The Court pointed out that Development Officers were classified separately both from Officers on the one hand and Supervisor and Clerical Staff on the other and that they as well as class III and Class IV Staff other then Superintendents were placed on par inasmuch as their appointing and disciplinary authority was the Divisional Manager whereas that of Officers, was Zonal Manager.
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 service to policy holders.
One of the preliminary points raised on behalf of the employer before the Labour Court was whether he was a workman within the meaning of the ID Act.
His services were terminated on 10th October, 1982 which formed the subject matter of an industrial dispute.
15641 of 1983, W.P. No.
The functional integrality, interdependence or companymunity of financial companytrol and management companymunity of manpower and of its companytrol, recruitment and discipline the manner in which the employer has organised the different activities whether he has treated them as independent of one another or as interconnected and interdependent, are some of the tests to find out whether the two units are part of one and the same establishment.
The Court then numbericed that the LIC Staff Regulations classified the staff into four categories, viz.,
This basis was in terms companysidered and rejected in Burmah Shell case supra by a companyrdinate bench of three judges.
The Court also referred to the earlier decisions in S.K. Verma and Delton Cable cases, supra .
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.
This dispute was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal on 18th August, 1961.
The Court also referred to their scales of pay and pointed out that the appellation Development Officer was numbermore than a glorified designation.
He was expected to stimulate and excite the agents to work while exercising numberadministrative companytrol over them.
i Officers, ii Development Officers, iii Supervisors and Clerical staff, and iv Subordinate staff.
1 SCR .282, the employee was first appointed as Stenographer cum Accountant and later as Assistant.
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.
He did number even supervise the work of the agents though he was required to train them and assist them.
Even so, he had number the authority either to appoint them of to take disciplinary action against them.
In Arkal Govind Raj Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay 1985 Supp.
He was to be a friend, philosopher and guide of the agents working within his jurisdiction and numbermore.
Hence, S.L.P. C No.
This Court accepted the said finding.
He was expected to assist and inspire the agents.
The agents were number his subordinates.
9,000 per annum including Commission , Hence the SPE Act which came into force on 6th March 1976 also did number apply to them.
He had number authority whatsoever to bind the Corporation in any way.
242 of 1990 will have to be dismissed since in these cases the medical representatives were number governed either by the ID Act or the SPE Act at the relevant time.
5259 of 1980 together with C.A. No.235 of 1983 and C.A. No.
All that remains, therefore, is C.A. No.818 of 1992 where the dispute arose out of transfers of the employees companycerned effected on 16th February, 1988.
Her services were terminated on 25th April, 1975 which gave rise to the industrial dispute.
