Terimination of employement = In our opinion, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the fact that there were several complaints, which were being regularly received by the appellant against the respondent during his tenure, and further the appellant having lost their confidence on the respondent and also the fact that the respondent was appointed temporarily under Rule 8 of the Regulations to take care of the appellant’s guest house and lastly, it is now almost 19 years that the respondent has been out of appellant’s services, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met if a compensation of Rs.One Lakh (Rs.1,00,000/­) is awarded to the respondent in full and final satisfaction in lieu of his right to claim reinstatement in the appellant's services and also in lieu of all his service claims against the appellant. It will also balance the equities between the parties and will put to an end to this litigation

NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.3197 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 22909 of 2017)
The Regional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Dinesh Singh       ….Respondent(s)
             
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment
and   order   dated   10.03.2017   of   the   High   Court   of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 3067
1
of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition
filed by the appellant herein.
3. The appeal involves a short point as is clear from
the facts stated hereinbelow.
4. The respondent was appointed as a Caretaker on
temporary   basis   by   the   appellant   (LIC)   on   a   fixed
salary   of   Rs.   1000/­   p.m.   in   the   year   1994.   The
respondent's job was to act as a Caretaker of one VIP
Guesthouse of the appellant at Bhopal.
5. The appointment of respondent was made under
Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations framed under the
Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, which empowers
the officers specified therein to appoint any person of
Class III and IV category on temporary basis from time
to time.
6.  The services of the respondent were brought to
an end in the year 2001 by the appellant (LIC) which
gave   rise   to   making   a   reference   to   the   Industrial
2
Tribunal   (CGIT),   Jabalpur   being
No.CGIT/LC/101/2005 by the Central Government for
deciding the legality of the termination order of the
respondent.
7. By   award   dated   11.02.2014,   the   Tribunal
answered   the   reference   partly   in   favour   of   the
respondent.   The   Tribunal   set   aside   the   termination
order of the respondent and directed the appellant to
reinstate him in their services but without payment of
any back wages to him.
8. The appellant (LIC) felt aggrieved by the order of
the Tribunal and filed a writ petition in the High Court
of MP at Jabalpur. By impugned order, the High Court
(Single Judge) dismissed the appellant's writ petition
and   affirmed   the   award   of   the   Industrial   Tribunal
which gives rise to filing of the present appeal by way
of special leave in this Court by the appellant(LIC).
3
9. Heard Mr. Gurukrishan Kumar, learned senior
counsel for the appellant and Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar,
learned counsel for the respondent.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and   on   perusal   of   the   record   of   the   case,   we   are
inclined to allow the appeal and modify the impugned
order to the extent indicated below.
11. In our opinion, having regard to the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case coupled with the fact
that there were several complaints, which were being
regularly   received   by   the   appellant   against   the
respondent   during   his   tenure,   and   further   the
appellant   having   lost   their   confidence   on   the
respondent and also the fact that the respondent was
appointed temporarily under Rule 8 of the Regulations
to take care of the appellant’s guest house and lastly,
it is now almost 19 years that the respondent has been
out of appellant’s services, we are of the view that the
4
interest of justice would be met if a compensation of
Rs.One   Lakh   (Rs.1,00,000/­)   is   awarded   to   the
respondent in full and final satisfaction in lieu of his
right to claim reinstatement in the appellant's services
and also in lieu of all his service claims against the
appellant. It will also balance the equities between the
parties and will put to an end to this litigation.
12. Since we have formed an opinion to dispose of
this appeal by awarding to the respondent a lump sum
compensation of Rs. one Lakh in lieu of his all claims
arising   out   of   this   case,   we   do   not   consider   it
necessary to examine any legal issue arising in the
case though argued by the learned counsel for the
parties in support of their respective contentions.
13.    We, however, make it clear that, as mentioned
above,   this   order   is   passed   keeping   in   view   the
peculiar facts of this case, which we have taken note of
5
on perusal of the record of this case and hearing the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The  appellant  is  accordingly  directed  to  pay  a
sum of Rs. one Lac (Rs.1,00,000/­) to the respondent
within a period of 3 months from today.
15. The   appeal   is   accordingly   disposed   of.   The
impugned   order   is   thus   modified   to   the   extent
indicated above.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]   
               
                                               
....……..................................J.
        [DINESH MAHESHWARI]
New Delhi;
March 26, 2019.
6