The main legal point established in the judgment is the potential for unfair labour practice in the engagement of temporary employees without regularisation, and the directive for LIC to consider the case of the appellants for regularisation within a specified period.

Amitava Lala, J.

Both the aforesaid appeals are arising out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 13th April, 2001 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19951 of 2000 (Kailash Nath and Ors. v. Chairman, (sic) Office Mumbai and Ors.). The order impugned is as follows:

This is a writ petition for quashing the notice for employment published by Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) for class IV post in its Divisional office at Varanasi and for a direction to regularise the petitioners in that office on the ground that they have been working temporarily in that office since 1985.

I have heard Sri BN Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P. Goel assisted by Sri Manish Goel, counsel for LIC. According to the petitioner the LIC called for the names for temporary employment in class IV in its Divisional office in 1985 and the names of the petitioners were sponsored by employment exchange. They further states that select list was prepared and since 1985 they have been permitted to work 10-20 days in a month and since 19th September, 1997 they have been working continuously in the office. In view of this Sri Singh, counsel for the petitioner submitted that no fresh direct recruitment could be made and in fact they should be regularised in those post.

Sri Goel submitted that LIC is governed by Service Regulation and there is no provision to regularise the petitioner and direct recruitment should be made in accordance with regulation framed therein. Sri Goel states that in LIC regularisation has been made under paragraph 7 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 issued under regulation 8 of the Regulation and have submitted that appointment could only be made in accordance with this regulation.

I have considered the aforesaid submission of the parties. Petitioners have stated necessary facts in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it has stated that LIC called for the name for temporary employment in the year 1985 and the names of the petitioners were sponsored by the employment exchange and they were selected in the year 1985. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioners were allowed to work from 10-20 days in every month. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that petitioner has been working continuously with effect from September, 1997. In paragraph 8 they have stated that they worked for more than 240 days every year. In paragraph 9 they have mentioned that there are number of vacancies in the office. These paragraphs have been replied in paragraphs 12, 14, 16, 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit. There is no specific denial of these paragraphs that the petitioners names were called from employment exchange and they have been engaged as temporary as class IV employees and have working during the period that they are entitled to the benefit of instruction issued by the LIC.

The case of the petitioners has not been considered. It would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioners candidature along with the other candidates whether they have applied for not. While considering their candidature, LIC will relax qualification for their age and educational qualification etc. It is also relevant to say that they have worked for last 15 years. In case they have worked satisfactorily LIC may consider their case sympathetically. The result of the selection will be declared only after the case of the petitioners is considered.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

When in one hand the writ petitioners filed the appeal, being Special Appeal No. (292) of 2001, by saying that instead of giving direction for consideration, the Court could have passed the appropriate order for regularisation of the service of the petitioners, on the other hand, the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter in short