N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an offshoot of nationalisation of Life Insurance Business in the year 1956. The Life Insurance Corporation came into existence as a Statutory Corporation on and from 1. 9. 1956. All the private Insurance Companies who wore dealing with Life Insurance Business were made to part with that business and in this acquisition Act it is referred to as controlled business. Correspondingly the staff members of the private Companies dealing with the said business wore to be taken over by the newly formed Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter refereed to as LIC) with regard to their salary and other emoluments. Provisions were to be made but care was taken to see that no drastic changes are made either with regard to the existing contract of insurance or other related matter. Therefore. Life Insurance Emergency Provisions Act 1956 was also brought on Statute Book. ( 2 ) IN the background of the aforesaid statutory material the case of the petitioner is required to be considered. He approached the Labour Court (Central) Ahmedabad under Sec. 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 claiming that LIC owes around Rs. 12 0 as Rs. 15/- required to be merged with his basic salary have not been treated in that manner. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was working with British India General Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the parent employer) and was drawing a salary of Rs. 118/- per month with admissible allowances. It seems that Rs. 15/- were being paid to him as city allowance over and above the said sum of Rs. 118/- per month as salary with dearness allowance of Rs. 45/- per month. The parent employer had taken a stand as per Annexure B page 36 as also Annexure C page 37 and Annexure D page 38 that his was to be treated as an increase in the basic salary but it could not be given under that nomenclature as a dispute was pending and negotiation was going on The dispute was raised by way of charter of demands by the employees of the parent employer However the Labour Court (Central) Ahmedabad by its order dated 19-6-1978 dismissed this claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that on 1 when he joined the Corporation on account of the aforesaid Nationalisation Act his salary was Rs. 118/- and considering that to be his basic salary his pay has been fixed and so far as the city allowance of Rs. 15/- is concerned it is merged with D A ( 4 ) THE aforesaid exercise was done on the basis of the Life Insurance Corporation (Alteration of Remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of employees) Order 1957 (hereinafter referred to as Alteration Order) An extract of the Alteration Order is to be found at Annexure C page 39 In paragraph 3 of the said Alteration Order it is to be found that an option was given to the employees of the erstwhile Private Companies It is an admitted position as could be seen from the order of the learned Judge Annexure A page 24 onwards that the petitioner did not for the pay to be fixed under the said Alteration Order This has been clearly admitted by the petitioner during his cross-examination as noted by the learned Judge in paragraph 5 of his order ( 5 ) THE question therefore is whether the aforesaid decision of the parent employer of the petitioner that Rs. 15/- described as allowance was otherwise to be taken as an increment and whether it was so decided with effect from 1 that it be taken to be the position with regard to his salary from 1-9-1956 The learned Judge has answered it in the negative and I do not see any reason to hold that this decision is not in accordance with the material on record or that there is an error apparent on record ( 6 ) CLAUSE (f) of See 3 of said Emergency Provision Act 1956 reads as underno Insurer shall enter into any contract of service or agency whether expressly or by implication for purposes connected wholly or partly with the controlled business or vary the terms and conditions of any such contract subsisting on the appointed day; This has been quoted by the learned Judge in his order Annexure A Once the aforesaid emergency provision as contained in See 3 (1) is taken into consideration the parent employer could not have brought about any change in the pay structure without the approval of the person specified by the Central Government in that regard as referred to in the said Emergency Provision Act Precisely that is why according to Mr. B. R. Shah the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-Corporation there is a reference in Annexures B C and D more particularly in the last 2 Annexures about the general department employees only and not to the Life Insurance Department employees as the Life Insurance business being a controlled business is already taken over by the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) ( 7 ) L. A. Miss V. P. Shah appearing for the petitioner has tried to make out a case that as the benefit is available since the year 1955 and as the appointed dale is 1-9-1956 for taking over of the business and according to this Emergency Provision Act the date would be 19-1-1956 the decision on the part of the parent employer to pay prior to those days would bring that days outside the purview of these various enactment pertaining to LIC and their employees and hence the amount of Rs. 15/- should be taken as an increment right from that date ( 8 ) HOWEVER in my opinion as rightly decided by the learned Judge the allowance till the decision was taken was considered to be either as a conveyance allowance or compensatory allowance and she decision was taken only on 24-9-1956. The decision therefore is clearly after the promulgation of the aforesaid Acts and therefore it will certainly attract the said provision of Sec. 3 (1) of the Emergency Provisions Act. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY when the petitioner has opted for LIC pay scale and as a result when he has got the benefit of Rs. 15/- being merged with dearness allowance and the said option being final in my opinion his present attempt to get Rs. 15/- merged with his basic pay and on that basis ask for Rs. 12 0 and odd under Sec. 33 (c) (2) must fail. That is exactly what the learned Judge has done. ( 10 ) IN the result the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed. .