- (1.) THE business of the Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd. , in terms of the Life Insurance Corporation act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation) and on such taking over the terms of service and conditions of employment of the employees of the erstwhile Insurers here in this case the Metropolitan Insurance Co. Ltd. , were guided and controlled by the provisions in section 11 (1) of the said Act.
(2.) THE petitioner was originally employed under the Metropolitan Insurance co. Ltd. , in March, 1955, as an Assistant in the Head Office and duly confirmed thereafter. He has alleged that his family had a business known as The Hindustan Supply Agency, which was solely engaged in the supply of Mill Stores. He has further stated that the said business, prior to his father's serious illness, used to be looked after by him and in fact consequent to such illness, the said business was ultimately suspended completely. It has of course been stated by the petitioner that either directly or indirectly he had not engaged himself in any trade or business with or in the said business.
(3.) THERE were some allegations that the petitioner was contacting the policy holders and claimants, who used to come to the concerned office of the said Corporation for getting necessary payments due to them and encase those cheques through the account of the said family business and he was associating himself with the same. Such act being contrary to and in contravention of regulation 27/1 of the (Staff) [regulations, 1960 (hereinafter , referred to as the said Regulations), which lays down that no. employee or class of employees, shall except with the approval of the Corporation, engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business. Since the petitioner was found or thought to have acted in contravention of the provisions of the said Regulation 27/1, by a letter dated July 3, 1967, he was asked to explain the position. Necessary reply was given by the petitioner on August 26, 1967, wherein he admitted the fact of encashment of certain cheques and it was stated that such act was done by him in compliance with the requests of some claimants and other colleagues for having the cheques enchased through the account of the said family business. It has been stated by the petitioner that the said act was done by him without any reward or pecuniary consideration.;