Semantic Analysis by spaCy
V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar 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' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 2 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 3 => 'Section 11', (int) 4 => 'Section 11', (int) 5 => 'Section 11', (int) 6 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 7 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 8 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 9 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 10 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 11 => 'Section 11(2' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Somnath Iyer', (int) 1 => 'J.', (int) 2 => 'Rama Jois', (int) 3 => 'Chinnaswamy', (int) 4 => 'Rama Jois', (int) 5 => 'Sunil Kumar', (int) 6 => 'Rama Jois' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '4', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '6', (int) 8 => '4', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '8)', (int) 11 => '2', (int) 12 => '9', (int) 13 => '10', (int) 14 => '1964)ILLJ442SC', (int) 15 => '11', (int) 16 => '4', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '12', (int) 19 => '4', (int) 20 => '13', (int) 21 => '4(1', (int) 22 => '14', (int) 23 => '15' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation 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 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 12 => 'Parliament', (int) 13 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 14 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 15 => 'Corporation', (int) 16 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 17 => 'Corporation', (int) 18 => 'Corporation', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'Corporation', (int) 21 => 'the Central Government', (int) 22 => 'Corporation', (int) 23 => 'the Central Government', (int) 24 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 25 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 26 => 'Corporation', (int) 27 => 'Corporation', (int) 28 => 'Corporation', (int) 29 => 'Act', (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', (int) 35 => 'Corporation', (int) 36 => 'Vidyanatha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India', (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 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 2 => '1957', (int) 3 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 4 => '2465', (int) 5 => '1963', (int) 6 => '1956', (int) 7 => '1957', (int) 8 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 9 => 'the 31st of August 1956' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Superintendent', (int) 1 => 'Superintendent', (int) 2 => 'Superintendent', (int) 3 => 'Superintendent' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Superintendent or Section Head' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '376114', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 11, 11(1) and 11(2); Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 275 of 1964', 'appellant' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Section 105 (1): [S. Abdul Nazeer,J] Scope and ambit of Meaning of the words affecting the decision of the case employed in Section 105 Held, The words affecting the decision of the case employed in Section 105, means affecting the decision of the case on merits. It is clear that party need not file an appeal against all interlocutory Orders and he can challenge the same in an appeal filed from the original decree if that interlocutory order has affected the decision of the case. Only such order, which affects the decision of the case, alone can be challenged along with the appeal filed against the original decree. Even if there is any error, defect or irregularity in any other order, it cannot be challenged by the aggrieved party along with the appeal against the original decree. -- Order 39, Rule 2A : Order passed under Held, Even if an application under Order 39 Rule 2A was considered and disposed of along with the suit, the order passed thereunder would be separate and an appeal would lie under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the C.P.C., Further, If the order passed under Order 39 Rule 2A had not affected the decision of the case, the same cannot be a ground for objection in the memorandum of appeal. Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly prohibits such recourse.-- Order 39, Rule 2A; Disobedience to temporary injunction Application for taking action for disobedience Held, The purpose of Rule 2A of Order 39 is to prevent breach of the order of the Court. Orders given by the Court are to be followed and they are meant to be followed. If any body tries to take law into his own hands and acts in breach of the order intentionally and purposefully, knowing the order fully well, he has to be dissuaded by taking action under Order 39 Rule 2A. The application alleging that the party had committed breach of an order has to be decided on the basis of the evidence. However, final decision of the case may stand on a separate footing. When an application is filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC complaining disobedience and for violation of an order of the Court, such an application has to be taken up by the Court as expeditiously as possible. Such an application should get priority by the Court. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1966-04-07', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Somnath Iyer, 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 Corporation 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 September 1, 1956, the petitioner who became entitled under Section 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 Section 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 September 1, 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 Section 11(2), we are of the opinion that the pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2465 of 1963 (Mys) in which the petitioner before us was also the petitioner concludes the matter. The 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 Section 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. Mr. 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 Section 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, Mr. Chinnaswamy maintains the argument that Section 11 on which Mr. 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, Section 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 Section 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 September 1, 1956. paragraph 4 of that order empowered categorisation of employees. Clause (1) of that paragraph provides that employees who were in a supervisory post on the 31st of 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 section 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 categorisation of 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 nationalisation of the insurance business, the Corporation under the provisions of the Act acquired the power to fit employees of the Corporation under Section 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 authorised 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 wide powers conferred on the Central Government by Section 11(2) and having regard to the language of Section 11(1) that anyone could make a claim under Section 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 v. Sunil Kumar, : (1964)ILLJ442SC , that the power created by Section 11(2) is so wide as to include a 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 Vidyanatha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, : AIR1964Mad24 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Mr. Rama Jois, however, contents that paragraph 4 of the order made by the Central Government under Section 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 paragraph 4 had application only to what he described to us as 'uncategorised supervisory posts' and that since the post held by the petitioner had already been categorised 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 paragraph 4 to appoint the petitioner either to the post of Superintendent of 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 life. </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 paragraph 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. That 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><p style="text-align: justify;">(15) Petition dismissed <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1968Kant71; AIR1968Mys71; (1969)ILLJ651aKant', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '376114' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 2 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 3 => 'Section 11', (int) 4 => 'Section 11', (int) 5 => 'Section 11', (int) 6 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 7 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 8 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 9 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 10 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 11 => 'Section 11(2' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Somnath Iyer', (int) 1 => 'J.', (int) 2 => 'Rama Jois', (int) 3 => 'Chinnaswamy', (int) 4 => 'Rama Jois', (int) 5 => 'Sunil Kumar', (int) 6 => 'Rama Jois' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '4', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '6', (int) 8 => '4', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '8)', (int) 11 => '2', (int) 12 => '9', (int) 13 => '10', (int) 14 => '1964)ILLJ442SC', (int) 15 => '11', (int) 16 => '4', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '12', (int) 19 => '4', (int) 20 => '13', (int) 21 => '4(1', (int) 22 => '14', (int) 23 => '15' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation 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 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 12 => 'Parliament', (int) 13 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 14 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 15 => 'Corporation', (int) 16 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 17 => 'Corporation', (int) 18 => 'Corporation', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'Corporation', (int) 21 => 'the Central Government', (int) 22 => 'Corporation', (int) 23 => 'the Central Government', (int) 24 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 25 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 26 => 'Corporation', (int) 27 => 'Corporation', (int) 28 => 'Corporation', (int) 29 => 'Act', (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', (int) 35 => 'Corporation', (int) 36 => 'Vidyanatha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India', (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 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 2 => '1957', (int) 3 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 4 => '2465', (int) 5 => '1963', (int) 6 => '1956', (int) 7 => '1957', (int) 8 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 9 => 'the 31st of August 1956' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Superintendent', (int) 1 => 'Superintendent', (int) 2 => 'Superintendent', (int) 3 => 'Superintendent' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Superintendent or Section Head' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '376114', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 11, 11(1) and 11(2); Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 275 of 1964', 'appellant' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Section 105 (1): [S. Abdul Nazeer,J] Scope and ambit of Meaning of the words affecting the decision of the case employed in Section 105 Held, The words affecting the decision of the case employed in Section 105, means affecting the decision of the case on merits. It is clear that party need not file an appeal against all interlocutory Orders and he can challenge the same in an appeal filed from the original decree if that interlocutory order has affected the decision of the case. Only such order, which affects the decision of the case, alone can be challenged along with the appeal filed against the original decree. Even if there is any error, defect or irregularity in any other order, it cannot be challenged by the aggrieved party along with the appeal against the original decree. -- Order 39, Rule 2A : Order passed under Held, Even if an application under Order 39 Rule 2A was considered and disposed of along with the suit, the order passed thereunder would be separate and an appeal would lie under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the C.P.C., Further, If the order passed under Order 39 Rule 2A had not affected the decision of the case, the same cannot be a ground for objection in the memorandum of appeal. Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly prohibits such recourse.-- Order 39, Rule 2A; Disobedience to temporary injunction Application for taking action for disobedience Held, The purpose of Rule 2A of Order 39 is to prevent breach of the order of the Court. Orders given by the Court are to be followed and they are meant to be followed. If any body tries to take law into his own hands and acts in breach of the order intentionally and purposefully, knowing the order fully well, he has to be dissuaded by taking action under Order 39 Rule 2A. The application alleging that the party had committed breach of an order has to be decided on the basis of the evidence. However, final decision of the case may stand on a separate footing. When an application is filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC complaining disobedience and for violation of an order of the Court, such an application has to be taken up by the Court as expeditiously as possible. Such an application should get priority by the Court. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1966-04-07', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Somnath Iyer, 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 Corporation 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 September 1, 1956, the petitioner who became entitled under Section 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 Section 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 September 1, 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 Section 11(2), we are of the opinion that the pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2465 of 1963 (Mys) in which the petitioner before us was also the petitioner concludes the matter. The 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 Section 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. Mr. 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 Section 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, Mr. Chinnaswamy maintains the argument that Section 11 on which Mr. 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, Section 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 Section 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 September 1, 1956. paragraph 4 of that order empowered categorisation of employees. Clause (1) of that paragraph provides that employees who were in a supervisory post on the 31st of 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 section 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 categorisation of 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 nationalisation of the insurance business, the Corporation under the provisions of the Act acquired the power to fit employees of the Corporation under Section 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 authorised 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 wide powers conferred on the Central Government by Section 11(2) and having regard to the language of Section 11(1) that anyone could make a claim under Section 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 v. Sunil Kumar, : (1964)ILLJ442SC , that the power created by Section 11(2) is so wide as to include a 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 Vidyanatha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, : AIR1964Mad24 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Mr. Rama Jois, however, contents that paragraph 4 of the order made by the Central Government under Section 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 paragraph 4 had application only to what he described to us as 'uncategorised supervisory posts' and that since the post held by the petitioner had already been categorised 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 paragraph 4 to appoint the petitioner either to the post of Superintendent of 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 life. </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 paragraph 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. That 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><p style="text-align: justify;">(15) Petition dismissed <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1968Kant71; AIR1968Mys71; (1969)ILLJ651aKant', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '376114' ) $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' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors. Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 2 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 3 => 'Section 11', (int) 4 => 'Section 11', (int) 5 => 'Section 11', (int) 6 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 7 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 8 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 9 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 10 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 11 => 'Section 11(2' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Somnath Iyer', (int) 1 => 'J.', (int) 2 => 'Rama Jois', (int) 3 => 'Chinnaswamy', (int) 4 => 'Rama Jois', (int) 5 => 'Sunil Kumar', (int) 6 => 'Rama Jois' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '4', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '6', (int) 8 => '4', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '8)', (int) 11 => '2', (int) 12 => '9', (int) 13 => '10', (int) 14 => '1964)ILLJ442SC', (int) 15 => '11', (int) 16 => '4', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '12', (int) 19 => '4', (int) 20 => '13', (int) 21 => '4(1', (int) 22 => '14', (int) 23 => '15' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation 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 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 12 => 'Parliament', (int) 13 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 14 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 15 => 'Corporation', (int) 16 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 17 => 'Corporation', (int) 18 => 'Corporation', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'Corporation', (int) 21 => 'the Central Government', (int) 22 => 'Corporation', (int) 23 => 'the Central Government', (int) 24 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 25 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 26 => 'Corporation', (int) 27 => 'Corporation', (int) 28 => 'Corporation', (int) 29 => 'Act', (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', (int) 35 => 'Corporation', (int) 36 => 'Vidyanatha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India', (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 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 2 => '1957', (int) 3 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 4 => '2465', (int) 5 => '1963', (int) 6 => '1956', (int) 7 => '1957', (int) 8 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 9 => 'the 31st of August 1956' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Superintendent', (int) 1 => 'Superintendent', (int) 2 => 'Superintendent', (int) 3 => 'Superintendent' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Superintendent or Section Head' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '376114', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 11, 11(1) and 11(2); Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 275 of 1964', 'appellant' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Section 105 (1): [S. Abdul Nazeer,J] Scope and ambit of Meaning of the words affecting the decision of the case employed in Section 105 Held, The words affecting the decision of the case employed in Section 105, means affecting the decision of the case on merits. It is clear that party need not file an appeal against all interlocutory Orders and he can challenge the same in an appeal filed from the original decree if that interlocutory order has affected the decision of the case. Only such order, which affects the decision of the case, alone can be challenged along with the appeal filed against the original decree. Even if there is any error, defect or irregularity in any other order, it cannot be challenged by the aggrieved party along with the appeal against the original decree. -- Order 39, Rule 2A : Order passed under Held, Even if an application under Order 39 Rule 2A was considered and disposed of along with the suit, the order passed thereunder would be separate and an appeal would lie under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the C.P.C., Further, If the order passed under Order 39 Rule 2A had not affected the decision of the case, the same cannot be a ground for objection in the memorandum of appeal. Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly prohibits such recourse.-- Order 39, Rule 2A; Disobedience to temporary injunction Application for taking action for disobedience Held, The purpose of Rule 2A of Order 39 is to prevent breach of the order of the Court. Orders given by the Court are to be followed and they are meant to be followed. If any body tries to take law into his own hands and acts in breach of the order intentionally and purposefully, knowing the order fully well, he has to be dissuaded by taking action under Order 39 Rule 2A. The application alleging that the party had committed breach of an order has to be decided on the basis of the evidence. However, final decision of the case may stand on a separate footing. When an application is filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC complaining disobedience and for violation of an order of the Court, such an application has to be taken up by the Court as expeditiously as possible. Such an application should get priority by the Court. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1966-04-07', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Somnath Iyer, 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 Corporation 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 September 1, 1956, the petitioner who became entitled under Section 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 Section 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 September 1, 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 Section 11(2), we are of the opinion that the pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2465 of 1963 (Mys) in which the petitioner before us was also the petitioner concludes the matter. The 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 Section 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. Mr. 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 Section 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, Mr. Chinnaswamy maintains the argument that Section 11 on which Mr. 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, Section 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 Section 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 September 1, 1956. paragraph 4 of that order empowered categorisation of employees. Clause (1) of that paragraph provides that employees who were in a supervisory post on the 31st of 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 section 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 categorisation of 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 nationalisation of the insurance business, the Corporation under the provisions of the Act acquired the power to fit employees of the Corporation under Section 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 authorised 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 wide powers conferred on the Central Government by Section 11(2) and having regard to the language of Section 11(1) that anyone could make a claim under Section 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 v. Sunil Kumar, : (1964)ILLJ442SC , that the power created by Section 11(2) is so wide as to include a 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 Vidyanatha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, : AIR1964Mad24 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Mr. Rama Jois, however, contents that paragraph 4 of the order made by the Central Government under Section 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 paragraph 4 had application only to what he described to us as 'uncategorised supervisory posts' and that since the post held by the petitioner had already been categorised 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 paragraph 4 to appoint the petitioner either to the post of Superintendent of 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 life. </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 paragraph 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. That 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><p style="text-align: justify;">(15) Petition dismissed <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1968Kant71; AIR1968Mys71; (1969)ILLJ651aKant', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '376114' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors. Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 2 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 3 => 'Section 11', (int) 4 => 'Section 11', (int) 5 => 'Section 11', (int) 6 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 7 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 8 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 9 => 'Section 11(1', (int) 10 => 'Section 11(2', (int) 11 => 'Section 11(2' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Somnath Iyer', (int) 1 => 'J.', (int) 2 => 'Rama Jois', (int) 3 => 'Chinnaswamy', (int) 4 => 'Rama Jois', (int) 5 => 'Sunil Kumar', (int) 6 => 'Rama Jois' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '3', (int) 5 => '4', (int) 6 => '5', (int) 7 => '6', (int) 8 => '4', (int) 9 => '1', (int) 10 => '8)', (int) 11 => '2', (int) 12 => '9', (int) 13 => '10', (int) 14 => '1964)ILLJ442SC', (int) 15 => '11', (int) 16 => '4', (int) 17 => '4', (int) 18 => '12', (int) 19 => '4', (int) 20 => '13', (int) 21 => '4(1', (int) 22 => '14', (int) 23 => '15' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 1 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation 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 => 'Court', (int) 11 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation Act', (int) 12 => 'Parliament', (int) 13 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 14 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 15 => 'Corporation', (int) 16 => 'the Mysore Government Insurance Department', (int) 17 => 'Corporation', (int) 18 => 'Corporation', (int) 19 => 'Corporation', (int) 20 => 'Corporation', (int) 21 => 'the Central Government', (int) 22 => 'Corporation', (int) 23 => 'the Central Government', (int) 24 => 'the Life Insurance Corporation', (int) 25 => 'Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees', (int) 26 => 'Corporation', (int) 27 => 'Corporation', (int) 28 => 'Corporation', (int) 29 => 'Act', (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', (int) 35 => 'Corporation', (int) 36 => 'Vidyanatha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India', (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 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 2 => '1957', (int) 3 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 4 => '2465', (int) 5 => '1963', (int) 6 => '1956', (int) 7 => '1957', (int) 8 => 'September 1, 1956', (int) 9 => 'the 31st of August 1956' ), 'LOC' => array( (int) 0 => 'Superintendent', (int) 1 => 'Superintendent', (int) 2 => 'Superintendent', (int) 3 => 'Superintendent' ), 'WORK_OF_ART' => array( (int) 0 => 'Superintendent or Section Head' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '376114', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51149/life-insurance-corporation-act-1956-complete-act">Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956</a> - Sections 11, 11(1) and 11(2); Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Order, 1957', 'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 275 of 1964', 'appellant' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'V.T. Srinivasa Raghavachar Vs. State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.', 'casenote' => ' - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. Section 105 (1): [S. Abdul Nazeer,J] Scope and ambit of Meaning of the words affecting the decision of the case employed in Section 105 Held, The words affecting the decision of the case employed in Section 105, means affecting the decision of the case on merits. It is clear that party need not file an appeal against all interlocutory Orders and he can challenge the same in an appeal filed from the original decree if that interlocutory order has affected the decision of the case. Only such order, which affects the decision of the case, alone can be challenged along with the appeal filed against the original decree. Even if there is any error, defect or irregularity in any other order, it cannot be challenged by the aggrieved party along with the appeal against the original decree. -- Order 39, Rule 2A : Order passed under Held, Even if an application under Order 39 Rule 2A was considered and disposed of along with the suit, the order passed thereunder would be separate and an appeal would lie under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the C.P.C., Further, If the order passed under Order 39 Rule 2A had not affected the decision of the case, the same cannot be a ground for objection in the memorandum of appeal. Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly prohibits such recourse.-- Order 39, Rule 2A; Disobedience to temporary injunction Application for taking action for disobedience Held, The purpose of Rule 2A of Order 39 is to prevent breach of the order of the Court. Orders given by the Court are to be followed and they are meant to be followed. If any body tries to take law into his own hands and acts in breach of the order intentionally and purposefully, knowing the order fully well, he has to be dissuaded by taking action under Order 39 Rule 2A. The application alleging that the party had committed breach of an order has to be decided on the basis of the evidence. However, final decision of the case may stand on a separate footing. When an application is filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC complaining disobedience and for violation of an order of the Court, such an application has to be taken up by the Court as expeditiously as possible. Such an application should get priority by the Court. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => '', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1966-04-07', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'A.R. Somnath Iyer and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Somnath Iyer, 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 Corporation 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 September 1, 1956, the petitioner who became entitled under Section 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 Section 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 September 1, 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 Section 11(2), we are of the opinion that the pronouncement of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2465 of 1963 (Mys) in which the petitioner before us was also the petitioner concludes the matter. The 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 Section 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. Mr. 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 Section 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, Mr. Chinnaswamy maintains the argument that Section 11 on which Mr. 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, Section 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 Section 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 September 1, 1956. paragraph 4 of that order empowered categorisation of employees. Clause (1) of that paragraph provides that employees who were in a supervisory post on the 31st of 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 section 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 categorisation of 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 nationalisation of the insurance business, the Corporation under the provisions of the Act acquired the power to fit employees of the Corporation under Section 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 authorised 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 wide powers conferred on the Central Government by Section 11(2) and having regard to the language of Section 11(1) that anyone could make a claim under Section 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 v. Sunil Kumar, : (1964)ILLJ442SC , that the power created by Section 11(2) is so wide as to include a 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 Vidyanatha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, : AIR1964Mad24 . </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(11) Mr. Rama Jois, however, contents that paragraph 4 of the order made by the Central Government under Section 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 paragraph 4 had application only to what he described to us as 'uncategorised supervisory posts' and that since the post held by the petitioner had already been categorised 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 paragraph 4 to appoint the petitioner either to the post of Superintendent of 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 life. </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 paragraph 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. That 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><p style="text-align: justify;">(15) Petition dismissed <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'AIR1968Kant71; AIR1968Mys71; (1969)ILLJ651aKant', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'State of Mysore by Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and ors.', 'sub' => 'Service', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '376114' ) $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: Section 11(1, Section 11(2, Section 11(2, Section 11, Section 11, Section 11, Section 11(2, Section 11(2, Section 11(1, Section 11(1, Section 11(2, Section 11(2
PERSON: Somnath Iyer, J., Rama Jois, Chinnaswamy, Rama Jois, Sunil Kumar, Rama Jois
CARDINAL: 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 4, 1, 8), 2, 9, 10, 1964)ILLJ442SC, 11, 4, 4, 12, 4, 13, 4(1, 14, 15
ORG: the Mysore Government Insurance Department, the Life Insurance Corporation 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, Court, 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, the Central Government, Corporation, the Central Government, Corporation, the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation, Corporation, Vidyanatha v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, the Central Government, Corporation, the Mysore Government Insurance Department, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation, Corporation
DATE: 1956, September 1, 1956, 1957, September 1, 1956, 2465, 1963, 1956, 1957, September 1, 1956, the 31st of August 1956
LOC: Superintendent, Superintendent, Superintendent, Superintendent
WORK_OF_ART: Superintendent or Section Head