State Bank of India Vs. The Presiding
Officer, Central Government Labour Court, Dhan  INSC 99 (1 April 1972)
Labour Law-Industrial Dispute-Sastry Award
paragraph 292, construction of-Direction in clause (2) of paragraph whether
excludes Clause 4(b)-Clause 5(a) of paragraph, applicability of.
The second respondent was employed on
3-1-1947 as a Grade II Clerk in theImperial Bank of India (taken over by the
State Bank of India in 1955) on a scale running from Rs. 70 to Rs. 170. Shortly
after, he was given a raise of Rs. 4 because of his proficiency in using the
machine. On 1-1-49 he was promoted to Grade 1. The Sastry Award prescribed a
uniform scale of pay for clerks of Grade I & II and gave directions to make
fitments in that grade. The second respondent disputed the computation of
benefits admissible to him under the Award. In the consequent industrial
dispute the Labour Court fixed the basic pay of the second respondent under
paragraph 292 of the Award as Rs. 164 p.m.
as on 1-4-1954. The Labour Court accepted his
contention that clause (4) (b) of paragraph 292 should be read with clause 5(a)
and that the latter clause was applicable to him because before the Award came
into force he was promoted from Grade If to Grade 1. The High Court confirmed
the decision of the Labour Court. In appeal by the State Bank of India to this
Court the questions that fell for determination were : (i) whether the
direction in clause (2) of paragraph 292 that the basic nay in the new scale
shall not exceed what point to point adjustment would have given to the workman
in the new scale has the effect of excluding clause (4)(b); (ii) whether s.
(5)(a) of the paragraph was applicable to the second respondent.
HELD : (i) The report of the Gajendragadkar
Commission made it clear that what the Award meant in clause (2) when it
referred to point to-point adjustment is the placing of each employee at the
stage in the/ new scale to which In would have risen by reason of length of
service had he entered service in the new scale. What was sought to be ensured
by clause (2) was that the adjusted basic pay in the new scale shall not exceed
the point-to-point adjustment or the maximum of the scale., if the meaning
given to the phrase point-to-point adjustment is what is stated by the
Commission in the report, then there would be no impediment in giving effect to
the directions in clause (4)(b). It would not therefore be right to say that
clause (4)(b) is to be ignored or that the advantage ends only with that given
in clause (4)(a). [136G-137A] (ii The directions given in clause 5(a) are that
the, length of service in the scale in which the workman is and in which he
gets an increment or increments either at the initial start or by special
promotion should be that which he would have taken to reach the basic pay which
he would draw on 31st January 1950 with the initial start. The condition
precedent to the applicability of the directions in this clause is the receipt
of increment or increments by way of special promotion. The use of the word
'special' would itself show that what is contemplated is advance increments in
the same grade. [137D-F] 127 As the, 2nd respondent did, not got any increment
or increments in the existing scale which was Grade I. either at the initial
start or by way of special promotion, the directions in clause 5(a) were
inapplicable to him and his actual service in-the cadre had to be computed for
the purpose of clause (4)(b). The words 'same' cadre in the latter clause would
refer to both Grade 11 and Grade 1. The actual serviceman both the grades will
alone be considered for giving him an increment for every three years of
service which in his case would work out to one increment in respect of his 3
years service from 31-1-47 to 31-1-50.
[137H-138B] The Court, applying the
principles as laid down above, held that the second respondent had to be fitted
in the new scale on a basic pay of Rs. 1481.
State Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Mehra,
 2 L.L.J.
383 and Punjab National Bank Lid. v. K. L.
Kharbanda,  Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 977, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 1270
Appeal from the Judgment dated the April 24,
1967 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 567 of 1966.
S. T. Desai, H. L. Anand, V. N. Koura and
Ashok Grover, for the appellant.
Respondent No. 2 appeared in person.
The Judgment of, the Court was delivered by
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal by certificate raises a question as to the
interpretation and proper application of paragraph 292-of the Sastry Award
(hereinafter called 'the Award'). The 2nd respondent was employed on 13-1-1947
as a Grade II Clerk in the Imperial Bank of India on a scale of Rs.
70-4126-EB-130-5-175. This Bank was subsequently taken over by the State Bank
of India under the State, Bank of India Act (Act XXIII of 1955). 'A, few months
after the respondent was employed he was given a pay of Rs. 74/because of his
proficiency in using 'the machine. On 13-148 he earned an increment and his
basic pay was Rs. 78/-.
On 1-1-49 he was promoted to Grade I so that
on the date of his promotion he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 100/-. On 1-1-50
he earned an increment and his basic pay I was Rs.
108/-. The Sastry Award prescribed a uniform
scale of pay for clerks of Grades 1 & 11 and gave directions to make
fitments in that Grade,. The 2nd respondent disputed the computation of the
benefits admissible to him under, The'Award and. consequently applied for a
settlement of his dispute. under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act
(XIV of 1947) which was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed
the application and fixed the basic 'Pay of the Applicant under paragraph 292
of the Award at Rs. 164/p.m. as on 1-4-1954 with directions to the appellant to
pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 1647.91 for the period from 128 1-4-54 to
31-12-61. The appellant challenged the Award under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution but the High Court accepting the interpretation placed by the
Lavour Court on paragraph 292 of the Award dismissed the petition.
Inasmuch as the dispute between the parties
is dependent upon the view which can 'reasonably Ile taken of paragraph 292 of
the Award, it will be necessary to examine the directions contained therein,.
We give below the relevant directions of that paragraph as amended:-"292.
Section 11-for workmen Who entered service of the. Bank before 31st January
1950(1) The workman's basic pay as on 31st January 1950 shall not be reduced in
(2) Subject to rule (1) the adjusted basic
pay in the: new scale shall not exceed what point-to-point adjustment would
give him or the maximum in the new scale.
(3) In the matter of adjustment all
efficiency bars, whether in the previously existing scales or in the new scales
fixed by the award, should be ignored.
(4) Subject to rules (1) to (3) a workman's
basic pay in the hew scale shall be fixed in the following manner :(a) A
workman shall first be fitted into the scale of pay fixed by the said award
(hereinafter called the new scale) by placing him at the stage in the new scale
equal to, or next above, his basic pay as on 31st January 1950 in the. present
scale then in force (herein called the existing scale).
(b) To the basic pay into which he is fitted
under cl. (a) the annual increment or increments in the new scale as from that
stage onwards should be added at the rate of one increment for every completed
three years of service in the same cadre as on 31st January 1950 upto a limit
of twelve years' service;
thereafter one increment forever four years
of service up to another eight years' service and after that one increment for
every five years of service.
(4A) After adjustments are made in accordance
with the directions Riven, three further annual increments in the new scale
will be added thereto for service for the three years 1951 to 1953. In
addition, the work man will be entitled to draw his normal increment 129 for
1954 on 1st April 1954. Thereafter each succeeding years' annual' increment
shall take effect as and from 1st April of that year." (5) (a) Where a
workman received anadditional increment or increments in his basic pay either
at the initial start or by way of special promotion later on, his, length of
service will be taken to-be the period which would ordinarily be necessary to
bring a workman with the usual initial start without special promotion to that
basic pay as (on) 31st January 1950, in the existing scale (fractions being
rounded off to the nearest integer) (b) Similarly where a workman's increment
or increments have been withheld prior to 31st January 1950 the length of
service in his case will be calculated by subtracting the number of Wars for
which the increments have been withheld.
(c) x x x x (6) x x x x" It may be
mentioned here that prior to the. Award another Award known as the Sen Award
was given on 12-8-50. This latter award, however, was declared void by the
Supreme Court on 9-4-51. The pre-Sen scales were those fixed by the Award of an
Industrial Tribunal known as Gupta Award admissible to the employees of the
Imperial Bank of India, as it then was. The scales applicable to the 2nd
respondent who was employed on 13-1-47 in the Calcutta Branch were Rs.
704-126-EB-130-5-175 when he was in Grade II
100-8-180EB-10-250 when he was promoted to
Grade 1. The Award as subsequently modified prescribed only one scale of pay'
of Rs. 85-5-100-6-112-7-140-8-164 9-245-10265-15-280 for clerical staff in 'A'
class Banks in Class I areas.
This scale applied to the clerical staff
employed at the Calcutta Branch. It will be seen that the fitment of the basic
salary of persons in Grade 11 and Grade in the new scales became a matter of
some controversy due to the difficulty of variation in the total number of
years for each of the grades in which an employee had to work out his
increments. In Grade II the maximum grade could be attained in 24 years while
Grade I had arrange of 17 years. In the new grade an employee took 24 years to
reach the maximum.
In other words, the number of years required reaching
the maximum of basic pay from the initial basic Pay in Grade II and that in the
new scale was the same, namely 24 years.
The only difficulty that would' present
itself 130 in the fitment of pay in the new grade in respect of a promotion
made prior to the coming into force of the new scales from Grade 11 to Grade 1.
It is for this reason the directions contained in clauses 3, 4 and 5 of
paragraph 292 were evolved basing the fitment both on the actual pay drawn and
the increments which a person would nationality have earned having regard to
tin number of years which/he would have taken in the new scale to draw the pay
which he was actually getting on the date when the Award was brought into
force. Ignoring the efficiency bar as provided in clause (3) of paragraph 292,
a workman has to be fitted under clause (4) (a) into the scale of pay fixed by
the Award placing him at the stage in the new scale equal to or next ,over his
basic pay as on 31-1-50 in the pre-Sen scale 'then in force. it is not disputed
by the parties that on 31-1-50 the 2nd respondent was drawing Rs. 108/and since
in the new scale he could not be fixed in Rs. 108/he has to be fitted in Rs.
112/-. As clause (4) is also subject to clause (2) the adjusted pay in the new
scale is directed not to exceed what point to point adjustment would give the
workman or the maximum in the new scale. Does this mean that after the fitment
under clause (2) is made clause, (4) (b) is to be ignored and only those
increments specified in clause (4) are to be added ? Or is the workman also en
-titled to the increments specified in, (4) (b) and if so, is that clause to be
read with clause 5 (a) as contended by 'the 2nd respondent? On the assumption
that clause (4) (b) is applicable the workman would be entitled to one;
increment for every three completed years of service in the cadre as on
There is also no dispute that 'he had
completed three years from 13-1-47 to 31-1-50 and on this basis he would be
entitled to one increment so, that the basic pay would be Rs. 119. Under clause
(4A) he would further be entitled to three increments in the new scale for his
service for the 'three years 1951 to 1953. It is at this stage that the
appellant and the 2nd respondent part ways. The appellant contends that the
basic pay in the new scale is arrived at after adjustment under clauses (4) (a)
and (4A) to three further increments, namely, 7+7+7=21 which added to Rs.
119/would be Rs. 140/and since the fitment
was being made as from 1-4-54 he will be entitled to one more increment which
is Rs. 8/giving him a total basic pay of Rs. 148/-.
The 2nd respondent, however, contends that
clause (4) (b) should be read with clause (5) (a) because before the, Award
came into force. he was promoted to Grade I and his basic pay in that grade
should be taken into consideration for which clause (5) (a) was designed. The
appellant takes the stand that this clause is not applicable because the
additional increments under that clause are only in ,respect of any 'increment
or increments in the basic pay at the 131 initial stage-or by way of special
promotion later on in the same cadre which under clause (4) (b) must mean Grade
As the 2nd respondent was not given any
increments in the basic pay at the initial stage nor was he given any increment
by way of special promotion he will not be entitled to the benefit given by
clause (5) (a). In this view, it is submitted that the interpretation placed by
the Labour Court brings para 292 (5) (a) in direct conflict with para 292(4)(b)
because the former was only a deeming deeming provision and was intended for
computation of length of service. The Labour Court as well as the High Court,
however, interpreted the word 'cadre' in para. 292 (4) (b) as covering all
workmen in the cadre of clerks and not different cadres, which means that both
grade 11 and grade I of the present Award are included in the same cadre and
not different cadres.
The, High Court referred to paragraph 91 in
which it was mentioned that Gupta Award had reduced the four cadres of clerks
with different grades of pay employed by Imperial Bank of India into two
grades, namely, the junior clerks and senior clerks and though para 531 has
used expressions like 'officers grade' and 'clerical grade it is not possible
to hold that each grade of clerks with a particular scale of pay was considered
to be a cadre by itself. In its view the mere mention of one grade or two
grades for the clerical staff does not justify the conclusion that each grade
with a particular scale of pay was taken to be a separate cadre of I service.
On the contrary its impression was that the clerical staff was taken 'to be a
cadre even if it had at one point of time different grades with different
scales of pay. it accordingly held 'that the interpretation placed by the
Labour Court was correct and that the expression 'in the same cadre' occurring
in paragraph 292 (4) (b) of the Award was equivalent to the expression 'in the
same grade'. On this interpretation paragraph 292 (5) (a) was read with
paragraph 292 (4) (b). If so read, the respondent would be entitled to three
increments instead of one increment as contended by the 2nd respondent. Once
the amount to be added to the basic pay drawn as on 31-1-50 is fixed in the new
scale which is Rs. 112/by reference to the deeming provision under (5) (a) read
with (4) (b) the second respondent would be entitled to three increments for
every notional year on the basis that if he had not been special increments at
the beginning and promotion to Grade I on given 1-1-49 he would have taken 10
Years to reach the basic pay he was then drawing. Applying this Principle he
would get three increments of pay for three years amounting to.
Rs. 21/-, which added to Rs. 112/would give
him a basic salary of Rs. 133/There after under clause (4A) for the years 1951
to 1953 he would have to be given 3 further increments, namely, 7+8+8= 23 and
thereafter he would earn another increment as on 1st 132 April 1954 so that the
increments under clause (4A) would be Rs. 31/which added to Rs. 133/would
entitle him to abasic salary of Rs. 164/-. This is the claim of the 2nd
respondent which has been upheld on the, basis of the interpretation placed
both by the Labour Court and the High Court.
Before we embark on an examination of the
rival contentions it will be useful to mention that after the Award the
question of its implementation was considered by the Labour Appellate Tribunal
which gavelits decision on 28-4-1954.
The Central Government thereafter modified
the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision on 24-8-54 and on the same date
appointed Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was), to enquire into and ascertain
the effect of the decision. of the Labour Appellate Tribunal as modified by the
Central Government in respect of the emoluments of the Bank employees. On
25-7-1955 the Commission made its report which were incorporated in the
Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies Decision) Act (XLI of 1955). The Award
with modifications as already set out, was to become effective from the 1st of
April 1954. The decision in this case will, 'therefore, depend upon the
interpretation to be placed on the modified directions. Though both sides have
given their own respective examples of the fitment that should be made under
these directions, the question whether the assumption underlying therespective
worksheets is valid or not would ultimately depend upon the proper
interpretation of the directions relating to the fitment of the emoluments of
the employees in the new scale.
The learned Advocate for the appellant during
his main arguments did not lay stress on clause (2) of paragraph 292 and in
fact stated that these can be ignored. What was emphasised was ,that clause (a)
cannot be read with clause (b) as contended by the 2nd respondent; that the
existing scale mentioned in clause (4) (a) is the pre-Sen scale and the
weightage that is admissible to the 2nd respondent is in that existing pre-Sen
scale of one increment for every 3 years of actual service which would only
entitle him to one increment as he had actually served for 3 years from 13-11947
to 31-1-1950 which latter date is the crucial date on which fitment has to be
made as specified in the directions in paragraph (4) (b). Alternatively it was
contended that even if clause (5) (a) was to be read with clause (4) (b),
though that clause was inapplicable as the 2nd respondent had got a promotion
from Grade II to Grade T,-as he had on 1-1-1949 served 2 years and if to that
service is added the notional service under clause (5) (a) after he eat his
promotion to Grade I he would have served 2 more years. , This advantage he
would have enjoyed as he would have-been fitted in Rs. 102/in the Junior scale
and 133 would have taken 2 more years to reach the basic pay of Rs.
112/-. Even on this basis the 2nd respondent
would only be entitled to one increment.
The learned Advocate for the-appellant while
replying to the submissions of the second respondent who presented his case
personally, raised for the first time a contention based on clause (2) in
support of which he cited the decision of this Court in State Bank of. India v.
Prakash Chand Mehra(").
According to this submission a limitation was
introduced by clause , (2) which is made applicable to the fixation of basic
pay under clause (4) by the words 'subject to clauses (1) to (3)'. The
direction in clause (2) that the basic pay in the new scale shall not exceed
what point-to-point adjustment would have given him in the new scale, it is
said, excludes clause (4) (b) and the 2nd respondent would not be entitled to
any increment, for every completed three years of service in the same cadre as
on 31-1-50. If this view is accepted the 2nd respondent would merely be
entitled to 4 increments at the rate of Rs. 7/each in the new scale as on
1-4-54, and his pay will have to be fixed at Rs. 140/and not as earlier
contended on behalf of the appellant, at Rs. 148/-. There is no difficulty in
so far as clause (4) (a) is concerned because the basic pay of the 2nd
respondent in the existing scale of Grade I which was Rs. 108/would be fitted
in the new scale in that next nearest basic pay of Rs. 112/-. As we stated
earlier, the pre-Sen scale for Clerks was comprised of both Grade I and Grade
11. In the Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda(2), this Court had said
that the Sastry Award provided one grade for all clerical workmen by whatever
name they were known in the Bank. It cannot be disputed that a workman in Grade
11 as well as in Grade I is nonetheless in the pre-Sen scale which are in the
same cadre. Clause 4(b) directs that to the basic pay into which he is fitted
under clause (a) one increment for every completed 3 years of his service in
the same cadre as on 31-1-50 should be added. This in our view is an additional
advantage which is sought to be given and is not to be restricted by clause (2)
which on the interpretation suggested would terminate the advantage of placing
him in the new scale with clause (4) (a) itself. Some meaning has to be given
to the words 'to the basic pay' in clause (4) (b) which can onlybe additional
increment or increments based on the length of service. It is true that in
State Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Mehra(',), it, was observed :
"Giving as we must, natural meaning to
the words used in rules 2 and 4, we are of opinion that in no case can the
basic pay be fixed at a higher figure than (1)  2 LLJ 3 8 3.
(2)  Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 977.
134 what the point-to-point adjustment would,
give to the workman or the maximum in the new scale. Under rule 4 (a) the
workman's basic pay is Rs. 90 and under rule 4(b) to this basic pay has to be
added two increments, in respect of the new scale so that the basic pay 2, at
Rs. 100. If that were correct, the salary would be Rs. 126 on 1 April 1954.
There is however the limitation introduced by rule 2 which is made applicable
to the fixation of the basic pay under rule 4 by the words "subject to
rules 1 to 3".
Admittedly, point-to-point. adjustment would
give the respondent a basic pay of Rs. 90.
This limit cannot therefore be, exceed; and
so, in spite of rule 4 (b) ' the basic pay for applying the new scale would be
Rs. 90 and not Rs. 100".
In that case the respondent had entered the
Bank's service on, 20-2-43 and on the 31st January 1950 he was getting a salary
of. Rs. 86/p.m. On 1-4-54 he was employed at Abohar Branch of the Imperial Bank
of India and on 15-5-54 he was transferred to Amritsar. Under the
classification in the Bank Award, Abohar was class IV area while Amritsar was a
Class 11 area. On the basis that Abohar was a class IV area the respondent's
salary was fixed by the Bank on 1-4-54 at Rs. 112/ p.m. and on his transfer to
Amritsar, a class IIarea, in consideration of his length of service he was
given three increments and 'his salary was fixed at Rs.
133/-. The respondent's case was that he was
entitled to three increments over Rs. 126/which it is said he was drawing at
Abohar, i.e. Rs. 148/p.m. On a dispute being referred under section 33C(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court, Delhi accepted the respondent's
case that his pay should be fixed at Rs. 148/p.m. Though the court did not
apply clause (4) (b) it nonetheless came to the same conclusion. on the basis
that Abohar was treated as a class IV area with retrospective effect from
1-4-54 and the calculation on that basis would fix his basic salary at Rs. 126/on
1-4-54 and on transfer from that area to Amritsar, a class 11 area, he would
get an increment and his salary would be fixed at Rs. 133/-. In that case the
meaning and significance of the term 'point-to" point adjustment' mentioned
in clause (2) was not discussed nor has there been anything said. as to the
contingencies in which those directions were to be applied. If point-topoint
adjustment signifies the fixation of the workman at the stage in the new scale
equal to or above his basic pay as on 31-1-50, clause (4) (a) itself has
provided for that and there was no need for clause (2) or clause (4) (b). A
perusal of 'the report of the Gajendragadkar Commission in this respect,
however, furnishes a clue to this 135 enigma. In paragraphs 109 to, 111 the
Commission sets out directions in the Award, the modification made by the
Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Government's decision thereon. A reference to
paragraph 109. would not only show the nature of the scheme proposed in the
Award but indicates what in fact was, meant by point-to-point adjustment. It is
there observed as follows :
" 109. In fitting the existing staff in
the revised pay structure the Sen Tribunal gave employees the benefit of what
virtually amounted to point to point adjustment that is, the placing of each
employee at the stage in the new scale to which he would have risen by reason
of the length of his service had he entered service on the new scale. After a
careful consideration of the various aspects of the question raised by the
provisions contained in the Sen Award the Sastry Tribunal by and large followed
the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission that when persons on the
existing scale of pay were brought on to the new scales recommended for them,
their initial pay should be fixed at the stage in the proposed scale next above
the pay they were, drawing in the existing scale and special increments added
to it at the rate of one increment in the proposed scale for every three
completed years of service subject to certain ceilings in regard to the
increase to be allowed. The Sastry Tribunal recommended that a workman should
first be fitted into the scale of pay fixed by its award at the stage in the
new scale equal to or next above his basic pay as on the 31st January 1950 in
the existing scale (pre-Sen scale) and annual increments in the new scale as
from that stage onwards added at the rate of one increment for every completed
three years of his service subject to a maximum of 4 increments. It also
recommended that two further annual increments in the new scale should be added
to the basic pay fixed in the manner described above for service or the two
years 1951 and 1952 and the worker should be entitled to draw his normal
increment for 1953 and succeeding years from 1st April of each year. There
were, besides, certain other recommendations aimed at giving protection to a
workman's basic pay and emoluments as on the 31st January 1950, and covering
cases of special increments granted or increments withheld etc. It also
recommended. that subject to a workman's basic pay as on the 31st January 1950
not, being reduced in any case the adjusted, basic,pay in the new 136 scale
should not exceed What point to point adjustment would give' him or the maximum
in the new scale".
The Labour Appellate Tribunal agreed with the
scheme of _adjustment given by the Award except in regard to the weightage in
respect of which it recommended the removal of the 12 years' limit for adding
one increment for every three years. In its place it proposed a tapering off of
the weightage after 12 years, by the addition of one increment for every 4
years in the next 8 years and one increment for every 5 years for the next five
years. Though the Government modified the Labour Appellate Tribunal's
recommendation by confirming the Award, it decided to adopt what was proposed
by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in respect of the weightage of one increment
for every three years. The Commission, however, did not accept the Government's
decision but made the following recommendations in para 112:-"112. The
question raised by the modification thus made by Government is not likely to
affect a very large number of employees. On the merits, it seems to me that
much can be said in favour of the view taken by the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
If, in adjusting employees in the new wage structure, they are entitled to have
their previous service taken into account, it is difficult to appreciate why a
line should be drawn at the end of twelve years' service and it should be held
that an employee would not be entitled to claim any credit for any period of
service beyond the said line. The modification made by Government confirms the
provisions made by the Sastry Tribunal, and these provisions, as I have just
indicated, allow certain increments in lieu of twelve years' service.
If fairplay and equity. Justify these provisions;
it would seem to follow that the same considerations would justify the
additional provisions that have been made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal
decision. On the merits, therefore, I am inclined to agree with the view taken
by the Labour Appellate Tribunal".
It would appear clear from the above
recommendation that 'What the Award meant in clause (2) when it referred to
point-' to-point adjustment is the placing. of each employee at the stage 'in
the new scale to which he would have risen by reason of the length of service
had he entered service in the new scale. What was sought to be ensured by
clause (2) was that the adjusted basic pay in the new scale shall not exceed
the point-to-point adjustment or the maximum of the scale. If the meaning given
to the phrase point-to-point adjustment, is what is stated by the 137
Commission in the report, then there, would be no impediment in giving effect
to the directions in clause (4) (b). It would not therefore, be right to say
that clause (4) (b) is to be ignored Or that the advantage ends onlY with that
given in clause (4) (a).
The next question is what is it that clause
(5) (a) Provides for ? Does it provide for computing the length of service for
the purposes of giving One increment for every three Years of notional service
worked out on the basis of the service that would be required for a workman to
Mach the basic pay which lie was drawing in the existing scale? The contention
of the 2nd respondent is sat taking the basic pay drawn by him as on 31st
January 1950 to the nearest integer the length of service should be computed on
the basis of the number of years which he would have to serve in the junior
scale to draw that amount of basic pay. It appears to us on a careful
examination of the terms of clause (5) (a) that the directions in this clause
are inapplicable to him. Clause (5) (a) provides for only the, cases of those
who start on a higher initial basic pay by getting additional increments or
are, given advance increments in any scale whether junior or senior. In such
contingencies how the length of service for the purposes of clause (4) (b) is
to be computed was provided for in clause (5) (b). The directions given in that
clause are that the length of service in the scale in which he is and in which
he got an increment or increments either at the initial start or by special
promotion should be that which he would have taken to reach the basic pay which
he would draw on 31st January 1950 with the initial start. The condition
precedent to the applicability of the directions in this clause is the receipt
of increments or increment by way of special promotion. An increment is in the
same scale while a promotion is from one scale to a higher scale. A promotion
from a lower grade to a higher grade though both the grades may be in the same
cadre is not an increment or increments by way of special promotion. The use of
the word 'special' would itself show that what is contemplated is advance
increments in the same grade. What is sought to be taken into account by the
Award is the actual service of the workman or where he has been given
increments in the same scale he is sought to be compensated by giving him a
corresponding advantage in the new scale. This is sought to be effected by
taking into account the increment or increments earned in the cadre in
computing the length of service under clause (4) (b). As the 2nd respondent did
not get any increment or increments in the existing scale which was Grade I
either at the initial start or by way of special promotion, the actual service
in the cadre has to be computed for the purposes of clause (4) (b). The words
'same cadre' in that clause as explained earlier would refer to both Grade IT
and Grade 1. The actual service in both the 10-LI208SuPCI/72 138 grades will
alone be considered for giving him an increment for every three years of
service which in his case works out to one increment in respect of his 3
from 13-1-47 to 31-1-50. Even if the initial.
increment of Rs. 4/in Grade II which was given to him for being proficient in
the working of a machine is taken into account under clause: (5) (b) that would
add one more year to the three years of actual service rendered .by him but
that does, not give him any further advantage. He will, only be entitled to one
increment under clause (4) (b). In the result we. hold that the 2nd respondent
has to be fitted in the new scale on a basic pay of Rs. 148/and on that basis
the emoluments to which he would be entitled will have to be worked out. We
accordingly direct the Labour Court to give the necessary direction in this
The appeal is,, therefore, allowed and the
judgment and decree of the High Court affirming the Award of the Labour Court
is set aside but in the circumstances, without costs.
G.C. Appeal allowed.