the decisions to be taken by the Central Government.

10. The respondents were taking all steps for getting the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission implemented in the case of Class-I Officers. In fact, the respondents, as per Ext.R1(e) communication addressed to the General Secretary of the Federation, had appealed not to go on Hunger Strike as the LIC was taking every positive steps for pay revision to happen smoothly. In spite of the request, the Class-I Officers, who are forbidden from resorting to strike, committed to strike. Such Class-I Officers who resorted to strike are bound to face the consequences, contended the respondents.

11. The respondents further pointed out that the one day strike conducted by the petitioners were not for pay revision. On the other hand, it was as a protest against the arrest of the National President. The respondents pointed out that when the President of the 1st petitioner-Federation resorted to Hunger Strike, as is the usual course, the respondents informed about the Hunger Strike to the police with a view to avert any problems. It was the police officers, who arrested the President and removed him, for which the respondents cannot be blamed. The petitioners were not justified in resorting to strike in LIC against the action of the police.

12. The postponement of Annual General Increments, Stagnation Increments and Confirmation of the Class-I Officers who participated in the strike is as a result of operation of Regulations, 1956. The regulations being statutory in nature, impact of regulations cannot be stopped by the respondents. The writ petition is therefore devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The counsel for the respondents relied on the

judgments in G. Balagopalan v. State of Kerala and others [ILR 2021 (1) Kerala 673], Ibrahimkutty K. v. Chairman and Managing Director of KSRTC and others [2015 (1) KHC 474] and Shaji Sanjayi Nottithodi v. Managing Director, KSRTC and others [2017 (3) KLT 198] in defence.

13. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

14. The petitioners were demanding implementation of the benefits of the VI Central Pay Commission Recommendations for the Class-I Officers of the LIC of India. The petitioners resorted to peaceful agitation. The President of the Association resorted to Hunger Strike on 16.02.2010. The President was arrested by the police and removed from the Hunger Strike site. The petitioners gave Ext.P3 notice of one day strike on 17.02.2010. The one day strike was conducted on 18.02.2010. The respondents decided to treat the absence of Class-I Officers who participated in strike as unauthorised absence and adopted the principle of No Work No Pay. As a consequence, the annual increments, stagnation increments and confirmation of Class-I Officers, stood postponed.

15. The contention of the petitioners is that the one day strike was necessitated due to the unprovoked arrest of the President of the Federation. The one day token strike was spontaneous. However, due notice was given to the respondents. In all similar cases, the respondents had condoned absence of employees who participated in one day strikes or two day strikes. In respect of the strike held on 18.02.2010 alone, a differential treatment is given.

16. I find that Rule 25A of the LIC of India (Staff Regulations, 1960) mandates that no officer of the Corporation shall engage himself or participate in any demonstration which involves incitement to an offence nor shall he resort to or abet any form of strike.

17. Rule 25A would apply to the members of the 1 st petitioner-Federation who are Class-I Officers. This Court

has considered the impact of such strikes in the judgment in G.Balagopalan (supra). The said case related to a strike conducted by Government Servants. This Court held that it is clear that not only there was any right conferred on the Government Servants to go on strike but also there is clear prohibition under law to call for and participate in strikes and therefore, the action of the Government in regularizing the period of strike cannot be sustained in law. This Court held that it can be deduced from the statutory provisions dealing with the prohibition of Government Servants participating in strike, that the Government Servants had struck work in violation of the rules / notifications / circulars issued by the State Government affecting the normal life of the public and public exchequer, and it is also clear from the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even though right to form association is a right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(C) of the Constitution of India. There is no legal right for the workers / such associations

to call for a general strike or to instigate the employees to strike,

under the guise of fundamental right. In the case of the Class-I Officers who are members of the petitioners' association also, there is a clear prohibition on going on strike under Rule 25A of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960.

18. This Court further considered the issue in the judgment in Ibrahimkutty K. (supra). This Court considered the meaning and impact of the term of Dies-Non. In the case of the petitioners, it is evident that when the petitioners were resorting to strike, the respondents were trying to have an amicable solution to the demand of the petitioners for extending the benefit of the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission Revision. Even before the petitioners resorted to strike, the respondent had issued Ext.R1(e) letter dated 30.02.2010 to the General Secretary of the 1st petitioner-Federation requesting not to go on Hunger Strike as the respondents are taking every positive step for wage revision to happen smoothly. In spite of such request, the Class-I Officers

have proceeded to go on for one day strike. Such strike is obviously in violation of the statutory rules.

In such circumstances, it will be highly illegal to condone the one day absence of the petitioners. The writ petition therefore fails and it is dismissed.

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

sss

: 16 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20730/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED UPON THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 20.12.2009 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FEDERATION. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.12.2009 SERVED UPON THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FEDERATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.PER/ER/A/17/UNION DATED 17.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. PER/ER/A/WV DATED 16.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO CO/ERA/STRIKE 10-11/L-0001. DATED 04.01.2011, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING REF. NO.PER/ER/U/12-13/STRIKE DATED 13.07.2012 , ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. CO/PER/ER-A/U/-/STRIKE DATED 10.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTINGS AND DECISIONS RELATING TO THE DECISIONS CONTAINED IN P5 AND P6 RECEIVED UNDER THE RTI ACT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTINGS IN VARIOUS REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED IN THE WAKE OF P7.

WP(C) No.20730 of 2016

• EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FEDERATION DATED 11.06.2015.
• EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FEDERATION DATED 20.08.2015.
• EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FEDERATION DATED 16.12.2015.
• EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FEDERATION DATED 17.12.2015.
• EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 05.02.2016 SERVED UPON THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

• EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY PASSED ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.06.2010 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
• EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE IN RESPECT OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.8.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
• EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 11.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE IN RESPECT OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
• EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (STAFF) REGULATIONS, 1960.
• EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.02.2010 ISSUED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL), LIC OF INDIA TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER'S ASSOCIATION.

WP(C) No.20730 of 2016

• EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO THE JOINT SECRETARY (BANKING & INSURANCE), DEPT. OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA. EXHIBIT R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LIFE INSURANCE
• CORPORATION OF INDIA CLASS I OFFICERS (REVISION OF TERMS OF CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1985.