Dear Editor,
Shri. A.S.Ramanathan deserves all praise for
the manner in which he had covered the events
of the past and for etching out a clear Road Map
for the future, in taking our ongoing legal battle to
the proximities of a near victory. He has touched
upon a plethora of points, both legal and others
and attempted elaboration to the best of his
abilities.
I have listed below some of the issues raised by him which struck me as very valid and deserve a closer scrutiny by our front-line leaders. I have expressed my own views on them. They are:
1) Initiating contempt proceedings is both a tortuous and time consuming step and, therefore, we should try to avoid it as far as possible unless we are left with no other option.
I fully endorse his views. Most of the contempt petitions, we have seen , do not reach their logical conclusions and the judges themselves do not seem to attach much importance to them.
2) The concern about the ‘Ripple Effect’ or the cascading effect of mounting liabilities, when both upgradation of pension and DR parity are granted is only a myth and not born out by facts and figures.
Yes, very true. Moreover, neither LIC nor the Govt. at any point of time has over-emphasised the non-affordability factor in any of their arguments . And, as rightly observed by Mr. Ramanathan, pensioners are a vanishing species.
3)The landmark judgement of D.S. Nakara should be the guiding principle in all such cases where one comes across discriminatory and segregationist approach adopted by the employers as in our case for, this is a judgement taken by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court. The present appeals , of both the LIC and the Govt ,therefore, tantamount to an appeal against the Supreme Court Order itself.
It is true that both the cases have striking similarities. However, the history of origin of pension in the Public Sector undertakings, the pattern of wage settlements etc drastically being different from that of the Central Govt. employees, I am afraid ,whether we can take such a liberalised and simplistic view.
4) According to the DB of the Jaipur H.C, since LIC has no grievance, LICs appeal at this juncture is not maintainable. And as for the Govt. ,having not appeared before the DB and during the review petition, inspite of the Jaipur HC including them as a party, they have forfeited the right to appeal. According to Mr.Ramanathan , the reason for dismissal of the SLPs of LIC brought before the SC could not have been for technical reasons but keeping in mind this aspect as well as the woefully time barred nature of the appeals. He is emphatic that the Govts.foray into the case at this point of time is nothing but an afterthought keeping in view the maintainability factor.
These are some crucial legal points our Case Handlers , who also happen to be legal experts, to dwell upon and take a considered and concerted stand , especially at the time when they have to pick up the threads of the case from where they have left, in September 2015.
5) Constitution is supreme and any law is subordinate to the Constitutional provisions. He has also discussed the infructuous nature of Sec 48 of the LIC Act in the light of certain legal principles and constitutional provisions (Article 14 and 16).
We are aware, how after this Govt. came to power, the executive is trying to intrude into the exclusive domain of our legal heads,I mean, the selection of judges to Supreme Court. In the name of getting rid of some of the archaic laws, attempts are being made to trample upon time-tested legal principles. This being the case, we cant be very sure about preservation of sanctity of long cherished enabling provisions of the Constitution.
M.V.VENUGOPALAN