1/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 723 OF 2021

Vikas Madhukar Narvekar and ors .. Petitioners

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India &

ors.

.. Respondents

…

Adv. Ramesh Ramamurthy a/w Adv. Saikumar Ramamurthy, Adv.

Aalim N. Pinjari, for the Petitioners.

Mr. B.M. Chatterji, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Shreyash Shah, Adv.

Anjali Sahu, Adv. Aditya Singh i/b Little & Co for Respondent No.1.

Smt. S.A. Prabhune- AGP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 5th MARCH, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON: 6th APRIL, 2026

JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE J)

1. The Petitioners, twenty one in number have approached this

Court seeking appropriate direction directing the Life Insurance

Corporation of India (LIC), Respondent No.1, and its Zonal Manager,

being impleaded as Respondent No.2 to confer benefits of

regularization and all other service benefits upon them as per the

Central Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), New Delhi, Award dated

18/06/2001, it being upheld by the Supreme Court of India on

18/03/2015.

Writ of mandamus is prayed for taking the Petitioners on duty

and by providing them work, also to pay the emoluments due to them

Ashish

2/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

on monthly basis as regular employees.

2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy for the

Petitioners and learned Senior counsel Mr. B.M. Chatterji a/w

Mr. Shreyash Shah for Life Insurance Corporation of India.

By consent of the respective counsel, we have taken up the

Petition for final hearing and hence we deem it appropriate to issue

‘Rule’. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. It is the claim of the Petitioners that they were employed

directly by the LIC from 1992 onwards on different dates on the post

of Watchman, Liftman, Peon and Sweeper, all in class IV cadre.

It is the claim of the Petitioners that since they were registered

with Employment Exchange, they were recruited by LIC and they are

eligible and qualified to be regularly appointed on the Post on which

they were appointed, as per the policy of the LIC on casual/daily

rated or sometimes on badli and temporary basis.

On being so employed, they were paid wages less than the

minimum prescribed. Further in order to deprive them benefit of

continuity it is the case of the Petitioner, that they were given

artificial breaks after a few months and they were also engaged in

different places and periods and they were also shifted from one duty

to other, all steps to avoid continuity in service.

4. The Petition plead that due to irregular manner of filling up of

the vacant posts, a demand was raised by the Unions for absorption

of the employees, who were appointed at stop-gap arrangement, as

they were fully eligible for appointment against the posts. Since the

notification permitting the LIC to engage the services of employees

Ashish

3/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

for sweeping, cleaning and watching of buildings, contemplated only

their engagement as temporary staff, the issue about their absorption

was referred by the Central Government to the National Industrial

Tribunal at Mumbai as regards absorption of the employees based on

specific criteria. Reference No. NTB-1 of 1985 referred to the parties

as Employers in relation of M/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India

and Their Workmen and the reference was presided over by Dr.

Justice R.D. Tulpule, the Presiding Officer.

With reference to the dispute referred to the National Industrial

Tribunal concerning certain categories of employees of the LIC,

relating to wages and other conditions of service and conditions of

their absorption was determined by the Award dated 17/04/1986,

which issued a direction for absorption of temporary employees

based on a criteria of working of 70 days in a three year period and

by setting out the specific procedure and the modalities, the Award

declared that people who were working on temporary, badli and part-

time basis with the corporation are entitled for consideration of their

past service and it was directed that for class IV workman, if they

have worked for total period of 70 days during a period of three

calendar years they should be considered eligible for being absorbed.

For those who have worked for less than 70 days in any capacity and

as a any kind of workman was not held to be eligible for

consideration of absorption.

With regards to class III employees, the qualifying days were

prescribed with 85 days in a period of two years and if the

employment has below this period the employee was not entitled for

absorption.

Ashish

4/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

Though no specific criteria was laid down to be adopted by the

screening committee, it was directed that if the screening committee

comprising of Senior Officers with experience considered a workman

to be undesirable or unsuitable his name shall be removed from the

pool and he will not be thereafter entitled for any consideration to

the employment with the Corporation.

5. On 14/08/1986, the challenge to the Award was rejected by the

Bombay High Court. As a compliance the LIC issued direction

through circulars issued on 17/09/1986 and 18/09/1986, for

implementing the Award, but since it was based on total

misrepresentation and distortion, the Union made a request to the

Central Government to intervene and therefore the Central

Government under Section 36 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

again referred the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal headed

by Justice Dr. R. D Tulpule, to another National Tribunal presided

over by Justice M.S. Jamdar. The second Award was pronounced by

Justice Jamdar on 26/08/1988, which clarified the Award of the

Tribunal headed by Justice Tulpule, without modifying the directions.

6. The LIC challenged both the Awards before the Supreme Court

by filing an SLP and during its pendency all the Unions except one

entered into terms of compromise on 1/03/1989, for giving effect to

some of the directions contained in the two Awards of the National

Industrial Tribunal.

Pursuant to the said terms of compromise, LIC absorbed a

number of employees in their service on permanent basis. The SLP

was disposed of by the Apex Court on 7/02/1996, when the Supreme

Court issued directions for liberalizing the terms of absorption, so as

Ashish

5/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

to consider the absorption of the balance employees and it also

directed the Management to exempt class IV employees from test

and interview, if the management had the power to do so and if at all

there was no power of relaxation, it was directed that the test to be

conducted shall be of lesser standard than the one which has been

prescribed under the circulars mentioned in the compromise.

7. According to the Petitioners, the two Awards were made

applicable to all employees in service upto 20/05/1985, but since

such persons were also recruited beyond that date, Government of

India again made a reference to the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, New Delhi in 1991, with the following terms of reference:-

“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India

in not absorbing Badli/Temporary and part time workman employed in the

establishment of LIC after 20/05/1985 is justified, if not, to what relief the

workman are entitled.”

8. Though the reference was made in respect of certain

employees, all the Unions of LIC were also permitted to address

CGIT, New Delhi on the said issue in respect of other similarly

situated employees in the LIC all over India. The Petitioner who

represented the interests of workmen in the Western Zone were also

heard by CGIT, New Delhi.

CGIT declared its Award on 18/06/2001, which was published

in the Gazette Notification dated 22/06/2001, whereby the CGIT,

New Delhi directed that the workmen who are employed in the LIC

after 20/05/1985, are also entitled to similar treatment in the matter of

absorption. The CGIT, New Delhi further held that the basis for

absorption should be, as laid down in the Award of Justice R.D.

Tulpule and Award of Justice M.S. Jamdar.

Ashish

6/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

The CGIT, New Delhi referred to para 54 of Justice Tulpule

Award and recorded that class III employees who have put in 85

days of working in a period of 2 calendar years and in case of class

IV employees, those who have worked for 70 days in a period of 3

years were held entitled for absorption. It was also held by CGIT,

New Delhi that if at the time of consideration of absorption of such

workmen, no regular vacancy was available then supernumerary post

should be created and the workman should be absorbed.

9. The Award of the CGIT, New Delhi was subject matter of

challenge in the Delhi High Court in WP No.4346 of 2001.

In the said Petition, the Western Zone Insurance Employees

Association was impleaded as Respondent No.5 and upon the LIC

seeking stay of the Award, Delhi High Court, on 23/07/2001 granted

interim stay and issued notice to the Respondents, upon a statement

being recorded on behalf of LIC that status quo in respect of services

of Respondents/workmen shall be maintained.

During the course of hearing of stay application, LIC was

directed to pay Rs.11,000/- to each of the Unions which had

represented before the CGIT, New Delhi towards cost and expenses

in respect of those employees/workmen who were covered by the

Award, but whose services were terminated and who were

represented by various Unions.

However, before Delhi High Court, the LIC made a submission

that since all workmen who were covered by the Award in Western

Zone were working and none was terminated, an amount of

Rs. 11,000/- need not be disbursed and admittedly, no payment was

Ashish

7/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

received by the Petitioner No.21 Union.

10. The Petitioners claim that they were fully covered by the

Award of CGIT, New Delhi and were entitled to be absorbed since

they were fulfilling the qualifying service criteria prescribed by the

Award. The Petitioner Nos.1 to 20 are similarly situated to those

employees whose cases were before the CGIT, New Delhi and even

Petitioner No.21 had represented them along with other Unions.

11. Certain employees working in the Pune Office of the LIC in

the category of Sweeper, Watchman and Peon filed Writ Petition (L)

No. 65 of 1999 before the Bombay High Court, through the Insurance

Employees Union and made out a case on the basis of the matter

pending before the CGIT, New Delhi . The Hon’ble High Court by

order dated 1/02/2000 directed that the Union should make an

application before the CGIT, New Delhi and till the reference is

decided and for a period of two weeks thereafter in case the decision

is adverse, none of the workmen who was party to the Petition shall

be discontinued. Ultimately, the Petition was disposed of on

1/02/2000, with the aforesaid direction.

12. The Petitioners claim that they were working in class IV and

they had fulfilled the criteria of working for total period of 70 days

in period of 3 years, they were given certificates for the periods of

their work in LIC, which made them eligible for absorption in LIC on

permanent basis.

The reference which was decided by CGIT, New Delhi on

18/06/2001, which was challenged by LIC and in which stay was

granted, was decided by learned Single Judge, who set aside the order

Ashish

8/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

dated 18/06/2001, while deciding WP No. 4346 of 2001. Against this

an LPA was filed before the Division Bench, which was rejected on

21/03/2007.

Against the judgment of the Division Bench, the Tamil Nadu

Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association filed

Civil Appeal No. 6950 of 2009 before the Supreme Court and it was

heard along with connected Appeals and a detailed judgment was

delivered on 18/03/2015, in case of Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time

Temporary LIC Employees Association vs. LIC Of India and Ors

1

.

The judgment highlighted the history of the litigation and it

referred to the compromise between the Corporation and certain

sections of workmen during the pendency of SLP preferred by the

Corporation against the Award of the Tribunal. It was noted that

between the years 1981-85, a large number of employees of class III

and IV posts were employed by LIC in the capacity of badli,

temporary and part-time workers. Their wage, conditions for the

absorption into the regular cadre and other conditions of service was

the subject matter of an industrial dispute and this reference was

made in regard to the National Industrial Tribunal as a reference No.

NTB-1 of 1995 and an Award was passed on 17/04/1986. In the said

Award it was held that only those workmen who had worked in LIC

during 01/01/1982 to 20/05/1985, the date of reference were to be

considered eligible for absorption.

Thereafter, the Central Government made a reference under

Section 36-A for clarification of the Award and while answering the

reference the Tribunal clarified that observations contemplated by the

1 (2015) 9 SCC 62.

Ashish

9/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

earlier Award did not mean recruitment, and an Award dated

26/08/1988 was passed by the Tribunal, clarifying the Award dated

17/04/1986, that absorption of workmen does not mean recruitment.

Being aggrieved by the Award, LIC preferred SLP and during

its pendency a compromise was entered between LIC and 8 out of 9

unions and an order was passed on 01/03/1989 based on the

compromise.

13. The Apex Court also noted that in pursuance of the

compromise, LIC gave appointments to a large number of workmen

working on temporary, badli and part-time basis in class III and class

IV and those appointments were given to persons recruited on

temporary basis between 01/01/1982 to 20/05/1985, and therefore,

those employees who were appointed after 20/05/1985 raised a

similar demand of their absorption and regularization and when their

demands were not accepted several writ petitions were filed before

the High Court, which were dismissed.

Being aggrieved, Special Leave Petitions were filed in the

Supreme Court and on direction of the Supreme Court, LIC framed a

scheme for regularization of the employees in their service.

In case of E. Prabavathy vs. LIC in SLP (C) 10393-413 of

1992, noting that during the pendency of the Writ Petitions before the

High Court, which led to the decision in case of Prabavathy, the

industrial dispute that had arisen between the workmen after

20/05/1985 and LIC, was referred to CGIT, which conducted an

inquiry to answer the points in respect of those employed after

20/05/1985 and it was held that the Award dated 17/04/1986 which

Ashish

10/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

was clarified in the Award of 26/08/1988, is applicable to the

workmen concerned in the dispute and CGIT passed an Award on

18/06/2001 based on the two Awards giving directions for their

absorption in the respective posts.

Consequent to the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi

High Court, upholding the order of the Single Judge, who accepted

the contention of LIC that on plain reading of the decision of the

Supreme Court, the terms of reference before CGIT dated 4/03/1991

stood answered and it was concluded and reiterated in the decision in

case of LIC v. G. Sudhakar, in Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 2000.

14. As a result, the workman of LIC, who has employed as

temporary, badli and part-time workers but appointed after

20/05/1985 approached the Supreme Court.

In the background facts, the Supreme Court held that the

Award passed by the Tribunal is binding on LIC till it is substituted

by another Award or replaced by another settlement in relation to the

service conditions of the workman of LIC in accordance with law as

provided under Section 12 r/w Section 18(3) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, or another Award that is required to be passed by the

jurisdictional CGIT in relation to the said subject matter. But until

then, the Award passed by the Tribunal was operative in law.

Holding that the two Tribunal Awards have been rightly

applied to the fact situation on hand in the Award passed by CGIT

and it could not have been set aside by the High Court, as both the

Awards are operative and are not terminated by either of the parties

under Section 19(6) of the Act. It was also clarified that the Tribunal

Ashish

11/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

Award of 17/04/1986 reiterated by those clarification in the Tribunal

Award dated 26/08/1988 in the disputes was operative even after a

compromise was arrived between the parties and recorded in the

order dated 1/03/1989 by the Apex Court.

The contention of the LIC that the Awards were not in

operation and only terms and conditions of compromise and orders

of Supreme Court are binding upon the workmen concerned was

found to be factually and legally incorrect. In conclusion, the Apex

Court recorded thus:-

“46. Further, by a careful reading of the said order in LIC v. Workmen, it

has been made clear that the Awards passed by NIT (by Justice Jamdar and

Justice Tulpule) after adjudicating the points of dispute in the industrial dispute

raised by similarly placed workmen is not disturbed by substituting the terms

and conditions of compromise between the parties therein in SLP No. 14906 of

1988. Therefore, the Awards in relation to the absorption of the workmen as

permanent workmen in the Corporation have got statutory force. This is what is

stated by CGIT in its Award dated 18-6-2001 on the basis of pleadings and

evidence on record, which was erroneously set aside by the High Court by

assigning erroneous reasons which is sought to be justified by the Senior

Counsel on behalf of the Corporation by placing reliance upon the orders and

the Scheme framed in E. Prabavathy and G. Sudhakar cases which Scheme has

no application to the case of the workmen concerned involved in these appeals

referred to supra.”

49. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case referred to supra, both

the Award of Justice Tulpule reiterated by way of clarification Award by Justice

Jamdar are still operative as the same are not terminated by either of the parties

as provided under Section 19(6) of the Act. The compromise between the parties

in LIC v. Workmen and the scheme formed in E Prabavathy and G. Sudhakar do

not amount to substitution of the Awards passed by Justice R.D. Tulpule and by

Justice S. M. Jamdar. Hence, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the submissions

made by Mr. Naphade, learned Amicus Curiae, in justification of the Award

passed by CGIT is based on the terms and conditions laid down in the Awards

passed by NIT (by Justice Tulpule and Justice Jamdar) in favour of the workmen

for absorption as they have been rendering their service to the Corporation in

the perennial nature of work for a number of years and hence, the High Court

was not justified in interfering with the said Award passed by CGIT. The said

contention urged by the learned Amicus Curiae is accepted by us, as the

impugned judgment and order of the High Court is contrary to the Awards

referred to supra, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the law laid

down by this Court in the aforesaid cases.

50. The Award passed by NIT is binding upon the Corporation till it is

substituted by another Award or replaced by another settlement in relation to the

Ashish

12/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

service conditions of the workmen of the Corporation in accordance with law as

provided under Section 12 read with Section 18(3) of the ID Act or another

Award that is required to be passed by the jurisdictional CGIT in relation to the

above subject-matter after the Awards which are in operation are terminated by

either of the parties as provided under Section 19(6) of the Act. Until, then the

said Award passed by NIT will still be operative in law. Therefore, the same has

been rightly applied to the fact situation on hand in the Award passed by CGIT

and it could not have been set aside by the High Court. Thus, we are of the

opinion that the learned Single Judge erroneously set aside the Award passed by

CGIT and the said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been further

erroneously affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The said

judgments of the High Court are clearly contrary to law and legal principles laid

down by this Court in the cases referred to supra. Hence, the same are liable to

be set aside by allowing these appeals and restoring the Award of CGIT.”

15. When the judgment passed by the Apex Court to the aforesaid

effect was not implemented, contempt petition was filed by the Tamil

Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association

and also by the All India National Life Insurance Employees

Federation.

The chairman of LIC filed an affidavit in the said contempt

petition on 15/09/2015, when it sought to restrict the benefit with the

Award to the persons appointed prior to 1985 only. It thus became

clear that the LIC was not desirous of extending the benefit of the

Judgment of the Apex Court to those who were appointed after 1985

and this constrained the Petitioners to address a legal notice to the

Zonal Manager of LIC to comply with the directions contained in the

Judgment of the Supreme Court and confer the benefits as per the

CGIT Award dated 18/06/2001. However it received no response.

16. It is in light of the aforesaid sequence of events, the Petitioners

have approached this Court, seeking the relief of extending the

benefit of regularization as per the CGIT, New Delhi Award dated

18/06/2001, which is upheld by the Supreme Court on 18/03/2015. It

is the case of the Petitioner that they have never been informed by the

Ashish

13/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

LIC that they are not covered by the Award dated 18/06/2001, and

rather the Petitioners were diligent in prosecuting their remedy from

time to time and they survived on the hope that the benefit of the

Award shall also be extended to them.

It is urged by Mr. Ramamurthy that the Supreme Court has not

prescribed any cutoff date or restricted the application of the Award

dated 18/06/2001 to certain class of employees in LIC, and it covers

all similarly situated employees all over India and the Award has to

be uniformly applied by LIC management, but since the same is not

so done, they are constrained to approach this Court.

17. During the course of the argument, learned Senior Counsel Mr.

Chatterji has placed before us the decision of the Apex Court in case

of Ranbir Singh vs. SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corp. of India

& Anr.

2

, and according to him, the issue has been put to rest by the

aforesaid judgment, with the declaration that the verification process

to be carried out for implementation of the Award shall be confined to

persons working between 20/05/1985 and 4/03/1991 and nothing

beyond the said date.

According to Mr. Chatterji, the Apex Court taking cognizance

of the long stand discord and dispute traveling through various stages

clearly noted that finality had to be drawn on the dispute to avoid

uncertainty and more litigation since nearly 31 years have lapsed

since 1991 and therefore the following directions were issued:-

“75. The dispute is now of an antiquity tracing back to nearly four

decades. Finality has to be wrung down on the dispute to avoid uncertainty and

more litigation. Nearly thirty-one years have elapsed since 1991. We have come

to the conclusion that the claims of those workers who are duly found upon

verification to meet the threshold conditions of eligibility should be resolved by

2 (2023) 17 SCC 196

Ashish

14/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

the Award of monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, and in full and final

settlement of all claims and demands. Thus, this Court directs the following:

(i) A fresh verification of the claims of workers who claim to have been

employed for at least 70 days in Class IV posts over a period of three years or 85

days in Class III posts over a period of two years shall be carried out;

(ii) The verification shall be confined to persons who were working between 20

May 1985 and 4 March 1991;

(iii) All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled

to compensation computed at the rate of Rs. 50,000 for every year of service or

part thereof. The payment of compensation at the above rate shall be in lieu of

reinstatement, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the

workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption and notwithstanding the

directions issued by this Court in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra);

(iv) In carrying out the process of verification, the Committee appointed by this

Court shall not be confined to the certified list before the CGIT and shall

consider the claims of all workers who were engaged between 20 May 1985 and

4 March 1991;

(v) For the purpose of verification, LIC shall make available all the records at

the Divisional level to the Committee appointed by this Court;

(vi) It will be open to the workers concerned or, as the case may be, the Unions

and Associations representing them, to make available such documentary

material in their possession for the purpose of verification;

(vii)The process of verification shall be carried out independently without regard

to the Dogra Report, which is held to be flawed;

(viii) The payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall be

effected by LIC within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the

report of verification by the Committee; and

(ix) The task of verification shall be carried out by a Committee consisting of (a)

Mr Justice P K S Baghel, former Judge of the Allahabad High Court; and (b)

Shri Rajiv Sharma, former District Judge and member of the UPHJS.

LIC shall provide all logistical assistance to the Committee and bear all

expenses, including secretarial expenses, travel and incidental expenses, as well

as the fees payable to the members of the Committee. Justice P K S Baghel shall

fix the terms of remuneration payable to the members of the Committee.”

18. We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.

Ramamurthy in the background facts and in the wake of the decision

of the Apex Court in case of Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time

Temporary LIC Employees Association (supra) and the latest

pronouncement in case of Ranbir Singh (supra), which was decided

along with the pending Contempt Petitions.

Ashish

15/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

The exhaustive judgment, deal with the history of the litigation,

revolving around the claim of absorption of employees, who were

engaged by Life Insurance Corporation of India, as temporary,

badli/part-time workers.

With reference to Section 23(1) of the Life Insurance

Corporation Act, 1956, which enables the LIC to employ such

number of persons as it thought fit to discharge its functions, it also

made reference to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff

Regulations) 1960, and which authorize LIC to appoint persons on a

temporary basis in class III and class IV.

With reference to the industrial dispute that was raised by

Western Zonal Insurance Employees Association on 13/08/1982, it is

noted that the association alleged that LIC had been engaging in

unfair labour practices by employing temporary, badli and part-time

workers and was restricting their employment to short tenures to

deprive them of the claim for permanency.

The judgment then make a reference to the adjudication by the

National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Justice R.D. Tulpule,

former Judge of the Bombay High Court, and the subsequent Award

rendered by Justice Jamdar on a reference being made under Section

36-A.

The Apex Court also exhaustively referred to the Terms of

Compromise and as it noted that in the backdrop that by interim order

of 29/06/1987, when Justice Jamdar Tribunal prohibited LIC from

recruiting persons to class III and class IV from the ‘open market’

during the pendency of the proceedings, the Award being declared on

Ashish

16/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

26/08/1988, which was notified in the gazette of 01/10/1988, had

held that absorption contemplated in the Justice Tulpule Award did

not imply recruitment, and this interpretation was challenged before

the Apex Court, when compromise was arrived between LIC and all

the Unions representing the workers, except one of them i.e. Akhil

Bharatiya Jeevan Bima Nigam Chaturthi Sreni Karmachari Sangh.

The terms of compromise envisaged that the Justice Jamdar

and Justice Tulpule Award shall be substituted by the terms and

conditions of compromise in relation to the question of regular

employment of the workmen concerning the said reference.

The terms of reference was accepted by the two Judges of the

Court on 1/03/1989 and pending the final disposal of the appeal the

Management and the members of the 8 Unions to implement the

terms of compromise by way of interim measure without prejudice to

rights and contentions of the members of the other Union, who have

not entered into the compromise.

19. It is in this background, by a detail judgment and on a thread

bare analysis of the terms of Justice Tulpule and Justice Jamdar

Award and reference was also made to the order of CGIT in respect

of the part-time workmen employed in the establishment after

20/05/1985 and the CGIT delivered its Award presided over by

Justice K S Shrivastav, on 18/06/2001, by directing absorption of the

temporary/badli workers on the same terms as the Justice Tulpule and

Justice Jamdar Awards, with some modifications. The Award held

thus:-

“88. In view of the fact I am of the definite view that such type of workmen

belonging to temporary/badly/ part time categories in class III and Class IV

Ashish

17/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

service of the corporation who were employed after following the procedure and

were allowed to continue service beyond the qualifying period and were eligible

and suitable to every respect should be given absorption in the service from date

of the vacancy in the service in which they could have been absorbed. It will also

apply to these employees whose service were terminated by the corporation.

13. In its ultimate directions, the Srivastav Award directed that the temporary,

badli and part-time workers who were employed after 20 May 1985 should be

granted absorption on the same terms and conditions as was stipulated in the

Tulpule and Jamdar Awards (in respect of workers who were employed from 1

January 1982 to 20 May 1985). LIC was directed to publish a notice in the

newspapers for inviting applications from individual workers for absorption. If

no regular vacancy was available, the Award directed supernumerary posts to be

created. Paragraph 94 of the Srivastav Award is extracted below:

94. In view of the matter I find and conclude that the action of corporation

denying the absorption of these temporary/badli/part time workmen as dealt with

above in the body of this Award and employed after 20-05-85 is not justified. I

further find that these workmen employed after 20- 5-85 should be given

absorption in their job on the same terms and conditions as laid down in the

aforesaid two Awards namely Hon’ble Mr Justice R.D. Tulpule and of Hon’ble

Mr Justice M.S. Jamdar in respect of the workmen employed with effect from 1-

1-82 to 20-05-85 and dealt with by me as above. It is directed that the

corporation shall take into consideration for the absorption of the workmen, on

their eligibility and suitability as dealt with above in the Award. The case of

those workmen belonging to the category of temporary, badli, part-time who had

become eligible for their absorption in their job after completing the qualified

period of working and were suitable in every respect but their services were

terminated and they were turned out of the job by the corporation should also

considered for the absorption of such terminated workmen of the corporation

shall publish a notice in the daily newspaper having wide circulation throughout

India and if in compliance of the notice the workman concerned consent in

writing within stipulated period which could be given in the said notice the case

of such workman should also be considered for their absorption in the regular

vacancy then existing. At the time of the consideration of absorption of such

workmen if it is found that no regular vacancy is available to such workmen,

supernumerary posts should also be created and such workmen should be given

absorption in it. It is also directed that the cases of these workmen for

absorption in existing vacancies should be taken for consideration first

irrespective of the regular recruitment if taken. The case of the contractual

workmen for absorption shall be taken into consideration as per observation

made in the body of the Award and on the basis on conditions as stated above.”

20. Thus, Justice Shrivastav Award directed that temporary, badli

and part-time workers employed after 20/05/1985 should be granted

absorption on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in Justice

Tulpule and Justice Jamdar Award.

Ashish

18/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

21. The Apex Court then made reference to the its decision in case

of Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees

Association (supra), which concluded that Justice Shrivastav Award

was binding and while restoring Justice Shrivastav Award, the Delhi

High Court’s judgment was set aside.

22. Taking note of the subsequent events in form of an

advertisement issued calling application from workers who were

employed as badli, temporary, part-time, in its establishment from

20/05/1985 to 4/03/1991 in terms of the eligibility criteria, it was

noted that contempt proceedings were filed and even LIC instituted

Review Petition against the judgment of Tamil Nadu Terminated Full

Time Temporary LIC Employees Association (supra).

On a detail analysis, the Court noted that on 7/02/1996, a two

Judge bench of the Apex Court in LIC vs. Their workman, and

accepted the terms of compromise with directions that LIC should

exempt class IV workers from test and interview, if the management

has power to do so, and if it do not possess the power then the test

should be of lesser standard compare to other applicants from the

open market.

It taking note of the three Judge Bench decision on 23/10/1992,

by disposing of Civil Appeals E Prabavathy, when the scheme

formulated by LIC for regularising workers who were engaged on a

temporary basis was accepted, and the scheme clearly contemplated,

all those temporary employees who have worked for 85 days in two

consecutive years, with LIC between 20/05/1985 till date and who

confirmed to the required eligibility criteria for regular recruitment

on the dates of their initial temporary employment will be permitted

Ashish

19/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

to complete for the next regular recruitment to be made by the LIC

scheduled for November, 1992. This candidates were given age

relaxation and were permitted to apply for regular recruitment in

normal course. Noting that in E-Prabavathy, the scheme proposed by

LIC was found to be reasonable and the regularization will be by

selection for appointment, the scheme was held to be applicable to

workers of all division of LIC in the country.

23. Very pertinently the Apex Court has noted that the judgment of

the two Judge Bench in Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary

LIC Employees Association (supra), however, failed to notice that as

a result of the final order dated 7/02/1996, in LIC vs. Their Workmen

(supra), Justice Tulpule and Justice Jamdar Awards have been

substituted by terms of compromise, but the two Judge bench

overruled the said order while it adverted only to the interim order

dated 1/03/1989 and arrived at a conclusion that Justice Jamdar and

Justice Tulpule Award were still operative.

In light of the whole conundrum, resulting into a conflict

between a two Judge Bench in Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time

Temporary LIC Employees Association (supra) on one hand, and

earlier binding decision of larger bench in E Prabavathy (supra), the

Apex Court held that LIC cannot be directed to carry out mass

absorption without following recruitment process, which is consistent

with principle of equality of opportunity governed by Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution as such absorption would provide backdoor

entry which negate the principle of equal opportunity and fairness

specifically declared by this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v.

Ashish

20/20 904 WP 723-21.doc

Umadevi

3

24. In the wake of the aforesaid, in para 75, the Apex Court issued

the directions which we have reproduced above, but has directed the

verification to be confined to the persons working between

20/05/1985 and 4/03/1991 and we find that the Petitioners are the one

who are employed after 1992 and definitely they are not entitled for

extension of the benefit either of the Award of the CGIT, New Delhi,

or the compromise that has been entered and accepted by the

Supreme Court.

Since, we find the issue to be concluded by the decision of the

Apex Court in case of Ranbir Singh (supra) and if the Petitioners are

not able to make up and find a place in the window, set out by the

said judgment, in our view, they are not entitled for extension of the

benefit of regularization and absorption as sought by them.

As a result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

No order as to costs.

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

3 (2006) 4 SCC 2.

Ashish