RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA & ANR.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are: D A Introduction ............................................................... 7* B Dogra Report .......................................................... 23* C LIC’s objections to the Dogra Report .................... 30* D The E Prabavathy Group ....................................... 32* E Sequel to E Prabavathy .......................................... 37* E F Submissions ............................................................ 41* G Prelude – Tulpule and Jamdar Awards, and their Aftermath ............................................................... 52* H Srivastav Award and the Judgement of this Court . 57* F I Validity of the verification in the Dogra Report...... 69* J The Interplay between the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and Section 48 of the LIC Act 1956 .............. 74* K Structuring the Relief ............................................. 84* G A Introduction

1Copy pinpoint1. This litigation has a long and chequered history. The dispute, a familiar terrain in service jurisprudence, pertains to the claim for absorption of persons who were engaged by the Life Insurance Corporation of * Ed. Note : Pagination is as per the original Judgment H

p. 1000

A India1 as temporary/badli/part-time workers. Section 23(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act 19562 enables LIC to employ such number of persons as it thinks fit to discharge its functions. Pursuant to clauses (b) and (d) of Section 49(2), LIC has framed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff Regulations) 19603. Regulation 8 empowers LIC to appoint persons on a temporary basis in Class III and Class IV B posts. After an amendment which was notified on 7 August 1971, Regulation 8 provides as follows: “8.Temporary Staff:- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations the Managing Director or Executive Director (Personnel), a Zonal C Manager or a Divisional Manager may employ staff in classes III and IV on a temporary basis, subject to such general or special directions as may be issued by the Chairman from time to time. (2) No person appointed under sub-regulation (1) shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled to absorption in the services of the Corporation or claim preference for recruitment to any post.”

2Copy pinpoint2. On 31 January 1981,Sections 48 and 49 were amended to impart statutory force to the Staff Regulations. According to LIC, its staff and employees are governed by the parent enactment and fall outside the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 4. The validity of the amendment to Sections 48 and 49 has been upheld by this Court in AV Nachane v. Union of India5.

3Copy pinpoint3. On 13 August 1982, an industrial dispute was raised by the Western Zonal Insurance Employees Association alleging 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.

4Copy pinpoint4. On 20 May 1985, the dispute was referred for adjudication by the Central Government to the National Industrial Tribunal6, Bombay 1 G “LIC” 2 “LIC Act” 3 “Staff Regulations” 4 “ID Act” 5 (1982) 1 SCC 205 (“AV Nachane”). See also: M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, LIC, Machilipatnam, (1994) 2 SCC 323; and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raghavendra Seshagirirao Kulkarni, (1997) 8 SCC 461 6 H “NIT”

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1001 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

presided over by Justice RD Tulpule7, a former Judge of the Bombay A High Court. The terms of reference were as follows: “What should be the wages and other conditions of service of badli, temporary and part-time workmen of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as well as the conditions of their absorption into regular cadre?” B

5Copy pinpoint5. On 15 January 1986, the Tulpule Tribunal issued an interim order restraining LIC from recruiting regular employees and from terminating the services of the ad hoc workers working with LIC.

6Copy pinpoint6. On 18 April 1986, the Tulpule Tribunal passed an award 8 which was gazetted on 7 June 1986 stipulating that those ad hoc workers who C were in employment between 1 January 1982 and 20 May 1985 will be entitled for absorption. The award, inter alia, stipulated that: (i) Workers claiming absorption in Class III posts should have worked for 85 days in a period of two years; and D (ii) Workers in Class IV posts should have worked for 70 days in a period of three years. The calculation of the number of days worked was to be upto the date of the reference. The award contemplated that in the future there would be no occasion for LIC to employ workers in temporary and badli categories, save and except for occasional and temporary work.

7Copy pinpoint7. On 1 June 1987, LIC issued circulars for implementing the Tulpule Award. These circulars were disputed by the Unions and Associations representing the workers. Following this dispute over the LIC circulars, the Central Government referred the Tulpule Award for interpretation under Section 36-A of the ID Act to another NIT presided over by Justice MS Jamdar9, a former Judge of the Bombay High Court. The terms of reference were: “Can the Award dated 17/4/1986 special reference to paragraph 44,45,46, 48, 49, 51,52,54,56,57,60,64 and 66 and the interim order dated 14/3/1986 be interpreted to mean that the central office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India is empowered to issue instructions/ guidelines, as contained in their circulars issued in 7 “Tulpule Tribunal” 8 “Tulpule Award” 9 “Jamdar Tribunal” H

p. 1002

A this behalf to implement the directions of the Award. If not what could be the correct interpretation of various directions covered by the said paragraphs in the circumstances of the case? Whether the term ‘absorption’ referred to at various places in the Award can be interpreted to mean ‘recruitment’?”

8Copy pinpoint8. By an interim order dated 29 June 1987, the Jamdar Tribunal prohibited LIC from recruiting persons to Class III and Class IV posts from the ‘open market’ during the pendency of the proceedings. LIC has argued before this Court that on account of the restraint imposed on it from recruiting regular employees (through the interim orders dated 15 January 1986 of the Tulpule Tribunal and 29 June 1987 of the Jamdar C Tribunal), a large number of ad hoc workers were appointed to carry out the day-to-day administration of LIC all over India.

9Copy pinpoint9. The Jamdar Tribunal rendered its award on 26 August 198810 and it was notified in the gazette on 1 October 1988. It held that the absorption contemplated in the Tulpule Award did not imply recruitment. D LIC challenged the interpretation rendered by the Jamdar Award under Article 136 of the Constitution. This Court granted leave in the proceedings11. During the pendency of the proceedings, terms of compromise were arrived at between LIC and all the Unions representing the workers, save and except the Akhil Bharatiya Jeevan Bima Nigam E Chathurthi Sreni Karmachari Sangh 12. The terms of compromise envisaged that the Jamdar and Tulpule Awards should be substituted by the terms and conditions of the compromise “in relation to the question of regular employment of the workmen concerned in the said references”. The terms of compromise which were filed before this Courtare extracted below: F “TERMS OF COMPROMISE

1. The Management and the workmen agree that the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Mr. Justice R.D. Tulpule, in Reference No.NTB-1 of 1988, G published on 7th June 1986, and the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Mr. Justice M.S. Jandar, dated 26th August 1988 in Reference No. NTB-1 of 1987, 10 “Jamdar Award” 11 SLP (Civil) No14906 of 1988, which was numbered as Civil Appeal No1790 of 1989 on the grant of leave 12 H “Karmachari Sangh”

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1003 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

published on 1st October 1988, be substituted by the Terms A and Conditions of Compromise set out hereinafter in relation to the question of regular employment of the workmen concerned in the said Reference.

2. The Management agrees to consider the temporary/ part-time/badli workmen employed by the petitioner for 85 days in any two years in a Class III post and for 70 days in any three years in a Class IV post in any of its establishments during the period 1.1.82 to 20.5.85, for regular employment on the basis and in the manner stated hereinbelow. The temporary/part-time/badli workmen who had made applications for regular employment on or before 7.7.86 or those temporary/part- time/badli workmen whose applications had been received after 7.7.86 but before 6.3.87 and had been rejected on account of late submission, shall be eligible for consideration for regular employment. The selection of the candidate shall be made on the basis of the following qualifications, age test, interview and also having regard to the number of days worked by the candidates.A panel of selected candidates shall be made and the selected candidates shall be appointed in regular employment from the panel in the order of merit prospectively from the dates to be notified as and when vacancies in sanctioned posts for regular employment are filled in from time to time :- (i) QUALIFICATIONS – As per Circular No.Per/A/2D/492/ ASP/79, dated 27.11.79, prescribed for Class III employee subject to relaxation only in regard to percentage of marks, required as per the qualifications as may be decided by the Managing Director of the Petitioner-Corporation. Per/A/2D/526/ASP/81, dated 24.6.1981 subject to relaxation in the matter of basic qualifications as may be decided by the Managing Director of the Petitioner- Corporation. (ii) AGE – As per Regulation No. 18 of (Staff)Regulations, 1960, made by the Petitioner. H

p. 1004

A (iii) TEST – As per Circular dated 27.11.1979, for Class III as well as Class IV workmen and, in addition, as per Circular dated 4.6.1981 for Class IV workmen only. (iv) INTERVIEW – As per Circular dated 27.11.79 for both Class III and Class IV workmen.

B 3. The temporary/part-time/badli workmen who had already qualified in the written test held earlier for consideration for eligible workmen for regular employment, will not be required to appear again for test and they shall be considered for interview on the basis of the test already held.

C 4. The test and interview for regular employment to be held for the purpose of selection of the temporary/part-time/badli workmen aforementioned, shall be commenced within one month of the order of this Hon’ble Court in terms of this Compromise. The selected candidates shall be appointed D in regular employment in accordance with the panel of selected candidates till it is exhausted. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to made recruitment straightway wherever vacancies are more than the candidates in any Division in view of the necessity or expediency for such recruitment. E

5. The recruitment of the temporary/part-time/badli workmen in the categories of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, shall be considered first and if any vacancy may remain unfulfilled in that category, the petitioner shall be entitled to made recruitment in accordance with its usual procedure according to its requirements.

6. In view of the abovementioned Terms of Compromise no dispute in relation to the workmen concerned, as referred in Clause 1 hereinabove, survives in regard to the matter covered by this Compromise between the parties and the respective rights and obligations of the parties in relation to regular employment of the said workman concerned shall be determined and given effect accordingly, if any controversy may arise.” (emphasis supplied) H

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1005 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

The terms of compromise were accepted by an interim order of a A two-judge Bench of this Court in LIC v. Their Workmen13 on 1 March

1989. The order is extracted below: “Special leave is granted. It appears that out of nine Unions eight Unions said to berepresenting about 99% of the workers have entered into a compromise with the Management. In the B circumstances pending the final disposal of the appeal, wepermit the Management and the members of the said eight Unions to implement the terms of compromise by way of interim measure without however, any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the members of the other Union, who have not entered into such compromise with the management.” C

10Copy pinpoint10. On 7 February1996, the above civil appeal in LIC v. Their Workmen (supra)was disposed of. This Court accepted the contention of LIC that since eight unions had already accepted the compromise, the ninth union (Karamchari Sangh) should fall in line and act on the terms and conditions of the compromise in the interest of industrial peace. D Since the litigating workers in Class IV posts were unable to take the test during the pendency of the proceedings, LIC was directed to exempt Class IV workers from appearing for the test and interview, if the management had power to do so under the regulations or the instructions governing their conditions of service.The Court observed that in the event E that the management had no such power, it had “no doubt”that the test prescribed for the workers would be of a lower standard than what had been prescribed under the two circulars mentioned in the compromise. Pursuant to the compromise, LIC appointed 1875 persons to Class III posts and 1324 persons to Class IV posts in various divisions. F

11Copy pinpoint11. The genesis of the present dispute relates to a demand raised by the Unions on 4 March 1991, pertaining to the claim for regularisation of those workers who were employed from 20 May 1985 till the date of reference on 4 March 1991. Acting on the demand, the Central Government made the following reference to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal14 under Sections 10(1)(d) and 2A of the ID Act: G “Whether the action of the Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India in not absorbing badli/temporary and part- 13 Civil Appeal No1790 of 1989 (1 March 1989) (“LIC v. Their Workmen”) 14 “CGIT” H

p. 1006

A time workmen employed in the establishment of LIC after 20.05.1985 is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?”

12Copy pinpoint12. On 18 June 2001, the CGIT which was presided over by Shri KS Srivastav, pronounced the award15 by directing the absorption of the temporary/badli workerson the same terms as the Tulpule and Jamdar Awards, with some modifications. The Srivastav Award held that: “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 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.” D

13Copy pinpoint13. 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). E 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 15 H “Srivastav Award”

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1007 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

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.”

14Copy pinpoint14. The Srivastav Award was challenged by LIC in a writ petition16 E before the Delhi High Court. By a judgment dated 15 April 2004, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court set aside the award and held that the decisions of this Court in E Prabavathy v. Life Insurance Corporation of India17 and LIC of India v. G Sudhakar18 directing LIC to formulate a scheme for regularisation were binding on the CGIT. F The judgment of the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court was the subject matter of a batch of Letters Patent Appeals19 preferred by six Unions/ Associations. The appeals were dismissed on 21 March 2007 by the Division Bench. The Division Bench also issued directions for age relaxation and weight age of past service to the workers: G 16 WP No 4346 of 2001 (High Court of Delhi) 17 SLP (Civil) No 10393 of 1992 (“EPrabavathy”) 18 Civil Appeal No 2104 of 2000 (“G Sudhakar”) 19 LPA 678 of 2004 with LPA 690 of 2004, LPA 710 of 2004, LPA 722 of 2004, LPA 1023 of 2004 and LPA 1165 of 2004 H

p. 1008

A “20. In that view of the matter, while dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants, we issue directions in the following manner: (a) for the next three years whenever an advertisement is made by the respondent corporation for filling up vacancies in Class III and Class IV posts, an opportunity shall be given B to the appellants to submit their applications, which, if submitted, shall be considered along with all other candidates but giving age relaxation to the appellants and also giving due weightage to the past services rendered by the appellants.

C 21. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeals stand disposed of.”

15Copy pinpoint15. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was assailed in a batch of Special Leave Petitions20 filed by six Unions and Associations representing the workers. In the meantime, LIC began the process of implementing the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 21 March 2007 by issuing an advertisement for recruitment of Assistants, by allowing age relaxations and weightage for temporary workers to compete with candidates from the open market.On 11 February 2008, this Court directed the maintenance of status quo. The civil appeals were eventually disposed of by a two-judge Bench of this Court on 18 March 2015 in Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association v. Life Insurance Corporation of India21 which concluded that the Srivastav Award was binding. While restoring the Srivastav Award, the judgment of this Court directed LIC to implement its directions and set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

16Copy pinpoint16. Following the judgment of this Court, LIC issued an advertisement on 21 July 2015 calling for applications from workers who were employed as badli/temporary/part-time workers in its establishment from 20 May 1985 to 4 March 1991, in terms of the eligibility criteria determined by the award. This led to the institution of contempt proceedings before this Court on the ground that by restricting the eligibility for recruitment to workers who were engaged between 20 May 1985 20 Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No15269 of 2007 with SLP(Civil) No 18943 of 2007, SLP(Civil) No 19958 of 2007, SLP(Civil) No 20058 of 2007, SLP(Civil) No 22712 of 2007 and SLP(Civil) No 23623 of 2007 21 H (2015) 9 SCC 62 (“TN Terminated Employees Association”)

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1009 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

and 4 March 1991, LIC was in breach of the directions of this Court in A TN Terminated Employees Association (supra). LIC also instituted review petitions against the judgment in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra). The review petitions and the contempt petitions were directed to be heard together. On 9 August 2016, the review sought by LIC was partially allowed22 by restricting the award of back-wages to 50 per cent. The relevant part of the directions of this Court is B reproduced below: “The temporary and badli workers of LIC, who are entitled for regularisation as permanent workmen in terms of the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2015 passed by this Court, by applying the terms and conditions of the modified award dated C 26.08.1988 passed by Justice Jamdar, are held to be entitled to full back wages as well. However, keeping in mind the immense financial burden this would cause to LIC, we deem it fit to modify the relief only with regard to the back wages payable and therefore, we award 50% of the back wages with consequential benefits. D The back wages must be calculated on the basis of the gross salary of the workmen, applicable as on the date as per the periodical revisions of pay scale as stated supra. The computation must be made from the date of entitlement of the workmen involved in these cases, that is, their absorption, till the age of superannuation, if any concerned workman has attained the E age of superannuation as per the regulations of the review petitioner-LIC, as applicable to the concerned workman.” (emphasis supplied)

17Copy pinpoint17. The curative petitions instituted by LIC challenging the judgment in review were rejected on 22 February 2017. In March 2017, F LIC sorted out and distributed the applications which had been received in pursuance of its notice dated 21 July 2017 through its zonal offices for implementation of the decision in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra). On 16 May 2017, LIC issued directions to the Zonal Managers to implement the Srivastav Award and the order of this Court in the review of TN Terminated Employees Association G (supra). The circular prescribed the following norms of eligibility for absorption: (i) The worker should have been engaged between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991; 22 (2016) 9 SCC 366 H

p. 1010

A (ii) The name of the worker should figure in the list submitted by the Unions to the CGIT in the industrial reference; (iii) Class III workers ought to have been engaged for at least 85 days in two calendar years whileClass IVworkers should have been engaged for at least 70 days in three calendar B years; (iv) The Union or theAssociation should have been an appellant before the Supreme Court; (v) The claimant worker should have submitted a biodata in pursuance of the notice issued by the LIC on 21 July 2015 C for recruitment in regularised positions; and (vi) The worker should have been engaged in accordance with the rules prevalent in LIC.

18Copy pinpoint18. In 2017, various divisions of LIC found 245 workmen to be eligible and they were offered absorption by the Zonal Offices. This led to the initiation of contempt proceedings23 by the Unions who sought the absorption of all temporary, part-time and badli workers and daily wagers who were engaged after 20 May 1985till date.

19Copy pinpoint19. On 11 May 2018, a two-judge Bench of this Court24 directed the petitioning Unions in the contempt proceedings to submit material documents to show the engagement of the workers between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991. This Court also directed LIC to nominate a senior official to scrutinise the documents and to take a final decision in accordance with the prescribed conditions. Consequently, LIC received about eighty-three thousand representations. Upon scrutiny, LIC found seventy-six workers to be eligible for absorption. By an order dated 7 September 2018, a two-judge Bench of this Court25 directed the CGIT at New Delhi to decide upon the eligibility of the claims made by the Unions, Associations and individual workers within a period of three months. However, the Court found that there was no breach of the judgment dated 18 March 2015 in TN Terminated Employees G Association (supra). The order of this Court is extracted below: 23 Contempt Petition (Civil) 1921 of 2017 in Civil Appeal 6950 of 2009 24 Ranbir Singh v. S K Roy, Chairman, LIC, Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1921 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No 6950 of 2009 (11 May 2018) 25 Ranbir Singh v. S K Roy, Chairman, LIC, Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1921 of H 2017 in Civil Appeal No 6950 of 2009 (7 September 2018)

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1011 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

“The crucial dispute in these proceedings is regarding the A beneficiaries of the Award dated 18.06.2001 in I.D. No.27 of 1991 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT), New Delhi. The Award has been finally upheld by this Court in the judgment rendered in Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC B Employees Association v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 62. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India appearing for the respondents/LIC, submits that for want of documents/ materials, the LIC is not in a position to verify as to who are the C actual beneficiaries of the Award. Learned counsel appearing for the Union(s) and the individual workers, however, would submit that despite producing the records and despite availability of the original records with the LIC, no positive decision is taken by it. Faced with such a situation, we are of the view that the CGIT, D New Delhi should look into the matter with regard to the claims made by the Union(s)/individual workmen, regarding entitlement to the benefits under the Award and submit a report to this Court. Accordingly, we direct the CGIT, New Delhi to look into the claims made by the Union(s)/individual Workmen and submit a report to this Court within three months. E

There is also a dispute raised by some of the respondents that the benefit of Award should be made available to those who have been engaged as Badli workers after 4.3.1991. That is a matter for interpretation by this Court. For the time being, CGIT, New Delhi would limit its enquiry only to the claims of the Badli workers between 20.05.1989 and 04.03.1991, as already indicated by this Court in the order dated 11.05.2018. We do not find that it is a case of contempt. Therefore, the contempt notices are discharged. However, the applications/ petitions be kept pending for the purpose of necessary assistance to the Court.” On 10 September 201826, the above order was modified by the same two-judge Bench in the following terms: 26 Ranbir Singh v. S K Roy, Chairman, LIC, Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1921 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No 6950 of 2009 (10 September 2018) H

p. 1012

A “There is also a dispute raised by some of the respondents that the benefit of Award should be made available to those who have been engaged as Badli/Part-time/Temporary workers after 4.3.1991. That is a matter for interpretation by this Court. For the time being, CGIT, New Delhi would limit its enquiry only to the claims of the Badli workers between 20.05.1985 and B 04.03.1991, as already indicated by this Court in the order dated 11.05.2018.” (emphasis supplied)

20Copy pinpoint20. Thereafter, on 12 December 201827, while dealing with the C batch of contempt petitions, a two-judge Bench of this Court directed the CGIT, in terms of this Court’s previous directions dated 7September 2018 in the same contempt proceedings, to “look into the matter with regard to the claims made by the Union(s) individual workmen”. The CGIT was directed to submit its report within four months, as contemplated by the order dated 7 September 2018 and modified on 10 D September 2018 in the contempt proceedings. Between October 2018 and 16 May 2018, the CGIT issued notice to the Unions and individuals in the earlier industrial reference to submit their claims. As many as 15,500 claims were submitted on behalf of the Unions, Associations and individual workers claiming absorption and the benefit of the Srivastav E Award dated 18 June 2001. LIC submitted its responses before the CGIT. The CGIT submitted its report on 31 May 201928 to this Court. The report ofthe CGIT will be referred to as the Dogra Report, adopting the name of the presiding officer. B Dogra Report

21Copy pinpoint21. Before the presiding officer of the CGIT, LIC set up the plea that only those workers whose names were mentioned in the original certified list in the industrial reference were entitled to the benefit of the Srivastav Award. LIC argued that this was also the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings arising out ofa review G of TN Terminated Employees Association (supra) on 10 September 2018 and reiterated on 12 December 2018. On the other hand, the Unions representing the workers, as well as the individual workers, claimed that they were entitled to the benefit of the award irrespective of whether 27 Ranbir Singh v. S K Roy, Chairman, LIC, Contempt Petition (Civil) No 1921 of 2017 in Civil Appeal No 6950 of 2009 (12 September 2018) 28 H “Dogra Report”

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1013 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

their claim found place in the original list as certified before the CGIT in A the industrial reference. Dealing with this aspect, the Dogra Report concluded that though the order dated 10 September 2018 required the CGIT to verify the list which was already on the record, this did not imply that only those workers whose names figured in the certified list were entitled to absorption, to the exclusion of others. Paragraphs 24 B and 25 of the Dogra Report have a bearing on the present proceedings and are hence extracted below: “24. To my mind, answer to this question has to be given in the light of backdrop of the circumstances which culminated into passing of the Award in ID case No.27 of 1991 which was admittedly upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated C 18/3/2015 reported as (2015) 9 SCC 62 – Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India. No doubt, Hon’ble Apex Court in its order dated 10/9/2018 has observed that this Tribunal will verify the list which is available on record. But this does not mean that only D such workmen whose names are mentioned in the original/certified list attached with the reference, are liable to be considered for absorption, to the exclusion of other workmen. This Tribunal has to keep in mind that contempt petitions were earlier filed by members of Various Unions before Hon’ble Supreme Court and LIC had also filed contempt petitions in High Court of Delhi against E Regional Labour Commissioner. During pendency of said petition, E. Prabhavati and others were impleaded as party at the instance of LIC vide order dated 25/9/2008. Thereafter, memo of parties was filed by LIC by adding Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Welfare Association as Respondent No.47. In view of this, the contention of the LIC that members of E. Prabhavati & others or Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Welfare Association are not entitled to any relief, is not tenable, when the said Association has been held to be necessary party. There is not even a whisper in any of the judgment/order of Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court that only workmen whose names are mentioned in the certified/original list of CGIT Award are to be granted relief. An overall examination of the order dated 10/9/2018 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court shows that this Tribunal is required to verify the list available on record but there is no direction to exclude members of other Union/workmen H

p. 1014

A inasmuch as Hon’ble the Apex Court while considering the claims of contempt petitioners has ordered this Tribunal to consider the claims of those workers who were employed as Badli workers with the Management of LIC during the period from 20/5/1985 to 4/3/1991 subject to fulfilment of number of days as mentioned in the Award. B

25. It is settled principle of law that while considering the order/ judgment of Constitutional Court, this Tribunal is required to keep in mind entire spectrum of the orders as well as background of the case. It is not proper to cull out a single para or a sentence from the order/judgment so as to defeat the very purpose of the C order so passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. If the orders dated 11/5/2018, 7/9/2018 and 10/9/2018 are taken into consideration, it is crystal clear that claims of all such workmen and Union/s who worked as Badli workers during the period from 20/5/1985 to 4/3/ 1991 are required to be considered by this Tribunal. Although I D am in full agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Management/LIC that initial onus is always upon the workmen concerned to prove that they were in the employment of the Management at the relevant time, however this Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that UC has not filed on record any document/ record relating to employment of various workmen rather has simply taken a plea that same being old record is not traceable.”

22Copy pinpoint22. The Dogra Report noted that LIC had admitted that 321 workerswere found to be eligible for absorption in terms of the Srivastav Award. The report found fault with LIC for making contradictory claims that 321 workers were eligible for absorption when the records of workers were allegedly old and not traceable. The Dogra Report drewan adverse inference against LIC for having failed to maintain the records in pursuance of the burden cast upon it by Section 25-D of the ID Act, particularly when the reference was pending since 1991. Paragraph 29 of the report is extracted below: G “29) During the course of arguments as well as in the reply filed on behalf of the Management/LIC, it is clear that Management has admitted that till date 321 Nos. of employees were found to be eligible in terms of the Award and they were considered eligible for absorption. It is not understandable tothis Tribunal as to what were the basis for the Management/LIC for coming to the

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1015 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

conclusion that only 321 Nos. of workmen/employees were found to be eligible and covered by the Award of CGIT in ID case No.27/1991, when the Management has come up with a plea that record relating to the workmen being old record is not traceable. It is worthwhile to mention here that Section 25-D of the ID Act specifically provides that it is the duty of every Employer to maintain a muster roll and to provide for the making of entries therein by the workmen who may present themselves for work at the establishment. This Tribunal has to keep in mind a vital fact that since the reference bearing ID No.27/1991 is pending before various Courts since 1991, the Management/LIC was/is required to keep the record in safe custody when the case of such a huge magnitude was pending before the Courts. In such circumstances, this Tribunal is constrained to draw adverse inference against the management.”

23Copy pinpoint23. Based on the above hypothesis, the report proceeded to decide “prima facie” the claims of the Unions and individual workers. While D taking up the claims made by the All India Life Insurance Employees Association and its affiliate, Life Insurance Employees Association, Delhi, the report notes that 6998 claims had been filed (as contained in Annexure A). Upon scrutiny, LIC drew the attention of the CGIT to the fact that 3592 duplicate entries were found in the claims which were submitted (as contained in Annexure A-1). Noting that the “Unions have not seriously disputed the same”, the Dogra Report concludes that “such claimants are to be given benefit of absorption only once”. The Dogra Report also notes that workers who had started working beyond the cut-off date of 4 March 1991 would not be covered in the enquiry. This observation in the Dogra Report was in view of the order of this Court in the contempt proceedings arising out of the review of TN Terminated Employees Association (supra) on 7 September 2018, which had specifically observed that whether the benefit of the Srivastav Award should be given to those who had been engaged as badli workers after 4 March 1991was a matter for interpretation by this Court. Hence, for the time being, CGIT had been directed to limit its enquiry only to the claims for the period between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991 (as contained in Annexure A-2).In this context, the Dogra Report held that those workers who had commenced work after 4 March 1991 would not be covered by its enquiry. H

p. 1016

24Copy pinpoint24. The Dogra Report accordingly found the following workers to be entitled to absorption: a) The All India Insurance Employees Association Calcutta and Western Zone Insurance Employees Association had filed a claim on behalf of 3337 workers as part of the list B contained in Annexure B.LIC argued that in this list of 3337 workers, 3332 workers did not find mention in the original certified list. The Dogra Report perused the documents and found that all3337 workers were entitled to the benefit of absorption; C b) All India LIC Employees Association had filed claims on behalf of 97 workers as a list contained in Annexure C. The Dogra Report found that all 97 workers (except one who commenced work post 4 March 1991) were entitled to absorption and LIC’s argument of fabrication of documents was baseless when considered against the D general practice of the Branch Managers at LIC; c) National Organization of Insurance Workers filed a claim on behalf of workers as a part of Annexure D. The Dogra Report found that all 401 workers in accordance with Annexure D were eligible for absorption; E d) The All India National Life Insurance Federation Bombay filed two claims on behalf of 1674 workers of the Nagpur Association (Annexure E) and 371 workers of the Hyderabad Association (Annexure F). The Nagpur Association conceded that approximately 84 entries were blank, and 38 workers who had worked after 4 March 1991 and three who worked prior to 1 January 1982 would not be entitled to any benefit. Thus, the 1590 remaining workers of the Nagpur Association were found to eligible for absorption (contained in Annexure E-1). The legal heirs of two deceased workers were held to be entitled to monetary benefit in lieu of service. As regards the 371 workers of the Hyderabad Association, the Dogra Report excludes those who had either worked prior to 20 May 1985 or after 4 March 1991 and those eligible for absorption were detailed out in Annexure F-1; H

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1017 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

e)The Akhil Bhartiya Jivan Nigam filed claims on behalf of A 890 workers as a part of a list contained in Annexure G. It was admitted thatof the 890 workers, 692 were engaged after 4 March 1991, there were 8 repeat entries and 2workerswere engaged prior to 1985. Consequently, after carrying out the exclusions, Annexure G-1 represented the list of eligible workers identified by the Dogra Report for absorption; f) The Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Welfare Association filed claims on behalf of 376 workers in Annexure H. After excluding those who had worked prior to or after the cut-off date, a list of eligible employees was tabulated by the Dogra Report in Annexure H-1. Workers who had reached the age of superannuation were held entitled to receive all consequential benefits from LIC; and g) Annexure I contained the names of a group of workers, described as the “E- Prabhavati workmen”29 containing 1333 workers. After excluding those who had worked less than the requisite number of days for absorption and those who had been engaged after 4 March 1991, the Dogra Report found the remaining workers to be eligible for absorption and their claims were tabulated in Annexure I E (A).The specific case of the E Prabhavati group of workers will be dealt with in the course of the present judgment. At this stage, it is be material to note that LIC had contended that this batch of workers had been specifically excluded by paragraph 75 of the Srivastav Award. Notwithstanding F this, the Dogra Report has held that this batch of workers would also be entitled to absorption.

25Copy pinpoint25. Apart from the persons named in the annexures mentioned above, the Dogra Report has concluded that the following claims by the Union for absorption would have to be allowed: G (i) Annexure J filed on behalf of 36 workers by the LIC Workers Union Kanpur– where 35 workers were allowed absorption (except 1 worker recruited after the cut-off date); 29 Interchangeably referred as “EPrabavathy” H

p. 1018

A (ii) Annexure K filed on behalf of 17 workers by the LIC Workers Union, Gujarat Unit –where 4 out of the 17 workers were held eligible; (iii) Annexure L filed on behalf of 119 workers from the Jodhpur Division of LIC –where all were held eligible for absorption B (while it was noted that 1 worker’s name appeared twice); (iv) Annexure M – 22 workers were held entitled to absorption; (v) Annexure N – 2 workers out of the 54 were held entitled to absorption since only these two worked during the relevant period; (vi) Annexure O – 1 out of 9 workers was held entitled to absorption, since the others had been employed after the cut-off date of 4 March 1991; (vii) Annexure P –4 workers were held entitled to absorption; (viii) Annexure Q –workers in this list were held not entitled to the benefit of absorption as they had worked after the cut- off date of 4 March 1991; and (ix) Apart from the above annexures, the Dogra Report scrutinized the claim of several individual workers and determined whether they were entitled to absorption. E C LIC’sobjections to the Dogra Report

26Copy pinpoint26. Broadly speaking, LIC has urged the following objections to the Dogra Report: (i) The CGIT was not entrusted with the task of adjudication but of verification; F (ii) The orders passed by this court in the contempt proceedings arising out of the review of the decision in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra) on 11 May 2018, 7 September 2018 and 10 September 2018 indicate that:

G (a) In the course of verification, CGIT was not entitled to travel beyond the Srivastav Award dated 18 June 2001; (b) The CGIT had to verify only those claims where the workers were engaged between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991; and H

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1019 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(c) The verification by CGIT was to be confined only to those badli, temporary and part-time workers whose names were contained in the original certified list in the reference leading to the Srivastav Award dated 18 June 2001; (iii) The CGIT was duty-bound to verify only the documents produced by LIC to determine whether the workers were working during the specified period.The Dogra Report has found that almost all the names of workers submitted by the Union were eligible without due verification; (iv) A total of 15,465 claims were submitted, which include: C (a) Persons who were engaged beyond the stipulated period between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991; (b) Persons whose names were not in the certified list before the CGIT in the industrial reference; and D (c) Persons from the E Prabhavati group who were not covered by the Srivastav Award, as expressly set out in paragraph 75 of the award; (v) During the course of the verification by LIC, it was found that the documents/material produced by several workers E were fabricated and there was a duplication of names; and (vi) Though paragraph 75 of the Srivastav Award had categorically held that the group of workers described as the “E Prabhavati” group were not entitled to relief, the Dogra Report held them to be entitled for absorption. LIC F has also submitted objections to the certification which has been carried out in respect of certain workers whose names are set out in the annexures to the Dogra Report.

27Copy pinpoint27. At this stage, it would be material to note that the original certified list of workers in the reference contained the names of 4024 workers. According to LIC, if the certification exercise carried out in G the Dogra Report were to be accepted,about11,780 workers would be entitled to absorption. D The E Prabavathy Group H

p. 1020

28Copy pinpoint28. The Srivastav Award dated 18 June 2001 details the history pertaining to this group of workers. Paragraphs 19-20 and 75 of the Award are extracted below: “19. Thereafter the employees employed as temporary, badli and part time after 20th May 1985 raised demand for their absorption B regularising too in the regular service. When their demands were not accepted by the corporation several writ petitions in this respect were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. These writ petitions were filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras between the years 1989 to 1991.The writ petition No.10367/89 filed was between the terminated full time temporary LIC Welfare C Association and Senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Khanjawar. This writ petition alongwith other writ petitions total 18 writ petitions were listed for hearing before the full bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madras. After hearing the parties of all the writ petitions the Hon’ble High Court of Madras gave judgment which is D reported as 1993(1) LLJ 1030 between terminated full temporary employees welfare association and Senior Divisional Manager, LIC, Khanjawar. All the writ petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

20. Parties had then preferred civil appeal before the Hon’ble E Supreme Court of India against judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. These civil appeals were numbered as SLP (C) 10393 to 10413/92 E. Prabhawati and others Vs. LIC of India and others. It appears that in the said civil appeal on the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Corporation had framed a scheme for the regularization of the employees who were granted ad hoc appointments for 85 days at intervals from time to time was placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After hearing the parties by means of interim order dated 23-10-92 found the scheme as reasonable and was approved to the existence of the scheme contained in clauses (a) and (d) of paragraph 1 and the corporation was directed to proceed to regularise the employees eligible in accordance with the scheme. The clauses of (a) and (d) of the scheme have been reproduced in the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. With the aforesaid direction all the civil appeals were disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

H

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1021 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

[…] A

75. Now as regard the binding effect of the order dated 23- 10-92 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 10393-10411/92 E. Prabhawathy and others Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another confirming the scheme of absorption/regularisation as argued on behalf of the corporation in my view can be well accepted. The order passed I find is between the same parties. E. Prabhawathy and other is the party in this proceeding being impleaded at the subsequent stage of the proceeding. Statement of claim has been filed in the present case by the aforesaid workmen. The said order dated 23-10-92 of Hon’ble Supreme Court is thus between same parties of the case and in view of the circumstances. I find that workmen has no ground to challenge the legality of the said order dated 23.10.92. The conditions of the workmen made in this regard are not accepted.”

29Copy pinpoint29. At this stage, it would be material to note that on 23 October D 1992, a three-judge Bench of this Court specifically dealt with the above group of workmen in E Prabavathy (supra). The judgment of this Court is extracted below in its entirety: “ORDER E Special Leave granted. In State of Haryana & Ors. etc. etc. v. Piara Singh & Ors. etc. etc., (JT 1992(5) S.C. 179), this court indicated how regularization of adhoc/temporary employees in Government and Public Sector Undertakings should be effected. While laying down the guidelines in this behalf, this court observe in paragraph 43 as under:- “The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an adhoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an adhoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/ appointment. If he gets selected, well and good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The H

p. 1022

A appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an adhoc/ temporary employee.” The LIC was asked to work out a scheme for the purpose of regularization of employees who were granted adhoc appointments for 85 days at intervals from time to time. The learned counsel for the LIC has placed before us a Scheme for regularization of such adhoc employees. We have given our anxious consideration to the Scheme proposed by the LIC and have also heard both Mr. Ramamurthy and Mr. Salve at length and we are of the opinion that the Scheme proposed by LIC is a reasonable one and commands acceptance, save and except the fact that the recruitment scheduled for November, 1992 will be postponed by not less than six weeks to enable the eligible adhoc employees to compete with others for selection at the said recruitment. We are of the opinion that the relaxation granted to these adhoc employees for having worked with the LIC in the past in the matter of age and qualification suffices. The further provision that if such an adhoc employee has worked between 20th May, 1985 and till date for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years, is a reasonable stipulation for eligibility for regularization. We are of the opinion, the scheme is in consonance with the guidelines which we have laid down in paragraphs 43 to 49 of Piara Singh’s judgment. Mr. Salve, the learned counsel for the LIC, also informed us that in regard to future adhoc appointments/regularization the LIC is in the process of making a scheme consistent with the guidelines laid down in Piara Singh’s case so that this device of employment for 85 days which has not been approved may not be resorted to in future. The Scheme contained in Clauses (a) to (d) of paragraph 1, which is as under, is approved subject to the postponement of the recruitment scheduled in November, 1992 by at least six weeks and the LIC will proceed to regularize the employees eligible under the Scheme; G (a) All those temporary employees who have worked for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years with the Life Insurance Corporation between 20th May, 1985 uptill date and who confirmed to the required eligibility criteria for regular recruitment on the dates of their initial temporary, appointment H

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1023 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

will be permitted to compete for the next regular recruitment to be made by the Life Insurance Corporation after the regular recruitment for these posts currently scheduled for November, 1992. (b) These candidates will be considered on their merits with all other candidates who may apply for such appointments, including those from the open market. (c) These candidates will be given an age relaxation for applying for regular recruitment provided that they were eligible on the date of their first temporary appointment for securing regular appointment with the Life Insurance Corporation. C (d) If these candidates are otherwise eligible, they can apply for regular recruitment in the normal course. This regularization will, in the circumstances, be by selection for appointment. We make the above clauses of the Scheme as part of our order. D Mr. Ramamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, further submitted that certain questions of law in regard to the interpretation of section 84 of the LIC Act, 1956, as amended by the LIC Amendment Act, 1981, and Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, arise for consideration in the present case in view of the judgment of the Madras High Court. We may state that we express no opinion on the said questions of law as they do not survive in view of the scheme which LIC has worked out and which we have approved.It is not necessary for us to go into those questions and we leave them open for decision in an appropriate case in future. The Civil Appeals will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.”

30Copy pinpoint30. The above order of the three-judge Bench in E Prabavathy (supra) indicates that LIC had been directed by the Court to work out a G scheme for the purpose of regularising workers who were granted adhoc appointment for a period of 85 days from time to time. A scheme was prepared by LIC. The three-judge Bench had given “its anxious consideration to the scheme proposed by the LIC” and having heard both counsel for the workers and for LIC, held that it was “of the opinion H

p. 1024

A that the scheme proposed by LIC is reasonable one and commands acceptance”. The only modification was a postponing of the recruitment which was scheduled on 1 November 1992 to allow eligible ad hoc workers to compete with others for selection at the recruitment. This Court affirmed the relaxation of age and qualifications granted by the scheme to eligible ad hoc workers who had worked between 20 May B 1985 “till date” in any two calendar years. This Court accepted the scheme which was proposed by LIC, subject to the modification noted above. This Court held that regularisation would be by selection for appointment. The clauses of the scheme were incorporated as a part of the order dated 23 October 1992 in E Prabavathy (supra). In this C backdrop, paragraph 75 of the Srivastav Award specifically excluded the claims of the E Prabavathy workers who were governed by the order of this Court dated 23 October 1992 in E Prabavathy (supra). The grievance of the LIC isthat despite this, the Dogra Report concludes that this group of workers would be eligible for absorption in terms of the Srivastav Award. D E. Sequel to E Prabavathy

31Copy pinpoint31. Following the order of this Court dated 23 October 1992 in E Prabavathy (supra), LIC framed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions 1993. A contempt petition was moved before this Court alleging that the scheme which was notified E by LIC on 28 June 1993 was not in accordance with the order in E Prabhavathy (supra). The contempt petition was dismissed by this Court on 12 July 1993.

32Copy pinpoint32. In 1998, a batch of writ petitions was filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking the relief of absorption on a permanent basis. Among the petitions was a petition instituted by G Sudhakar and others. F A Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the petition, placing reliance on the decision in E Prabavathy (supra). On 3 November 1998, the Division Bench of the High Court directed LIC to frame a scheme for regularisation. LIC preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Division Bench in G Sudhakar (supra) which G was allowed by this Court30 on 22 November 2001. A two-judge Bench of this Court held in G Sudhakar (supra) that the scheme approved in E Prabavathy (supra) shall govern the absorption of all adhoc workers in the country. This Court’s order dated 22 November 2001 in G Sudhakar (supra) is extracted below: 30 H Civil Appeal No 2104 of 2000

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1025 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

“This appeal is by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (for A short “the Corporation”) against the Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Respondents filed a Writ Petition praying for a mandamus to the corporation for their absorption on permanent basis which stood dismissed. On an appeal being carried, the Division Bench of the High Court B disposed of the appeal with a direction to the corporation to frame a scheme for regularisation of the employees and regularise their services in accordance with such scheme. It is this direction of the High Court which is the subject matter of challenge in this Appeal. C Mr. Salve, the learned Solicitor General appearing for the Corporation stated that, in fact, in the case of E. Prabhavathy & Ors. v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. (Civil Appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 1039-10413/1992), this Court was in seisin of a similar problem and during the hearing of that appeal, a tentative scheme was produced before this Court and D the Court framed the terms of those schemes as a part of the order and disposed of the appeal in terms of the said scheme on 23rd October, 1992. The four clauses of the said scheme which formed a part of the order are quoted hereinbelow in extenso :- “Scheme : E

(a) All those temporary employees who have worked for 85 days in any two consecutive calendar years with the Life Insurance Corporation between 20th May, 1985 uptill date and who conformed to the required eligibility criteria for regular recruitment on the dates of their initial temporary appointment will be permitted to compete for the next regular recruitment to be made by the Life Insurance Corporation after the regular recruitment for these posts currently scheduled for November, 1992; (b) These candidates will be considered on their merits with all other candidates who may apply for such appointments, including those from the open market. (c) These candidates will be given an age relaxation for applying for regular recruitment provided that they were eligible on the date of their first temporary appointment for securing regular appointment with the Life Insurance Corporation; H

p. 1026

A (d) If these candidates are otherwise eligible, they can apply for regular recruitment in the normal course. According to the learned Solicitor General, since a scheme is in existence, it is no longer necessary to evolve a fresh scheme for these employees who were the parties before the Andhra Pradesh B High Court. He also stated that in the meantime, a set of instructions have been framed called the “Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993” which takes care of such employees who were continuing for a fairly long period without being regularised. C Mr. Krishnamurthy, the learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, contended that the aforesaid instructions will not govern the case of the employees who were there before the High Court, as they were the appointees between 1986 and 1993. He further contended that a similar matter, in the case of The Management of the LIC of India v. Their Workmen (C.A. Nos. 1790/89) a Bench of this D Court has disposed of with a direction to consider the case of regularisation considering the suitability at a lesser standard by its judgment dated 7th February, 1996 and, therefore, there is no infirmity with the impugned direction of the High Court. Having examined the judgment dated 7th February, 1996 of this E Court in C.A. Nos. 1790/89, we find that the earlier 3 judge bench decision dated 23rd October, 1992 has not been noticed. The aforesaid three-judge bench decision unequivocally makes the provisions of the scheme as a part of the order. Necessarily, therefore, the case of regularisation of the employees of the F corporation could be dealt with in accordance with the said scheme and it would not be necessary to evolve a fresh scheme for a group of employees. Mr. Krishnamurthy further contended that the E. Prabhavathy’s case (supra) relates to the employees of Tamil Nadu division. But, it is not disputed that they are the employees of the Corporation. If the Corporation has evolved a G scheme assuming for the Tamil Nadu division, then the same could be equally applicable to the employees of all Divisions in the country. That being the position, the scheme which has been approved and formed a part of the order of this Court dated 23- 10-1992 should govern the case of these respondents who were H writ petitioners before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1027 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Needless to mention, in the earlier decision of this Court dated A 23-10-1992 this Court has not limited the applicability of the scheme only to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Division. In the aforesaid circumstances, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not justified in issuing the impugned direction to the Corporation to evolve a new set of scheme to govern the case of the employees who had filed writ petitions in the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the impugned direction of the Division Bench of the High Court and substitute the same with the direction that the case of regularisation of these respondents shall be considered in accordance with the scheme which formed a part of the order of this Court dated 23- 10-1992, if not already considered. This appeal accordingly stands disposed of.”

33Copy pinpoint33. The above judgment of this Court in G Sudhakar (supra) lays down that: (i) The order dated 23 October 1992 in E Prabavathy (supra) made the scheme as a part of its order. Necessarily, the case for the regularisation of the workers of LIC would be dealt with in accordance with the scheme. Hence, it was not necessary to evolve a fresh scheme for a different group of workers; (ii) Though E Prabavathy (supra) dealt with workersof the E Tamil Nadu Division, the scheme which was evolved by LIC would equally be applicable to workers of all divisions in the country; (iii) The decision in E Prabavathy (supra) has not limited the applicability of the scheme only to the workersof the Tamil F Nadu division; and (iv) The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not justified in evolving a new scheme to govern the workers who had filed a Writ Petition and its judgment accordingly stands set aside. G

34Copy pinpoint34. The decision of a two-judge Bench of this Court dated 7 February 1996 in LIC v. Their Workmen (supra) arising out the Jamdar and Tulpule Awardsh as notnoticed the earlier decision dated 23 October 1992 of a three-judge Bench in E Prabavathy (supra). Subsequently, on H

p. 1028

A 18 January 2011 in LIC v. D V Anil Kumar31,a two-judge Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal by accepting the terms of the scheme framed by LIC for the absorption of Class IV workers. The attention of this Court has also been drawn to an order dated 20 October 2016 of this Court in Hashmuddin v. LIC32 followed by an order dated 15 January 2020, which accepted a scheme formulated by LIC for workers B who had rendered service for more than sixteen years. F Submissions

35Copy pinpoint35. On behalf of LIC, Mr ANS Nadkarni, Senior Counsel, made the following submissions: C (i) As a consequence of the Dogra Report, LIC would be required to regularise about 11,780 workers who claim to have worked for a limited number of days. No verification of these claims has been done either by the LIC or by the CGIT in the Dogra Report. This would amount to an illegal D backdoor entry, which would be contrary to the statutory regulations framed by the LIC. Further, LIC would also face the issue of a lack of sanctioned postsfor these workers; (ii) The Tulpule Award dated 17 April 1986 and the Jamdar E Award dated 26 August 1988 directed the regularisation of personsworking between 1 January 1982 and 20 May 1985 who:(a) had worked as Class IV workers for a minimum period of 70 days in any three calendar years; or (b) had worked as Class III workers for a minimum period of 85 days in any two calendar years. However, these awards were substituted by a settlement which was arrived at in the civil appeals before this Court in LIC v. Their Workmen (supra), which were finally adjudicated upon by an order dated 7 February 1996; (iii) Both the Tulpule and Jamdar Awards directed regularisation and absorption without verifying the existence of sanctioned posts. During the pendency of the litigation, LIC was injuncted from making fresh recruitment till the awards were pronounced. As a result of the interim orders dated 15 31 Civil Appeal Nos 953-968 of 2005 (“LIC v. D V Anil Kumar”) 32 H Civil Appeal No 2268 of 2011

RANBIR SINGH v. SK ROY, CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE 1029 CORP. OF INDIA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

January 1986 and 29 June 1987, LIC could not pursue an open, competitive and transparent process for selection on the basis of an advertisement followed by a written examination and interview. The last recruitment process took place in 1984, andtill 1993 there was no fresh recruitment. This necessitated the making of temporary appointments between 1985 and 1991 to operate LIC’s 2048 branches across India; (iv) The Srivastav Award dated 18 June 2001 arose out of a reference dated 4 March 1991,which required the tribunal to adjudicate whether LIC’s action of not absorbing badli/ temporary/part-time workers employed after 20 May 1985 C was justified. The award directed the absorption of “the concerned workmen”, i.e., those employed after 20 May 1985 (and thus not covered by the Tulpule and Jamdar Awards) who had worked as Class III workersfor a minimum of 85 days in two calendar years or who had D worked as Class IV workers for a minimum of 70 days in three calendar years. The award directed that if regular vacancies did not exist to accommodate these persons, supernumerary posts would have to be created by LIC. Such a direction would be contrary to the principles which have been enunciated in the decision of this Court in ONGC E v. Krishan Gopal33. LIC as a statutory corporation is governed by its regulations, and no appointment beyond the vacancies in sanctioned posts can be made; (v) The LIC Act was amended by Act 1 of 1981. The amendment to Section 48(2A) stipulates that the regulations F which have been framed prior to 1981 are deemed to be rules framed under Section 48(2)(cc). Further, Section 48(2C) stipulates that the rules framed under Section 48(2)(cc) would override the provisions of the ID Act. The provision has been held to be constitutionally valid by this G Court in M. Venugopal v. LIC34; (vi) Though LIC is bound by the judgment of this Court in TN Terminated Employees Association (supra) which has 33 2020 SCC OnLine SC 150 34 (1994) 2 SCC 323 (“M. Venugopal”) H

p. 1030