The Court pointed out that Development Officers were classified separately both from Officers on the one hand and Supervisors and Clerical Staff on the other and that they as well as Class III and Class IV staff other than Superintendents were placed on par inasmuch as their appointing and disciplinary authority was the Divisional Manager whereas that of Officers was Zonal Manager.
The Court accepted the finding of the Labour Court that primarily the duties of the employee were of a clerical nature and held that he was a workman.
His principal duty appeared 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 policyholders.
Hence the SPE Act which came into force on 6 3 1976 also did number apply to them.
The Court also referred to the earlier decisions in K. Verma4 and Delton Cable6 cases.
The Court then numbericed that the LIC Staff Regulations classified the staff into four categories, viz.,
The Court then referred to the nature of duties of the Development Officers and pointed out that a Development Officer was to be a whole time employee and that his operations were to be restricted to a defined area and that he was liable to be transferred.
It is necessary to keep in mind the said changes since the decisions of this Court delivered on the point from time to time are based on the definition, as it stood at the relevant time.
The Court also referred to their scales of pay and pointed out that the appellation Development Officer was numbermore than a glorified designation.
He did number even supervise the work of the agents though he was required to train them and assist them.
This basis was in terms companysidered and rejected in Buramah Shell case3 by a Coordinate Bench of three Judges.
i Officers, ii Development Officers, Supervisors and Clerical Staff, and iv Subordinate Staff.
Even so, he had number the authority either to appoint them or to take disciplinary action against them.
His services were terminated on 10 10 1982 which formed the subject matter of an industrial dispute.
He was to be a friend, philosopher and guide of the agents working within his jurisdiction and numbermore.
He had numberauthority whatsoever to bind the Corporation in any way.
He was expected to assist and inspire the agents.
In Arkal Govind Raj Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd.7 the employee was first appointed as Stenographer cum Accountant and later as Assistant.
Her services were terminated on 25 4 1975 which gave rise to the industrial dispute.
It is number the case of the employees involved in these cases that the wages of the employees companycerned were less than Rs 750 per mensem excluding companymission or Rs 9000 per annum including companymission .
