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.
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.
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.
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, misappropriation, 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.
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.
When the Life Insurance Corpn.
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated July 26, and August 1, 1962, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeals from Original Orders Nos.
288 and 274 276, 278, 280, 279, 281, 273, 272, 271, 270, 269, 282 and 292 of 1961.
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.
This order was issued on blue paper and has been described by the High Court as the blue order.
This order was issued by the Divisional Manager.
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.
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.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
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.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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.
took over the business of the Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd., an order was issued in favour of Mr. Mukherjee on the 14th February, 1958.
909 to 923 of 1963.
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.
One of the respondents is Sunil Kumar Mukherjee.
Thus, it appears that after this order was given to Mr. Mukherjee, he began to work as a Field Cfficer by virtue of his appointment under the relevant Government Order.
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.
Sen, Salil Kumar Datta and Sukumar Ghose, for the respondents Nos.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General, S.J. Banaji, Prasanta Kumar Ghose and K.L. Hathi, for the appellants.
The respondent then moved the Calcutta High Court under Art.
By this order it was stated that in terms of Government Order No.
1 to 5.
November 22, 1963.
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.
53 1 I.S.N. 1 57 dated 30th December, 1957, he was required to work as a Field Officer.
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.
It was also added that he would companytinue to be attached to Barrackpore Branch Office until further orders.
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.
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.
