Representative writ standing and competent authority requirements limited Article 226 relief in an ex-employees' claim.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable when filed by the general secretary of an association on behalf of ex-employees, because a person who is not personally aggrieved cannot invoke writ jurisdiction as a representative unless statute expressly permits it. Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not assist outside that Act's proceedings, and Section 13 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 was inapplicable because the petition was not brought by a registered trade union in its own name. The Court also found that relief had not been shown to have been demanded from a competent authority, since delegation to the Zonal Manager was not proved and the Corporation was not impleaded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Article 226 was maintainable at the instance of the General Secretary of an association on behalf of ex-employees, and (ii) whether the absence of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the absence of proof of delegation to the Zonal Manager defeated the claim.

Issue (i): Whether the application under Article 226 was maintainable at the instance of the General Secretary of an association on behalf of ex-employees.

Analysis: The Court held that, outside the special scheme of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a person who is not himself aggrieved cannot invoke writ jurisdiction merely as a representative of others unless the law expressly authorises such representation. Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 permits representation only in proceedings under that Act, and Section 13 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926 did not assist the petitioner because the petition was not by a registered trade union in its own name. The Court therefore found that the petitioner lacked the requisite authority and standing to maintain the application.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the absence of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and the absence of proof of delegation to the Zonal Manager defeated the claim.

Analysis: The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 contemplates a central office, zonal offices, and delegation of functions to the Zonal Manager under Sections 18, 19(1), and 22(1). The Court held that it was for the petitioner to show that justice had been demanded of a person competent to grant relief. Since the written delegation to the Zonal Manager was not shown and the Corporation itself was not impleaded, the Court was not prepared to infer that respondent No. 1 was competent to deal with the claim. The Court also noted that the demand for relief had been pressed before the Chairman of the Corporation at Bombay, which reinforced the difficulty in sustaining the application against the respondents alone.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ application failed on maintainability and on the inability to show that the relief had been sought from a competent authority empowered to grant it, and the rule was discharged without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be maintained by a person who is not personally aggrieved unless some statutory or legal authority clearly permits representative invocation of the jurisdiction, and relief must be demanded from, and shown to lie within the competence of, the authority proceeded against.

---