Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to pay arrears of wages along with 6% simple interest to a workman whose reinstatement was ordered by a Tribunal in 2001 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2017. The Court held that despite the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the writ petition was maintainable in light of the prolonged delay and continued non-compliance by the respondent Corporation. The Court found that the LIC failed to implement the award promptly and had not paid the wages due from 2001 to 2019, even after multiple judicial confirmations.

The Court concluded that the LIC, being a statutory body with the State as a major stakeholder, was obligated to comply with the award in a timely manner. It recorded that failure to pay the dues despite the award having attained finality amounted to wilful default. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the payment of the entire arrears along with interest, setting a two-month deadline for compliance.

Also Read: Supreme Court Calls For Clear Guidelines On ED Summons To Lawyers | Even If Advice Is Wrong It Is Privileged Communication

The petitioner, a 58-year-old workman, sought a direction from the High Court of Karnataka to compel LIC to comply with an award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 16.08.2001. The award directed LIC to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service following his dismissal. Despite the award being affirmed through various levels of judicial scrutiny, including the Supreme Court, LIC had not disbursed the wages due for the period from 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019.

Initially, the petitioner approached the Tribunal, which passed an award in his favor, stating that the dismissal was unjustified. The operative portion of the award read: "Reference is allowed, and the action of management in dismissing the first party/workman from service is not justified... the management is directed to reinstate the First Party with continuity of service from the date on which he was terminated."

LIC challenged this award by filing Writ Petition No.43164/2001 before the Karnataka High Court, which was dismissed. Subsequently, Writ Appeal No.913/2006 was also dismissed. Civil Appeal No.7069/2010 filed by LIC before the Supreme Court met the same fate and was dismissed on 12.10.2017.

Despite the conclusive judicial determination, LIC delayed compliance. The petitioner filed Contempt Case No.468/2007 alleging non-compliance. During the proceedings, LIC submitted a compliance affidavit dated 01.02.2019, claiming the award had been implemented through letters dated 18.05.2018, 10.08.2018, and 04.02.2019. However, the Court did not accept the claim of compliance.

The petitioner was reinstated on 18.02.2019, and the contempt case was dropped on 11.03.2019. However, the petitioner had not received wages for the period between the date of the award and the date of reinstatement. As the petitioner approached retirement in July 2025, he filed the present writ petition in 2023 seeking the unpaid wages and consequential reliefs.

LIC raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, contending that Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides an efficacious statutory remedy. It argued that the petitioner should approach the Tribunal for execution of the award. LIC relied on various Supreme Court judgments to support its contentions, including The Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. P.S. Rajagopalan, The Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Company vs. Rameshwar, and Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. vs. The Workmen.

In response, the petitioner contended that despite securing a favourable award in 2001, and the same being upheld by the Supreme Court in 2017, LIC had failed to disburse the dues. The petitioner stated that the writ petition was maintainable due to exceptional circumstances and cited precedents such as Abl International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board.

The Court noted that the petitioner had about two and a half years of service left at the time of filing the writ petition and that LIC had shown reluctance in implementing the award fully, particularly with respect to wage arrears.

The Court observed that "the award in favour of the petitioner was passed in the year 2001... the said award was questioned right up to the Apex Court, and the appeal was dismissed in the year 2017." It recorded that "the award of the Tribunal is not fully implemented since the wages payable from 16.08.2001... are not paid."

While acknowledging the general principle that parties should pursue remedies under Section 33-C (2), the Court noted, "availability of a statutory remedy by itself will not preclude the courts from exercising its jurisdiction in appropriate cases."

The Court posed the central question: "whether the petitioner-workman has made out a case for an appropriate direction against the respondent/LIC... despite the remedy available under Section 33-C (2)?" Answering in the affirmative, it outlined a series of reasons:

• "LIC... should have implemented the award without driving the workman to initiate the contempt proceeding."

• "Even after the dismissal of the Civil Appeal in 2017, the reinstatement order was issued in 2018, without continuity of service."

• "The LIC... was under an obligation to pay the wages payable to the petitioner... Unfortunately, that is not done so far, even after a lapse of almost 8 years."

• "The petitioner is completing the age of superannuation... and the writ petition was filed around 2 and a half years before his retirement."

The Court concluded, "the Writ Court can step in to pass appropriate orders to ensure quick implementation of the award."

Noting that the LIC failed to pay the arrears even after reinstatement and despite the finality of the award, the Court remarked: "withholding of wages payable by the LIC, despite the Apex Court’s verdict upholding the award is wholly unacceptable."

It further recorded that "each month's wages payable to the workman remained with the employer, and the employee was deprived of such wages." This, the Court held, amounted to a "wilful default" by LIC.

Although the original award did not include interest, the Court held: "considering the injustice suffered by the workman, on account of ex facie wilful default... this Court... directs the respondent-Corporation to pay simple interest @ 6% p.a." on the wage arrears.

To ensure procedural efficiency in similar matters, the Court also laid down guidelines for proceedings under Section 33-C (2), including measures to identify undisputed amounts early and direct their immediate disbursement.

The Court allowed the writ petition. It directed as follows: "The respondent No.1 shall pay the arrears of wages to the petitioner for the period commencing from 15.09.2001 (one month after the award) till 18.02.2019 (date of reinstatement) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said arrears with effect from 12.10.2017 (date of dismissal of Civil Appeal by the Apex Court) till the date of full payment payable to the petitioner."

The Court clarified that the wages payable would be those applicable to a temporary employee, as the petitioner had been reinstated as such. It also stated: "Petitioner is not entitled to any higher wages payable to the permanent employee."

The Court stated the delayed compliance by LIC and recorded: "More than 7 years have elapsed since the date of the dismissal of the Civil Appeal by the Apex Court. Still, the wages... are not paid."

Also Read: "Disputes Relating to Ownership Rights Must Be Adjudicated Before Civil Courts": Allahabad High Court Denies Relief Under Senior Citizens Act in Private Property Obstruction Case

It expressed that had it not awarded interest; it would have considered "imposing exemplary cost on the respondent corporation". However, since interest was granted, it refrained from doing so.

The Court stated the necessity of swift enforcement of awards, especially when State-owned entities are involved. It remarked: "If the Court is satisfied that the Award is not implemented, with necessary promptitude... then the Writ Court can step in to pass appropriate orders to ensure quick implementation of the award."

The Court concluded by directing: "The amount shall be paid within two months from the date of this order."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri Puttige R. Ramesh, Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Lakshmi S. Holla, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri S.N. Murthy, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajashekar K., Advocate

Case Title: K.M. Gurushivakumar v. LIC of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:25951

Case Number: WP No. 15186 of 2023

Bench: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde