LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA versus SUNIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE & ORS .

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 528 · Decided: 15-11-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

528 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
1963 
that of immovable properties, embraced in a gross 
--
valuation roll, so also here, it is not possible to separate 
The . .Provincial from the composite turnover transactions which are 
Governmerrt .of validly taxed, from those which are not, for that must 
Madras 
pertain· to the domain of tax officers and the courts 
v. 
have no powers within that domain. 
Tn our opinion, 
.'· S. Basappa the High Court was right in declaring the total assess-
H .d -. -
11 h J menLt? be affected by the portion which was illegal 
' ayatu '! .. and v01d. 
. 
In the result, these appeals fail and are dismissed 
with costs, one set only. 
· 
Appeals dismissed 
1963 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 
November-15 
V. 
SUNIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE & ORS . 
. (P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND 
./ 
. . 
K.C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
. Life Insurance Corporation-Emp/oyees,-Termination of service 
-Non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and order-Termina-
Ml 
tion if, valid-Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), 
-
sii. 7f 11(1) (2) and 49-Life Insurance Corporation Field Officers 
(Alteration of Remuneration and other terms and Conditions of 
Service) Order,: 1957, els . . 10, 11,-Life Insurance Corporation 
Regulations, 1958, els. 4 and 5. 
One of the respondents Mr.· S.K. Mukherjee was an employee 
of the Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd., and had been working 
as an.!nspe0qfwhen the appellant took over the company. 
There-
after, in February 1958, he was .directed to work as a field officer. 
By the order dated October 16, 1958 his services were terminated 
with immediate effect and he was informed that he would be paid 
his emoluments up to the current month and one month's salary 
in lieu of notice. He was not given an opportunity to show cause 
against this termination. .His petition before the High Court 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of this 
~. 
order was allowed by the learned single Judge. After appealing 
to a Division Bench without success the appellant came in appeal 
., 
• 
" 
5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
529 
to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court. It 
was urged on behalf of the appellant that .by the application of the 
principle contained in paragraph 4(h) of the Circular issued by the 
Managing Director under cl. 4(3) of the Life Insurance Corporation 
Regulation 1958, it was competent to the corporation to terminate 
the services of the respondents. It was contended that where 
cases are dealt with under paragraphs 4(h) and 5 of the Circular, 
there can be no question of the application of cl. 10 of the Life 
Insurance Corporation Field Officers Order, 1957, which empowers 
the appropriate authority to reduce the remuneration of the Develop-
ment Officer or to tem1inate his services and in either case, an 
opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be 
taken has to be given to him. The contention of the respondents 
was that the termination of their services can be brought about 
only under cl. lO{a) or IO(b) of the order, and since it has not been 
so brought about, the impugned orders are invalid. 
Held: (i) The power of the corporation to make Regulations 
is burdened with the condition that these Regulations must not bo 
inconsistent with the Act and the rules framed thereunder , so that 
if any of the provisions contained in the Regulations made by the 
corporation under s. 49 of the Act are found to be inconsistent 
either withs. II (2) or with the order made by the Central Govern-
ment under s. 11(2) of the Act, they would be invalid. 
(ii) Paragraph 4(h) means that 'in cases falling under it, the 
services of the officers concerned would be liable to be terminated, 
and that means that the termination of the services, of the said 
officers must be effected in the manner prescribed by cl. JO of the 
Order. That is how paragraph 4(h) of the Circular and cl. IO of 
the Order can be reasonably reconciled. 
This applies equally to 
paragraph 5 of the Circular. 
(iii) It was competent to the corporation to adopt the Circular, 
and in consequence, lay down the principles which should be follow-
ed in fitting individual officers into the scheme prescribed by cl. 5 
of the order. The total amount of remuneration would undoubtedly 
be determined in the light of the principles prescribed by the Circular, 
but under the guise of fitting in a particular officer in the light of 
the said principles it would n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.