2025:JHHC:30827 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (L) No. 7456 of 2011 …. Subhakant Pathak S/o Pasupatinath Pathak, Resident of Sector-IX C, P.O. B.S. City, P.S. Harla, District-Bokaro. ……Petitioner Versus Management of Life Insurance Corporation of India through the Senior Branch Manager, L.I.C of India, Branch-I, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Sector-IV, District-Bokaro ……Respondent ----- PRESENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate …… CAV Judgement Delivered on 26.08.2025 In this Writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate/ writ(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) for quashing the Award dated 22.06.2009 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No.100 of 1997 and for a direction to the Respondent to re-instate the petitioner w.e.f. 07.09.1994 with the consequential benefits. 2. It transpires that the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication before the Tribunal, as follows:- “Whether the action of the Senior Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch-1, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. Sector-IV, Dist. Bokaro in terminating the services of Subhakant Pathak w.e.f. 7.9.94 is justified? If not, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?” 2025:JHHC:30827 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned award dated 22.06.2009 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that petitioner was appointed under the Management-Respondent as Class IV worker on and from 26.11.1990 and since then, he had been working as a peon continuously without break upto 10.09.1994 for more than three (03) years and during which he had rendered more than 240 days service in each of the calendar year. Thereafter, suddenly from 07.09.1994 the petitioner was prevented from marking his attendance and subsequently another person had been engaged by the Management to perform the same job. It is submitted that an industrial dispute was raised at the instance of the petitioner and the same was referred to the concerned Tribunal for adjudication which was registered as Ref. Case No.100 of 1997. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the Management had committed gross illegality and an unfair labour practice by deputing another person in same place for the same job by depriving the petitioner. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not consider that the Management had acted malafidely and in violation of the principles of natural justice by terminating the services of the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year from 26.11.1990 to 10.09.1994 and hence, the impugned Award passed by the learned Court below is fit to be set aside and the petitioner may be 2025:JHHC:30827 3 reinstated into the service with all consequential benefits and hence, this writ petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Management- Respondent submitted that the impugned Award passed by the learned Court below is fit and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner never worked as a full-time worker during the period 26.11.1990 to 10.09.1994 and he never worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. It is submitted that during the said period, the petitioner, who was a casual worker, was engaged for a few hours by the Management as and when required and the petitioner was never treated like a regular employee of the Management - Respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner was an employee on daily wages for doing extra work and he is not entitled to regularization as he is a causal and daily worker. Even the workman had admitted that he was paid Rs.26/- per day and later on he was paid Rs.31/- per day which clearly shows that the petitioner was not a regular employee. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected Exhibit W-6 to Exhibit W-6/5 respectively. Even Exhibit W-7 reveals that he had worked for fifteen (15) days and for which he was paid wages Rs.387.25/- only. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent in support of its case has placed reliance upon in this case of LIC of India & Anr. Vs. D.V. Anil Kumar etc [in Civil Appeal No.953-968 of 2005]. Learned counsel for the Management-Respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. It is submitted that a person, who was appointed backdoor cannot be regularized and hence, this writ petition may be 2025:JHHC:30827 4 dismissed. 8. Perused the records received in this Case from CGIT, Dhanbad and considered the submissions of the both the sides. 9. It reveals from the pleading of the workman that he was appointed in LIC, Branch Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City as class-IV employee from 26.11.1990 and he claimed to have worked there from 26.11.1990 till 10.09.1994 and during which he claimed to have rendered more than 240 days service in each calendar years. He was also paid wages every month at the rate of Rs.750/- per month initially by calculating Rs.25 per day. He also claimed that there was a relationship of Master and Servant between both the side and he claimed to have worked as a peon. He further claimed even on 14.03.1992, he had requested for advance salary and which was granted by the Management-LIC. 10. On the other hand, the case of the Management- Respondent is that the reference is vague and non-application of mind on the part of the Central Government. The management has denied the relationship of Master and Servant between the parties. The Management had taken a plea that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. The management further also took the plea that the method of recruitment, condition of service, the scale of pay and conduct rules regulating to the service conditions are governed by the Statues laid down. It was pointed out that the petitioner was never appointed as a peon and he was merely engaged as a “Cooliee” on the exigencies of services from the Management as when as required. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was never appointed as Peon or in regular employee as envisaged under the rules and regulations governing the recruitment procedure. 2025:JHHC:30827 5 11. The workman in support of his case got examined one witness as follows:- (i). WW-1 i.e Shubkant Pathak i.e. the petitioner. 12. The workman in support of his case got examined the following documents as the Exhibits:- (i). Exhibit W-1 is School leaving certificate, (ii). Exhibit W-2 is the Employment Exchange Card, (iii). Exhibit W-3 (with objection) is the receipt of receiving of documents, (iv). Exhibit W-4 is Application for advance pay, (v). Exhibit W-5 (with objection) is the application of petitioner addressed to Senior S.R. Branch Manager Sri B.K. Sharma, (vi). Exhibit W-6 - Exhibit W-6/5 are the photocopies of six vouchers in signature of Sr. B.K. Sharma, (vii). Exhibit W-7 is the bill dated 07.07.1992, (viii). Exhibit W-8 is the typed copy of the details of monthly wages from 1990 to 1993. 13. The Management in support of its case got marked examined one witness as follows:- (i). MW-1 is the Mr. Ardhenu Roy, Manager (Legal & HPF) 14. However, no document was marked as the Exhibit on the behalf of the Management-Respondent. 15. Thereafter, the learned Court below by the impugned Award dated 22.06.2009 has answered in favour of the Management-Respondent and against the workman-petitioner. 16. Now, this Court has to consider as to whether the Award passed by the learned Tribunal Court is perverse or not? 17. It transpires from the records of this case that the learned Tribunal has found and observed that the workman has filed 2025:JHHC:30827 6 photocopy of six series of vouchers in signature of Sr. B.K. Sharma and the workman has failed to produce the termination order. 18. The Tribunal has not relied upon Exhibit-W-5 and Exhibit-W-7 and has rejected the same. 19. The Tribunal further held that services of petitioner cannot be regularized because there is an equal opportunity in the matter of public employment which does not fulfill whereas the workman-petitioner was a daily wager and had worked for few days. 20. So far as the oral evidence of workman-petitioner is concerned. WW-1 is Shubhkant Pathak, who stated during his evidence that he was appointed as a peon in Branch-I, Sector-IV of Bokaro Steel City of LIC of India on 26.11.1990 and he worked continuously till 07.09.1994. Then the Senior S.R. Branch Manager Sri Rama Rao has taken his School Leaving Certificate and Employment Exchange Card from him. He had further proved the School Leaving Certificate and Employment Exchange Card as Exhibit W-1 and W-2 respectively. He further proved the receipt marked as Exhibit W-3 (with objection). He asserted that he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year under the services of the Management. He used to get wages at the rate of Rs.750/-. He also stated that there were several class-IV posts available and they were vacant. As no one was appointed as peon and hence he worked continuously. He was paid wages in advance also. He proved one application of such advance payment marked as Exhibit W-5 (with objection) and he denied as working as “Cooliee” rather he stated that he worked as peon. He also passed class nine (9) examination. However, he was disengaged and one Sanjay Agarwal was 2025:JHHC:30827 7 appointed in his place by the Management. He has also proved the payment of wages by six (06) vouchers i.e. Exhibit W-6 to Exhibit W-6/5 respectively. He further proved the payment of bill dated 07.07.1992 marked as Exhibit W-7. However, during cross-examination, he could not say his date of birth but stated that he was living in Jamshedpur earlier but he came to Bokaro in the year 1982, and he had studied from class- 6 to class-8 at Bokaro and Jamshedpur but he could not say the name of the said schools. He denied the allegations of producing the false certificates. He admitted that his cousin brother was a Teacher in Balidih High School but he denied for filing of manufactured certificate i.e. the School Leaving Certificate. He admitted that the date of birth is mentioned as 15.10.1969 in the said certificate. He also admitted that one Sanjay Agarwal has been appointed in his place in the same Branch at Bokaro where he was working. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of WW-1, it is evident that the petitioner has failed to prove his case for regular engagement for working as regular employee. 21. So far as the oral evidence of management is concerned, MW-1 is Ardhenu Roy, who stated that the workman had been engaged purely on daily basis and he was engaged for doing temporary nature of work and he was being engaged as and when required. The workman was paid daily wages on his engagement. The concerned workman used to be engaged for some certain fixed periods, sometimes he used to be engaged for 20 days sometimes for 10 days and so on and there is no document to show the fixed period of the engagement of the workman and no such certificate was issued to the concerned workman-petitioner as records for the 2025:JHHC:30827 8 period during which he was engaged. He also stated that there is no document to show the disengagement of concerned workman by the Management as a “Coolie”. Although, he admitted that the concerned workman was paid through the Vouchers as per the wages-sheet. He denied that the concerned workman was appointed as Class-IV worker and he also denied that the workman used to carry the file from one place to another. He also denied the allegations that the workman-petitioner was stopped from attending his duties by the Management. Thus, from the evidence of MW-1, it is evident that the workman was not appointed as regular employee rather he was engaged for some work as and when required. 22. Thus, from scrutinizing of evidence of MW-1, it is evident that he fully supported the case of the management and stated that the workman was engaged a part time worker for a brief period. 23. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it reveals one more opportunity was given by the LIC to the Class-IV employee in the year 1996 to be absorbed. However, the petitioner never participated in the said proceeding and thus this case does not fall within the ambit of workman. 24. It transpires that the petitioner had not produced his appointment letter before the learned CGIT-I, Dhanbad. 25. The petitioner had also not produced his termination letter by which he was terminated from the services. 26. Therefore, it is evident that neither the appointment letter nor termination letter of the petitioner was brought on record. 27. Exhibit W-6 to Exhibit-6/5 series are the some vouchers of LIC which reveal that some wages were paid to the petitioner by the office of the LIC but that was not the salary of the petitioner. 2025:JHHC:30827 9 28. Exhibit W-3 and Exhibit W-4 are the Attendance Register on the plain paper only for calculating the wages of part time work and not for regular work of the petitioner. 29. It reveals that the petitioner was not a regular employee. Thus, there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned Award. 30. Thus, this Court finds no illegality and perversity in the impugned award and accordingly, this W.P.(L) No.7456 of 2011, is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi N.A.F.R./ Nishant