The High Court of Karnataka in Kalaburagi has directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to absorb seven employees, who were engaged as temporary or daily wage workers for several years, saying that the corporation cannot keep them in temporary employment despite their selection through a regular recruitment process.
A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Nataraj and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur passed the order in a common judgment earlier this year disposing of 10 writ appeals arising out of an order passed by a Single Judge on November 14, 2024. The applicant was given the certified copy of the Division Bench judgment in the second week of this month.
The Division Bench has directed LIC to absorb the employees within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
The employees concerned, Shreedhar Gouda, Jyothi, Vinod, Umesh, Chidanand, Vijayananda and Madiwalappa, approached the High Court seeking regularisation of their services contending that LIC issued notifications inviting applications, conducted interviews and selected them on merit, but subsequently treated them as temporary or daily wage employees.
Their appointments were made between November 1999 and April 2014.
Senior advocate P. Vilas Kumar and advocate Nitesh Padiyal, who appeared for the employees, argued before the Division Bench that the Single Judge erred in applying a Supreme Court judgment (in Ranbir Singh vs S.K. Roy) to their case.
They contended that the Ranbir Singh judgment concerned temporary, badli and part-time workers engaged by LIC during an earlier period, whereas the employees before the High Court were engaged after the LIC’s Employment of Temporary Staff Instructions 1993 came into force and that they were selected after interviews against vacancies.
The Single Judge accepted their contention that they have rendered continuous service. They said that the Single Judge drew an adverse inference against LIC for failing to produce records relating to their appointments, attendance and payment of wages. However, relying on the Supreme Court judgment (in Ranbir Singh vs S.K. Roy), the Single Judge declined to order regularisation of service and instead, directed LIC to pay compensation at the rate of ₹1 lakh for every year of service.
Both the employees and LIC challenged the Single Judge order before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench, however, found that the circumstances of the case were materially different from those considered by the Supreme Court in the Ranbir Singh vs S.K. Roy case.
It noted that the employees specifically pleaded that they responded to notifications issued by LIC, appeared for interviews before a panel and were selected after being found eligible.
The corporation did not specifically controvert these crucial assertions in its statement of objections, the Division Bench said.
It also distinguished the case from the Ranbir Singh vs S.K. Roy ruling in which the Supreme Court, while seeking to bring finality to a nearly four-decade-old dispute involving LIC’s temporary, badli and part-time workers, directed payment of ₹50,000 for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement or regularisation to eligible workers engaged during the period from May 20, 1985 to March 4, 1991.
The Division Bench noted that the employees before it are in a different category having been engaged much later and having rendered continuous service for periods ranging from about five to 13 years, rather than merely satisfying the 70-day/85-day threshold applicable in the earlier dispute.
The Division Bench also examined the LIC of India (Employment of Temporary Staff) Instructions 1993. It noted that the instructions permitted temporary appointments to Class III and Class IV posts only in specified circumstances and through prescribed procedures. The corporation, however, failed to produce documents showing that the employees were engaged to meet any of those specific temporary exigencies.
The court observed that LIC did not produce any material to establish that the employees were engaged to meet temporary vacancies, seasonal requirements or the absence of regular staff as contemplated under the 1993 instructions.
Instead, the material before the court indicated that they were selected after interviews and they continued to work for years. The Division Bench concluded that they were appointed temporarily against sanctioned vacant posts after a regular recruitment process.
The Division Bench also held that the corporation cannot exploit employees by engaging them for years under the guise of temporary employment. Referring to recent Supreme Court judgments in Jaggo and Dharam Singh, it observed that the continuous and recurring nature of the work demonstrated that the requirement is not merely temporary or seasonal. Treating such employees as temporary staff and terminating them without notice is an unfair labour practice.
The Division Bench specifically held that the Single Judge erred in relying on Ranbir Singh vs S.K. Roy judgment pointing out that it related to employees who worked between May 20, 1985 and March 4, 1991. The employees in the present cases have been engaged from 1999 onwards, It noted.
The Division Bench accordingly allowed the appeals filed by the employees and dismissed the appeals filed by LIC. It set aside the compensation awarded by the Single Judge and directed the corporation to absorb the employees within three months from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.
According to advocates who represented the employees, the judgment is likely to have wider implications for similarly placed temporary and daily wage employees of LIC, as there can be many across the country who are engaged in comparable circumstances.
They said that such employees can now approach courts seeking regularisation by relying on the Division Bench ruling.
Published – August 16, 2026 07:56 pm IST