Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 52 (1.79 seconds)
Documents citing Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs Sunil Kumar Mukherjee & Ors on 22 November, 1963

A.J. Aramha vs Mysore Road Transport Corporation And ... on 22 November, 1973

20. His Lordship distinguished the case4 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee (supra), on the ground that in that case the order terminating the services of respondents therein was a nullity as it had not been effected in terms of the statute. His Lordship said that the services of those employees had been crystallised by the statute, i. e. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 11 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, and that by not complying with the provisions of Clause 10 of the order of the Central Government, the Life Insurance Corporation of India must be considered to have acted in gross violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh, Oil & Natural Gas ... vs Bhagat Ram, Association Of Clause Ii. ... on 21 February, 1975

In Life insurance Corporation of India v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee and Ors. the order under consideration was one issued by the Central Government under Section 11(2) of the Act in exercise of its powers under that section. By that section it was the Central Government that was given the power to alter (whether by way of reduction or otherwise) the remuneration and other terms and conditions of service to such an extent and in such manner as it thought fit. That power so conferred was to be exercised notwithstanding any thing 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. The order therefore had statutory effect and the order of termination of services of the employee was therefore in contravention of the statutory provision. That decision cannot therefore support any argument that regulations made under a statute have statutory effect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 105 - Cited by 110 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh & Ors vs Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi And ... on 21 February, 1975

In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee Ors. [1964 (5). SCR 528] the order under consideration was one issued by the Central. Government under section 11(2) of the Act in exercise of its powers under that section. By that section it was the Central Government that was given the power to alter (whether by way of reduction or otherwise) the remuneration and other terms and ,conditions of service to such an extent and in such manner as it thought fit, That power so conferred was to be exercised notwithstanding any thing 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. The order therefore had statutory effect and the order of termination of services of the employee was therefore in contravention of the 'statutory provision. That decision cannot therefore support any argument that regulations made under a statute have statutory effect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 119 - Cited by 781 - A N Ray - Full Document

Sirsi Municipality By Its President ... vs Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis on 18 January, 1973

The case before us undoubtedly falls within the category of cases where dismissal must be based upon a decision arrived at quasi-judicially about a wrong done by the servant. This elementary and basic procedural safeguard flows not merely from an implied rule of natural justice, but. in the case before us, it is actually embodied in a rule which 'we cannot interpret as anything other than a legal limitation or fetter on the Dower of the Municipal authority to dismiss. It constitutes a condition precedent to a valid decision to dismiss whether contained in a resolution or an order of the local authority. As the local Government authority had failed to see that a mandatory duty. embodied in a basic rule, had been carried out. the resulting decision must necessarily be held to be-void. If the decision to dismiss the respondent was void and inoperative in law, there seems no reason why a declaration to that effect be not granted. Such a case would be covered by the principles 363 laid down by this court in : Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjea & Ors. (1) and S. P. Tewari V. District Board Agra & Anr.(2). This could not be a case in which damages for a simple breach of contract could afford adequate relief. Damages could not wipe off the stigma attached to the record of the servant. The law requires that, before the future of a servant is- allowed to be marred by a blot on the record of the servant concerned, rules of natural justice must be complied with. 1, ;therefore, concur with the judgment and the order proposed by my learned Brother Ray.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 182 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Kalyanmal Bhandari vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 4 February, 1975

This Court in S.R. Tewari v. District Board, Agra 1964-I L.L.J. 1: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee 1964-I L.L.J. 442, Calcutta, Dock Labour Board v. Jaffar Imam 1965-II L.L.J. 112. and Mafatlal Narandas Barot v. Divisional Controller 1966-I L.L.J. 437, dealt with the Dower of statutory authorities and bodies to dismiss servants. These decisions establish that the dismissal of a servant by statutory including local authorities or bodies in brench of the provisions of the statutes or orders or schemes made under the statute which regulate the exercise of their power is invalid or ultra vires and the principle of pure master and servant contractual relationship has no application to such cases.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs D. J. Bahadur & Ors on 10 November, 1980

But the matter does not end here as sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 11 and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 49 of the L. I. C. Act pose other insurmountable hurdles in the way of the acceptance of proposition (b). The scope of sub-section (2) of section 11 was stated in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sunil Kumar Mukherjee & Ors (supra) by Gajendragadkar, J., in the following terms:
Supreme Court of India Cites 93 - Cited by 519 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next