Dear Mr Asthana,
I have received the copy of the mail addressed by you
to Mr M V Venugopalan.I would like to respond on some of the issues raised by
you as follows:
·
You have observed, “The SC order does not
say you withdraw and pay the same. It was a facility given to LIC to withdraw
and why let the money be kept idle”.
If that is so, what is the meaning we make of the directions in the Supreme Court order as follows?
“If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, 20% of the same shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that it can pay to the concerned employees (underlining and highlighting is mine).
This may be conveniently construed by LIC as a sequence of “withdrawal first and payment thereafter”.
If LIC pays interim relief first, the question of payment of amount released by HC to employees does not arise. Things would have been clearer on the purport of the order if Supreme Court had stated as follows:
If that is so, what is the meaning we make of the directions in the Supreme Court order as follows?
“If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, 20% of the same shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that it can pay to the concerned employees (underlining and highlighting is mine).
This may be conveniently construed by LIC as a sequence of “withdrawal first and payment thereafter”.
If LIC pays interim relief first, the question of payment of amount released by HC to employees does not arise. Things would have been clearer on the purport of the order if Supreme Court had stated as follows:
”If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, such portion of the deposited amount shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as will equal the amount paid as interim relief by LIC to the respondent-petitioners as per this order”.
If such wordings had been used, LIC would possibly have had
to pay the interim relief within the 6 weeks’ period without waiting for the
release of the deposits by the HC.Also, if LIC had paid the right amounts as per the impugned
judgment of the HC, it could have as well got the entire amount deposited by it
released instead of only 20% of the inadequately paid amount. It is not very
difficult to understand that what LIC has deposited did not even constitute 10
% of the amounts due to the original petitioners.
·
You have also stated that cause of action
for us arises only after the payment is made, which opportunity has been lost.
But in my view, more than its anxiety to withdraw the amount deposited in the
HC Registries before paying interim relief, LIC had possibly a very shrewd plan
to justify that whatever amount they had deposited was the correct amount
although their stand will not go unchallenged. If their move for withdrawal was
not challenged, then LIC’s incorrect interpretation of the HC judgments and the
Board Resolution will not come up for sharp focus that is crucial in the
hearing that is to take place on 23/9/2015.The order of PB & H HC dt
20/7/2015 dismissing the application of LIC for withdrawal of the deposit with
appropriate instructions to LIC in the CCP case provides a very good
opportunity to effectively highlight this issue before the Supreme Court.
I thought it necessary to respond to you on the above points so that things are seen in the proper perspective although different people can have different views and perceptions as do different lawyers with their similar professional expertise on the same subject.
I am deliberately refraining from expressing any views on the other matters raised by you in your mail to Mr Venugopalan to avoid unnecessary debate (in my opinion).
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
I thought it necessary to respond to you on the above points so that things are seen in the proper perspective although different people can have different views and perceptions as do different lawyers with their similar professional expertise on the same subject.
I am deliberately refraining from expressing any views on the other matters raised by you in your mail to Mr Venugopalan to avoid unnecessary debate (in my opinion).
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
