Burden lies on the claimant to prove.

12. Further, even if the service regulations have not got the force of law, the Corporation is bound to act according to its own rules and standards by which it professes its action to be judged on the principle laid down by Justice Frankfurther in Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359, U.S. 535, that he takes the procedural sword shall perish with that sword. I, therefore, find that even though the relationship between the Management and the petitioner originated in a contract an element of public employment is involved in the service of the petitioner with the Management and the petitioner has acquired a status and that the relationship between the Management and the petitioner is not that of a master and servant as contended by the learned Solicitor General.

13. An answer to the Second Point will depend upon an interpretation of the scheme of Service Rules and also the language of Rules 9.1 and 13.1. Under Rule 12.1 every officer appointed to the services of the Company shall retire when he completes the age of 58 years on the last day of the month in which he completes 58 year. This clause therefore confers on the officers of the Management the right of security of tenure till they complete the age of 58 years. This right to be in the service of the Management till an officer completes 58 years of age is a very valuable right which is of immense value to the officer concerned. Rule 9.1 deals with performance appraisal and increment. The rule has already been extracted. It states that increments shall be granted by the Management to an officer on the basis of performance which will be reviewed once in a year in accordance with the performance appraisal system of the company. Increments will not be automatic but will be based on the performance appraisal review and the recommendations of the appropriate promotion committee referred to in Rules 4.2.1. and 4.2.2. Rule 4.2.1. states that in the case of promotion of officer to the grade of Rs. 1,300 - 1,600 and above, the promotion committee would be constituted by the Board of Directors. Rule 4.2.2. states that in the case of all other categories of officers the promotion committee would be constituted by the Managing Directors. Rule 4.3 state that any person who feels aggrieved on account of his non-promotion may appeal to Management, whose decision will be final. Rule 9.1 further states that in the event of an officer being found unsuitable for continuation in the company's services based on the appraisal of his performance, he is liable to be terminated from the service of the Company after giving due notice as stated in Rule 13.1 Rule 13.1 states : "In the case of termination/registration of the services of an officer, notice shall be given by either party, for the period shown below or payment of basic pay shall be made for the period in lieu of notice : (1) in the case of permanent employees - two months and (2) in the case of officers on probation and under training - one month. No notice will be required in any case for termination of employment on attaining the age of superannuation, viz., 58 years of age. On a reading of Rules 9.1 and 13.1 I am of the opinion that Rule 13.1 is dependent on Rule 9.1 so far as termination of the services of an officer is concerned. Rule 13.1 by itself does not confer a power on the Management to terminate the services of an officer by giving notice as prescribed therein or on payment of basic pay for the period in lieu of notice. It merely states that in the case of termination, notice shall be given for the period of two months in the case of permanent employees and one month in the case of officers on probation and under training. As is seen already, Rule 9.1 confers the power on the officer, if he is found unsuitable for continuation in the companies services, based on the performance appraisal system and that in such an event, the Management should give due notice as stated in Rule 13.1. On a reading of the two rules together, the termination of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document