Sri Shashidhar Vs LIC of India

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 13.08.2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN C.R.NO.17 OF 2012, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:723-DB WP No. 3383 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶32

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in CR.17/2012. The petitioner/workman was said to have been employed as Attendant-cum-Caretaker/Sepoy in the Guest House maintained by the LIC of India/respondent. He was being paid a meagre wage of Rs.1,200/- per month and he worked with the respondent/Corporation with effect from 15.07.1997. However, with effect from 01.10.2007, without issuing any memo or notice, the petitioner was denied the employment benefit.

¶33

The Central Government vide order dated 26.06.2012, in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal:-

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:723-DB WP No. 3383 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

“Whether the workmen of the Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Mysore represented by its Senior Divisional Manager in terminating the services of Shri S. Sashidhar S/o Late Sattaiah w.e.f. 01.10.2007 is legal and justified?

¶38

What relief the workman is entitled to?”

¶39

The Tribunal in the impugned award held that the petitioner was a contractual employee and he was not in the temporary sub-staff of the respondents-Corporation. It was further stated that as the petitioner was not a temporary substaff, he was not entitled for regularization and termination of employment would not suffer from any illegality inasmuch as the petitioner was not the workman of the respondentsCorporation, as he would not be covered by the definition of ‘Workman’ as provided in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of another workman, who was identically placed as the petitioner, the same Industrial Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/-. However, the same was

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:723-DB WP No. 3383 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) by this Court in Writ Petition No.3431/2020 c/w Writ Petition No.12358/2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that there was no occasion for the Industrial Tribunal to take a different view in respect of the petitioner than the one taken in respect of the similarly situated workman, viz., Suresh, who was also working in the Guest House and was engaged under the same terms as the petitioner was engaged.

¶44

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation would submit that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents-Corporation. The petitioner was engaged on contract basis and therefore, he would not be covered under the definition of “Workman” as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He, therefore, submits that the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality which requires an interference by this Court.

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:723-DB WP No. 3383 of 2020

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

We have considered the submissions and perused the impugned award as well as the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 30.06.2022 in Writ Petition No.3431/2020 c/w Writ Petition No.12358/2021 filed by Suresh and LIC of India.

¶48

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working with the respondents - Corporation as an Attendant-cumCaretaker of the Guest House. No contract of employment was produced before the Labour Court. Even the contractual employee can be workman depending on the terms and conditions of the employment.

¶49

In this case, the petitioner/workman was employed way back on 15.07.1997 and after 10 years, his services came to be terminated. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his case for equal treatment as given to Sri Suresh, who was similarly employed as that of the petitioner. We find substance in this petition and therefore, we allow this petition and direct the respondents-Corporation to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

¶50