S.K.DUTTA,J. - (1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Manager, Calcutta in the Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter also referred to as the Sterling) by a letter dated March 17, 1971 with effect from April 1, 1971, by way of ' contractual appointment', for a period of 3 years ending on the 31st March, 1974. The letter of appointment provided that on the expiry of the contract period, i.e.,. March 31, 1974 the petitioner's service would stand automatically terminated unless renewed by mutual agreement on terms as would be agreed upon. It was further provided that either party would be entitled to terminate the employment by a month's notice in writing or on payment of month's salary in lieu thereof. The employer reserved his right to terminate the service without notice at any time on ground of misconduct, gross negligence, absence from duty without permission, breach of discipline, etc.
(2.) WHILE the petitioner was working in the company on the basis of the said contract of service he was served with the following notice dated February 27, 1973 : As you are aware you have crossed the age of 60 years. This is to inform you that your appointment in contractual basis shall stand terminated on 31st March, 1973. This letter may, therefore, be treated as a notice of termination of your contractual appointment. You will be relieved on 31st March, 1973 and your dues will be settled as on that date.... This letter was received by the petitioner on March 5, 1973. The petitioner challenged the legal validity of the said letter and was informed by the company that the decision for termination of the contract of appointment had been taken in accordance with the general directive received from the General Insurance Corporation of India the respondent No. 5 herein. The petitioner thereafter moved this Court by an application under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that in view of the legislation relating to nationalisation of general insurance b business in India, he was conferred a statutory status which did not provide for superannuating; further the order was mala fide and was passed in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On this application this Court issued a Rule on September 24, 1973 but no interim order was granted. The Rule was opposed by the respondent No. 4, the Senior Regional Manager of the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., unit Sterling and it was disclosed in his affidavit -in -opposition that the Sterling General Insurance Co., Ltd. ceased to exist as its right, title and interest had vested in the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter also referred to as 'Oriental') under the provisions of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, (Act, 57 of 1972). It was stated that no writ lay against an existing company and the petitioner's service was duly terminated in accordance with terms of his contract of service while there was no infringement of any statutory right of the petitioner. The petitioner's service, it was further stated was terminated on one month's notice as provided in the contract of service, 'in pursuance of the general directives issued by the General Insurance Corporation' for effecting efficiency and proper running of the administration. It was also stated that a cheque for Rs. 5,463.18 p. was sent to the petitioner in full satisfaction of his dues which the petitioner had already taken recourse to legal proceedings for obtaining necessary relief. Further it was submitted that in any event the petitioner's service automatically stood terminated on March 31, 1974 and the Rule accordingly has become infructuous.
(3.) THE petitioner thereafter made an application for addition of the Oriental as a party to the proceeding as respondent No. 6 which was duly allowed. The petitioner also filed an affidavit -in -reply reiterating the contentions made by him in his petition of motion.;