NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.3197 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 22909 of 2017)

The Regional Manager,  Life Insurance Corporation of India ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Dinesh Singh       ….Respondent(s)

              J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment

and order dated 10.03.2017 of the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3067

1

of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition

filed by the appellant herein.

3. The appeal involves a short point as is clear from

the facts stated hereinbelow.

4. The respondent was appointed as a Caretaker on

temporary basis by the appellant (LIC) on a fixed

salary of Rs. 1000/­ p.m. in the year 1994. The

respondent's job was to act as a Caretaker of one VIP

Guesthouse of the appellant at Bhopal.  

5. The appointment of respondent was made under

Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations framed under the

Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, which empowers

the officers specified therein to appoint any person of

Class III and IV category on temporary basis from time

to time.

6.  The services of the respondent were brought to

an end in the year 2001 by the appellant (LIC) which

gave rise to making a reference to the Industrial

2

Tribunal (CGIT), Jabalpur being

No.CGIT/LC/101/2005 by the Central Government for

deciding the legality  of the termination order  of the

respondent.  

7. By award dated 11.02.2014, the Tribunal

answered the reference partly in favour of the

respondent. The Tribunal set aside the termination

order of the respondent and directed the appellant to

reinstate him in their services but without payment of

any back wages to him.  

8. The appellant (LIC) felt aggrieved by the order of

the Tribunal and filed a writ petition in the High Court

of MP at Jabalpur. By impugned order, the High Court

(Single Judge) dismissed the appellant's writ petition

and affirmed the award of the Industrial Tribunal

which gives rise to filing of the present appeal by way

of special leave in this Court by the appellant(LIC).

3

9. Heard  Mr.  Gurukrishan  Kumar, learned senior

counsel for the appellant and Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar,

learned counsel for the respondent.  

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we are

inclined to allow the appeal and modify the impugned

order to the extent indicated below.

11. In our opinion, having regard to the peculiar facts

and circumstances of this case coupled with the fact

that there were several complaints, which were being

regularly received by the appellant against the

respondent during his tenure, and further the

appellant having lost their confidence on the

respondent and also the fact that the respondent was

appointed temporarily under Rule 8 of the Regulations

to take care of the appellant’s guest house and lastly,

it is now almost 19 years that the respondent has been

out of appellant’s services, we are of the view that the

4

interest of justice would be met if a compensation of

Rs.One Lakh (Rs.1,00,000/­) is awarded to the

respondent in full and final satisfaction in lieu of his

right to claim reinstatement in the appellant's services

and also  in  lieu of all  his service claims against the

appellant. It will also balance the equities between the

parties and will put to an end to this litigation.

12. Since we have  formed an opinion to dispose of

this appeal by awarding to the respondent a lump sum

compensation of Rs. one Lakh in lieu of his all claims

arising out of this case, we do not consider it

necessary to  examine  any legal issue  arising in the

case though argued  by the learned counsel for the

parties in support of their respective contentions.

13.  We, however, make it clear that, as mentioned

above, this order is passed keeping in view the

peculiar facts of this case, which we have taken note of

5

on perusal of the record of this case and hearing the

submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

14. The appellant is accordingly directed to pay a

sum of Rs. one Lac (Rs.1,00,000/­) to the respondent

within a period of 3 months from today.  

15. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The

impugned order is thus modified to the extent

indicated above.     

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                                                         ....……..................................J.

       [DINESH MAHESHWARI]

New Delhi; March 26, 2019.

6