Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time … vs Mr. Siddhartha Mohanty The Chair Person … on 24 July, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION(C) No. 555/2026
@ Diary No. 5162/2025
in
C.A. No. 6950/2009
TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL-TIME TEMPORARY LIC EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MR. SIDDHARTHA MOHANTY THE CHAIR PERSON LIFE INSURANCE
CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
AND WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION(C) No. /2026
@ Diary No(s). 34193/2025
IN
C.A. No. 6950/2009
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned in Diary No. 5162/2025.
2. These Contempt Petitions seek initiation of proceedings
against the contemnor/opposite parties for flouting orders
dated 18.03.2015 and 09.08.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.
6950/2009 and Contempt Petition No. 459/2015, respectively.
Signature Not Verified
3.
Digitally signed by
PRIYANKA MALIK
A brief narration of background facts would be apposite.
Date: 2026.08.04
13:29:50 IST
Reason:
The Ministry of Labour, Central government, in exercise of its
statutory power under section 10 (1)(d) read with Section 2Aof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following
dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal:
“Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance
Corporation of India in not absorbing badli/ temporary
and part-time workmen employed in the establishment of
LIC after 20.5.1985 is justified, if not, to what relief
are the workmen entitled?”
4. The above reference culminated in an award dated
18.06.200l. The award was challenged before Delhi High Court.
A Single Judge of the Dehi High Court set aside the award vide
order dated 15.04.2006. The judgment of the Single Judge was
challenged in an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench.
The appeal(s) were also dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2007.
Aggrieved therewith civil appeals came to be filed before this
court which were allowed vide order dated 18.03.2005 thereby
restoring the award and directing its implementation. The
operative portion of the order dated 18.03.20151 reads as
under:
“54. It is needless to mention that since we are of the
view that the award passed by CGIT in ID No.27 of 1991 is
legal and valid, it shall be restored and implemented by
the Corporation by absorbing the workmen concerned in the
permanent posts and if they have attained the age of
superannuation, the Corporation will be liable to pay all1 1 See: Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association v. Life Insurance Corporation
of India & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 62
consequential benefits including the monetary benefits
taking into consideration the pay scale and revised pay
scale from time to time by the Corporation.”
5. Application(s) seeking review of the order dated
18.03.2015 were filed. In between contempt petitions were also
filed. The entire bunch of cases including review petition(s)
and contempt petition(s) were disposed of by this Court vide
order dated 09.08.20162, the operative portion of the said
order reads thus:
“14. For the limited purpose of modifying the relief
granted in the civil appeal only with regard to the back
pages, we directed Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner LIC
to submit a document containing the pay scales indicating
the basic pay and other emoluments payable to the workmen
concerned. The same were furnished with the periodic
revisions in the years 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007 and 2012,
without furnishing the other component figures which
would be the gross salary of the different classes of
workmen in the present dispute. These periodic revisions
of pay of basic salary, along with other component
figures comprising the gross salary including dearness
allowance, house rent allowance etc. etc., as applicable,
must be accounted for while computing the amount due to
the workmen towards the back wages.
15. The temporary and badli workers of LIC, who are
entitled for regularization as permanent workmen in terms
of the impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2015
passed by this court, by applying the terms and
conditions of the modified award dated 26.08.1988 passed
by Justice Jamdar, are held to be entitled to full back
wages as well. However, keeping in mind the immense
financial burden this would cause to LIC, we deem it fit
to modify the relief only with regard to the back wages
payable and therefore, we award 50% of the back wages
with consequential benefits. The back wages must be
calculated on the basis of the gross salary of the
workmen, applicable as on the date as per the periodical2 2 See: Tamil Nadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees association v. S.K. Roy, Chairman Life
Insurance Corporation of India & Anr., (2016) 9 SCC 366
revisions of pay scale as stated supra. The computation
must be made from the date of entitlement of the workmen
involved in these cases, that is, their absorption, till
the age of superannuation, if any workman concerned has
attained the age of superannuation as per the regulations
of the review petitioner LIC, as applicable to the
workmen concerned.”
6. Thereafter, curative petition was filed which too was
dismissed on 22.02.2017.
7. The grievance of the contempt petitioner, inter alia, is
that LIC though absorbed few workmen in compliance of the
award but treated the same as fresh appointment and has also
denied the benefit of back wages with pay revisions as
envisaged under the award affirmed by this Court and
therefore, contemnor opposite parties are in gross contempt of
this Court having flouted the aforesaid orders.
8. The learned Attorney General as well the other counsels
representing the respondents have invited our attention to a
three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Ranbir Singh vs.
S.K. Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and
Another3, wherein this Court after considering the earlier
decisions dated 18.03.2015 and 09.08.2016 has ordered as
under:
“92. 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.
3 3 (2023) 17 SCC 196
93. 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:
93.1. On 7-2-1996, a two-Judge Bench of this Court
in LIC v. Workmen [LIC v. Workmen Civil Appeal No. 1790 of 1989,
order dated 7-2-1996 (SC)] had accepted the terms of compromise
which was arrived at on 1-3-1989 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 compared to other applicants
from the open market till the next regular recruitment;
93.2. On 23-10-1992, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while
disposing of the civil appeals in E. Prabhavathy [E.
Prabhavathy v. LIC SLP (C) No. 10393 of 1992, order dated 23-10-
1992 (SC)] , 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 20-5-1985 uptil date and who conformed to
the required eligibility criteria for regular recruitment on
the dates of their initial temporary appointment will be
permitted to compete 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
regularisation will, in the circumstances, be by selection for
appointment. We make the above clauses of the scheme as part
of our order.”The three-Judge Bench in E. Prabhavathy [E.
Prabhavathy v. LIC SLP (C) No. 10393 of 1992, order dated 23-10-
1992 (SC)] held that the scheme proposed by LIC is reasonable and
that : (a) the regularisation will be by selection for
appointment; and (b) the above clauses of the scheme would
constitute a part of the order of this Court;
93.3. On 22-11-2001, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in G.
Sudhakar [LIC v. G. Sudhakar Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 2000, order
dated 22-11-2001 (SC)] directed that though the Order dated 23-
10-1992 in E. Prabhavathy[E. Prabhavathy v. LIC SLP (C) No. 10393
of 1992, order dated 23-10-1992 (SC)] applied to the workers of
the Tamil Nadu Division, the scheme would equally be applicable
to the workers of all divisions of LIC in the country;
93.4. The judgment of the two-Judge Bench of this Court dated 8-
3-2015 in T.N. Terminated Employees Assn. [T.N. Terminated Full
Time Temporary LIC Employees Assn. v. LIC, (2015) 9 SCC 62 :
(2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 738] failed to notice that as a result of the
final Order dated 7-2-1996
in LIC v. Workmen [LIC v. Workmen Civil Appeal No. 1790 of 1989,
order dated 7-2-1996 (SC)] , the Tulpule and Jamdar Awards had
been substituted by the terms of compromise. The two-Judge Bench
of this Court overlooked the final Order dated 7-2-1996
in LIC v. Workmen [LIC v. Workmen Civil Appeal No. 1790 of 1989,
order dated 7-2-1996 (SC)] and while adverting only to the
interim Order dated 1-3-1989 [LIC v. Workmen Civil Appeal No.
1790 of 1989, order dated 1-3-1989 (SC)] , it arrived at a
palpably erroneous conclusion that the Jamdar and Tulpule Awards
were still operative and binding; and93.5. Though the petition seeking review of T.N. Terminated
Employees Assn. [T.N. Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC
Employees Assn. v. LIC, (2015) 9 SCC 62 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 738]
and the curative petition stand dismissed, LIC is confronted with
a situation in which it is equally bound by the earlier decision
of the three-Judge Bench dated 23-10-1992 in E. Prabhavathy [E.
Prabhavathy v. LIC SLP (C) No. 10393 of 1992, order dated 23-10-
1992 (SC)] , the judgment of the two-Judge Bench dated 7-2-1996
in LIC v. Workmen [LIC v. Workmen Civil Appeal No. 1790 of 1989,
order dated 7-2-1996 (SC)] dealing with the appeals arising out
of the Tulpule and Jamdar Awards and the judgment of the two-
Judge Bench dated 22-11-2001 in G. Sudhakar [LIC v. G.
Sudhakar Civil Appeal No. 2104 of 2000, order dated 22-11-2001
(SC)] .
94. The position as it now stands, results in a palpable conflict
between the two-Judge Bench decision in T.N. Terminated Employees
Assn. [T.N. Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees
Assn. v. LIC, (2015) 9 SCC 62 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 738] dated 18-
3-2015 on the one hand and the earlier binding decision of a
larger Bench in E. Prabhavathy [E. Prabhavathy v. LIC SLP (C) No.
10393 of 1992, order dated 23-10-1992 (SC)] on 23-10-1992 and of
subsequent Benches. This conflict must be harmonised by taking
recourse to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of
the Constitution. In arriving at a conclusion, this Court finds
that:
94.1. The remit of CGIT which resulted in the Dogra Report was
confined to the process of verification, as distinct from an
adjudication of rights and liabilities;
94.2. The Dogra Report is flawed because:
(a) The Report failed to carry out an accurate verification of
only those Class III workers who had put in at least 85 days
of work in a period of two years and Class IV workers who had
put in 70 days of work in a period of three years;
(b) The lists which are appended to the Report contain patent
inconsistencies and errors as a consequence of a failure to
carry out an adequate verification; and
(c) The Report accepted the claims for absorption of those
workers who were specifically governed by the decision of this
Court in E. Prabhavathy [E. Prabhavathy v. LIC SLP (C) No.
10393 of 1992, order dated 23-10-1992 (SC)] , in spite of an
express stipulation to the contrary in the order of this Court
dated 23-10-1992 [E. Prabhavathy v. LIC SLP (C) No. 10393 of
1992, order dated 23-10-1992 (SC)] as well as in Para 75 of
the Srivastav Award;
94.3. A public employer such as LIC cannot be directed to carry
out a mass absorption of over 11,000 workers on such flawed
premises without following a recruitment process which is
consistent with the principles of equality of opportunity
governed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such an
absorption would provide the very back-door entry, which negates
the principle of equal opportunity and fairness in public
employment, which has been specifically decried by this Court
in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .
95. 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 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:
95.1. 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;
95.2. The verification shall be confined to persons who were
working between 20-5-1985 and 4-3-1991;
95.3. All persons who are found to be eligible on the above norm
shall be entitled to compensation computed @ 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 T.N. Terminated Employees
Assn. [T.N. Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees
Assn. v. LIC, (2015) 9 SCC 62 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 738] ;
95.4. In carrying out the process of verification, the Committee
appointed by this Court shall not be confined to the certified
list before CGIT and shall consider the claims of all workers who
were engaged between 20-5-1985 and 4-3-1991;
95.5. For the purpose of verification, LIC shall make available
all the records at the divisional level to the Committee
appointed by this Court;
95.6. It will be open to the workers concerned or, as the case
may be, the unions and associations representing them, to make
available such documentary material in their possession for the
purpose of verification;
95.7. The process of verification shall be carried out
independently without regard to the Dogra Report, which is held
to be flawed;
95.8. The payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement shall
be effected by LIC within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of the report of verification by the Committee; and
95.9. The task of verification shall be carried out by a
committee consisting of:
(a) Mr Justice P.K.S. Baghel, former Judge of the Allahabad
High Court; and
(b) Shri Rajiv Sharma, former District Judge and member of the
UPHJS.
LIC shall provide all logistical assistance to the Committee and
bear all expenses, including secretarial expenses, travel and
incidental expenses, as well as the fees payable to the members
of the Committee. Justice P.K.S. Baghel shall fix the terms of
remuneration payable to the members of the Committee.
96. The miscellaneous applications and the writ petitions shall
be governed by the above directions and are disposed of in the
above terms.”
(Emphasis supplied)
9. By placing reliance on paragraphs 95 and 95.3 of the
judgment and order of this Court in Ranbir Singh (supra), the
learned counsel for the respondent submits that all claims
will now have to be dealt with in terms of the direction given
in Ranbir Singh’s case.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny
that Ranbir Singh’s decision (supra) continues to hold the
field, though it is claimed by them that LIC has already
absorbed their services and, therefore, the question of only
back wages remain.
11. As we find that Ranbir Singh’s judgment not only takes
notice of the orders of which violation is alleged by the
petitioners in these petitions, but also issues directions,
inter alia, qua compensation, which is to be determined in a
manner different than what was directed under the earlier
orders of which violation is alleged, the contemnor
respondents cannot be said to have willfully disobeyed the
earlier orders dated 18.03.2015 and 09.08.2016 of this Court.
Accordingly, we find no justification to continue with these
contempt proceedings. Consequently, the Contempt Petitions are
dismissed.
12. All pending applications including I.A. No. 149484/2025,
I.A. No. 149486/2025, I.A. No. 149488/2025 and I.A. No.
149482/2025 shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………………..J
[MANOJ MISRA]
………………………………………………………………..J
[VIJAY BISHNOI]
New Delhi;
July 24, 2026
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 555/2026 in C.A. No. 6950/2009
[@ Diary No. 5162/2025]
TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME TEMPORARY LIC
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MR. SIDDHARTHA MOHANTY THE CHAIR PERSON LIFE
INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 101071/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
WITH
Diary No(s). 34193/2025 (XIV-A)
FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 149482/2025
FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION ON IA 149484/2025
FOR APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION
FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ABATEMENT ON IA 149488/2025
IA No. 149486/2025 – APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT
IA No. 149478/2025 – APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
Date : 24-07-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR
Mr. S.p. Chaly, Sr. Adv.
Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv.
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR
Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv.
Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv.
Mr. T Meikandan, Adv.
Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv.
Mr. M.R. Samshad, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kishore Kumar Dodla, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR
Ms. Prapti Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Deepanshu Jha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India
Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR
Mr. Aryan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dhuli Venkata Krishna, Adv.
Ms. Geetanjali Das Krishnan, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Negi, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Devanshu Sharma, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned in Diary No. 5162/2025.
2. Contempt Petition(s) are dismissed in terms of the signed
order which is placed on file.
3. All pending applications including I.A. No. 149484/2025,
I.A. No. 149486/2025, I.A. No. 149488/2025 and I.A. No.
149482/2025 shall stand disposed of.
4. In consequence thereof, I.A. No. 149478/2025 shall also
stand disposed of.
(SUNITA CHOUDHARY) (SAPNA BANSAL) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
