Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao, vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India,
2024 Latest Caselaw 10323 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao, vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India, on 15 November, 2024

                                        1

APHC010086252021
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI                             [3310]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

               FRIDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                   PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

   WRIT PETITION NO: 5496/2021, 2346/2018, 9666/2013, 16752/2013,
              17230/2013, 19262/2011 and 37210/2013

WP No.5496/2021

Between:

Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao, and Others                        ...PETITIONER(S)

                                      AND

Life Insurance Corporation Of India and Others              ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

   1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. BATHULA RAJ KIRAN (SC FOR LIC )

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER :

As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same,

they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this

Common Order.

2. The grievance of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is that, LIC

of India engaged the petitioners herein as temporary Class IV employees

(peons/watchmen) from 1996 at its offices in Nellore, Machilipatnam and

Visakhapatnam Divisions in Andhra Pradesh without issuing appointment

letters. Wages were paid to them in dummy names every month in order to

avoid regularization of their services. Minimum wage requirements as

mandated by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 were also circumvented. As a

result, no proper records of wage payment and attendance of the Petitioners

were maintained until 2011. All the Petitioners have worked with the LIC for

more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011. The petitioners have joined in LIC of

India after completion of 10th standard because of financial problems of their

families. Most of the petitioners belong to SC/ST/OBC communities. Due to

less education and social backwardness the petitioners do not know the

implications of wage payments in Dummy names. In some of the offices the

officials used to prepare a consolidated payment Voucher for all the temporary

workmen by debiting other Miscellaneous Expenses Account and the Officials

in OS department used to disburse the wage payment to the Temporary

Workmen. At that time the workmen were not aware of whether their names

are mentioned in the consolidated Miscellaneous Payment Voucher or not. It

is further stated that on 10.07.2010, the Insurance Employees' Union,

Machilipatnam Division wrote to the Regional Manager (P&IR), South Central

Zonal Office, LIC of India bringing to their notice the practice of paying wages

to temporary Class IV employees in dummy names and requested that wages

be paid in the employees" original names. As per rules, Temporary Workmen

or Badli Worker or Daily wager or whatever the name may be, are to be

appointed as per LIC of India (Temporary Employment) Instructions 1993 and

these instructions are notified by Ministry of Finance in Gazette of India in

1993. These instructions specified that workmen should be engaged for

maximum period of 120 days only. To continue the same workmen for years

together, the LIC offices have started wage payments in Dummy names every

month by violating their own Rules and Regulations. Further, the audit and

Inspections conducted from 1993 to 2011 are also silent about the wage

payments in Dummy names and the associated corruption in wage payments

in Dummy names. No records are maintained about the number of workmen

engaged in that particular month and thus violated the labour laws.

While the matter stood thus, in accordance with the Supreme Court's

order dated 18.01.2011 in D.V. Anil Kumar [C.A. No. 953-968 of 2005], LIC of

India issued a notification on 20.05.2011 for appointment of peons. The said

notification was applicable as a One-Time measure for recruitment of all

eligible temporary Class-IV employees who had been working with LIC of

India for more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011. The selection procedure

included a written examination and interview of candidates short listed through

the examination. It is further stated that the written examination was to be

held on 26.06.2011. The Petitioners being temporary Class-IV employees

meeting the eligibility criteria, applied to appear in the examination in

accordance with the notification dated 20.05.2011. Accordingly, they had

submitted their applications to the respective Branch Manager/Manager

(P&IR) at the Divisional Offices in the prescribed format. Since wage slips had

not been issued to those Class-IV employees, the permanent Class-III

employees working in the respective Branch/Divisional Offices certified their

employment with LIC of India for 5 years through affidavits. However, their

applications were not considered on the ground that they had not been

working with LIC of India for more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011. The

Records which are to be maintained as per Section 18 and Section 30 of

Minimum Wages Act 1948 are not maintained by LIC of India. Wages were

not paid as per Minimum Wages Act 1948 up to June 2011. In the

Proceedings in Application no.46/09/2012-E1 of 2012 as per Minimum Wages

Act 1948 before Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), LIC was instructed

to pay Rs.12,287/- as LIC has paid wages less than the Minimum Wages. This

clearly proved that wages are not paid as per Minimum Wages Act 1948 up to

June 2011. Since LIC of India did not issue admit cards to the temporary

Class IV employees even after the order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contempt proceedings were initiated in Marre

Nagaraju v. LIC of India [Contempt Case No. 951 of 2011 in W.P. No. 16063

of 2011]. On 20.08.2011, LIC of India filed a counter affidavit in the said matter

wherein it was stated that the concerned temporary Class-IV employees had

not worked in LIC of India for more than 5 years as on 18.01.2011 and that the

workmen could not produce proof of their temporary employment with the

Corporation as enquiries are not conducted at that time. The enquiry reports

of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-Vijayawada and CBI proved that

LIC of India has paid wages in Dummy names. Thus LIC of India has

submitted false Affidavit to this Hon'ble Court. The petitioners have spent the

most important part of their life as Temporary workmen in LIC of India and

some of the workmen are aged more than 45 years. If at this age they lose the

employment there will not be any opportunity of getting employment outside

LIC of India. Hence, the present writ petitions came to be filed.

3. The counter affidavits have been filed in all the writ petitions. The

counter in WPNo.5496 of 2021 is taken for convenience.

4. In the counter affidavit in WP No.5496 of 2021, wherein, while

denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the

Petitioners raised the dispute only to take a chance, since they are fully aware

that they are engaged only on daily wage basis and that there is no rule or

provision to regularize the temporary or daily wagers. Moreover, they have

filed various WPs, in separate groups, before this Court with a prayer to

absorb them in the Corporation. The Corporation recruits the staff, on

permanent basis, through laid-down procedures and it does not provide any

instructions for regularization of the services of temporary/daily wage

workmen employed/engaged in the offices of the Corporation. LIC of India,

being a "State" under Article 12, has to strictly follow the Rules Regulations

and Policies and therefore the same cannot be moulded to benefit a selected

few persons like the petitioners. It shall be in contravention of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India. It has fixed norms and Recruitment Procedure. If anyone

is appointed dehors such process as prescribed, that would be in gross

violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and would tantamount

to backdoor entry. The Honourable Supreme Court in a case of Secretary,

State of Karnataka and other vs. Umadevi and others 1wherein it washeld

that such an appointment cannot be granted. It is further stated that the

petitioners herein did not fulfill the eligibility condition prescribed as per the

notification dated 20.05.2011 issued by the Corporation pursuant to the

directions of the Honourable Supreme Court in CA No's 953-968 of 2005.

This is a One-Time exercise and those who are not eligible on 18.01.2011

can't claim the benefits of the order. Even as per the order of the Honourable

Supreme Court CA No. 6950/2009 and batch, the petitioners do not satisfy the

eligibility condition for absorption as per the Award dated 18.06.2001. It is

stated that the petitioners herein are not eligible for regularization either as per

the Orders in CA No. 953-968 of 2005 or as per the orders in CA

No.6950/2000 & batch by the Honourable Supreme Court. In fact, the process

of recruitment as per the said orders by the Honourable Supreme Court has

already been completed. Only eligible persons were selected as per the

orders of the Court. The selection/ regularization of the daily wagers/

temporary employees as permanent employees dehors the rules and

constitutional scheme of public employment. Moreover, LIC of India being a

Public Sector organization should give equal opportunity to all the eligible

persons of the Country to apply and compete for the vacancies existing in the

Corporation, while recruiting employees. The opportunity to apply and

compete for the vacancies existing in the Corporation should not be restricted

(2006) In Civil Appeals Nos, 3595-3612 of 1999

only to the petitioners herein and every chance is to be given to all the eligible

people of this Country. The right to equal opportunity is achieved only when

equal opportunity is given to all the eligible candidates of the Country to apply

and compete for the vacancies that exist in the Corporation and not when the

petitioners are regularized at the cost of other eligible people of this Country.

The Corporation recruits the staff on permanent basis through laid-down

procedures and hence deviations from the prescribed procedures cannot be

entertained and implemented. The LIC Act, Rules and Regulations followed by

the Corporation, does not provide any instructions for regularization of the

services of temporary/daily wage workmen working in our Organization,

whatever may be the period of time they worked. It is further stated that the

Civil Appeal No.96 of 2007, in which it has been held by a Constitution Bench

of the Court inUma Devi's case that 'Absorption, regularization or permanent

continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily- wage or adhoc

employees dehors the rules and constitutional scheme of public employment

cannot be granted by the Courts. As regards the Circular dt.31/03/1998, the

same cannot override Article 16 of the Constitution and hence regularization

cannot be granted under the said Circular. Even if the contractual labourers or

casual workers or adhoc employees have worked for a long period they

cannot be regularized dehors the rules for selection. The petitioners are not

eligible for continuing as daily wage workers and they are to be removed from

their engagement, in view of the various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme court.

Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to the counter

affidavit filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 in WP No.28379 of 2021. It is

stated in the reply affidavit that, it is true that the respondents No.2 and 3

issued a notification dated 21.7.2015 in compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court

order dated 18.3.2015 in the Civil Appeal No.6950 of 2009 "Tamilnadu

terminated fulltime temporary LIC employees association vs LIC of India

and others with 6951, 6952, 6953, 6954 and 6956 of 2009 to implement the

award dated 18.6.2001 in the ID No.27 of 1991 CGIT, New Delhi. It is not true

that, the respondent Corporation has not received any application from the

petitioners in response to the notification dated 21.07.2015. Further, all the

contents made in all the counters are totally false and baseless and hence

prayed to pass appropriate orders.

6. Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Sri B. Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for LIC appearing

for the respondents.

7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the

averments made in the petitions, submits that, LIC was engaging Temporary

Peons, Assistants and Typists and they were paid pittance of wage and in

several instances Appointment letters were not issued to Peons. These issues

were referred to National Industrial Tribunal-1, Mumbai in 1985. Later, the

Honourable Justice R.D.Tulpule award was published in the Gazette of India

on 7th June, 1986. It was clearly stated in the award that "large number of

employees come to be engaged without adherence to any formalities or

procedures by the various local Managements would be completely eliminated

and done away with this kind of employment in the Corporations history would

be the last occasion. She further submits that, in that Award, it was clearly

stated that "such work men who have worked for 85 days in a year for three

years should be listed for absorption in regular cadre" and such persons who

have worked for 85 days in a year of three years should be listed for

absorption in regular cadre" and such persons who have worked 85 days in a

year for 5 years should be absorbed in regular cadre with immediate effect. It

does not make any distinction, between temporary badili or part time

workmen, but it is not known why and how it claimed different periods of

service for purposes of absorption. "Class-IV Employees who have worked

for a total period of 70 days during a period of three calendar years, they

should be considered as eligible for being absorbed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per

Circular of LIC of India bearing reference:ZD/591/ASP/85, Dated 22.07.1985,

wherein it clearly stated that engagement of Daily wagers was discontinued.

She further submits that the LIC of India has brought out Life Insurance

Corporation of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions 1993 to

regulate the engagement of Temporary Workmen. The said instructions are to

be followed for employment of persons on temporary basis whether badli or

temporary or whatever name they are called. The said instructions are

notified by Ministry of Finance, Government of India. She further submits that

the Petitioners were engaged as Temporary Workmen without issuing

Appointment letters and wages were paid in different names every month to

avoid their regularization and also to deprive them from the benefits granted

by Statutory Labour Laws. Further, the Petitioners are Temporary

Peons/Watchman working in LIC of India- Warangal, Nellore, Machilipatnam,

Karimnagar and Visakhapatnam Divisions. They are less educated and they

were compelled to sign on a different name to obtain their wages. She

submits that the Wages are not paid as per Payment of Wages Act 1936 and

also as per Minimum Wages Act 1948 and no records are maintained in

respect of the workmen engaged.

9. Learned counsel mainly contended that the LIC of India has issued

notification for recruitment of Peons from the Temporary Workmen who have

worked for at least five years as on the date of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court. The burden of producing proof of working is on the workmen. LIC

Offices have not issued any wage slips to the Petitions and thereby the

workmen are not having any proof of their continuous employment in LIC of

India for five years. The last date of submissions of applications was 3 rd June

2011. She further submits that, if the petitioners fulfill the conditions namely

they are working in LIC of India as Class-IV employees for more than five

years as on 18.01.2011 and possess minimum eligible qualification and age,

their applications shall be forwarded to the authorities concerned. Therefore,

appropriate decision has to be taken by the second respondent in accordance

with the records maintained by them. She further submits that LIC of India

has conducted One Time examination to the Temporary workmen on

26.6.2011. Only 4 persons of Machilipatnam Division have appeared for the

one time examination.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the General

Secretary of Insurance Employees Union has filed WP No.19445 of 2011

before this Court along with 35 candidates seeking to direct the respondents

to consider the applications of the petitioners' candidates and hold another

One Time examination of those temporary persons who have worked in LIC of

India for more than 5 years as per observations made in Civil Appeal No.953-

968/05 of this Court. The same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

12.07.2011 without going into the merits of the case. Aggrieved by the same,

they preferred SLP (Civil) 34236 of 2011 &batch before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, Central

Bureau of Investigation Officials from Visakhapatnam conducted enquiry in

LIC of India, Machilipatnam Divisional Office and obtained depositions from

the petitioners of LIC-Machilipatnam and Nellore Divisions. Unfortunately

instead of taking action they have forwarded their preliminary enquiry report

Dated 03.5.2012 to Chief Vigilance Officer of LIC of India requesting to take

further action, but justice was not done to Temporary Workmen. The office

Notings of CVC clearly stated that wage payments in dummy names to the

workmen was established. She further submits that the Deputy Chief Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bangalore has conducted enquiry at Hyderabad

Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Office and the workmen submitted

their depositions to the Dy. CLC. The enquiry of report of DCLC (Central)

dated 14.6.2012 also established the wage payments in dummy names and

non-issuance of wage slips to the Temporary workmen. After few months, LIC

of India has stopped issuing Wage slips to the temporary workmen.

12. To support her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has

placed reliance on a catena of decisions of various High Courts.

(i). In a case of Pandurang Kashinath Shelke and others versus

Union of India through Secretary Finance and others 2 , wherein the

Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, while allowing the

appeals, observed as under:

"LIC of India is having approximately about 5000 vacancies of Class IV all over India and LIC of India will additionally hold AS A ONE TIME MEASURE, one time limited examination for those temporary persons who are working in LIC of India for more than five years and who had possessed minimum eligible qualification and age as prescribed at the relevant time of their entry into LIC of India would be considered. For this purpose, LIC of India will hold a limited written examination which will be in the vernacular language with limited syllabus which will be announced in advance.

.....

In so far as open market candidates who had appeared in the written test at the relevant time and who were successful in same, shall be called for interview along with temporary employees. Such of those persons who shall be successful in the interview shall be offered appointment and the conditions as applicable to temporary persons in so far as offer of appointment shall be applicable to the open market persons as well."

(ii). In another case JitubhaiGigabhaiSingrakhiya versus Life Insurance Corporation of India 3 , wherein the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, held as under:

Writ Petition No.5020 of 2011, dated 27.7.2018

R/Special Civil Applicatin Nos.4553 of 2015 & batch, dated 29.6.2018

"It is apparent that in the Order dt. 18.11.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as under the Notification vide dt. 25.05.2011, issued by the respondent, the common subject was "temporary worker". Both the authorities must have been aware of the fact that the temporary workers, work only as and when work is allotted to them viz. for less number of days in a year, despite that fact the minimum duration of service to be eligible is laid as 5 years and not 1825 days. Hence, the respondents have just attempted to play mischief with the order of Hon ble Apex Court and deprive the petitioners of their lawful rights.

18. Even as per the statutory law, viz. Section 25 B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if a worker has worked for 240 days a year, then it is deemed that he has rendered continuous service. Although the said provision is not applicable to the present matter, but if applied, the number of days of work equal to 5 years of service shall be 1200 days, by calculating 240 days into 5 day (240x5) and not 1825."

(iii). in another case of Baldaniya Maheshkumar Keshavlal versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India4, wherein the High Court of Gujarat at

Ahmadabad held as under:

"It is true that the Apex Court has held that all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending benefit, which is a normal law. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as persons who are similarly situated but have not approached the Court, they would not be entitled for the similar relief on the ground of well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. The Apex Court has observed that they should be treated as "fence-sitters". However, it is also held that this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons.

(15) In the present case, the manner and method in which the respondent has implemented the order of the Apex Court was highly deprecated and condemned by this Court, as noticed hereinabove. The methodology or policy or calculation adopted by the respondent authority in multiplying 365 days with 5 years before the cut-off date of 18.01.2011, has been set aside by this Court. This Court has even passed strictures against the respondent in misinterpreting the direction issued by the Apex Court. Though the directions which are issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 29.06.2018 are in favour of those petitioners, it was obligatory upon the respondent authorities to implement the judgement of this Court in those cases also wherein the employees have not been permitted to take the examination in view of the illegal and arbitrary method adopted by the respondent-

LIC. It was the solemn duty of the respondent-LIC to apprise this Court that there were other employees, who were also ousted by their illegal action and they are also entitled to the same relief. When the policy or the procedure adopted by the respondent in interpreting the order of the Apex Court is held to be illegal, then the judgment of this Court in favour of few cannot be made applicable to only those employees who had approached earlier.

(iv). in another case of Navaneeth v. Life Insurance Corporation of

India and others5, wherein the High Court of Kearala at Ernakulam held as

under:

R/Special Application No.16059 of 0018, dated 29.11.2021

"With regard to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17982/2011 the continuous service has commenced from 11/1/2006 and on 3/6/2011 he has completed the period of five years and seven days which is more than the period stipulated. However, in this case, the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner's date of entry into service should be taken as 25/4/2005 and if the said date is taken, he would be underaged having not completed 18 years of age. Along with I.A. No.2513/2012, the counsel for the first respondent has produced Ext.R3(a), R3(b) and R3(c) documents which are copies of the relevant portions of the Budget Control Register for the year 2005 -06. Ext.R3(a) shows that from 25/4/2005 onwards, the petitioner had been engaged for short spells of four days or six days duration. Such short spells of engagement are not liable to be reckoned for the purpose of computing the minimum period of five years stipulated by Ext.P3, even according to the respondents. I have already found that placing reliance on such short periods of engagement for one purpose and adopting another date for the purpose of computing the minimum period of continuous service stipulated would be anomalous. Therefore, the stand of the respondent in the present case that the petitioner's application had to be rejected for the reason that he was underaged when his service is calculated from the date of his first entry into service i.e. 25/4/2000 is unsustainable. The date of first entry into service of the petitioner herein should have been taken to be 11/1/2006, the date from which his period of continuous engagement for the purpose of calculating the five year period stipulated by Ext.P3 commenced. Therefore, it has to be held that the rejection of the application of the petitioner by adopting 25/4/2005 as the date of his first entry into service is unsustainable.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying on the above

decisions, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

14. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavits,

submits that, the Corporation recruits the staff on permanent/regular basis

through laid-down procedures but do not provide any instructions for

regularization of the services of temporary employees employed in the offices

of the Corporation. He further submits that the recruitment of Class-III and

Class-IV staff in LIC of India is done as per the "LIC of India Recruitment of

(Class III and Class IV staff) Instructions, 1993" dated 25.02.1993. As per

these instructions, the candidates fulfilling the criteria with respect to age and

WP(C ) No.17982 of 2011(W), dated 16.2.2012

educational qualifications would have to apply whenever a notification is

issued by LIC of India. The eligible who are found qualified in the written

examination and selected through the process would need to undergo medical

examination and those candidates found to be medically fit would be offered

appointment, based on the vacancies notified in the notification, as full time

employees of the Corporation. He further submits that, the Corporation, on

need basis, may employ staff in Class III and Class-IV, on temporary basis,

following LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions, 1993 (for

short "the Rules") dated 28.06.1993 which instructions were issued by the

Corporation, in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of LIC of India (Staff) Rules,

1960. The LIC of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 are deemed to be rules made by

the Central Government under Section 48 (2) (cc) of the Life Insurance

Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981. These instructions are statutory in

nature and therefore, they have the force of law. He further submits that even

the staff employed following the Rules, are not eligible for regularization as the

sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 8 of LIC of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 stipulates

that no person appointed on a temporary basis 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. However, where such a

temporary employee has worked for a minimum period of 85 days or more in a

financial year, he will be allowed relaxation in upper age limit to compete in

the immediately following regular recruitment under the Rules.

15. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioners

herein were never recruited by the Corporation as per the above mentioned

laid down procedures for recruitment. They were never issued any

Appointment letter by any Authority in LIC for any post/ cadre. Some of the

petitioners herein were engaged as a daily wagers, intermittently, on need

basis, to attend to miscellaneous jobs such as dusting, cleaning, filing, serving

drinking water to staff etc. They were paid wages as per the prevalent

Minimum Wages Act. Hence, the submission of the petitioners that they have

joined the Corporation as Peon/ Watchman is totally false and not based on

facts. He further submits that thedaily Wagers are engaged as per the

requirements of the office. Since they are engaged as Daily Wagers, the

respondents did not verify their Certificates for confirming their age, date of

birth, qualifications, caste etc., before their engagement. The respondents did

not maintain any record as to their caste and category. Remuneration to the

Daily Wagers are also paid after verifying the concerned name with that of his

declaration only. Hence, learned Standing Counsel submits that paying

wages in dummy/false names does not arise and is not the intention of the

respondents. He further submits that the allegation that the petitioners were

paid wages in dummy names is not based on facts. The petitioners should

have pointed out or complained about the payment of wages on dummy

names, at the time of making payment, if any. It is a thought developed by the

petitioners, after the Notification dated 20.05.2011 issued by LIC of India

pursuant to the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court in CA No. 953-

968 of 2005. He further submits that the wages were paid to those persons

who are actually engaged by the Corporation. He further submits that, as per

the practice, one person prepares the Payment Voucher, one official checks

the Voucher and one Manager/Officer passes the Voucher and the Daily

Wager concerned shall be identified at the Cash Counter and payment shall

be made to him. So, there is no question of payment of wages on dummy

names. All the payments to daily wagers were made promptly and as per the

existing rules and regulations issued by the relevant Labour Commissions.

Moreover the respondents have been paying wages in the names as specified

by the workmen themselves.

16. Learned standing Counsel submits that for any temporary

appointment after the notification of LIC of India (Employment of Temporary

Staff) Instructions, 1993, the said instructions are being followed by the

Corporation. He further submits that one Sri Chakka Anil Kumar is not the

petitioner under the present WP 19262/2011 & batch cases. Any appointment

letter issued under the Rules will contain the exact period of engagement and

against his leave vacancy. Once the period of engagement as mentioned in

the letter is completed, the said person will be disengaged.

17. Learned Standing Counsel mainly contended that as per decision

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of D.V. Anil Kumar & others vs. LIC of

India6, setting forth certain eligibility criteria for applying for recruitment of

Peons set in the Employment notice dated 20.05.2011. Temporary

CA Nos.953-968 of 2005, dated 20.05.2011

employment certificate given on the basis of verbal statement on the basis of

declaration by other employees has to be supported by corroborative

evidence. Further, the onus of furnishing authentic documentary proof

for the temporary service at the time of submission of the application

shall be on the candidate. He further submits that as per the above said

eligibility criteria, one of the prime condition of the notification is that "All

Temporary Class IV employees working in LIC of India for more than five

years as on 18.01.2011 and who possessed minimum eligible qualification

(pass in Standard IX) and age as prescribed by LIC of India in its Recruitment

Rules/Instructions at the relevant time of their entry into LIC of India are

eligible to apply. Relevant relaxations in upper age limit shall be applicable as

per rules. Those who have filed court cases and whose cases are pending for

long time can also apply. However they shall inform the status of their cases

while filling the application form." In the instant case, the petitioners could not

produce proof of their temporary employment working for 5 years as per the

condition laid down in the notification. He further submits that Insurance

Employees Union, Machilipatnam Division, on behalf of the daily wagers, on

one hand made representations and complaints to the respondents stating

that one of their branch Offices is issuing temporary Employment Certificates

on the basis of Affidavit and confirmation by Staff Members. The respondents

have also received some complaining mails alleging that some of the Officials

and union leaders are trying to issue False Certificates by creating wrong

records to the persons who are not eligible for recruitment of peons. On the

other hand, the same union is demanding for issue of requisite Hall Tickets,

including the Petitioners. However, the respondents approved the issuing of

Hall Tickets only to the eligible candidates who have produced all the

necessary documentary proofs along with their applications. He further

submits that asper the minutes of the discussions held on 12.6.2012 before

Dy CLC(C ), Bangalore, as per the Exhibit submitted the petitioners, the

management of LIC of India stated that they have been paying the minimum

wages to the workers covered under the scheduled employment at present

after the observations of the Labour Enforcement Officer(C), Vijayawada.

With regard to the maintenance of registers and issue of wages slips to the

workers, the representative of the management assured that they will

implement the same immediately and keep the records ready for inspection by

the Inspecting Officer latest by 6.7.2012. Therefore, it is very clear that the

LIC of India never agreed that the wages were paid in dummy/false names.

Instead the Union and petitioners discussed this issue to ensure the same is

placed in the minutes to get undue advantage in the Writ Petition. He further

submits that the LIC has its own policy and rules governing the destruction of

old records and will follow such rules and regulations. Only eligible

candidates who satisfied the eligibility criteria set forth in the employment

notification dated 20.05.2011 as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated

18.01.2011 in CA No.953-968 in Anil Kumar's case, were recruited and that

the petitioners have not fulfilled the said eligibility criteria. Therefore, no

grounds in the present writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

18. To support his contentions, learned Standing Counsel has placed

reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in Ranbir Singh versus SK

Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corp. of India & another 7 , wherein the

Apex Court held that :

"For the reasons recorded above during the course of analysis, LIC as a statutory corporation is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. As a public employer, the recruitment process of the corporation must meet the constitutional standard of a fair and open process. Allowing for back-door entries into service is an anathema to public service. 73 In structuring the relief in present proceedings, it is essential to recapitulate the key legal findings that will govern the determination of rights and equities:

(i) On 7 February 1996, a two-judge Bench of this Court in LIC v. Their Workmen (supra) had accepted the terms of compromise which was arrived at on 1 March 1989 between the management of LIC and eight Unions, and imposed them upon the ninth Union as well. In addition, the two-judge Bench of this Court had issued certain directions:

(a) LIC should exempt Class IV workers from a test and interview, if the management has the power to do so under the regulations/instructions governing their conditions of service; and

(b) In the event that the management of LIC does not possess such a power, the test to be prescribed for these workers would be of a lesser standard PART K compared to other applicants from the open market till the next regular recruitment;

(ii) On 23 October 1992, a three-judge Bench of this Court, while disposing of the civil appeals in E Prabavathy (supra), specifically accepted the scheme formulated by LIC for regularising the workers who were engaged on a temporary basis. The scheme was also specifically incorporated as a part of the order in the following terms:

"(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 uptil date and who confirmed to tehe required eligibility criteria for regular recruitment on the dates of their initial temporary appointment will be permitted to complete 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.

(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."

The dispute is now of an antiquity tracing back to nearly four decades. Finality has to be wrung down on the dispute to avoid uncertainty and more litigation. Nearly thirty-one years have elapsed since 1991. We have come to the conclusion that the claims of those workers who are duly found upon verification to meet the threshold conditions of eligibility should be

MA No.1150 of 2019 in CP(Civil) NO.1921/2017 in C.A.No.6950 of 2009

resolved by the award of monetary compensation in lieu of absorption, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands. Thus, this Court directs the following:

(i) A fresh verification of the claims of workers who claim to have been employed for at least 70 days in Class IV posts over a period of three years or 85 days in Class III posts over a period of two years shall be carried out; (2006) 4 SCC (ii) The verification shall be confined to persons who were working between 20 May 1985 and 4 March 1991;

(iii) All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm shall be entitled to compensation computed at the rate of Rs 50,000 for every year of service or part thereof. The payment of compensation at the above rate shall be in lieu of reinstatement, and in full and final settlement of all claims and demands of the workers in lieu of regularisation or absorption and notwithstanding the directions issued by this Court in TN Terminated Employees Association

19. On a perusal of the material on record and on hearing the

submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court observed that, it is an

admitted fact that, LIC was engaging Temporary Peons, Assistants and

Typists and they were paid pittance of wages. It is also an admitted fact that

the LIC of India has issued notification dated 20.05.2011 for recruitment of

Peons from the Temporary Workmen who have worked for at least 5 years as

on the date of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.953-

968 of 2005. The burden of producing proof of working is on the workmen.

20. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that LIC offices

have not issued any wage slips to the petitioners and thereby the workmen

are not having any proof of their continuous employment in LIC of India for 5

years. It is also the contention of the petitioners that as LIC of India has not

issued Hall tickets to the temporary workmen even after the orders of this

Court, the Ex-General Secretary ofInsurance Employees Union wrote a letter

to Chief LabourCommissioner (Central) regarding injustice done to LIC

temporary workmen by wage payments in dummy names and non-payment of

Minimum wages as per Minimum Wages Act 1948. Further, the LIC of India

has conducted One Time Examination to the temporary workmen.

21. Moreover, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA

Nos.953-968 of 2006 (supra) setting forth certain eligibility criteria for applying

for recruitment of Peons and as per that the onus of furnishing authentic

documentary proof for the temporary service at the time of submission of the

application shall be on the candidate.

22. In the instant case, it is observed that, the petitioners could not

produce proof of their temporary employment working for five (5) years as per

the prime condition laid down in the notification. In view of the Regulation 8(2)

of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, that "no person even appointed

as temporary workmen shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled

for absorption in the service of the Corporation or claim preference for

recruitment to any post, leave alone daily wagers there is no provision under

the Staff Regulations to claim preference for recruitment to any post, even for

persons appointed on temporary basis, leave alone the petitioners, who were

engaged on daily wage basis, intermittently, to do miscellaneous works and

not employed as per LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff)

Instructions, 1993. In view of the facts and rules, this Court is of the view that,

the petitioners have not filed any documentary proof to substantiate that they

were worked as temporary employees in the respondent corporation and that

they were appeared for the examination which was conducted in the year

2011 as per guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in C.A. No.

953-968 of 2005. Further, after notification also, the petitioners have not

complied with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered

in the said judgment within the stipulated time and further they are relying on

CBI reports and other enquiry, vigilance reports stating that wage payments in

dummy names and non institution of the temporary workmen were identified

by the competent authorities.

23. So in view of the above mentioned reasons, it is not possible to

consider the case of the petitioners that they were worked in dummy names

and they were worked without temporary wage slips and hence they are not

eligible for appointment as per the notification of 2011 and there is no system

for regularization of daily wagers. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court

found no merits in the instant writ petitions and devoid of merits and the same

are liable to be dismissed.

24. Accordingly, the all Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to

costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand

closed.

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date :     15 -11-2024


Gvl



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.5496/2021, 19262/2011, 9666, 16752, 17230,

Date : 15 .11.2024

Gvl