Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Revision Case No. 506 of 1958

Attorney(S)

Dr. Atul Gupta and A.K. Dutta
R. Chaudhuri and P.K. Ghosh

Judges

G.K Mitter, J.

Acts

sub-clause (a) (ii) or sub-clause (b) of clause (9) of sec. 2 of the Insurance Act
provisions of this Act. Under sub-sec. (2)(bb) of the section
SECTION 1 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT 1947
SECTION 36 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT
sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
sec. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act
section 13 of the Trade Union Act
sub-section (I) of section 11.4.
Indian Trade Union Act, 1926
provisions of Or. 1, Rule 8
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT
Corporation Act, 1956.
sec. 11, sub-section (1)
section 11, sub-sec. (2)
section 2, sub-sec. (3)
TRADE UNIONS ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion delivered by G.K. Mitter, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application by the General Secretary of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus against:

The Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), Calcutta;
The Divisional Manager, Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd.; and
The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay.

The petitioner sought an order directing respondents to cancel the basic pay actually drawn on 31 August 1956 by persons formerly employed by Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., and to give effect to their basic pay in accordance with law for the purposes of fitting them in with the new pay scale adopted by LIC (and for other reliefs). The petitioner professed no personal interest and brought the application on behalf of the affected ex-employees.

Background statutory and factual elements expressly relied on by the Court include:

Establishment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (the Act), and transfer to LIC of assets and liabilities of controlled life-insurance business (secs. 3, 6, 7 and 9 of the Act as described in the opinion).
Statutory provisions in section 11 of the Act dealing with the continuity of employment, remuneration and terms for employees whose controlled business vested in the Corporation, and the power of the Central Government to alter scales of remuneration (section 11(1) and 11(2)).
Notification dated 1 June 1957 issued under section 11(2) (the "Order") altering remuneration and other terms applicable to employees who became LIC employees, with detailed fitment rules and an annexure prescribing scales and allowances.
A pre-existing written agreement (settlement) between Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. and its employees concluded in December 1955 (recording revised scales and staged increments, some effective in 1956 and some postponed to 1957), and the factual dispute whether the "basic pay as on 31 August 1956" for purposes of the 1957 Order meant (i) the actual pay then being drawn or (ii) a higher pay deemed due under the December 1955 agreement.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner (General Secretary of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association) had locus standi to maintain an application under Article 226 on behalf of ex-employees who claimed a different basic pay for 31 August 1956.
Whether a trade-union officer or an unregistered association (or its General Secretary) may represent and seek writ relief for employees in proceedings under Article 226, especially in view of procedural provisions such as section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act and section 13 of the Trade Unions Act.
Whether the pre-existing December 1955 settlement (and the staged increments recorded in it) entitled the ex-employees to a higher basic pay as on 31 August 1956 for the purpose of fitment under the Government's 1 June 1957 Order, or whether the increments became effective only from 1957 (making the higher pay inapplicable on 31 August 1956).
Whether the respondents before the Court (particularly the Zonal Manager) were competent to grant the relief sought, given the absence of a disclosed written delegation of power from LIC under section 22(1) of the Act, and whether LIC itself was a necessary party to the petition.
Whether the application was maintainable in this Court in view of jurisdictional and procedural matters (for example, that the Chairman of LIC — a person before whom claims were being pressed — had his office at Bombay outside the Court's jurisdiction, and whether any demand had been made on the Zonal Manager before approaching the Court).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Position (as presented in affidavits)

The petitioner brought the application on behalf of a class of ex-employees of Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., seeking mandamus to correct basic pay fitment under the LIC Order.
The petitioner is the General Secretary of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association; an affidavit asserted that the Association was formed by affiliation of several unions and that the Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees' Association (formed and registered as a trade union) had affiliated to the Eastern Zone Association.
The affidavit asserted that members on whose behalf the petition was brought were members of a registered trade union (the Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees' Association), and that the petitioner was recognised as the General Secretary of the Eastern Zone body and had correspondence with LIC authorities showing he acted on behalf of affiliated unions.
On the substantive claim, the petitioner asserted that the basic pay for 31 August 1956 should be derived from what the employees were entitled to under the December 1955 agreement (including increments), rather than the actual lower amounts being drawn on that date.

Respondents' Arguments (as advanced by Mr. Chaudhuri in opposition)

The petitioner lacked locus standi: the General Secretary bringing the petition was not personally aggrieved; no personal legal right of the petitioner was infringed.
It was unclear whether the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association was registered under the Trade Unions Act; if it was registered, the petition by an individual General Secretary was not maintainable; if not registered, the petition was still bad for lack of authority.
Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act permits representation before authorities under that Act but does not authorize representation of an aggrieved person by another in Article 226 proceedings; the ability of a trade-union officer to represent is limited to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Section 13 of the Trade Unions Act permits a trade union to sue and be sued in its own name; a petition not brought by a registered trade union but by its General Secretary was thus improper, particularly where the union's rules (allegedly) did not empower the General Secretary to institute litigation.
The Life Insurance Corporation of India was a necessary party and had not been made a respondent; it had its Central Office in Bombay, and certain documents showed the Chairman in Bombay was the person before whom claims were pressed, raising jurisdictional issues.
It had not been established that the Zonal Manager (respondent no. 1) had been delegated the power to grant the relief; delegation under section 22(1) of the Act had not been shown in writing.
No demand had been made on the Zonal Manager for the relief before filing the petition, which affected maintainability.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Chiranjit Lal Choudhury v. Union of India (reported as (1) 1950 S.C.R. 869)	Principle that extraordinary relief (such as by writ) requires the complainant to show personal injury or that the complainant himself is aggrieved; relief is not granted merely because others may be hurt.	The Court noted reliance on this decision by respondents' counsel to support the contention that only an aggrieved person can seek writ relief; the Court accepted the general principle that injury to the complainant must be shown and treated this as a significant point against the petitioner's maintainability.
McCabe v. Atchinson (U.S. case cited in the opinion)	Expressed the U.S. dictum (approved in Chiranjit Lal) that extraordinary relief requires clear showing of complainant's need and absence of adequate remedy at law, and the complainant cannot succeed merely because someone else may be hurt.	Cited in support of the position that the Court should not grant extraordinary relief where the applicant is not personally aggrieved; the Court relied on the same line of reasoning to scrutinize the petitioner's locus standi.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded along two main lines: (A) substantive merits of the pay claim; and (B) procedural and maintainability objections raised by respondents.

A. Analysis of the substantive claim (pay fitment question)

The Court reviewed the statutory framework under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, especially provisions that vested the controlled business of insurers in LIC (section 7), preserved subsisting contracts insofar as they related to the controlled business (section 9(1)), and provisions preserving employment terms while allowing the Central Government to alter remuneration for uniformity (section 11(1) and 11(2)).
The Court noted the Government notification dated 1 June 1957 (issued under section 11(2)) which governed fitment and fixation rules for pay with effect from 1 September 1956, and which allowed employees to elect not to be governed by the scales by a specified date.
The Court examined the December 1955 agreement between Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. and its employees. That agreement provided for revised scales and staged increments, with certain increments explicitly deferred to 1957 because of the insurer's expense position in 1956 (to remain within limits under the Insurance Act).
The Court found that certain additional increments became payable from February 1956, but other increments were expressly deferred to 1957. The Court emphasized that the parties made the increments effective from 1957 (and payments were to be made within specified months), and that this timing reflected the company's financial position.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the basic pay of the employees on 1 September 1956 was the pay actually payable on that date (i.e., the amounts then due and not including increments effective only from 1957). The Court rejected the contention that the "basic pay as on 31 August 1956" should be equated with an amount only payable later because the company had deferred effectiveness of increments until 1957.
On the merits, therefore, the Court held the ex-employees' claim to a higher basic pay as on 31 August 1956 could not be upheld.

B. Analysis of procedural and maintainability objections

The Court observed that respondents raised substantial technical objections going to maintainability: (i) the petitioner's lack of locus standi, (ii) whether the petitioner was authorised to represent the class, (iii) whether representation permitted under section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act applied to writ proceedings, (iv) necessity of making LIC itself a party, and (v) absence of shown delegation to the Zonal Manager and of prior demand on the Zonal Manager.
On locus standi and representative capacity: the Court accepted the respondents' submission (relying on authority such as Chiranjit Lal Choudhury and McCabe) that extraordinary relief by writ ordinarily requires the applicant to show personal injury or a personal right breached. The Court rejected the argument that the procedural allowances in section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act could be carried over to confer representation rights in Article 226 writ proceedings: such procedural provisions apply only in proceedings under that Act and cannot be adopted by the courts in other contexts unless the legislature so sanctions. The Court thus held that section 36 did not permit non-aggrieved persons to represent aggrieved persons in Article 226 proceedings.
Although the petitioner filed affidavits asserting registration and affiliation facts (formation of the Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees' Association, its registration under the Trade Unions Act, and affiliation to the Eastern Zone Association), the Court considered it unnecessary to examine the Association's rules in detail for the purposes of deciding maintainability.
On the question whether the Zonal Manager was competent to grant the relief: the Court observed that delegation of functions under section 22(1) of the Act (which permits the Corporation to entrust superintendence and direction of a zonal office to a Zonal Manager) had not been shown in writing. The Court held that it was for the petitioner to establish that relief had been sought from a person competent to grant it; lack of proof of delegation meant the Court could not assume respondent No. 1 was properly able to grant the relief. The easier and appropriate course would have been to make the Life Insurance Corporation of India itself a party, but the petitioner had not done so.
On the point of prior demand and jurisdiction: the Court noted that documents annexed to the petition suggested that the person before whom claims of the ex-employees were being pressed was the Chairman of LIC in Bombay, outside the jurisdiction of the Court; coupled with absence of a demonstrated demand on the Zonal Manager, this affected maintainability in the Court.
Weighing these procedural and substantive findings together, the Court found the rule (application) must be discharged.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The petition (rule) is discharged. The Court ordered this dismissal without any order as to costs.

Immediate implications (direct effect on the parties):

The ex-employees' claim that their "basic pay as on 31 August 1956" should be treated as a higher amount under the December 1955 agreement (for purpose of fitment under the 1 June 1957 Order) was rejected on the merits by the Court.
The petition filed by the General Secretary of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association was held not maintainable in the circumstances presented (the Court emphasised the requirement that an applicant for extraordinary writ relief must show personal grievance or otherwise establish lawful authority to represent the aggrieved), and procedural defects (non-joinder of LIC, absence of shown delegation to the Zonal Manager, and absence of prior demand) weighed against the petition's maintainability.

Broader implications:

The opinion does not purport to lay down a novel rule of general application beyond its application of established principles (including the need for a writ applicant to show personal aggrievement and the limited reach of procedural representation rules under the Industrial Disputes Act to other fora). The Court did not state that it was setting a new precedent; its conclusions are directed to the facts and procedural posture of this application.

End of summary based solely on the provided opinion text.

Show full summary ...

The General Secretary, Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association v. Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone Life Insurance Corporation & Ors. Opposite Party.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.K Mitter, J.:— This is an application by the Genl. Secy. of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Asscn. against (1) the Zonal Manager, Eastern Zone, Life Insurance Corporation of India with his office at Hindusthan Buildings, Calcutta, (2) The Divisional Manager, Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., & (3) The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay, for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to cancel the basic pay actually drawn on August 31, 1956 by persons who were formerly employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., and to give effect to their basic pay in accordance with law for the purposes of fitting in with the new scale adopted by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and for other reliefs. The petitioner has no personal interest in the matter and is seeking to get redress for the employees of the Hindusthan Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd.

2. The matter arises thus:

Hindusthan Co-operative Life Insurance Society Ltd. was one of many insurance companies carrying on, inter alia, life insurance business until 1956. By section 3 of the Act XXXI of 1956 the Central Government was empowered to establish a Corporation called the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The Corporation is to be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power, subject to the provisions of the Act, to acquire, to hold and dispose of property and to sue and be sued by its name. Under sec. 6 of the Act the general duty of the Corporation is to carry on life insurance business with the powers therein enumerated. Under section 7, sub-sec. (1) of the Act all the assets & liabilities appertaining to the controlled business of all insurers are to be transferred to and vested in the Corporation. Under sub-sec. (2) the assets appertaining to the said controlled business is to be deemed to include all rights and powers, and all property whether moveable or immoveable appertaining to the controlled business, including cash balances, reserve funds etc. and the liabilities are to be deemed to include all debts and obligations of whatever kind then existing and appertaining to the controlled business of the insurer. Under section 2, sub-sec. (3) ‘controlled business’ means (i) in the case of any insurer specified in sub-clause (a) (ii) or sub-clause (b) of clause (9) of sec. 2 of the Insurance Act and carrying on life insurance business—

(a) all his business, if he carries on no other class of insurance business;

(b) if he carries on any other class of insurance business also;

(c) all his business, if his certificate of registration under the insurance Act in respect of general insurance business stands wholly cancelled for a period of more than six months on the 19th day of January, 1956.

3. On the day appointed by the Act, i.e, September, 1956 all the assets and liabilities of Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., appertaining to the said controlled business vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Under sec. 9, sub-sec. (1) of the Act unless otherwise expressly provided by or under the Act all contracts, agreements and other instruments of whatsoever nature subsisting or having effect immediately before the appointed day and to which an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation is a party or which are in favour of such insurer shall in so far as they relate to the controlled business of the insurer be of as full force and effect against or in favour of the Corporation, and may be enforced or acted upon as fully and effectually as if, instead of the insurer, the Corporation had been a party thereto or as if they had been entered into or issued in favour of the Corporation. Under sec. 11, sub-section (1) “every whole-time employee of an insurer whose controlled business has been transferred to and vested in the Corporation and who was employed by the insurer wholly or mainly in connection with his controlled business immediately before the appointed day shall, on and from the appointed day, become an employee of the Corporation and shall hold his office therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon the same terms and conditions and with the same rights and privileges ??? to pension and gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the appointed day if this Act had not been passed, and shall continue to do so unless and until his appointment in the Corporation is terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions are duly altered by the Corporation. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any such employee who has, by notice in writing given to the Central Government prior to the appointed day, intimated his intention of not becoming an employee of the Corporation”. Under section 11, sub-sec. (2) “where the Central Government is satisfied that for the purpose of securing uniformity in the scales of remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service applicable to employees of insurers whose controlled business has been transferred to, and vested in, the Corporation, it is necessary so to do, or that, in the interests of the Corporation and its policy-holders, a reduction in the remuneration payable, or a revision of the other terms and conditions of service applicable, to employees or any class of them is called for, the Central Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any award, settlement, or agreement, for the time being in force, alter (whether by way of reduction or otherwise) the remuneration and the other terms and conditions of service to such extent and in such manner as it thinks fit, and if the alteration is not acceptable to any employee, the Corporation may terminate his employment by giving him compensation equivalent to three months' remuneration unless the contract of service with such employee provides for a shorter notice of termination”.

Explanation:— The compensation payable to an employee under this sub-section shall be in addition to, and shall not affect, any pension, gratuity, provident fund money or any other benefit to which the employee may be entitled under his contract of service. Under sec. 49, sub-sec. (1) “the Corporation may, with the previous approval of the Central Government by notification in the Gazette of India, make regulations not inconsistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder to provide for all matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act”. Under sub-sec. (2)(bb) of the section such regulations may provide for “the terms and conditions of service of persons who have become employees of the Corporation under sub-section (I) of section 11.”

4. On September 1, 1956 all the whole-time employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., employed wholly and mainly in connection with its controlled business became the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation and all the contracts, agreements and other instruments affecting their conditions of service became binding on the Corporation. Under the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, issued a notification dated June 1, 1957 (Alteration of remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of employees Order). The provisions of the Order were to apply to all persons who had become employees of the Corporation and were in supervisory clerical and subordinate staff grades of the insurers on August 31, 1956. Under Clause (3) of the Order “with effect from 1st September, 1956 pay and allowances of any employee, to whom these provisions apply, shall be governed by the scales of pay and dearness allowances, set out in the annexure after his precise scale of pay, initial basic pay and the additional dearness allowance, if any, are determined in accordance with the provisions contained herein.” It was however open to any such employees by notice in writing to the head of his office before August 31, 1957 to elect not to be governed by the scales of any clearness allowances set out in the annexure. Under Clause (4) of the Order the employees were to be placed in certain definite categories mentioned in the Annexure to the Order. Dearness allowances payable to the employees were provided for under clause (5). Under Clause (6), “the basic pay of an employee who is fitted in the new scales shall be fixed at any one of the following stages which may be most favourable to the employee:

(a) the stage in the new scale equal to or next above the amount arrived at by adding to the basic pay as on the 31st August, 1956, (reduced wherever necessary in accordance with paragraph 5(iii)(b) above, a sum of Rs. 10/- in the case of all employees in Class III and a sum of Rs. 5/- for employees in Class V;

(b) the stage in the new scale arrived at by adding to the minimum of the scale one increment in the scale for every two completed years of service with the insurer in the same or higher category;

(c) in the case of graduates fitted in the Assistant's (i.e, category 4 to 9 under class III (in the annexure) grade at Rs. 85/-.”

5. The annexure to the Order gives the pay scales and the dearness allowances allowable on the basis of basic salaries.

6. The complaint in the petition is that a large number of employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. who became employees of the Corporation were not put on appropriate scales of pay to which they claim to be entitled under the above Order. This claim is based on an agreement arrived at between the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. and its employees before the passing of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. The claim in short is that the basic pay as on August, 31, 1956 for the purpose of the above Order was not the actual pay the employees were in receipt of but what they should be deemed to be entitled to get under the agreement arrived at between themselves and the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. in December, 1955. Prior to the said agreement there were disputes between the said Company and its employees with regard to various matters which were referred to an Industrial Tribunal under sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal made its award on December 14, 1951. Appeals were preferred from the said award both by the employees and the Company. During the pendency of the said appeals agreements were reached between the parties. Terms of settlement concluded on December 16, 1955, were recorded in writing whereby scales of salary for different categories of employees were revised. So far as the assistants were concerned the two existing grades were abolished and one uniform grade brought into existence. Different grades were fixed for filing assistants, sub-staffs, drivers etc. Regarding method of adjustment to the revised grades the procedure to be adopted was that any employee getting less than the minimum of his due grade was to be given an amount of increment to bring his salary at the starting point of his new grade with certain further adjustments. For all assistants, filing assistants, sub-staffs etc. one increment of the revised grade was to be given first and this adjustment made to the upper slab to fit in the new grade. The effect of the above increments and adjustments was to be given from July 1, 1955 & payment to be made within December, 1955. To quote the words of the written agreement ‘Besides, the said increments and adjustments, further increments and adjustments were to be given to different categories of staff in the following manner:—

In 1956:

(1) An additional increment equivalent to half of the usual grade increment to all assistants, filing assistants, sub-staff etc., besides the usual grade increment.

(2) Besides (1) above, an additional increment equivalent to half the usual grade increment to the Branch and sub-office employees (assistants, filing assistants, sub-staff etc).

(3) To existing graduates, law graduates, Stenographers, Overseer Draftsmen & Duftries an additional Increment equivalent to half the usual grade increment, besides those mentioned in (1) and (2) above.

7. Effect of the additional increments, as mentioned in (1), (2) & (3) above will be given from 1-1-56 and payment thereof will be made within February, 1956.

8. The question of giving some allowance to Departmental Heads in Branches having not less than 8 assistants under each departmental Head, will be considered by the management in 1956.

In 1957:

(1) An additional increment equivalent to half of the usual grade increment to all assistants, filing assistants, sub-staff, etc., besides the usual grade increment.

(2) Besides (1) above, an additional increment equivalent to half the usual grade increment to the Branch and sub-office employees (assistants, filing assistants, and sub-staff etc.).

(3) To existing graduates, law graduates, Stenographers, Overseer Draftsman and Duftries an additional increment equivalent to half the usual grade increment, besides those mentioned in (1) & (2) above.

(4) Benefit of 1947 adjustment to Branch employees and employees at H.O eligible for the same in line of the adjustment made in June, 1954 in regard to some employees transferred to H.O

9. The object underlying the shifting of these payments to 1957 is that the expense position of the Society in 1956 will be within the limits permissible under the Insurance Act. Subject to the above, payments will be made within 30th April, 1957. Under the agreement dearness and other allowances were also augmented.

10. It will be noticed that certain increments became payable to the employees from February, 1956. It is also clear that the payment of the second instalment of increments had to be deferred because the expense position of the company in 1956 would be within the limits permissible under the Insurance Act. It is reasonable to infer that these increments were postponed to the year 1957 because the company's expense position in the year 1955 would not justify the payment in 1956. The basic pay of the employees of the company, therefore, on September, 1, 1956 was what was payable to them on that date and not what the company would have paid them if its expense position in 1955 justified it. If the parties had entered into an agreement to the effect that the second instalment of increment would become due in 1956 but would not be paid in that year because of the insufficiency of funds or for some other reason & would be paid in 1957 along with the arrears of 1956 the claim of the employees in this case would be probably be inconvertible. But what was done was to make the second instalment of incumbents effective only from 1957 so that no employee could say at any time in 1956 that his salary was not what he was actually getting but that payment of a portion of it had been deferred to 1957 to suit the convenience of the company. The net result is that the salary of the employees was to be increased only from 1957 and the increments did not become effective in 1956.

11. On the merits the claim of the ex-employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. cannot be upheld. Apart from this Mr. Chaudhuri, the learned counsel for the respondents raised a number of technical objections in bar of the application and it appears to me that some of these are quite substantial. In the first affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents it was submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to maintain the application and that the Life Insurance Corporation of India was a necessary party. As no grounds for this was stated a further affidavit was allowed to be filed. By the subsequent affidavit in opposition the first of the above objections was amplified as follows:

It was stated that the position did not disclose whether the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association was registered under the Trade Unions Act. If the Association was so registered the petition by the General Secretary was not maintainable. Alternatively, if the Association was not so registered the petition was still bad. It was stated further that the petitioner had no locus standi or authority to make the application as no legal right personal to the petitioner had been infringed.

12. In answer to this a further affidavit in reply was affirmed by one Sunil Kumar Maitra, the General Secretary of the Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees' Association. In this it is stated that

(a) before the passing of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 there was a number of unions of the employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd.; on the passing of the said Act and consequent division of Life Insurance work by zones and other divisions the old unions were not in a position effectively to safeguard the interests of the employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd.

(b) To meet the situation the various old unions of employees of Life Insurance Companies in Calcutta met in a convention held in Calcutta on August 4 & 5, 1956 and resolved to form a Trade Union organisation of the Life Insurance Employees of all offices of the Life Insurance Corporation of India situated with the territory covered by the Calcutta division of the Corporation.

(d) At an extra ordinary general meeting of the old Hindusthan Insurance Employees' Association, Calcutta, membership of the association was transferred to the Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees Association and members of the old association were enrolled as members of the newly formed Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees' Association.

(e) The said Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees' Association was registered as a Trade Union on October 8, 1956 under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 and the Association bore No. 3888 in the Trade Union Register. A printed copy of the constitution of the said Employees' Association including a copy of the certificate of registration of the said association as a trade Union is annexed to the affidavit in reply marked ‘A’.

(f) In a convention called in Calcutta on August 12 & 13, 1956 of the employees of various life and general Insurance Companies from different States, West Bengal, Bihar, Assam and Orissa a larger association named Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association was formed by affiliating to it various unions in the Eastern Zone as contemplated in the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. A copy of the constitution of the said Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association is annexed to the affidavit in reply marked ‘B’.

(g) The Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees' Association along with other unions applied for affiliation with the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association by resolution passed on October, 18, 1956 and such affiliation was granted by the latter Association at its meeting held at Calcutta on October 24 & 25, 1956.

(h) the persons on whose behalf the application has been made are all members of the Calcutta Division Life Insurance Employees' Association a registered trade Union, and the petitioner Pradip Ranjan Paul, the first General Secretary of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association on the information of the said Association continues to hold that office

(i) as such General Secretary the petitioner used to carry on correspondence with the authorities of the Life Insurance Corporation of India on behalf of the various unions of the Eastern Zone and such correspondence would show that the petitioner has been recognised as the General Secretary of the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association and is as such competent to act on behalf of the unions of the Eastern Zone affiliated to the Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association.

13. Mr. Chaudhuri contended that an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of the nature therein mentioned can only be made at the instance of an individual who is himself an aggrieved person and if some one who is not himself aggrieved by any action wants to move the court for redress it must be shown that he is competent under the law to make an application. Even in a suit under the provisions of Or. 1, Rule 8 the person seeking to represent others must himself be a person who has a cause of action against the defendants. Mr. Chaudhuri contended that sec. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act provides that the power given to an officer of a registered trade union or an officer of a Federation Trade Union and others to represent a workman is limited to proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act itself and as the present application is not such a proceeding no such representation is permissible. He also drew my attention to section 13 of the Trade Union Act which empowers a Trade Union to sue and be sued in its name and argued that as the petition was not by a registered Trade Union this could be of no avail. He also drew my attention to the rules of the Association referred to in the further affidavit in reply in support of his contention that even these did not permit representation by a Secretary and the petition was not by Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Association but its General Secretary. It was contended that the said Rules did not give the General Secretary power to conduct litigation and in any event the General Secretary is not an ex-employee of Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Limited. In my view, it is not necessary to consider the Rules of the Association at all.

14. Mr. Chaudhuri relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his contentions that no body unless affected by a law or Act personally could challenge it. In Chiranjit Lal Choudhury v. The Union of India (1) 1950 S.C.R 869, Fazl Ali, J. approved of the dictum in MeCabe v. Atchinson (2) 235 U.S 151 that in order to justify the granting of the extraordinary relief, the complainant's need of it and the absence of an adequate remedy at law must clearly appear. The complainant cannot succeed because some one else may be hurt. * * * * It is the fact, clearly established, of injury to the complainant, not to others which justified judicial interference. Similar observations occurring in other cases were cited by Mr. Chaudhuri. As against this it was argued by Dr. Gupta that as our Constitution had made no provision in this respect courts should follow the principles of section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act. I find myself unable to accept this argument. sec. 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act does not permit a representation of an aggrieved person by another who is not himself aggrieved but such representation is only in a proceeding now under the Act the same procedure should be followed. Procedure is but a hand-maiden of the legislature and can only work at the will of the latter. Courts of law are not free to adopt procedure prescribed by law in a particular case to another set of circumstances unless sanctioned. As I find no. such sanction in this case I must hold in favour of the respondents.

15. With regard to the second ground of objection Mr. Chaudhuri's contention was that in the absence of the Life Insurance Corporation of India it must be shown that the respondents or some of them were competent to grant the relief prayed for. He drew my attention to certain sections of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Under sec. 18, sub-sec. (1) of the Act the Central Office of the Corporation must be situate at such place as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify. Under an appropriate notification the Central office has been located at Bombay but under sub-sec. (2) the Corporation has to establish various Zonal Offices including one at Calcutta. Under sec. 19(1) the Corporation may-entrust the general superintendence and direction of its affairs and business to an Executive Committee consisting of not more than five of its members and the Executive Committee may exercise all powers and do all such acts and things as may be delegated to it by the Corporation. Under section 22(1) “the Corporation may entrust the superintendence and direction of the affairs and business of a zonal office to a person, whether a member or not, who shall be known as the Zonal Manager and the Zonal Manager shall perform all such functions of the Corporation as may be delegated to him with respect to the area within the jurisdiction of the Zonal office.” Mr. Chaudhuri contended that it had not been shown that there has been a delegation of powers under section 22(1) to the Zonal Manager by the exercise of which a person aggrieved as in this case can seek redress at his hands and therefore, the application ought to be thrown out on that ground. As against this, it was contended by Dr. Gupta that the matter of delegation was within the special knowledge of the respondents and as in spite of the complaint made in paragraph 16 of the petition the written delegation to the Zonal Manager, Respondent No. 1 had not been disclosed in this case and inference adverse to the respondents ought to be drawn therefrom. He further commented on the fact that there was no statement of the affidavit-in-opposition that the Zonal Manager had no right to grant the relief asked for. It is however for the petitioner to establish that justice has been demanded of a person competent to mete it out and merely because the delegation in writing has not been disclosed I cannot come to the conclusion that it authorised the respondent No. I to deal with the matter. This difficulty could easily have been got over by demanding justice of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and making the Corporation a party respondent but that course was not adopted.

16. Mr. Chaudhuri also argued that as no demand had been made on the Zonal manager of the reliefs sought in this case the application was not maintainable.

17. He drew my attention to Exs. D, E, F. & G. annexed to the petition which showed that the person before whom the claims of the ex-employees of the Hindusthan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. were being pressed was the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India who had his office at Bombay outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The objection does not seem to be unfounded.

18. In view of the above the rule must be discharged but without any order as to costs.

S.N.G

The General Secretar... v. Zonal Manager, Easte...