Order.-The petitioner herein was originally appointed by the Union Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd., by an order dated 2nd January, 1963 as a Probationary Field Officer. The said order of appointment provided that his services might be deemed to be terminated at any time by giving one month’s notice on either side. Subsequently he was confirmed as a Field Officer by an office order dated 29th September, 1963 with effect from 1st September, 1963. He was then promoted as a Development Officer and later as a Development Secretary. Later, by an order dated 19th February, 1970 the petitioner was promoted as Development Manager of the Madras Regional Office with effect from 1st February, 1970. While he was functioning as a Development Manager, a Custodian was appointed for the Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., under the Nationalisation Act XVII of 1971. At that stage certain powers given to the petitioner to represent the Society in the matter of signing policies appears to have been withdrawn by the Zonal Manager, as a result of which misunderstandings have arisen between the petitioner and the Zonal Manager. Later, under the provisions of the General Insurance Emergency Provisions Act XVII of 1971, the management of the Union Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Society, was taken over by the Government and entrusted to a Custodian. Thereafter the General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act, 1972 came into force and under a notification issued thereunder the said Society merged with the first respondent company. As a result of section 7 of that Act the petitioner became from the date of merger an employee of the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., the first respondent herein. After his services stood transferred to the first respondent company, by an order dated 4th October, 1973, his services had been terminated by giving one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice.

2. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said order terminating his services on various grounds: (1) That the terms contained in the original order of appointment dated dated 2nd January, 1963 cannot be taken to be the conditions of his service as a Development Manager which post he was holding at the time of the termination of his services and, therefore the termination of his services as per the original letter of appointment by giving one month’s notice will be illegal. (2) Even if the terms of the original order of appointment dated 2nd January, 1963 can be taken to be the present conditions of service, still the termination of his services by giving him one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice is not strictly in accordance with the said order of appointment and therefore it is illegal. (3) That the terms and conditions contained in the original order of appointment having become statutory in view of section 7 of Central Act XVII of 1971, he is entitled to approach this Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said illegal" order of termination.

3. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that, though the first respondent is a statutory corporation it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court as it cannot be said to be an authority as contemplated by Article 12 of the Constitution of India, They have further stated that the impugned order of termination of services is strictly in accordance with the conditions of his original appointment, that the termination of services on payment of one month’s salarly in lieu of notice is a substantial compliance with the said terms of appointment and that therefore the order of termination cannot be said to be illegal. They have also stated that even assuming that the order of termination is illegal, the remedy of the petitioner is so sue only for damages for wrongful termination of services and not to have the order of termination quashed in a writ petition before this Court.

4. Before dealing with t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document