State Bank of India Vs. M. Selvaraj
Daniel [1963] INSC 260 (19 December 1963)
19/12/1963 GUPTA, K.C. DAS 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.
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.
Back
