Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors.
Decided On : Apr-07-1966
Court : Karnataka
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'S. 11', (int) 1 => 'S. 11' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Somnath Ayyar', (int) 1 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 2 => 'Sri Rama Jois', (int) 3 => 'Sri Chinnaswami', (int) 4 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 5 => 'Sunil Kumar Mukherjee', (int) 6 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 7 => 'Vaidyanatha Ayyar', (int) 8 => 'Sri Rama Jois' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporations of India', (int) 2 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 3 => 'Corporation', (int) 4 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 5 => 'the Central Government', (int) 6 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 7 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 8 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 9 => 'the Central Government', (int) 10 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 11 => 'Parliament', (int) 12 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 13 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 14 => 'Corporation', (int) 15 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 16 => 'Corporation', (int) 17 => 'Corporation', (int) 18 => 'Corporation', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'the Central Government', (int) 21 => 'Corporation', (int) 22 => 'the Central Government', (int) 23 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 24 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 25 => 'Corporation', (int) 26 => 'Corporation', (int) 27 => 'Corporation', (int) 28 => 'Act', (int) 29 => 'Corporation', (int) 30 => 'the Central Government', (int) 31 => 'Corporation', (int) 32 => 'the Central Government', (int) 33 => 'Corporation', (int) 34 => 'the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 35 => 'Corporation', (int) 36 => 'another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras', (int) 37 => 'the Central Government', (int) 38 => 'Corporation', (int) 39 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 40 => 'Corporation', (int) 41 => 'Corporation', (int) 42 => 'Corporation', (int) 43 => 'Corporation', (int) 44 => 'Corporation', (int) 45 => 'Corporation', (int) 46 => 'Corporation' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1956', (int) 1 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 2 => '1 September 1956', (int) 3 => '1957', (int) 4 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 5 => '2465', (int) 6 => '1963', (int) 7 => '1956', (int) 8 => '1957', (int) 9 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 10 => '31 August, 1956', (int) 11 => '1964', (int) 12 => '1965' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '3.', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3', (int) 4 => '4.', (int) 5 => '5.', (int) 6 => '6', (int) 7 => '4', (int) 8 => '1', (int) 9 => '8.', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '9', (int) 12 => '10', (int) 13 => '55', (int) 14 => '11', (int) 15 => '4', (int) 16 => '12', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '13', (int) 19 => '4(1', (int) 20 => '14' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sri Rama Jois' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Para', (int) 1 => 'Para', (int) 2 => 'Para' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Para' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '373209', 'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957; <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 11(1) and 11(2)', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 275 of 1964', 'appellant' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.)', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors.', 'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - appointment - whether petitioner liable to be treated as Superintendent with effect from 01.09.1956 for higher promotion emoluments and other benefits - post of Superintendent in Insurance Department was supervisory post and Corporation had power to appoint petitioner to post of Superintendent or to post of Section head - Court cannot review factors taken into consideration by Corporation to conclude appointment of petitioner as Section head instead of Superintendent - petition dismissed. HELD See paras 12 and 13. - FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984[C.A.NO.66/1984] -- Section 19(4): [N.K. Patil, J] Revision petition Prayer for enhancement of maintenance Non-consideration of the salary certificate issued by the college produced by the revision petitioner which discloses total gross salary of the respondent at Rs.12,000/- p.m. Family Court awarded Rs.1,500/- for wife and Rs.500/- for the daughter - Failure of the Family Court to consider the necessities of the minor daughter Expenses towards cost of food, clothing, education, providing conducive atmosphere for the study of minor Held, It is the duty of the Family Court to take pragmatic approach, having regard to the status of the parties and the cost of living in the society. Impugned judgment passed by the Family Court was set aside. Award of maintenance is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- for the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the daughter. - The appointment had to be made by the Corporation on the basis of a selection taking into account the salary, experience, qualifications and the like.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1966-04-07', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Ayyar and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Somnath Ayyar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner before us was holding the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department. After the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporations of India under the provisions of the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>, on 1 September, 1956, on 1 September 1956 the petitioner who became entitled under S. 11(1) of the Act to become an employee of the newly-established Corporation was appointed as a section head. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and also of the order made by the Central Government known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which they made in the exercise of the power created by S. 11(2). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner also seeks a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall treat him as superintendent with effect from 1 September, 1956 and make available to him the higher promotion emoluments and other concomitant benefits. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In regard to the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and the order made by the Central Government under S. 11(2), we are of the opinion that the pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2465 of 1963 (Mysore) in which the petitioner before us was also the petitioner concludes the matter. This Court then came to the conclusion that the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>, was above the reproach of unconstitutionality and that S. 11 was merely incidental to the legislation in respect of the subject of insurance which the Parliament was exclusively competent to enact. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. So what remains to be considered is the complaint that the petitioner who was a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department should have been employed as a superintendent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Sri Rama Jois for the petitioner constructed an argument that the petitioner who was entitled to become an employee of the Corporation on its establishment, was under S. 11 of the Act, entitled to be appointed to the same post which he held in the Mysore Government Insurance Department, since that post was that of the superintendent, it was urged that the Corporation should not appoint him to any other post. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On behalf of the Corporation, Sri Chinnaswami maintains the argument that S. 11 on which Sri Rama Jois places dependence, does not guarantee to any employee of an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation, his absorption in the same kind of post in the Corporation. He urged that on the contrary, S. 11(2) empowered the Central Government to alter whether by way of reduction or otherwise, the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service of such employee to such extent and in such manner as they thought fit. It was also pointed out to us that that sub-section provides that if the alteration was unacceptable to the employee, the Corporation could terminate his employment and pay him compensation instead. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the exercise of the power thus created by S. 11(2), the Central Government promulgated an order known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which came into force on 1 September, 1956. Paragraph 4 of that order empowered categorization of employees. Clause (1) of that paragraph provides that employees who were in a supervisory post on 31 August, 1956 shall be fitted as superintendent or section head only to the extent of the number of such posts available and on the basis of a selection which shall take into account the salary, experience in supervisory capacity and qualifications of every such employee. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It is clear that the language of S. 11(2) is so comprehensive that the power to alter the conditions of service includes the power to make categorization to posts. Section 11(1) does not guarantee to the employee on his absorption in the Corporation to the same post which he occupied with the insurer whose business vested in the Corporation. On the nationalization of the insurance business, the Corporation under the provisions of the Act acquired the power to fit employees of the Corporation under S. 11(1) into appropriate posts. The employee, however, became entitled to hold his office by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and to the same privileges as in his previous employment. But the Central Government was nevertheless authorized by Sub-section (2) to alter the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service to the extent necessary and if the alteration was not acceptable to the employee, the Corporation could terminate his post. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It cannot be contended in the face of the side powers conferred on the Central Government by S. 11(2) and having regard to the language of S. 11(1) that anyone could make a claim under S. 11(1) that the Corporation should make available to him the same post which he held with his erstwhile employer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee and other [1964 - I L.L.J. 442] that the power created by S. 11(2) is so wide as to include power to make a fresh classification of the positions to be held by the erstwhile employees in the new Corporation. Such is also the import of the decision of the Madras High Court in Vaidyanatha Ayyar (S.) and another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras [1965 - II L.L.J. 55]. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Sri Rama Jois, however, contends that Para. 4 of the order made by the Central Government under S. 11(2) was applicable only to employees who were occupying supervisory posts and that the post of the petitioner which was the post of a superintendent could not be equip rated with a supervisory post. He asked us to say that Para. 4 had application only to what he described to us as 'uncategorized supervisory posts' and that since the post held by the petitioner had already been categorized as the post of a superintendent, it was impossible for the Corporation to do anything else but to make available to him the post of a superintendent. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. We have found great difficulty in understanding this submission. Since it is not disputed that the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department was a supervisory post the Corporation had the power under Para. 4 to appoint the petitioner either to the post of superintendent or to the post of a section head under that paragraph. The appointment had to be made by the Corporation on the basis of a selection taking into account the salary, experience, qualifications and the like. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. On behalf of the Corporation, it is asserted that on the basis of such selection the Corporation considered that the petitioner should be appointed as a section head. If that was the conclusion reached by the Corporation on the basis of selection which it made and after taking into consideration the relevant factors specified in Para. 4(1), it is not possible for the petitioner to contend that we should review those factors which were so taken into consideration, by the Corporation, and substitute for the decision reached by the Corporation, our conclusion that the petitioner should have been appointed as a superintendent. This is something which is plainly impossible for us to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. This writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. </p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1969)ILLJ651Kant', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '373209' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'S. 11', (int) 1 => 'S. 11' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Somnath Ayyar', (int) 1 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 2 => 'Sri Rama Jois', (int) 3 => 'Sri Chinnaswami', (int) 4 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 5 => 'Sunil Kumar Mukherjee', (int) 6 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 7 => 'Vaidyanatha Ayyar', (int) 8 => 'Sri Rama Jois' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporations of India', (int) 2 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 3 => 'Corporation', (int) 4 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 5 => 'the Central Government', (int) 6 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 7 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 8 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 9 => 'the Central Government', (int) 10 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 11 => 'Parliament', (int) 12 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 13 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 14 => 'Corporation', (int) 15 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 16 => 'Corporation', (int) 17 => 'Corporation', (int) 18 => 'Corporation', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'the Central Government', (int) 21 => 'Corporation', (int) 22 => 'the Central Government', (int) 23 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 24 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 25 => 'Corporation', (int) 26 => 'Corporation', (int) 27 => 'Corporation', (int) 28 => 'Act', (int) 29 => 'Corporation', (int) 30 => 'the Central Government', (int) 31 => 'Corporation', (int) 32 => 'the Central Government', (int) 33 => 'Corporation', (int) 34 => 'the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 35 => 'Corporation', (int) 36 => 'another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras', (int) 37 => 'the Central Government', (int) 38 => 'Corporation', (int) 39 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 40 => 'Corporation', (int) 41 => 'Corporation', (int) 42 => 'Corporation', (int) 43 => 'Corporation', (int) 44 => 'Corporation', (int) 45 => 'Corporation', (int) 46 => 'Corporation' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1956', (int) 1 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 2 => '1 September 1956', (int) 3 => '1957', (int) 4 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 5 => '2465', (int) 6 => '1963', (int) 7 => '1956', (int) 8 => '1957', (int) 9 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 10 => '31 August, 1956', (int) 11 => '1964', (int) 12 => '1965' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '3.', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3', (int) 4 => '4.', (int) 5 => '5.', (int) 6 => '6', (int) 7 => '4', (int) 8 => '1', (int) 9 => '8.', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '9', (int) 12 => '10', (int) 13 => '55', (int) 14 => '11', (int) 15 => '4', (int) 16 => '12', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '13', (int) 19 => '4(1', (int) 20 => '14' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sri Rama Jois' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Para', (int) 1 => 'Para', (int) 2 => 'Para' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Para' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '373209', 'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957; <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 11(1) and 11(2)', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 275 of 1964', 'appellant' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.)', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors.', 'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - appointment - whether petitioner liable to be treated as Superintendent with effect from 01.09.1956 for higher promotion emoluments and other benefits - post of Superintendent in Insurance Department was supervisory post and Corporation had power to appoint petitioner to post of Superintendent or to post of Section head - Court cannot review factors taken into consideration by Corporation to conclude appointment of petitioner as Section head instead of Superintendent - petition dismissed. HELD See paras 12 and 13. - FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984[C.A.NO.66/1984] -- Section 19(4): [N.K. Patil, J] Revision petition Prayer for enhancement of maintenance Non-consideration of the salary certificate issued by the college produced by the revision petitioner which discloses total gross salary of the respondent at Rs.12,000/- p.m. Family Court awarded Rs.1,500/- for wife and Rs.500/- for the daughter - Failure of the Family Court to consider the necessities of the minor daughter Expenses towards cost of food, clothing, education, providing conducive atmosphere for the study of minor Held, It is the duty of the Family Court to take pragmatic approach, having regard to the status of the parties and the cost of living in the society. Impugned judgment passed by the Family Court was set aside. Award of maintenance is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- for the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the daughter. - The appointment had to be made by the Corporation on the basis of a selection taking into account the salary, experience, qualifications and the like.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1966-04-07', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Ayyar and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Somnath Ayyar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner before us was holding the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department. After the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporations of India under the provisions of the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>, on 1 September, 1956, on 1 September 1956 the petitioner who became entitled under S. 11(1) of the Act to become an employee of the newly-established Corporation was appointed as a section head. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and also of the order made by the Central Government known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which they made in the exercise of the power created by S. 11(2). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner also seeks a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall treat him as superintendent with effect from 1 September, 1956 and make available to him the higher promotion emoluments and other concomitant benefits. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In regard to the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and the order made by the Central Government under S. 11(2), we are of the opinion that the pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2465 of 1963 (Mysore) in which the petitioner before us was also the petitioner concludes the matter. This Court then came to the conclusion that the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>, was above the reproach of unconstitutionality and that S. 11 was merely incidental to the legislation in respect of the subject of insurance which the Parliament was exclusively competent to enact. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. So what remains to be considered is the complaint that the petitioner who was a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department should have been employed as a superintendent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Sri Rama Jois for the petitioner constructed an argument that the petitioner who was entitled to become an employee of the Corporation on its establishment, was under S. 11 of the Act, entitled to be appointed to the same post which he held in the Mysore Government Insurance Department, since that post was that of the superintendent, it was urged that the Corporation should not appoint him to any other post. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On behalf of the Corporation, Sri Chinnaswami maintains the argument that S. 11 on which Sri Rama Jois places dependence, does not guarantee to any employee of an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation, his absorption in the same kind of post in the Corporation. He urged that on the contrary, S. 11(2) empowered the Central Government to alter whether by way of reduction or otherwise, the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service of such employee to such extent and in such manner as they thought fit. It was also pointed out to us that that sub-section provides that if the alteration was unacceptable to the employee, the Corporation could terminate his employment and pay him compensation instead. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the exercise of the power thus created by S. 11(2), the Central Government promulgated an order known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which came into force on 1 September, 1956. Paragraph 4 of that order empowered categorization of employees. Clause (1) of that paragraph provides that employees who were in a supervisory post on 31 August, 1956 shall be fitted as superintendent or section head only to the extent of the number of such posts available and on the basis of a selection which shall take into account the salary, experience in supervisory capacity and qualifications of every such employee. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It is clear that the language of S. 11(2) is so comprehensive that the power to alter the conditions of service includes the power to make categorization to posts. Section 11(1) does not guarantee to the employee on his absorption in the Corporation to the same post which he occupied with the insurer whose business vested in the Corporation. On the nationalization of the insurance business, the Corporation under the provisions of the Act acquired the power to fit employees of the Corporation under S. 11(1) into appropriate posts. The employee, however, became entitled to hold his office by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and to the same privileges as in his previous employment. But the Central Government was nevertheless authorized by Sub-section (2) to alter the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service to the extent necessary and if the alteration was not acceptable to the employee, the Corporation could terminate his post. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It cannot be contended in the face of the side powers conferred on the Central Government by S. 11(2) and having regard to the language of S. 11(1) that anyone could make a claim under S. 11(1) that the Corporation should make available to him the same post which he held with his erstwhile employer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee and other [1964 - I L.L.J. 442] that the power created by S. 11(2) is so wide as to include power to make a fresh classification of the positions to be held by the erstwhile employees in the new Corporation. Such is also the import of the decision of the Madras High Court in Vaidyanatha Ayyar (S.) and another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras [1965 - II L.L.J. 55]. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Sri Rama Jois, however, contends that Para. 4 of the order made by the Central Government under S. 11(2) was applicable only to employees who were occupying supervisory posts and that the post of the petitioner which was the post of a superintendent could not be equip rated with a supervisory post. He asked us to say that Para. 4 had application only to what he described to us as 'uncategorized supervisory posts' and that since the post held by the petitioner had already been categorized as the post of a superintendent, it was impossible for the Corporation to do anything else but to make available to him the post of a superintendent. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. We have found great difficulty in understanding this submission. Since it is not disputed that the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department was a supervisory post the Corporation had the power under Para. 4 to appoint the petitioner either to the post of superintendent or to the post of a section head under that paragraph. The appointment had to be made by the Corporation on the basis of a selection taking into account the salary, experience, qualifications and the like. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. On behalf of the Corporation, it is asserted that on the basis of such selection the Corporation considered that the petitioner should be appointed as a section head. If that was the conclusion reached by the Corporation on the basis of selection which it made and after taking into consideration the relevant factors specified in Para. 4(1), it is not possible for the petitioner to contend that we should review those factors which were so taken into consideration, by the Corporation, and substitute for the decision reached by the Corporation, our conclusion that the petitioner should have been appointed as a superintendent. This is something which is plainly impossible for us to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. This writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. </p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1969)ILLJ651Kant', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '373209' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'S. 11', (int) 1 => 'S. 11' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Somnath Ayyar', (int) 1 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 2 => 'Sri Rama Jois', (int) 3 => 'Sri Chinnaswami', (int) 4 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 5 => 'Sunil Kumar Mukherjee', (int) 6 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 7 => 'Vaidyanatha Ayyar', (int) 8 => 'Sri Rama Jois' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporations of India', (int) 2 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 3 => 'Corporation', (int) 4 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 5 => 'the Central Government', (int) 6 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 7 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 8 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 9 => 'the Central Government', (int) 10 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 11 => 'Parliament', (int) 12 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 13 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 14 => 'Corporation', (int) 15 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 16 => 'Corporation', (int) 17 => 'Corporation', (int) 18 => 'Corporation', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'the Central Government', (int) 21 => 'Corporation', (int) 22 => 'the Central Government', (int) 23 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 24 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 25 => 'Corporation', (int) 26 => 'Corporation', (int) 27 => 'Corporation', (int) 28 => 'Act', (int) 29 => 'Corporation', (int) 30 => 'the Central Government', (int) 31 => 'Corporation', (int) 32 => 'the Central Government', (int) 33 => 'Corporation', (int) 34 => 'the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 35 => 'Corporation', (int) 36 => 'another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras', (int) 37 => 'the Central Government', (int) 38 => 'Corporation', (int) 39 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 40 => 'Corporation', (int) 41 => 'Corporation', (int) 42 => 'Corporation', (int) 43 => 'Corporation', (int) 44 => 'Corporation', (int) 45 => 'Corporation', (int) 46 => 'Corporation' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1956', (int) 1 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 2 => '1 September 1956', (int) 3 => '1957', (int) 4 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 5 => '2465', (int) 6 => '1963', (int) 7 => '1956', (int) 8 => '1957', (int) 9 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 10 => '31 August, 1956', (int) 11 => '1964', (int) 12 => '1965' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '3.', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3', (int) 4 => '4.', (int) 5 => '5.', (int) 6 => '6', (int) 7 => '4', (int) 8 => '1', (int) 9 => '8.', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '9', (int) 12 => '10', (int) 13 => '55', (int) 14 => '11', (int) 15 => '4', (int) 16 => '12', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '13', (int) 19 => '4(1', (int) 20 => '14' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sri Rama Jois' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Para', (int) 1 => 'Para', (int) 2 => 'Para' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Para' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '373209', 'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957; <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 11(1) and 11(2)', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 275 of 1964', 'appellant' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.)', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors.', 'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - appointment - whether petitioner liable to be treated as Superintendent with effect from 01.09.1956 for higher promotion emoluments and other benefits - post of Superintendent in Insurance Department was supervisory post and Corporation had power to appoint petitioner to post of Superintendent or to post of Section head - Court cannot review factors taken into consideration by Corporation to conclude appointment of petitioner as Section head instead of Superintendent - petition dismissed. HELD See paras 12 and 13. - FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984[C.A.NO.66/1984] -- Section 19(4): [N.K. Patil, J] Revision petition Prayer for enhancement of maintenance Non-consideration of the salary certificate issued by the college produced by the revision petitioner which discloses total gross salary of the respondent at Rs.12,000/- p.m. Family Court awarded Rs.1,500/- for wife and Rs.500/- for the daughter - Failure of the Family Court to consider the necessities of the minor daughter Expenses towards cost of food, clothing, education, providing conducive atmosphere for the study of minor Held, It is the duty of the Family Court to take pragmatic approach, having regard to the status of the parties and the cost of living in the society. Impugned judgment passed by the Family Court was set aside. Award of maintenance is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- for the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the daughter. - The appointment had to be made by the Corporation on the basis of a selection taking into account the salary, experience, qualifications and the like.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1966-04-07', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Ayyar and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Somnath Ayyar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner before us was holding the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department. After the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporations of India under the provisions of the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>, on 1 September, 1956, on 1 September 1956 the petitioner who became entitled under S. 11(1) of the Act to become an employee of the newly-established Corporation was appointed as a section head. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and also of the order made by the Central Government known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which they made in the exercise of the power created by S. 11(2). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner also seeks a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall treat him as superintendent with effect from 1 September, 1956 and make available to him the higher promotion emoluments and other concomitant benefits. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In regard to the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and the order made by the Central Government under S. 11(2), we are of the opinion that the pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2465 of 1963 (Mysore) in which the petitioner before us was also the petitioner concludes the matter. This Court then came to the conclusion that the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>, was above the reproach of unconstitutionality and that S. 11 was merely incidental to the legislation in respect of the subject of insurance which the Parliament was exclusively competent to enact. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. So what remains to be considered is the complaint that the petitioner who was a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department should have been employed as a superintendent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Sri Rama Jois for the petitioner constructed an argument that the petitioner who was entitled to become an employee of the Corporation on its establishment, was under S. 11 of the Act, entitled to be appointed to the same post which he held in the Mysore Government Insurance Department, since that post was that of the superintendent, it was urged that the Corporation should not appoint him to any other post. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On behalf of the Corporation, Sri Chinnaswami maintains the argument that S. 11 on which Sri Rama Jois places dependence, does not guarantee to any employee of an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation, his absorption in the same kind of post in the Corporation. He urged that on the contrary, S. 11(2) empowered the Central Government to alter whether by way of reduction or otherwise, the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service of such employee to such extent and in such manner as they thought fit. It was also pointed out to us that that sub-section provides that if the alteration was unacceptable to the employee, the Corporation could terminate his employment and pay him compensation instead. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the exercise of the power thus created by S. 11(2), the Central Government promulgated an order known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which came into force on 1 September, 1956. Paragraph 4 of that order empowered categorization of employees. Clause (1) of that paragraph provides that employees who were in a supervisory post on 31 August, 1956 shall be fitted as superintendent or section head only to the extent of the number of such posts available and on the basis of a selection which shall take into account the salary, experience in supervisory capacity and qualifications of every such employee. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It is clear that the language of S. 11(2) is so comprehensive that the power to alter the conditions of service includes the power to make categorization to posts. Section 11(1) does not guarantee to the employee on his absorption in the Corporation to the same post which he occupied with the insurer whose business vested in the Corporation. On the nationalization of the insurance business, the Corporation under the provisions of the Act acquired the power to fit employees of the Corporation under S. 11(1) into appropriate posts. The employee, however, became entitled to hold his office by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and to the same privileges as in his previous employment. But the Central Government was nevertheless authorized by Sub-section (2) to alter the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service to the extent necessary and if the alteration was not acceptable to the employee, the Corporation could terminate his post. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It cannot be contended in the face of the side powers conferred on the Central Government by S. 11(2) and having regard to the language of S. 11(1) that anyone could make a claim under S. 11(1) that the Corporation should make available to him the same post which he held with his erstwhile employer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee and other [1964 - I L.L.J. 442] that the power created by S. 11(2) is so wide as to include power to make a fresh classification of the positions to be held by the erstwhile employees in the new Corporation. Such is also the import of the decision of the Madras High Court in Vaidyanatha Ayyar (S.) and another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras [1965 - II L.L.J. 55]. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Sri Rama Jois, however, contends that Para. 4 of the order made by the Central Government under S. 11(2) was applicable only to employees who were occupying supervisory posts and that the post of the petitioner which was the post of a superintendent could not be equip rated with a supervisory post. He asked us to say that Para. 4 had application only to what he described to us as 'uncategorized supervisory posts' and that since the post held by the petitioner had already been categorized as the post of a superintendent, it was impossible for the Corporation to do anything else but to make available to him the post of a superintendent. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. We have found great difficulty in understanding this submission. Since it is not disputed that the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department was a supervisory post the Corporation had the power under Para. 4 to appoint the petitioner either to the post of superintendent or to the post of a section head under that paragraph. The appointment had to be made by the Corporation on the basis of a selection taking into account the salary, experience, qualifications and the like. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. On behalf of the Corporation, it is asserted that on the basis of such selection the Corporation considered that the petitioner should be appointed as a section head. If that was the conclusion reached by the Corporation on the basis of selection which it made and after taking into consideration the relevant factors specified in Para. 4(1), it is not possible for the petitioner to contend that we should review those factors which were so taken into consideration, by the Corporation, and substitute for the decision reached by the Corporation, our conclusion that the petitioner should have been appointed as a superintendent. This is something which is plainly impossible for us to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. This writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. </p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1969)ILLJ651Kant', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '373209' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'S. 11', (int) 1 => 'S. 11' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Somnath Ayyar', (int) 1 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 2 => 'Sri Rama Jois', (int) 3 => 'Sri Chinnaswami', (int) 4 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 5 => 'Sunil Kumar Mukherjee', (int) 6 => 'S. 11(2', (int) 7 => 'Vaidyanatha Ayyar', (int) 8 => 'Sri Rama Jois' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporations of India', (int) 2 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 3 => 'Corporation', (int) 4 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 5 => 'the Central Government', (int) 6 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 7 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 8 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 9 => 'the Central Government', (int) 10 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 11 => 'Parliament', (int) 12 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 13 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 14 => 'Corporation', (int) 15 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 16 => 'Corporation', (int) 17 => 'Corporation', (int) 18 => 'Corporation', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'the Central Government', (int) 21 => 'Corporation', (int) 22 => 'the Central Government', (int) 23 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 24 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 25 => 'Corporation', (int) 26 => 'Corporation', (int) 27 => 'Corporation', (int) 28 => 'Act', (int) 29 => 'Corporation', (int) 30 => 'the Central Government', (int) 31 => 'Corporation', (int) 32 => 'the Central Government', (int) 33 => 'Corporation', (int) 34 => 'the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 35 => 'Corporation', (int) 36 => 'another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras', (int) 37 => 'the Central Government', (int) 38 => 'Corporation', (int) 39 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 40 => 'Corporation', (int) 41 => 'Corporation', (int) 42 => 'Corporation', (int) 43 => 'Corporation', (int) 44 => 'Corporation', (int) 45 => 'Corporation', (int) 46 => 'Corporation' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1956', (int) 1 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 2 => '1 September 1956', (int) 3 => '1957', (int) 4 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 5 => '2465', (int) 6 => '1963', (int) 7 => '1956', (int) 8 => '1957', (int) 9 => '1 September, 1956', (int) 10 => '31 August, 1956', (int) 11 => '1964', (int) 12 => '1965' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '3.', (int) 2 => '2', (int) 3 => '3', (int) 4 => '4.', (int) 5 => '5.', (int) 6 => '6', (int) 7 => '4', (int) 8 => '1', (int) 9 => '8.', (int) 10 => '2', (int) 11 => '9', (int) 12 => '10', (int) 13 => '55', (int) 14 => '11', (int) 15 => '4', (int) 16 => '12', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '13', (int) 19 => '4(1', (int) 20 => '14' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sri Rama Jois' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Para', (int) 1 => 'Para', (int) 2 => 'Para' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Para' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '373209', 'acts' => 'Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957; <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 11(1) and 11(2)', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 275 of 1964', 'appellant' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.)', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Srinivasa Reghavachar (V.T.) Vs. State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors.', 'casenote' => 'Labour and Industrial - appointment - whether petitioner liable to be treated as Superintendent with effect from 01.09.1956 for higher promotion emoluments and other benefits - post of Superintendent in Insurance Department was supervisory post and Corporation had power to appoint petitioner to post of Superintendent or to post of Section head - Court cannot review factors taken into consideration by Corporation to conclude appointment of petitioner as Section head instead of Superintendent - petition dismissed. HELD See paras 12 and 13. - FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984[C.A.NO.66/1984] -- Section 19(4): [N.K. Patil, J] Revision petition Prayer for enhancement of maintenance Non-consideration of the salary certificate issued by the college produced by the revision petitioner which discloses total gross salary of the respondent at Rs.12,000/- p.m. Family Court awarded Rs.1,500/- for wife and Rs.500/- for the daughter - Failure of the Family Court to consider the necessities of the minor daughter Expenses towards cost of food, clothing, education, providing conducive atmosphere for the study of minor Held, It is the duty of the Family Court to take pragmatic approach, having regard to the status of the parties and the cost of living in the society. Impugned judgment passed by the Family Court was set aside. Award of maintenance is enhanced to Rs.2,000/- for the wife and Rs.1,500/- to the daughter. - The appointment had to be made by the Corporation on the basis of a selection taking into account the salary, experience, qualifications and the like.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1966-04-07', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Ayyar and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Somnath Ayyar, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner before us was holding the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department. After the establishment of the Life Insurance Corporations of India under the provisions of the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>, on 1 September, 1956, on 1 September 1956 the petitioner who became entitled under S. 11(1) of the Act to become an employee of the newly-established Corporation was appointed as a section head. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and also of the order made by the Central Government known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which they made in the exercise of the power created by S. 11(2). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petitioner also seeks a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall treat him as superintendent with effect from 1 September, 1956 and make available to him the higher promotion emoluments and other concomitant benefits. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In regard to the constitutionality of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and the order made by the Central Government under S. 11(2), we are of the opinion that the pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2465 of 1963 (Mysore) in which the petitioner before us was also the petitioner concludes the matter. This Court then came to the conclusion that the <a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a>, was above the reproach of unconstitutionality and that S. 11 was merely incidental to the legislation in respect of the subject of insurance which the Parliament was exclusively competent to enact. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. So what remains to be considered is the complaint that the petitioner who was a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department should have been employed as a superintendent in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Sri Rama Jois for the petitioner constructed an argument that the petitioner who was entitled to become an employee of the Corporation on its establishment, was under S. 11 of the Act, entitled to be appointed to the same post which he held in the Mysore Government Insurance Department, since that post was that of the superintendent, it was urged that the Corporation should not appoint him to any other post. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On behalf of the Corporation, Sri Chinnaswami maintains the argument that S. 11 on which Sri Rama Jois places dependence, does not guarantee to any employee of an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation, his absorption in the same kind of post in the Corporation. He urged that on the contrary, S. 11(2) empowered the Central Government to alter whether by way of reduction or otherwise, the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service of such employee to such extent and in such manner as they thought fit. It was also pointed out to us that that sub-section provides that if the alteration was unacceptable to the employee, the Corporation could terminate his employment and pay him compensation instead. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In the exercise of the power thus created by S. 11(2), the Central Government promulgated an order known as the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957, which came into force on 1 September, 1956. Paragraph 4 of that order empowered categorization of employees. Clause (1) of that paragraph provides that employees who were in a supervisory post on 31 August, 1956 shall be fitted as superintendent or section head only to the extent of the number of such posts available and on the basis of a selection which shall take into account the salary, experience in supervisory capacity and qualifications of every such employee. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. It is clear that the language of S. 11(2) is so comprehensive that the power to alter the conditions of service includes the power to make categorization to posts. Section 11(1) does not guarantee to the employee on his absorption in the Corporation to the same post which he occupied with the insurer whose business vested in the Corporation. On the nationalization of the insurance business, the Corporation under the provisions of the Act acquired the power to fit employees of the Corporation under S. 11(1) into appropriate posts. The employee, however, became entitled to hold his office by the same tenure at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and to the same privileges as in his previous employment. But the Central Government was nevertheless authorized by Sub-section (2) to alter the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service to the extent necessary and if the alteration was not acceptable to the employee, the Corporation could terminate his post. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It cannot be contended in the face of the side powers conferred on the Central Government by S. 11(2) and having regard to the language of S. 11(1) that anyone could make a claim under S. 11(1) that the Corporation should make available to him the same post which he held with his erstwhile employer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. It is seen from the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee and other [1964 - I L.L.J. 442] that the power created by S. 11(2) is so wide as to include power to make a fresh classification of the positions to be held by the erstwhile employees in the new Corporation. Such is also the import of the decision of the Madras High Court in Vaidyanatha Ayyar (S.) and another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras [1965 - II L.L.J. 55]. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Sri Rama Jois, however, contends that Para. 4 of the order made by the Central Government under S. 11(2) was applicable only to employees who were occupying supervisory posts and that the post of the petitioner which was the post of a superintendent could not be equip rated with a supervisory post. He asked us to say that Para. 4 had application only to what he described to us as 'uncategorized supervisory posts' and that since the post held by the petitioner had already been categorized as the post of a superintendent, it was impossible for the Corporation to do anything else but to make available to him the post of a superintendent. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. We have found great difficulty in understanding this submission. Since it is not disputed that the post of a superintendent in the Mysore Government Insurance Department was a supervisory post the Corporation had the power under Para. 4 to appoint the petitioner either to the post of superintendent or to the post of a section head under that paragraph. The appointment had to be made by the Corporation on the basis of a selection taking into account the salary, experience, qualifications and the like. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. On behalf of the Corporation, it is asserted that on the basis of such selection the Corporation considered that the petitioner should be appointed as a section head. If that was the conclusion reached by the Corporation on the basis of selection which it made and after taking into consideration the relevant factors specified in Para. 4(1), it is not possible for the petitioner to contend that we should review those factors which were so taken into consideration, by the Corporation, and substitute for the decision reached by the Corporation, our conclusion that the petitioner should have been appointed as a superintendent. This is something which is plainly impossible for us to do. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. This writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. </p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1969)ILLJ651Kant', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore (by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore) and ors.', 'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '373209' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: S. 11, S. 11
PERSON: Somnath Ayyar, S. 11(2, Sri Rama Jois, Sri Chinnaswami, S. 11(2, Sunil Kumar Mukherjee, S. 11(2, Vaidyanatha Ayyar, Sri Rama Jois
ORG: the Mysore Government Insurance Department, the Life Insurance Corporations of India, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, Corporation, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, the Central Government, the Life Insurance Corporation, Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, the Central Government, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, Parliament, the Mysore Government Insurance Department, the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Corporation, the Mysore Government Insurance Department, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, the Central Government, Corporation, the Central Government, the Life Insurance Corporation, Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Act, Corporation, the Central Government, Corporation, the Central Government, Corporation, the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Corporation, another v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Madras, the Central Government, Corporation, the Mysore Government Insurance Department, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation
DATE: 1956, 1 September, 1956, 1 September 1956, 1957, 1 September, 1956, 2465, 1963, 1956, 1957, 1 September, 1956, 31 August, 1956, 1964, 1965
CARDINAL: 2., 3., 2, 3, 4., 5., 6, 4, 1, 8., 2, 9, 10, 55, 11, 4, 12, 4, 13, 4(1, 14
FAC: Sri Rama Jois
PRODUCT: Para, Para, Para
LOC: Para