Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15805
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
D.S. RANGAREDDIYAVAR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 33613 OF 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRY, SRI. RAMACHANDRA G. BHAT
For the Respondents: SRI. AKSHAYA B.M
The definition of 'Workman' under employment law excludes Development Officers in LIC, invalidating the Tribunal's award.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition to quash the award by Central Government Industrial Tribunal - The LIC terminated the employee alleging misconduct, but Tribunal held the termination unjustified, granting reinstatement and back wages. The court reversed the Tribunal's jurisdiction by stating the employee does not fall under the definition of 'Workman'. (Paras 3, 17, 18)
(B) Employment Law - Definition of 'Workman' - Court held that the role of the Development Officer in LIC does not meet the criteria to be considered a 'Workman' under the relevant Act, referencing Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 10, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested an award issued by CGIT restoring a terminated employee's position with back wages, based on claims of misconduct, which were upheld by CGIT.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the employee classified as non-'Workman' under the relevant Labour Act, rendering the CGIT's award jurisdictionally flawed.
Issues: Determination of employee's classification under the Act regarding 'Workman' status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal's findings were based on misinterpretation of 'Workman' under the applicable law, mandating the dismissal of the award.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the award set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner appealing against cgit's reinstatement order. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. contrasting definitions of workman concerning dismissal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court examining precedents on classification of employees. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. court decision determining cgit award jurisdictionally flawed. (Para 17) |
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 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.
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 OTHERS 1. 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 (2015) 7 SCC 263 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. Suresh 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.Antu
