VATAKKEVEEDU CHAMI GOPALKRISHNA Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an, appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice K. K. Desai dismissing the petition of the appellants filed on the Original Side.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 in the present case is the Life Insurance Corporation _of India constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1956) and has the monopoly of doing life insurance business in the country. Appellant No. 1 is a class III employee and appellant No. 2 is a class IV employee of respondent No. 1. On January 29, 1965, an agreement was entered into between the All India Insurance Employees Association and respondent No. 1 for a temporary increase in the dear -ness allowance with effect from August 1, 1964. By this agreement an additional amount of temporary dearness allowance equal to eight per cent, of the basic salary in respect of class IV employees governed by the Regulations, and equal to six per cent, of the basic salary in respect of class III employees governed by the said Regulations, based on eight points of the AH India Working Class Consumer Price Index was agreed to be paid. It was to be paid until the expiry of the said settlement or upto the time the 1960 base index figures were available whichever was earlier. Under Clause 9 of the agreement the period of settlement was to be from January 1, 1965, for two years. Thereafter, in exercise of its powers under Section 49 of the Act of 1956 the Corporation framed a regulation giving effect to the said settlement. The regulation was to be effective from August 1, 1964, for the same period as originally provided in the settlement. It appears that the base index figures were published in October 1968. Until this date the dearness allowance continued to be paid as per the settlement, though the period of settlement had ended. On November 18, 1968, the head office issued a circular directing that payment of the allowance should be stopped from November 1968 salary and thereafter. As to the amounts already paid for the months of September and October the recovery was to be held in abeyance until further directions.

(3.) MR . Justice K. K. Desai dismissed the application holding that a writ cannot be maintained against respondent No, 1 as decided by a Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, in Pramodrai Shamaldas v. L. I. Corporation (1968) 71 Bom. L.R. 288.