THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3237 OF 2000 DATED 6th SEPTEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN: K.Mallesh Kumar … Petitioner A n d The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Hyderabad, and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3237 OF 2000 O R D E R The petitioner assails the proceedings dated 23.12.1999 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC of India) rejecting his claim for reinstatement and confirmation as a regular part-time employee. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a part-time Sweeper in the LIC of India at its Vikarabad Branch on 26.08.1985. It is his case that his services were terminated on 01.06.1993 without assigning reasons. He filed W.P.No.12850 of 1993 before this Court assailing his alleged illegal termination from service. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 17.11.1999 permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the LIC of India seeking regularization of his services and the LIC of India was directed to pass appropriate orders on such representation without insisting upon sponsorship from the Employment Exchange and considering his age as on 01.06.1993, the date of his alleged termination from service. In accordance with the above order the petitioner made a representation on 02.12.1999 seeking absorption of his services as a Sweeper without sponsorship from the Employment Exchange. Pursuant thereto, the impugned proceedings dated 23.12.1999 came to be passed. It may be noted that all through, the claim of the petitioner was that he was entitled to the benefit of the Circular dated 24.09.1987 issued by the LIC of India with regard to regularization/absorption of part-time workmen. By way of the impugned proceedings dated 23.12.1999, the LIC of India asserted that its Circular dated 24.09.1987 was only issued by way of a clarification of the earlier instructions contained in the Central Circular dated 25.02.1987 and that both the above circulars related to the conditions of service of badli/temporary/part-time workmen, covered by the NTB-1/1985 Award. The LIC of India further pointed out that the said Award provided, inter alia, for absorption of only those workmen who were appointed and were still working between the dates 01.01.1982 and 20.05.1985. Stating so, the LIC of India denied the entitlement of the petitioner to claim parity with those workmen covered by the Award and consequently, the above circulars. The petitioner’s representation dated 02.12.1999 was accordingly rejected. Smt.K.Udaya Sree, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, drew the attention of the Court to the circulars dated 24.03.1987, reproducing the Central Circular dated 25.02.1987, and 24.09.1987 and pointed out that the stipulation as to the entitlement therein being restricted to only those workmen who were appointed and working between 01.01.1982 and 20.05.1985, does not find mention therein. She therefore contended that the LIC of India could not restrict the benefits thereunder to only such workmen and deny the petitioner. It is however to be noticed that both the circulars begin with a reference to the Award of 1985. For instance, in the circular dated 25.02.1987, replicated in the Circular dated 24.03.1987, it is clearly stated that the instructions therein are in respect of the wages and other conditions of service of the workmen covered by the Award NTB-1/1985 on the file of the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay. Similar reference is found in the circular dated 24.09.1987. The LIC of India reiterated the same stand in its counter and stated that badli/temporary/part-time workmen had raised an Industrial Dispute before the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, resulting in Award NTB-1/1985 dated 17.04.1986. It is further stated that therein the cut-off date was taken as 01.01.1982 and the procedure for absorption of temporary employees who were appointed on that date or thereafter and were still working on 20.05.1985 was provided. As the petitioner admittedly was appointed after the relevant dates covered by the above Award, the LIC of India contended that he was not entitled to the benefits of the Award or the consequential circulars. Relevant to note, the petitioner did not choose to file a reply denying the aforestated factual averments. That being so, the claim of the petitioner, being based on the above mentioned circulars, must necessarily fail as he does not fall within the four corners of the above Award, pursuant to which the said circulars were issued. The action of the LIC of India in rejecting the petitioner’s representation for absorption of his services as a Sweeper cannot therefore be said to be illegal. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 6th SEPTEMBER, 2010 PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.3237 OF 2000 6th SEPTEMBER, 2010