Case Background: Anwar Khan 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 filed primarily for declaration that in view of the agreement between the Field Officers Association and the LIC age of retirement is 60 years. The suit was decreed on 30.7.1981 and the appeal by the LIC was dismissed on 27.3.1982. 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 Assistant Labour Commissioner held that the claimant was entitled to wages for the relevant period plus double the amount as compensation. The LIC preferred an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed on 07.05.1999 and the Appellate Authority by order modified the Award to the extent that the claimant was entitled to the wages claimed along with the compensation of amount equivalent to back wages. LIC challenged this order by filing the writ petition which was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 01.11.1999. LIC made a Letters Patent Appeal for a bench of judges which could not be maintained In any event, the Act has no application and no compensation is payable. The application was filed under Section 15(2) of the Act. Reference was also made to the U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhisthan Adhiniyam, 1962 (in short the "Adhiniyam"). A plea was raised that the suit was pre-mature since there was no definite determination as second appeal was pending. The High Court held that even if the Act has no application that does not render the proceedings irregular. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the LIC that the High Court has erred in holding that under Section 18 of the Adhiniyam, the Act has application. It was pointed out that undisputedly the claimant was receiving salary of more than Rs.1500/-. The expression "employee" is defined under the Adhiniyam in Section 2(6) and "Wages" has been defined under Section 2(18). Section 18 relates to recovery of wages. It is also pointed out that

compensation could not have been awarded since there was a bona fide dispute about the liability.

Twist used: Section 18 of the Adhiniyam reads as follow: "18. Recovery of wages The wages of an employee, if not paid as provided by or under this Act, shall be recoverable in the manner provided in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, as if the same wages were payable under that Act. It is only a mechanism for recovery of wages and because the Adhiniyam has application to any employee that does not automatically bring him under the umbrella of the Payment of Wages Act. The entitlement for compensation is only under the Payment of Wages Act and there is no scope for compensation under the Adhiniyam. In this case, undisputedly there is dispute about the entitlement of the claimant. The matter is pending before the High Court. Therefore, the High Court's view holding the claimant to be entitled to compensation is clearly unjustified. Hence in the first place, the appeal of LIC in front of High Court against the application of the act has been allowed. Michel Foucault: French philosopher, Is considered one of the most influential of the postmodern philosophers. Foucaults central topic was the struggle of individuals against the power of society. During his twenty-five years of writing, Foucault concerned himself with the technologies of power and the reasons why individuals conform to the rules of society. The modern era is commonly described as the period from mid- 18th century (time of European Enlightenment) to the mid-20th century. Modernity is fundamentally about order: about rationality and rationalization, creating order out of chaos. Postmodernism is the critique of this view. In other words, every attempt to create order always demands the creation of an equal amount of disorder Modernism creates a mirage to mask the creation of this disorder, Postmodernism also rejects the idea that there is a grand scheme to things. Postmodernists believe things are always situational or temporary and there is no universal truth or stability (Klages, 1997). Discipline and Punish (1975) is considered Foucaults most important and lasting work because it represents his decision to explicitly take up politics and social theory, areas that his earlier work addressed mainly by implication

This book shows how Foucault arrived at his major theme of power and domination. Discipline and Punish lays out Foucaults thoughts on how the elite in society dominate and control the rest of society. Foucault believed no societal advancements have occurred since the Renaissance, only technology has grown, further enslaving the human spirit. Foucault is almost an anarchist in his dislike of societal rules and their affect on the human spirit. For Foucault there was no higher purpose than being your own unique person. The ideas forced upon us by society do not allow this to happen Even as a social philosopher, Foucaults ideas about governments role in oppressing peoples behavior and true identity have been related to why people commit crime He roughly talks about: Various powerful sections of the society interpret laws according their interests, forcing the other weaker sections to follow them. Entire society follows interpretations laid out to them.

These theories about society, social control and the functions of prison to maintain control were revolutionary when Foucault first expressed them in 1975, and today they continue to be debated in academic settings around the world. Even Foucaults critics cannot deny that he is one of the most influential thinkers of our time. Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin: Russian revolutionary and philosopher. Theorist of collectivist anarchism. He has also often been called the father of anarchist theory in general. Bakunin's socialism was known as "collectivist anarchism", in which the workers would directly manage the means of production through their own productive associations. There would be "equal means of subsistence, support, education, and opportunity for every child, boy or girl, until maturity, and equal resources and facilities in adulthood to create his own well-being by his own labor. Bakunin's revolutionary ideas where rooted in materialism. Bakunin was no passive critic of the existing system. In his eyes there were three methods to escape the misery of capitalism: the pub, the church and social revolution. The first was "debauchery of the body," the second "of the mind." Instead of political action, Bakunin argued for "the social (and therefore anti-political) organisation and power of the working masses of the cities and villages." Instead of a "revolutionary" government ruling the masses from above in a centralised state, an anarchist revolution would be based on a federation of communes and workers' councils. The very process of collective class struggle

would, for Bakunin create the basis of a free society. The basic structure created by the revolution would be based on the working classes own combat organisations, as created in their struggles within, but against, oppression and exploitation.