Karnataka High Court
The Senior Divisional Manager vs D S Rangareddiyavar on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
WP No. 33613 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 33613 OF 2014 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
LIC OF INDIA, MAJOR,
P B NO. 16, DHARWAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER (LEGAL & HPF)
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
D O NO.1, BANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRY, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI. RAMACHANDRA G. BHAT)
AND:
Digitally
signed by C 1. D.S. RANGAREDDIYAVAR,
HONNUR S/O SHIVAREDDI, MAJOR IN AGE,
SAB
RESIDING AT GURLAKETTE,
Location:
HIGH COURT KANKIKOPPA P.O., NARGUND TALUK,
OF DISTRICT DHARWAD - 580 001.
KARNATAKA
2. ASST LABOUR COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL - GOVT. (C.G.I.T) INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
MANGALORE - 575 001.
(RESPONDENT NO.2 DELETED AS PER
ORDER DATED 09.10.2014)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AKSHAYA B.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.10.2014, PETITION AGAINST R2 IS
REJECTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
WP No. 33613 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS FROM CGIT IN CR NO.72/1991 AND
PERUSE THE SAME. QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY CGIT,
BANGALORE (ON 24.3.2014 IN CR.NO.72/1991) UNDER THE
ORIGINAL OF ANNEX-A DATED 17.6.14 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
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
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
HC-KAR
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 OTHERS1. 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
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
HC-KAR
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. Suresh3
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.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak15 , Punjab Land Development
and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Labour Court16 , State
of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd17. and
(1994)5 SCC 737
(1983)4 SCC 214
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
HC-KAR
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra18."
14. After referring to the judgment in LIC OF INDIA Vs.
R.SURESH4 the Hon'ble Apex Court has concluded that the
said judgment is rendered in ignorance of the ratio in
Constitution Bench in H.R.ADYANTHAYA AND OTHERS
(supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that ratio of the
judgment in S.K.Verma (supra) is not a precedent.
15. Though the learned counsel for the respondent
strenuously urged that the expression "operational" found in
Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 has not been discussed and
considered, it is required to be noticed that in
H.R.ADYANTHAYA AND OTHERS (supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court has dealt with the expression "skilled" appearing in
Section 2(s) of Act of 1947 and also held that the said
expression is similar to the expression "operational" appearing
in Section 2(s) of Act of 1947. Thus, the contention that the
expression "operational" is not considered in proper perspective
has to be rejected.
(2008)11 SCC 319
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
HC-KAR
16. It is also relevant to note that the respondent was
appointed as a Development Officer. He was required to
ensure sale of the products of LIC. It is an admitted fact that
certain persons, who are recruited/appointed as agents by the
LIC were reporting to the respondent and respondent was
required to supervise the work of the agents. The
Development Officer in LIC will have a freedom to take
decisions to evolve strategies in selling the products of LIC.
17. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the
view that there is no difficulty in holding that the respondent
was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the
Act of 1947. This being the position, the impugned award is
without jurisdiction. Hence, the same has to be set aside.
18. It is relevant to notice that the CGIT has passed the
award the judgment in CHAUHARYA TRIPATHI AND
OTHERS (supra) was pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The CGIT did not have the benefit of the ratio laid down in the
aforementioned case.
19. It is fairly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that the respondent-employee has a remedy
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
HC-KAR
under Rule 40 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff)
Rules, 1960. Since the writ petition is allowed on the premise
that the CGIT had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between
the parties, liberty is reserved to the respondent to approach
the Competent Authority under Rule 40 of the Life Insurance
Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960.
20. The time spent in prosecuting the present writ
petition as well as the proceedings before the CGIT has to be
excluded in computing the limitation.
21. In case, the respondent approaches the Authority as
noted above, the respondent's claim has to be adjudicated in
the manner known to law.
22. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties.
23. All contentions are kept open to be adjudicated by
the Appellate Authority. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:21753
HC-KAR
ii) The impugned award dated 24.03.2014
passed by the CGIT in CR.No.72/1991 is set
aside.
iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to
approach the Appellate Authority under
Rule 40 of the Life Insurance Corporation of
India (Staff) Rules, 1960.
iv) The Authority shall consider the appeal filed
by the respondent in accordance with law
on its merits.
v) The respondent shall have 60 (sixty) days
time to file an appeal from today.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
SS,PHM
CT: BHK..
