C.T. Ravi Kumar, J.

1. The captioned appeal filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 30018 of 2009 and the review petition in W.A. No. 2712 of 2009 came up for consideration before us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this court as per order dated 28.10.2014. Section 44 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (for short 'the Act') was made applicable to Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) in terms of Government of India notification GSR 262(E) dated 24.7.1972 which virtually amended the modification effected earlier by GSR 734 dated 23.8.1958. Section 43 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act deals with the application of the Insurance Act and as per sub-section (2) therein the Central Government shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that certain sections specifically mentioned therein, including Section 44, of the Insurance Act shall apply to the Corporation subject to such conditions and modifications as may be specified in the notification. Obviously, the aforementioned Government of India notification GSR 262(E) dated 24.7.1972 was issued in terms of the powers under Section 43(2) of the Life Insurance Corporation Act and even while bringing in amendments to the modifications effected earlier by GSR 734 dated 23.8.1958 and introducing clauses (a) to (bbb) to proviso to Section 44(1), clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act was kept intact and was made as such applicable to LIC. Clause (c) of proviso to Section 44 provides a condition rather, an embargo for the benefit of Section 44 to be available, seemingly, to LIC agents who have served the said insurer continually and exclusively for at least ten years and after ceasing to act as such agents. The embargo actually lies in its second limb and it is to the effect that such a former agent shall not directly or indirectly solicit or procure insurance business for any other person. The question of law posed for consideration, according to the order of reference, is whether the second limb of clause (c) of the proviso to Section 44(1) of the Act is one which would also apply to the other different clauses thereunder viz., clauses (a), (b), (bb) and (bbb) introduced to that proviso for application to LIC so as to import the said embargo even in respect of persons falling under clauses (a) to (bbb).

2. Essentially, the bone of contention in these matters is regarding the entitlement of a former agent of LIC to get renewal commission viz., commission on the renewal premium on the policies effected through him. Evidently, the said question of entitlement came up for consideration in W.P.(C) No. 26791 of 2008 when the petitioner therein, a former LIC agent, was deprived of his renewal commission on the ground that after the termination of agency of the LIC, he became an agent of another competitor insurance company in the private sector. Virtually, the renewal commission was denied to him, on the aforesaid ground, in the light of Section 44(c) of the Act which is applicable to the LIC. The learned Single Judge upheld the action of the LIC and consequently, dismissed the writ petition which led to the filing of W.A. No. 2712 of 2009. The Division Bench as per judgment dated 31.7.2012 held that clause (c) of the proviso to Section 44(1) of the Act which is applicable to LIC carries an embargo in its second limb which essentially is a condition for eligibility for entitlement to renewal commission, as aforesaid, and it applies to all the clauses under the proviso to Section 44(1) of the Act. In fact, the Division Bench held that the last part of proviso (c) to Section 44(1) of the Act is a condition for eligibility for renewal commission for a person who ceased to be an LIC Agent and going by the same, if he wants to get renewal commission for the business canvassed during his service as an Agent with the LIC, he should not join with a compe