Case: S.K. Verma Vs. Mahesh Chandra and Another

The Central Government, the appropriate Government within the meaning of s. 2 (a) of the Indus trial Disputes Act, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi: "Whether the action of the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi in dismissing Shri S.K. Verma, Development officer in Jullunder Branch of the Corporation, with effect from February 8, 1969 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?" The Life Insurance Corporation promptly raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the reference on the ground that Shri S K. Verma was not aappears to be three preliminary objections which have became quite the fashion to be raised by all employers, particularly public sector corporations, when ever an industrial dispute is referred to a tribunal for adjudication. One objection is that there is no industry, a second that there is no industrial dispute and the third that the workman is no workman. It is a pity that when the Central Government, in all solemnity, refers an industrial dispute for adjudication, a public sector corporation which is an instrumentality of the State instead of welcoming a decision by the Tribunal on merits so as to absolve itself of any charge of being a bad employer or of victimisation etc. should attempt to evade decision on merits by raising such objections and never thereby satisfied, carry the matter often times to the High Court and to the Supreme Court, wasting public time and money.

Court's reasoning:
A perusal of the above extracted terms and conditions of appointment shows that a development officer is to be a whole time employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. that his operations are to be restricted to a defined area and that he is liable to be transferred. He has no authority whatsoever to bind the Corporation in anyway. His principal duty appears to be to organise and develop the business of the Corporation in the area allotted to him and for that purpose to recruit active and reliable agents, to train them to canvass new business and to render post-sale services to policy-holders. He is expected to assist and inspire the agents. Even so he has not the authority to appoint agents or to take disciplinary action against them. He does not even supervise the work of the agents though he is required to train them and assist them. He is to be the friend, philosopher and guide of the agents working within his jurisdiction and no more. He is expected to stimulate and excite the agents to work, while exercising no administrative control over them. The agents are not his subordinates. In fact, it is admitted that he has no subordinate staff working under him. It is thus clear that the development officer cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be engaged in any administrative or managerial work. He is a workman within the meaning of s. 2 (s) of the Industrial, Disputes Act.The order of the Industrial Tribunal and the judgment of the High Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for disposal according to law. The Industrial Tribunal may dispose of the reference within three months from the dateof receipt of this order. The respondent workman is entitled to his costs.