A very interesting situation developed
in the matter of implementing the directives
of Supreme Court dated 7th May 2015. It
must be said LIC took advantage of lack
of clarity in the judgment and now asked
GNS to give membership certificate to
the beneficiaries.
This is clearly violative of SC Order. The court order said " You pay 20 %." It did not say you ascertain the status of membership in a particular union as on the date of filing the writ i.e., 3.7.2007.
- Is there any RECOGNISED UNION in L.I.C even as on 3.7.2007? Recognition implies that union abiding by the Code of Discipline of Indian Labour Conference. Was membership of any union verified including unions of Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV? This interesting point was raised at the concluding stage of the last charter (that was the subject matter of litigation in Madras High Court).
The Government has the power of notifying changes in service conditions. But some sort of bipartite mechanism is in operation in LIC. LIC does not call it Wage Negotiations. Only " Information Sharing Session." The agreed points are recorded and sent to Government for approval and Gazetting. HOW MANY UNIONS/ ORGANISATIONS/ASSOCIATIONS is LIC talking to? Was membership status ascertained at any stage? If not why this aspect is raised when it comes to honouring supreme court order? Is it a stratagey to divert attention from the main issue or is it
to favour a particular union/association?
What about multiplicity of unions and membership of an individual in more than one organisation? I know atleast 35 per cent of employees have dual membership. They are members in a TRADE UNION they like or have reason to like and stay in it. Then they also have membership in association/s which cater to the needs of members of particular caste/community. To my knowledge no union objected to such dual or triple memberships.
This is not the case with LIC alone. For example, how many unions are there in Railways? General Unions, Communitywise unions, category wise unions etc. etc. Many employees contribute to all these and seek the help of those organisations depending upon the nature of trouble they encounter. In day to day work ..one union, for transfers/postings...a second union, for disciplinary matters..a third one and for enforcing constitutional provisions..still another union.
Theoretically an employee can be a non-member also. But to be a non-member and remain as such requires very strong will and motive.
There might be some officers who were not members in their Federation at any time. Should they be denied the benefit of 20 per cent on that account?
to favour a particular union/association?
What about multiplicity of unions and membership of an individual in more than one organisation? I know atleast 35 per cent of employees have dual membership. They are members in a TRADE UNION they like or have reason to like and stay in it. Then they also have membership in association/s which cater to the needs of members of particular caste/community. To my knowledge no union objected to such dual or triple memberships.
This is not the case with LIC alone. For example, how many unions are there in Railways? General Unions, Communitywise unions, category wise unions etc. etc. Many employees contribute to all these and seek the help of those organisations depending upon the nature of trouble they encounter. In day to day work ..one union, for transfers/postings...a second union, for disciplinary matters..a third one and for enforcing constitutional provisions..still another union.
Theoretically an employee can be a non-member also. But to be a non-member and remain as such requires very strong will and motive.
There might be some officers who were not members in their Federation at any time. Should they be denied the benefit of 20 per cent on that account?
In Europe and continent, some countries have a law that benefits of agreements negotiated by one union are applicable only to the members of that union. We have no such restrictions. In the past when cases (on Bonus) were won in Supreme Court, no one said the benefit is payable only to the members of the Union/s that were parties to the litigation? WHY NOW?
LIC is behaving like a small time businessman like owner of a Hotel or say a Rice Mill who wants to deny the benefit. LIC is a premier public sector financial institution and it must have the broad mind and largeness of heart to pay the benefit to all retired employees who are similarly situated as ordered by the Court. What is greatness without magnanimity?
Or will this lead to more litigtion and extension of litigation into other areas thereby exhausting the petitioners and their organisations?
AIRIEF, LIC Cl. I Fed. and Organisations of Cl. I in High Court cases must analyse deeply and if possible come out with a United Approach to foil LIC's game.
B.Ganga Raju, Hyderabad
Or will this lead to more litigtion and extension of litigation into other areas thereby exhausting the petitioners and their organisations?
AIRIEF, LIC Cl. I Fed. and Organisations of Cl. I in High Court cases must analyse deeply and if possible come out with a United Approach to foil LIC's game.
B.Ganga Raju, Hyderabad