9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Application for writ of mandamus to cancel basic pay and technical objections raised.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner, General Secretary of Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association, filed an application seeking a writ of mandamus to cancel the basic pay drawn by former employees of Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. and align it with the new scale adopted by Life Insurance Corporation of India. The petitioner had no personal interest but sought redress for the ex-employees. 2. The claim of the ex-employees could not be upheld on merits. Technical objections raised by respondents included lack of entitlement for the petitioner to maintain the application and the necessity of Life Insurance Corporation of India being a party to the case. The first affidavit in opposition highlighted the absence of grounds for the petitioner's entitlement. 3. The petitioner, in response, affirmed that the Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees' Association was formed post the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, to safeguard the interests of employees. The association was registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, and affiliated with the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association. 4. The respondents contended that an application under Article 226 of the Constitution could only be made by an aggrieved individual. Reference was made to Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, limiting representation to proceedings under the Act. However, the Court did not find it necessary to consider the rules of the Association in this context. 5. The Court considered precedents from the Supreme Court regarding the necessity of a complainant being personally affected to challenge a law or act. The argument that the principles of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act should be followed was not accepted, and the Court ruled in favor of the respondents based on lack of legislative sanction. 6. Another ground of objection was the absence of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the case and the competency of the respondents to grant the relief sought. The delegation of powers to the Zonal Manager was questioned, and it was argued that no demand had been made on the Zonal Manager for the reliefs sought, making the application not maintainable. 7. Ultimately, the Court discharged the rule without any order for costs, considering the technical objections raised and the lack of fulfillment of procedural requirements in the application.
|
