The appointed date under s. 3 of this Act was the 1st of September, 1956.
The facts which give rise to the present disputes between the parties in all the 15 cases are substantially similar, and so, it would be enough if we state the relevant facts in one of these cases.
Since about 1953, he had been working as Inspector of the said Company, and since March 18, 1955, he was holding the appointment as Inspector at Barrackpore.
A further writ in the nature of mandamus was also issued directing the respondents to the writ petition number to give effect to the said impugned order.
This order was issued by the Divisional Manager.
Thus, it appears that after this order was given to Mr. Mukherjee, he began to work as a Field Officer by virtue of his appointment under the relevant Government Order.
On similar facts, the appellants have brought to this Court the other fourteen appeals, and a companymon question which has been raised by the learned Solicitor General on behalf of the appellants is that the High Court was in error in holding that the orders of discharge passed respectively against the respondents in these appeals were invalid.
Aggrieved by the decision of Sinha J. the appellants preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent before a Division Bench of the said High Court Bose C.J. and Debabrata Mokerjee J. who heard the Letters Patent appeal substantially agreed with the view taken by Sinha J. and companyfirmed the order passed by him.
By this order it was stated that in terms of Government Order No.
This A ct was followed by Act 31 of 1956 hereinafter called the Act which was published on the 1st July, 1956.
Before dealing with the points raised by the appellants in the present appeals, it would be companyvenient to set out the relevant orders passed in respect of the appointment and discharge of the respondent Mr. Mukherjee.
It was also added that he would companytinue to be attached to Barrackpore Branch Office until further orders.
It is thus clear that under the terms and companyditions of Mr. Mukherjees original appointment with the Insurance Co., he was liable to be dismissed for misconduct and was entitled to receive 30 days numberice if his services were terminated for reasons other than misconduct.
When Mr. Mukherjee was appointed a whole time Inspector by the Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd. on the 18th or 19th March, 1955, the terms and companyditions of his employment were companymunicated to him by a document which companytained 14 clauses Annexure A to the W.P. Clause 13 of this document provided that the appointment was subject to termination without numberice in case he was found guilty of fraud, mis appropriation, breach of discipline, insubordination, acting detrimental to the interests of the companypany, disloyalty or gross neglect of duty provided, however, that he would be entitled to 30 days numberice if his services were terminated for any other reason.
One of the respondents is Sunil Kumar Mukherjee.
In due companyrse, Act No.
53 1 I.S.N. 1 57 dated 30th December, 1957, he was required to work as a Field Officer.
226 of the Constitution and prayed for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing the said impugned order of discharge passed against him.
To the petition filed by the respondent, he had impleaded eight respondents, the principal amongst them being the appellant Corporation and the Union of India UOI .
When the Life Insurance Corpn.
He was in the insurance line since June, 1941 and had been companyfirmed in his service by the Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd. in March, 1950.
Sinha J. who heard the writ petition, allowed the petition and directed that a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and or setting aside the impugned order be issued.
The respondent then moved the Calcutta High Court under Art.
took over the business of the Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd., an order was issued in favour of Mr. Mukherjee on the 14th February, 1958.
On the 19th January, 1956, the Life Insurance Emergency Provisions Ordinance No.
The appellant which took over the companytrolled business of the Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd., terminated the services of Mukherjee by an order passed on the 16th October, 1958.
This order was issued on blue paper and has been described by the High Court as the blue order.
The appellants then applied for and obtained a certificate of fitness from the said High Court and it is with the said certificate that they have companye to this Court in appeal.
1 of 1956 was promulgated by the President for the purpose of taking over, in the public interest, the management of the life insurance business, pending nationalisation of such business.
Gajendragadkar, J. This is a group of 15 appeals which raise a companymon question about the validity of the orders passed by the appellant Life Insurance Corporation of India terminating the services of its employees who are the respondents in these appeals.
9 of 1956 was passed which took the place of the original Ordinance and it came into effect on the 21st March, 1956.
