Karnataka High Court
The Senior Divisional Manager vs D S Rangareddiyavar on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
WP No. 33613 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 33613 OF 2014 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
LIC OF INDIA, MAJOR,
P B NO. 16, DHARWAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER (LEGAL & HPF)
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
D O NO.1, BANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRY, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. RAMACHANDRA G. BHAT)
AND:
Digitally
signed by C 1. D.S. RANGAREDDIYAVAR,
HONNUR S/O SHIVAREDDI, MAJOR IN AGE,
SAB
RESIDING AT GURLAKETTE,
Location:
HIGH COURT KANKIKOPPA P.O., NARGUND TALUK,
OF DISTRICT DHARWAD - 580 001.
KARNATAKA
2. ASST LABOUR COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL - GOVT. (C.G.I.T) INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
MANGALORE - 575 001.
(RESPONDENT NO.2 DELETED AS PER
ORDER DATED 09.10.2014)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AKSHAYA B.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.10.2014, PETITION AGAINST R2 IS
REJECTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
WP No. 33613 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS FROM CGIT IN CR NO.72/1991 AND
PERUSE THE SAME. QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY CGIT,
BANGALORE (ON 24.3.2014 IN CR.NO.72/1991) UNDER THE
ORIGINAL OF ANNEX-A DATED 17.6.14 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this court assailing the award dated 24.03.2014 in C.R.No.72/1991 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bangalore ('CGIT' for short).
3. In terms of the said award, the reference was allowed and the Tribunal concluded that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'LIC') was not justified in removing the present respondent from service with effect from 21.10.1986. As a consequential relief, the CGIT also held that the respondent is entitled to other consequential benefits that he -3- NC: 2025:KHC:21753 WP No. 33613 of 2014 HC-KAR would have received till the date of attaining superannuation along with 50% back wages.
4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, the LIC is before this Court.
5. Certain facts not disputed are as under:
6. Respondent joined the service as Probationary Development Officer on 16.10.1974 and was confirmed to the said post on 13.12.1976. Alleging misconduct on the part of the respondent, disciplinary enquiry was initiated. Respondent participated in the said enquiry, denied the charges. The enquiry officer concluded that the charges against the respondent were established. The second Show Cause notice was issued. Again the respondent disputed the findings of the enquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority terminated the respondent from service.
7. It is also noticed that there were several proceedings before the various forums between the petitioner and respondents, which may not be relevant for the adjudication of the case on hand.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:21753 WP No. 33613 of 2014 HC-KAR
8. The order of dismissal of service finally came to be questioned before the CGIT and CGIT has set aside the order of dismissal and passed an order of reinstatement with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages.
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the impugned award is contrary to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI AND OTHERS Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS1. Referring to the said judgment, it is urged that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Development Officer in LIC does not fall under the definition of "Workman" and that being the position, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is without jurisdiction.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman on the other hand would contend that the judgment in CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI AND OTHERS (supra) does not take into account, the definition of workman, which is amended by incorporating the word "operational". It is his further submission that the word "operational" has not been 1 (2015) 7 SCC 263 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:21753 WP No. 33613 of 2014 HC-KAR discussed in detail in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.R.ADYANTHAYA AND OTHERS Vs. SANDOZ (INDIA) LTD. AND OTHERS2.
11. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.K.VERMA VS. MAHESH CHANDRA AND ANOTHER3, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the respondent, who was a Development Officer, is a workman under the Act of 1947.
12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
13. In paragraph No.16 of CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI AND OTHERS (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"16. As we find, the said judgment R. Suresh3 has been rendered in ignorance of the ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench in H.R.Adyanthaya6 and also the principle stated by the three-Judge Bench in Mukesh K. Tripathi2 that the decision in S.K.Verma4 is not a precedent, and hence, we are compelled to hold that the pronouncement in R.Suresh3 is per incuriam. We say so on the basis of the decisions rendered in A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak15 , Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court16 , State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd17. and 2 (1994)5 SCC 737 3 (1983)4 SCC 214 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:21753 WP No. 33613 of 2014 HC-KAR Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra18."
14. After referring to the judgment in LIC OF INDIA Vs. R.SURESH4 the Hon'ble Apex Court has concluded that the said judgment is rendered in ignorance of the ratio in Constitution Bench in H.R.ADYANTHAYA AND OTHERS (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that ratio of the judgment in S.K.Verma (supra) is not a precedent.
15. Though the learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urged that the expression "operational" found in Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 has not been discussed and considered, it is required to be noticed that in H.R.ADYANTHAYA AND OTHERS (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the expression "skilled" appearing in Section 2(s) of Act of 1947 and also held that the said expression is similar to the expression "operational" appearing in Section 2(s) of Act of 1947. Thus, the contention that the expression "operational" is not considered in proper perspective has to be rejected.
4 (2008)11 SCC 319 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:21753 WP No. 33613 of 2014 HC-KAR
16. It is also relevant to note that the respondent was appointed as a Development Officer. He was required to ensure sale of the products of LIC. It is an admitted fact that certain persons, who are recruited/appointed as agents by the LIC were reporting to the respondent and respondent was required to supervise the work of the agents. The Development Officer in LIC will have a freedom to take decisions to evolve strategies in selling the products of LIC.
17. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the view that there is no difficulty in holding that the respondent was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. This being the position, the impugned award is without jurisdiction. Hence, the same has to be set aside.
18. It is relevant to notice that the CGIT has passed the award the judgment in CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI AND OTHERS (supra) was pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The CGIT did not have the benefit of the ratio laid down in the aforementioned case.
19. It is fairly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-employee has a remedy -8- NC: 2025:KHC:21753 WP No. 33613 of 2014 HC-KAR under Rule 40 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960. Since the writ petition is allowed on the premise that the CGIT had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties, liberty is reserved to the respondent to approach the Competent Authority under Rule 40 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960.
20. The time spent in prosecuting the present writ petition as well as the proceedings before the CGIT has to be excluded in computing the limitation.
21. In case, the respondent approaches the Authority as noted above, the respondent's claim has to be adjudicated in the manner known to law.
22. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties.
23. All contentions are kept open to be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:21753 WP No. 33613 of 2014 HC-KAR
ii) The impugned award dated 24.03.2014 passed by the CGIT in CR.No.72/1991 is set aside.
iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to approach the Appellate Authority under Rule 40 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960.
iv) The Authority shall consider the appeal filed by the respondent in accordance with law on its merits.
v) The respondent shall have 60 (sixty) days time to file an appeal from today.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SS,PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT: BHK..