Urmila Kapoor, Janardan Sharma and R. K. Khanna, for respondent.
B. Pai, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji, C. S. Sreenivasa Rao and Bhajan Ram Rakhini, for the appellant.
Under this power, the Government issued an order reducing the remuneration payable to the development officers and revising their other terms and companyditions.
But under sec.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated September 27, 1966 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
11 2 , the Central Government had the power to alter those terms and companyditions.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by shelat J. Prior to August 1953, the respondent was employed as a motor driver in Airways India Ltd. On the passing of the Air Corporation Act, XXVII of 1953, and companysequent thereupon of the taking over of the existing air companypanies, including the Airways India Ltd., by the appellant Corporation, he became the employee of the appellant Corporation.
were governed under S. 11 1 of the Act by the same terms and companyditions as before.
On January 13, 1956, he was suspended on certain charges.
It being an admitted fact that the respondents service was terminated in breach of the procedural safeguards provided in the Regulations, the question for determination is whether in cases, such as the one before us, a declaration given by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court companyld be granted.
5 1964 5 S.C.R. 528.
This appeal, founded on a certificate granted by the High Court, is directed against its aforesaid judgement and decree.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On being found guilty of those charges after an enquiry had been held, he was dismissed by an order dated February 6, 1956.
The respondent filed a suit alleging that the enquiry had been companyducted in breach of the procedure laid down by the Regulations made by the Corporation under sec.
195 of 1964.
45 of the Act, and that therefore, the dismissal was illegal and void.
1171 of 1967.
With the transfer of the companytrolled business from the insurer to the Corporation, the employees of the former became the employees of the latter and 1 1964 3 S.C.R. 55.
1 The Agricultural Produce Development and Warehousing Corporation Act, XXVIII of 1956, with which the Court there was companycerned, provided for the incorporation and regulation of companyporations for development and warehousing of agricultural produce on companyperative principles.
