Case Title: Harish B T And Life Insurance Corporation of India
Summary
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that legal successors of a terminated employee are only entitled to compassionate employment if the court has ruled that the termination was unlawful. A single judge bench led by Justice N S Sanjay Gowda granted permission to a petition presented by the legal successors of an unlawfully terminated former employee of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). The bench instructed the Corporation to contemplate their request for compassionate employment, contingent upon an age relaxation. The petitioner alleged that his father, B.M. Thippeswamy, was terminated from his position by the LIC on August 12, 1990. The dispute persisted until 2012, and the LIC filed a challenge to the award with the High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s conclusions regarding the unlawful termination and determined that the Tribunal had good reason to vacate the award.
The petitioner’s mother subsequently approached the LIC with a request to contemplate the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds. After careful examination, the LIC issued an order declining the petitioner’s application for compassionate employment. The court found that Thippeswamy was presumed to have been employed at the time of his demise, and his legal representatives are also entitled to submit a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, in accordance with the LIC-formulated Scheme. The court overturned the order that denied the petitioner’s assertion and instructed the LIC to reassess his application for compassionate employment, albeit with a relaxed age requirement, within a timeframe of three months commencing from the order’s date.
About the case
The Karnataka High Court has held that the right of legal heirs of a terminated employee to claim compassionate employment would only arise when such termination was decreed to be illegal by a court of law. In allowing a plea by the legal heirs of a former Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) employee who had been illegally terminated, a single judge bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda directed the Corporation to consider their claim for compassionate employment upon relaxing the age limit for the same. It held: Since the employee died while he was agitating his claim for reinstatement and this dispute raised by the deceased employee was alive till 2012, it is obvious that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground would come into operation only when this litigation with regard to wrongful termination was finally decided. Consequently, the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected by the LIC on the ground that it was belated. LIC cannot utilize this litigation that they had pursued, to nonsuit the petitioner. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and the respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner.“
Petitioner submitted that B.M.Thippeswamy—his father had been dismissed from service on 12.08.1990 by the LIC. Thippeswamy consequently raised a dispute and the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Petitioner pointed out that during the pendency of these proceedings before the Tribunal, Thippeswamy passed away on 23.10.1999. It was argued that after the death of Thippeswamy, his legal representatives prosecuted the proceedings and on 01.10.2007, the Tribunal accepted their claim and set aside the order of dismissal. Accordingly, the LIC was directed to pay full back wages along with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. The LIC challenged the award before the High Court, which affirmed the findings of the Tribunal regarding the illegal termination and held that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the same. However, it was argued that the High Court had held that the legal representatives of Thippeswamy were not entitled to 100% back wages but instead 50% back wages.
It was submitted that subsequently, the petitioner’s mother made a request to the LIC to consider the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. When the representations were not considered a petition was moved before the High Court. Petitioner argued that a coordinate bench of the court vide order dated 23.11.2020, prima facie found that there had been no delay in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds by the petitioner since the dismissal of his father from service was the subject matter of litigation till the year 2012 and by an order dated 23.11.2020 the LIC was directed to pass a speaking order pertaining to petitioner’s compassionate appointment. Upon perusal, the LIC passed an order rejecting the application for compassionate employment of the petitioner. It was submitted by the counsel for the LIC that it was permissible to relax a belated claim only for a maximum period of one year from the date of death of an employee, but in the present case, claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was made nearly 12 years after this death of Thippeswamy. It was thus submitted that there was no justification for condoning the delay and appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds. The bench on going through the records noted that Thippeswamy was deemed to have been in employment till he passed away on 23.10.1999 as his challenge against wrongful termination was pending adjudication.
It was observed that since Thippeswamy passed away while in this deemed service, it also followed that his legal representatives would be entitled to stake a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, on the basis of the Scheme formulated by the LIC. It opined, “from October 2007 till September 2012, the LIC was disputing the decision of the Tribunal which had held that the termination was unlawful and Thippeswamy was entitled to continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. It is obvious that during this period, the petitioner could not have made an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground and even if he had staked a claim for being appointed on compassionate ground, it is obvious that the LIC would not even have considered it, since it had not accepted that its order of termination was wrong.” It further noted that within about ten months from the date of dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the petitioner had immediately staked a claim for being appointed on compassionate grounds, and held that the claim made by the petitioner, within one year of dismissal of the writ appeal, would be in conformity with the time limit set forth in the Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV staff) Instructions, 1993.
It added “Rules would have to be interpreted keeping in mind that the Rules are made to ensure that the family of the deceased employee had an opportunity to secure an employment so as to continue the same lifestyle that the family was accustomed to by the employment of the deceased. Unfortunately, in this case, that right was impeded by the litigation pursued by the LIC and the LIC cannot utilize this litigation that they had pursued, to nonsuit the petitioner.” Accordingly, it quashed the order rejecting the petitioner’s claim and directed the LIC to consider his case for compassionate employment by relaxing the age limit for such an appointment on the grounds that his application had been made within the prescribed time limit of one year. The LIC was directed to complete such an exercise within a period of three months from the date of the order.
