.
Message as received 👇👇
It is learnt that finally IBA has submitted reply to Supreme Court on 19.2.26 that clause 35(1) is available in pension regulations which paves way for pension updation.
Let us wait for 25th Feb 26. The case is numbered as 1
[22/02, 1:23 pm]
Now IBA accepts updation as per 35(1) Regulations means that their earlier affidavit submitted in S C in 2022 is false tantamount to wrongful siubmission.
They now understand the view of Supreme Court sans doubt. If it is true, they want to save their faces.That will pave way for getting pension updation with retrospective effect with the date of one's retirement. Let us Hope on 25th.
S. Ganapathy
SBI Chennai.
🌹🌼🌹
1 comment:
Whether Sec 48 of LIC act 1981 snatched TU rights of staff and if so why TUs kept mum to restore it till this day? (AI Mode)
The Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981, which introduced significant changes to Section 48, did not technically "snatch" the right to form trade unions (TUs), but it fundamentally altered the legal framework for collective bargaining by making service conditions a matter of government rule-making rather than industrial negotiation.
Impact of Section 48 on Staff Rights: The 1981 amendment was a strategic move by the government to bypass previous court rulings that favoured employees' rights under the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA), 1947.
Rule-Making Power: The amendment empowered the Central Government to unilaterally frame rules regarding the terms and conditions of service for LIC employees under Section 48(2)(cc).
Overriding Clause: Section 48(2C) specifically states that these rules take effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or any other law, agreement, or settlement.
Neutralising Settlements: Historically, LIC staff enjoyed rights through bipartite settlements (like the 1974 bonus settlement). The 1981 amendment allowed the government to retrospectively vary these settlements, effectively removing them from the "industrial dispute" arena and placing them under "statutory rules".
Judicial Validation: The Supreme Court eventually upheld the validity of these amendments, ruling that the government has the right to regulate the service conditions of LIC staff to maintain the corporation's economic viability.
Why Trade Unions Have Not "Restored" It
It is inaccurate to say TUs have "kept mum"; they have engaged in extensive legal and industrial battles for decades, though with limited success in overturning the core of Section 48.
Exhaustion of Legal Remedies: The TUs fought the 1981 amendment all the way to the Supreme Court (e.g., LIC vs. D.J. Bahadur and subsequent cases). However, once the highest court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 48's rule-making power, the legal path to "restoration" was effectively blocked.
Shift in Strategy: Since the law now prioritises government rules over bipartite settlements, TUs have shifted their focus to negotiating within that rule-making framework (e.g., Wage Revision negotiations) rather than trying to repeal Section 48 itself, which would require an Act of Parliament.
Legislative Hurdles: Restoring the previous status would require a new amendment to the LIC Act by Parliament. Given the prevailing economic policies and the government's stance on maintaining administrative control over LIC, there has been no political will to revert these powers to the TUs.
Ongoing Resistance: TUs continue to protest and file litigations against specific applications of these rules, such as those related to dearness allowance ceilings, bonus cuts, and recent moves toward disinvestment/privatisation. (One can compare helplessness of retirees of LIC compared to In-Service compelled IBA to revise its earlier stand to accepting rule 35(1) of pension rules provide for pension revision)
Post a Comment