High Court of Karnataka Allows Workman's Petition Seeking Compliance of CGIT Award for Reinstatement and Back Wages. LIC Directed to Pay Back Wages from 2001 to 2019 as per the Award.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, a workman, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), to comply with the award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) dated 16.08.2001. The award had held that the dismissal of the workman from service was not justified and directed reinstatement with continuity of service. Subsequently, by way of amendment, the petitioner sought a direction to the 1st respondent to pay wages from 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019 as directed in the award. The operative portion of the award stated: "Reference is allowed, and the action of management in dismissing the first party/workman from service is not justified as prayed by the first party and further, the management is directed to reinstate the First Party with continuity of service." The court, after hearing the parties, held that the award is binding and must be complied with. The court directed the respondents to comply with the terms of the award and pay the back wages from 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019 as per the award. The petition was allowed with the direction to comply within a reasonable time.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Compliance of Award - Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) Award - The workman sought direction to LIC to comply with the CGIT award dated 16.08.2001 which held the dismissal unjustified and directed reinstatement with continuity of service. The court held that the award is binding and must be complied with, and directed payment of back wages from 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019 as per the award. (Paras 1-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondents are bound to comply with the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 16.08.2001 directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages from 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to comply with the terms of the award dated 16.08.2001 and pay back wages from 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019 as per the award.

Law Points

  • Industrial Dispute
  • Reinstatement
  • Back Wages
  • Compliance of Award
  • Writ of Mandamus
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 63

WP No. 15186 of 2023 (L-RES)

2025-07-14

Anant Ramanath Hegde

Sri Puttige R Ramesh, Senior Advocate a/w Smt Lakshmi S Holla, Advocate for Petitioner; Sri S N Murthy, Senior Advocate a/w Sri Rajashekar K, Advocate for Respondents

K.M. Gurushivakumar

LIC of India, Divisional Office, Udupi and The Manager (P and IR), LIC of India, Udupi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to comply with an industrial tribunal award.

Remedy Sought

Direction to respondents to comply with the award of CGIT dated 16.08.2001 and pay back wages from 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019.

Filing Reason

Non-compliance of the CGIT award by the respondents.

Previous Decisions

CGIT award dated 16.08.2001 allowed the reference, held dismissal unjustified, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service.

Issues

Whether the respondents are bound to comply with the CGIT award dated 16.08.2001.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the award is binding and respondents have failed to comply. Respondents opposed the petition, but the court found the award must be complied with.

Ratio Decidendi

An award of a competent tribunal is binding on the parties and must be complied with. The court can issue a writ of mandamus to enforce compliance.

Judgment Excerpts

Reference is allowed, and the action of management in dismissing the first party/workman from service is not justified as prayed by the first party and further, the management is directed to reinstate the First Party with continuity of service.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed WP No. 15186 of 2023 seeking compliance of CGIT award dated 16.08.2001. Later, by amendment, sought direction to pay wages from 16.08.2001 to 04.02.2019. The petition was heard and allowed on 14.07.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Credible Evidence and Doubtful Circumstantial Links. Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove motive, recovery, and last seen theory beyond reasonable do...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal and Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Case — Deceased's Income Assessed at Rs. 4,500 per Month with 40% Future Prospects and Multiplier of 16 Applied Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court held that th...