PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M. SELVARAJ DANIEL
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
19/12/1963
BENCH:
GUPTA, K.C. DAS
BENCH:
GUPTA, K.C. DAS
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)
WANCHOO, K.N.
CITATION:
1966 AIR 1654 1964 SCR (3) 280
ACT:
Review Application-No error in disposing appeal- Review
fails-Sastry Award, Para 292-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(14 of 1947), s. 33(c)(2).
HEADNOTE:
The application for review arose out of a judgment passed by
this Court it, Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1962. The appeal
arose out of an application filed by a workman of the State
Bank under s.33(c)(2) of the industrial Disputes Act before
the Labour Court. He was appointed as a clerk in the Bank
on December 14, 1953. He complained that ‘the Bank had not
paid him the increment on the basis of the Sastry Award.
His case was that he was entitled under the award to have
his annual increment in December each year. The case of the
Bank was that on the basis of the award the workman was
entitled to get his annual increment in each year on April
1. On these facts it was held that the workman would get the
benefit of
281
the new scales of pay from the very day of his appointment
i.e. from December 14, 1953. Thus the appeal of the workman
was allowed. Hence the review.
Held that (i) this application failed as this Court did not
commit any error in disposing of the appeals. (ii) in para
292 of the Sastry Award special directions were given as
regards the adjustment into the pay scale of the workmen who
had joined the service of the Bank after January, 1950, but
in their case nothing was said as to the date from which
future increments would take effect. The necessary and
inevitable consequence of the absence of any such direction
in the matter is that future increments would be on that
date of the year when the workman was appointed. On the
facts of this case it was held that the appellant-workman
would get the increments under the new scale on December 14,
each year.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. Re. C. A.
No. 33 of 1963.
Petition for Review of this Court’s judgment dated April 22,
19631, in Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1962.
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, H.N. Sanyal
Solicitor-General of India, H.L. Anand, Das Gupta and V.
Sagar, for the appellant.
M K. Ramamurthy, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh,
for the respondent.
1963. December 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by
DAS GUPTA J.-This application for review of a judgment given
by us on April 22 this year is by the Bank, which was the
respondent in the appeal.
The appellant who had been appointed a clerk in the Bank on
December 14, 1953, made an application under s. 33 (b)(2) of
the Industrial Disputes ,Act, before the Labour Court,
Delhi. He complained that in applying to him the award of
the Sastry
282
Tribunal in the dispute between certain banks and their
workmen as modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the
Bank had proceeded on the basis that under it the appellant
was entitled to get his annual increment in each year on
April 1. According to the appellant, he was entitled under
the award to have his annual increment in December each
year, Accordingly, he prayed that the benefit of which he
was being deprived by the Bank should be computed and
directed to be paid to him. At the hearing of the appeal it
was contended before us on behalf of the appellant that on a
proper interpretation of para. 292 of the Sastry Award which
deals with the question of adjustment of clerks already in
service into the scale of pay fixed by the award, he should
get his increments on December 14, every year. The Bank’s
contention was that increments had been rightly given from
April 1. We did not however examine para. 292 as it appeared
to us that when the appellant was first appointed by the
Bank on December 14, 1953 the appointment was on the scale
of pay as fixed by the Sastry Award. There was, therefore,
in our opinion, no question of adjustment. We held that on
those terms of appointment he was entitled to the pay as
claimed by him in his application. In this view we set
aside the order of the Labour Court, Delhi, which had rejec-
ted the appellant’s application and computed the sum to
which the appellant was entitled under the award at Rs.
146/- plus dearness allowance.
In asking us to review this judgment it is submitted by the
learned Attorney-General who appeared for the Bank, that it
was an error to think that Daniel’s first appointment was on
the pay scale as fixed by the Sastry Award. He pointed out
that the Labour Appellate Tribunal which decided the appeals
from the award of the Sastry Tribunal gave a definite
direction in para. 401 of its judgment that the Appellate
Tribunal’s decision as to pa
283
scales, allowances and provident fund contributions will
start from April 1, 1954. This, according to the learned
Attorney-General, supersedes the direction by the Sastry
Tribunal that the award will come into force on April 1,
1953. When it was pointed out that the decision of the
Appellate Tribunal was given long after the appellant’s
appointment and so it might well be that the clerk was
appointed on the scale under the Sastry Award which had
already come into force on April 1, 1953, learned Counsel
submitted that the operation of the award as to the pay
scale had. been stayed soon after the, award was pronounced
and long before December 14, 1953. We find it stated
however in para. 42 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal’s
decision that A and B Class Banks had not filed any appeals
against the wage structure. The reason is not far to seek.
This award had been preceded by the award of the Sen
Tribunal that was published on August 12, 1950. The Sen
Award was declared void by the Supreme Court on April 9,
1951. The Sen Tribunal gave the clerks for A and B Class
Banks the following scales of pay
Class A Banks
Class I areas. Rs. 96-6-132-7-174-9 -190-205-9-250-10-290
Class II areas. Rs. 82-5-112-6-148-7-162-172- 8-212-9-248
Class III areas. Rs. 70-4-94-5-124-6- 136-145-7-180–8-212
Class B Banks
Class I areas Rs. 92–6-128-7-170-8-186-200 -9-245-10-285
284
Class II areas Rs. 78-5-108 -6 -144-7-158-167-8-207-9- 243
Class III areas Rs. 66 4-90-5-120-6-132-140-7-175-8-207
The award of the Sastry Tribunal in this matter was less
favourable to the clerks. It gave the following scales:-
Class A Banks
Area I Rs. 85-5-100-6-112-7-140-8164-9 -245-10-265-15-280
Area II Rs. 73-4-.85 -5-100-6-112-7-140-8-164-9-245
Area III Rs. 66-3-69-4-85-5-100-6112-7-140-8-164- 9-227
Class B Banks
Area I Rs. 73-4-85-100-6-112-7-140-8-164-9-245
Area II Rs. 66 -3-69 -4-85-100-6-1127- 140-8-164-9-227
Area III Rs. 57-3-69-4-85-5-100-6112-7-140-8-164-9–200
It was in these circumstances that the A and B Class Banks
were content to accept the award of the Sastry Tribunal as
regards the wage structure and did not appeal; though the
workmen being dissatisfied with the wage scale as awarded by
the Sastry Tribunal appealed against it. It does not seem
to us unreasonable to think that having accepted the Sastry
Award on wage structure the Bank-an A Class Bank - would
make its appointment after April 1, 1953
285
on those scales or pay. It has to be mentioned that the
appointment letter is not on the record.
We are therefore still inclined to think that the appellant
Daniel was appointed by the Bank on December 14, 1953 on the
pay scale as fixed by the Sastry Tribunal. In any case, the
Bank has not been able to satisfy us that any error was made
in disposing of the appeal on the basis that Daniel’s
appointment was on the pay scale as fixed by the Sastry
Award. This is sufficient to dispose of the review
application.
As, however, arguments were addressed to us in this
application as to what the position would be if the
appellant had not been appointed on the pay scale as fixed
by the Sastry Award and his pay had to be adjusted in
accordance with the provisions of para. 292, we propose to
give our decision on that point as well.
The question of adjustment to the new pay scales formed a
distinct item -Item No. 12-in the Government Order making
the reference to the Sastry Tribunal. This was dealt with
in Chapter XIII of the award in four sections. Section I
sets out the different contentions raised by the employer
and the workmen’s Counsel. Thus, after mentioning that the
employees generally asked for point to point adjustment,
i.e., placing of each employee at that stage in the new
scale to which he would have risen by reason of the length
of his service if he had entered service on the new scale,
the Tribunal stated that for the reasons given in paras. 113
to 117 of the Sen Award it agreed with the conclusion of the
Sen Tribunal that a compromise between the two methods
advocated by the parties should be adopted. After a general
discussion of the arguments in paras. 285 to 291, the
Tribunal proceeded to give concrete directions in para. 292
dealing with the matter in six
286
sub-paragraphs, as regards workmen who entered the service
of the Bank before January 31, 1950; one sub-para. was as
regards workmen who joined service of the bank after January
31, 1950; seven more sub-paras. 8 to 14 laid down general
rules applicable to all workmen whether appointed before or
after January 31, 1950.
This scheme of adjustment was maintained by the Appellate
Tribunal with the modification that 31st January 1953 in the
Award was substituted by “31st January 1954 and 1st April,
1953 was substituted by title words 1st April, 1954. Clause
(d) of sub-para. 4 was deleted and in its place sub-para 4
(A) was substituted which ran thus:-
“After adjustments are made in accordance with
the directions given, three further annual
increments in the new scale will be added
thereto for service for the three years 1951
to 1953. In addition, the workmen will be
entitled to draw his normal increment for 1954
on the 1st of April 1954. Thereafter, each
succeeding year’s annual increment shall take
effect as and from the 1st April of that
year.”
For workmen appointed before January 31, 1950
there was thus a definite direction that
succeeding year’s annual increment shall take
effect from April 1, of that year.
Sub-paragraph 7 dealing with the workmen who
joined service after January 31, 1950 runs
thus:-
“The workmen shall be fitted into the new
scale of pay on a point to point basis as
though it had been in force since he joined
the service of the Bank, provided that his
adjusted basic pay is not less than what it
would be under a point to point adjustment on
the corresponding “preSen” scale.”
287
It is important to notice that in this provision as regards
the workmen who joined service of the Bank after January 31,
1950, no direction has been given as regards the date from
which annual increments should take effect. Nor can we find
anything in the remaining seven sub-paras. laying down
generally the rules’ any directions whatsoever to justify
the plea that the future increments of workmen who joined
service of the Bank after January 31, 1950, would start from
April 1, of the year. The provision in para 12 that the
adjusted pay shall have effect from April 1, 1954 has
nothing to do with the commencement of future increments.
The reason why such a direction was given as regards the
workmen who entered the service of the Bank before January
31, 1950 and none was given as regards workmen who joined
after that date appears to be clear. For workmen who
entered the service of the Bank before January 31, 1950
detailed provisions for fitting them into the scales were
made including the provisions for increments. It was in
view’ of this apparently that it was thought necessary to
indicate the time from which further increments would
commence. As the Tribunal brought the new scales into force
with effect from 1953 the direction that logically followed
was that each succeeding year’s annual increment would take
effect as and from April 1, of that year. The Appellate
Tribunal decided to adjust the pay up to April 1, 1954
instead of’ April 1, -1953. But that did not change the
logical position that each succeeding year’s increment would
take effect as and from April 1 of that year.
The above considerations had no application to the workmen
who were directed to be fitted into the new scale of pay on
a point to point basis as though it had been in force since
they joined the service of the Bank. On the basis that the
new scale was in force at the date when the workmen
288
joined the service of the Bank there can be no escape from
the conclusion that the increments as provided in that scale
would take effect from the anniversary of the date of
appointment.
It is unnecessary for us to consider here why the workmen
who joined the service of the Bank after January 31, 1950,
were not being given increments in the same way as those who
had entered the service before that date. Some indication
is given in the Tribunal’s observations that it would be
proper to let bygones be bygones and there should be neither
retrospective adjustment of pay or allowances actually paid
nor further claims for more than what has been given
already. Whatever the reason be the fact remains that
special directions were given as regards the adjustment into
the pay scale of the workmen’ who had joined the service of
the Bank after January, 1950, and in their case nothing was
said as to the date from which future increments would take
effect. The necessary and inevitable consequence of the
absence of any such direction in the matter is, as we have
already indicated, that future increments would be on that
date of the year when the workman was appointed.
We have thus reached the conclusion that even on application
of the rules of adjustment into the new scale on the
assumption that such adjustment was necessary, the
appellant-workman would be entitled to the relief he had
asked for.
The application is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Review application dismissed.
289