LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE ANTICORRUPTION ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE VARANASI AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the Judgment 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 fpredecessor-in- interest of respondent Nos. 4 to 11), who was working as development officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short, the L.I.C.), was retired from service on 30.4.1979 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 L.I.C. was also dismissed. Thereafter, the L.I.C. 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-L.I.C. Thereafter, Anwar Khan filed a petition before the Payment of Wages Authority claiming wages for the period 30.4.1979 to 30.4.1981 and some other amounts under different heads, which was allowed by the authority on 11.6.1993. The L.I.C. preferred an appeal against the said order before the appellate authority but the same was dismissed on 7.5.1999. This order was challenged by filing the writ petition which was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 1.11.1999.

(3.) Sri K. P. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the contesting respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal and his contention 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 judgment rendered in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment 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 of 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: