STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. M SELVARAJ DANIEL
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
DAS GUPTA, J, -
(1.)THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.)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 14/12/1953, 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 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 14/12/1953 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 rejected the appellant's application and computed the sum to which the appellant was entitled under the award at Rs. 146.00 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 scales, allowances and provident fund contributions will start from 1/04/1954. This, according to the learned Attorney-General, supersedes the direction by the Sastry tribunal that the award will come into force on 1/04/1953. 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 1/04/1953, 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 14/12/1953. 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 12/08/1950. The Sen Award was declared void by the Supreme court on 9/04/1951. The Sen tribunal gave the clerks for A and B Class Banks the following scales, of pay:
The award of the Sastry tribunal in this matter was less favourable to the clerks. It gave the following scales:
(3.)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 1/04/1953 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 14/12/1953 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.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.