Terimination of employement = 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 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

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