- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1655 OF 2003

WRIT PETITION NO.1655 OF 2003

WRIT PETITION NO.1655 OF 2003

1. Life Insurance Corporation of

India, a statutory corporation

incorporated under the provisions

of the Life Insurance Corporation

Act, 1956 and having its registered

office and Western Zonal office at

Yogekshema, Jeevan Bima Marg,

Mumbai 400 021.

2. The Senior Divisional Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of’

India, Thane Divisional office,

at "Jeevan Cghintamani", Eastern

Express Highway, Thane 400 604 .. Petitioners.

Versus.

1. S.G.Solanki,

Indian Inhabitant represented

by Western Zone Insurance

Employees Association, 19A,

Laxmi Niwas, Manmala Tank Road

Mumbai 400 016.

2. The Presiding Officer,

CGIT-I having its office at

Shram Raksha Bhavan, Shivsrushti

Road, Eastern Express Highway,

Sion, Mumbai. .. Respondents.

Ms. S.Paranjape i/b M/s.Little & Co. for the

petitioners.

Shri Saikumar Ramamurthy for the respondent No.1.

--

CORAM: ABHAY S. OKA, J

CORAM: ABHAY S. OKA, J

CORAM: ABHAY S. OKA, J

- 2 -

DATED: 14TH JULY, 2006.

DATED: 14TH JULY, 2006.

DATED: 14TH JULY, 2006.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

ORAL JUDGMENT :

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. On the last Friday, I have heard the

submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the

parties.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the first petitioner - the Life

Insurance Corporation of India has taken exception to

the judgment and award dated 2nd August, 2002 passed

by the learned Presiding Officer of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal - I. By the impugned

judgment and award, the learned Presiding Officer has

held that the petitioners have acted illegally in

discontinuing the services of Mrs.S.G.Solanki, the

first respondent with effect from 5th July, 1994. It

was held that she was retrenched and therefore the

petitioner should reinstate her as a part time

Sweeper. Necessary orders were passed for payment of

back wages on the footing that the first respondent

had worked for two hours every day from 6th July, 1988

to 4th July, 1994.

3. With a view to appreciate the submissions made

- 3 -

by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will

be necessary to refer to the facts of the case.

According to the case of the first respondent, she was

employed by the first petitioner as a part time

sweeper on or about 7th July, 1988 and she