# Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Special Judge(Anti-Corruption), Varanasi

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 145
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-11-01
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/life-insurance-corporation-of-india-v-special-judge-anti-corruption-varanasi-39489
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

3All] Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Special Judge(Anti-Corruption), Varanasi

145
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R 'HIHFWLYH RI

/LIH ,QVXUDQFH &RUSRUDWLRQ RI ,QGLD
«$SSHOODQW
9HUVXV
6SHFLDO
-XGJH
$QWL&RUUXSWLRQ
9DUDQDVL
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ
6KUL 0DQLVK *R\DO
6KUL 53 *R\DO
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6XPDQ 6LURKL

&KDSWHU 9,,, UXOH RI $OODKDEDG
+LJK &RXUW 5XOHV 1R 6SHFLDO DSSHDO LV
PDLQWDLQDEOH
DJDLQVW
D
-XGJHPHQW
UHQGHUHG
LQ
H[HUFLVH
RI
MXULVGLFWLRQ
FRQIHUUHG
E\
$UWLFOH

RI
WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD LQ UHVSHFW RI DQ
DSSHOODWH RUGHU SDVVHG E\ WKH DSSHOODWH
DXWKRULW\ XQGHU WKH SD\PHQW RI :DJH
$FW DV WKLV $FW KDG EHHQ SDVVHG E\ WKH
SDUOLDPHQW ZLWK UHIHUHQFH WR HQWULHV
WR RI WKH FRQFXUUHQW OLVW
+HOG ±SDUD
7KH
-XULVGLFWLRQ
H[HUFLVHG
E\
WKH
$SSHOODWH $XWKRULW\ :KRVH RUGHU ZDV
WKH VXEMHFWPDWWHU RI FKDOOHQJH LQ WKH
ZULW SHWLWLRQ ZDV WKHUHIRUH UHIHUDEOH WR
DQ $FW PDGH E\ WKH SDUOLDPHQW ZLWK
UHIHUHQFH WR (QWULHV DQG RI WKH
&RQFXUUHQW /LVW DQG QRW WR (QWU\ RI
WKH 8QLRQ /LVW

By the Court

1. This special appeal is directed
against the judgement and order dated
1.11.1999 of a learned Single Judge by
which Writ Petition No. 34897 of 1999
filed by the appellant was dismissed.

2. Anwar Khan (predecessor-in
interest of respondent nos. 4 to 11), who
was working as development officer in
Life Insurance Corporation of India (in
short, the LIC ), was retired from Service
on 30.04.1979 after he attained the age
of 58 years. He challenged the retirement
order by filing a civil suit on the ground
that his age of superannuation was 60
years. The suit was decreed and the
appeal preferred by the LIC was also
dismissed. Thereafter, the LIC filed
Second Appeal No.1662 of 1982 in this
Court, which was admitted and is pending
for hearing. However, no stay order was
granted in favour of the appellant-LIC.
Thereafter, Anwar Khan filed a petition
before the Payment of Wages Authority
claiming wages for the period 30.04.1979
to 30.04.1981 and some other amounts
under different heads, which was allowed
by the Authority on 11.06.1993. The LIC
preferred an appeal against the said order
before the Appellate Authority but the
same was dismissed on 07.05.1999. This
order was challenged by filing the writ
petition which was dismissed by a learned
single Judge on 01.11.1999.

3. Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned senior
counsel for the contesting respondents,
has raised a preliminary objection is that
in the facts of the present case no special
appeal is maintainable under Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court
Rules. Learned counsel for the appellant
has, however, contended that the appeal is
maintainable
under
the
aforesaid
provision. The language of Chapter VIII
Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules
shows that no appeal shall lie against a
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

146
judgement
rendered
in
exercise
of
jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of
the Constitution in respect of any
judgement or order made or purported to
be
made
in
exercise
of
appellate
jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act
or under any Central Act with respect to
any of the matters enumerated in the State
List or the Concurrent List in the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
This position of law is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the appellant. The
subject-matter or challenge in the writ
petition was an appellate order passed by
the
Appellate
Authority
under
the
Payment of Wages Act. This Act has
been passed by the Parliament with
reference
to
entries
22
to
24
of
Concurrent List Entries 22 to 24 read as
under:-

"22. Trade Union; industrial and labour
disputes.

23. Social security and social insurance;
employment and unemployment .

24. Welfare
of
labour
including
conditions of work, provident funds,
employers
liability,
workmen's
compensation, invalidity and old age
pensions and maternity benefits."
4. The claim made by Anwar Khan
before the Payment of Wage Authority
was basically a claim for wages for the
period during which he was wrongly
retired and certain other amounts based
upon the same cause of action and this
claim was founded upon the decree
passed by the civil court in his favour.
The Authority determined the liability of
the employee namely, the LIC, under the
Payment of Wages Act. This Act has been
enacted with reference to Entries 22 to 24
of the Union List. Therefore, the order
passed by the Appellate Authority which
was the subject-matter of challenge in the
writ petition was under an Act which has
been made by the Parliament with respect
to matters enumerated in the Concurrent
List. It is well-settled that if a writ
petition is directed against an appellate
order passed in exercise of jurisdiction
under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any
Central Act with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in the State List or the
Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution, no appeal would be
maintainable against the judgement and
order of the learned single Judge. This
view has been taken by a Division Bench,
of which one of us was a member (G.P.
Mathur, J.), in S.B. Nath Vs. Committee
of
Management,
Anglo-Bengali
Inter
College, Allahabad and Others, 1995
AWC 1469, and also in Kaushal Kishore
Singh Vs Shiv Karan Mishra and Others
1995 AWC 1987. Therefore the Special
Appeal is not maintainable.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
has contended that Anwar Khan was
retired from service in accordance with
Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff
Regulations. Which had been made in
exercise of power conferred by Life
Insurance Corporation Act which has
been made with reference to Entry 47 of
the Union List and, therefore, the Special
appeal is maintainable, We are unable to
accept this submission made. The dispute
before the payment of Wages Authority or
before the Appellate Authority was not
with regard to the applicability of Life
Insurance of India Staff Regulations to
Anwar Khan. Or to the question as to
whether he had been rightly retired at the
age of 58 years. This dispute was the
subject- matter of adjudication in the civil
suit, where in the claim of Anwar Khan
3All] Sri Kuldeep Singh and others V. State of U.P. through Trade Tax Officer and another 147

was upheld and the Suit decreed. The
dispute before the Payment of Wages
Authority was only confined to the
question whether Anwar Khan had been
wrongly denied wages or some wages
were due to him, and this was founded
upon the decree wherein it had been held
that his age of superannuation was 60
years. The jurisdiction exercised by the
Appellate Authority, whose order was the
subject-matter of challenge in the writ
petition was, therefore, referable to an Act
made by the Parliament with reference to
Entries 23 and 24 of the Concurrent List
and not to Entry 47 of the Union List.
Learned Counsel has referred to two
decisions of this Court in Yuvraj Dutta
Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority, AIR
1968 Alld 305, and State of U.P. Vs. B.N.
Singh, AIR 1971 Alld 359, in support of
submission that the special appeal in
maintainable.
We
have
carefully
considered the authorities cited and, in
our opinion, they do not at all deal with
the
controversy
involved
here,
We,
therefore,
find
substance
in
the
preliminary objection that the special
appeal is not maintainable.

6. The Special appeal is accordingly
dismissed summarily at the admission
stage.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( -& *8
7+( +21·%/( -& *837$ -
37$ -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6UL .XOGHHS 6LQJK DQG RWKHUV«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 7UDGH
7D[ 2IILFHU DQRWKHU
5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
0U $. 5DWKRUH

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI
,QGLD ZKHQ WKH ILUVW LQIRUPDWLRQ UHSRUW
GLVFORVHV
WKH
FRQJQL]DEOH
RIIHQFH
LW
FDQQRW
EH TXDVKHG 7KH TXHVWLRQ RI
H[DPLQLQJ WKH WUXWKIXOQHVV RU RWKHUZLVH
RI WKH DOOHJDWLRQV PDGH LQ ),5 LV QRW WR
EH JRQH E\ WKH &RXUW EXW LW LV WR EH
H[DPLQHG E\ WKH ,QYHVWLJDWLQJ $JHQF\
+HOG2SDUD ±
,Q DSSURSULDWH FDVHV LI WKH &RXUW LV
FRQYLQFHG WKDW WKH SRZHU RI DUUHVW ZLOO
EH H[HUFLVHG ZURQJO\ RU PDODILGHO\ RU LQ
YLRODWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQ D RI WKH
&RGH
RI
&ULPLQDO
3URFHGXUH
ZULW
RI
PDGDPXV FDQ EH LVVXHG UHVWUDLQLQJ WKH
SROLFH IURP PLVXVLQJ LWV OHJDO SRZHU
+RZHYHU WKH RUGHU RI VWD\LQJ DUUHVW PD\
EH JUDQWHG VSDULQJO\ LQ WKH H[FHSWLRQDO
FDVHV

By the Court

1. In the above noted writ petitions
common questions of law are involved.
Therefore, all the writ petitions are taken