Karnataka High Court Directs LIC to Absorb Seven Temporary Employees After Years of Service
The Karnataka High Court in Kalaburagi has directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to absorb seven employees who had been working as temporary or daily wage workers for several years. The court said LIC cannot keep employees in temporary positions for years when they were selected through a regular recruitment process.
The Division Bench has directed LIC to absorb the seven employees within three months from the date it receives the certified copy of the judgment.
Employees Were Selected Through Interviews
The employees involved in the case are Shreedhar Gouda, Jyothi, Vinod, Umesh, Chidanand, Vijayananda and Madiwalappa. They approached the High Court seeking regularisation of their services.
They argued that LIC had issued recruitment notifications, invited applications, conducted interviews and selected them on merit. However, after selection, they were treated as temporary or daily wage workers. Their appointments were made between November 1999 and April 2014.
Earlier Court Had Awarded Compensation
The Single Judge had accepted that the employees had worked continuously for LIC. The court also noted that LIC failed to produce important records relating to their appointments, attendance and payment of wages.
However, based on a Supreme Court judgment in Ranbir Singh vs S.K. Roy, the Single Judge did not order regularisation. Instead, LIC was directed to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh for each year of service. Both the employees and LIC challenged this order before the Division Bench.
Division Bench Says Earlier Supreme Court Case Was Different
The Division Bench found that the circumstances of the present case were different from those considered by the Supreme Court in Ranbir Singh vs S.K. Roy.
The employees had specifically stated that they had responded to LIC recruitment notifications, appeared before an interview panel and were selected after meeting the required eligibility conditions. The court noted that LIC did not specifically deny these important claims in its response.
LIC Failed to Show Temporary Requirement
The court also examined LIC’s Employment of Temporary Staff Instructions, 1993. These instructions allow temporary appointments to certain posts only under specific conditions and through prescribed procedures.
However, LIC failed to produce documents showing that the seven employees had been appointed to meet temporary vacancies, seasonal requirements or the absence of regular employees.
The material before the court showed that the employees had been selected through interviews and continued working for several years. The Division Bench concluded that they had been appointed temporarily against sanctioned vacant posts after a regular recruitment process.
Court Says Long-Term Temporary Employment Is Unfair
The Division Bench observed that LIC cannot keep employees working for years under the guise of temporary employment. Referring to recent Supreme Court judgments in Jaggo and Dharam Singh, the court said that the continuous nature of the work showed that the requirement was not merely temporary or seasonal.
The court also observed that treating such employees as temporary workers for years and then terminating them without proper notice could amount to an unfair labour practice.
Employees to Be Absorbed by LIC
The Division Bench allowed the appeals filed by the seven employees and dismissed the appeals filed by LIC. It set aside the compensation order passed by the Single Judge and directed LIC to absorb the employees within three months from receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
