P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. - (1.) 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.70-4-126-E.B. - 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 13-1-1948 he earned an increment and his basic pay was Rs.78. On 1-1-1949 he was promoted to Grade I so that on the date of his promotion he was drawing a basic pay of Rs.100. On 1-1-1950 he earned an increment and his basic pay was Rs.108. The Sastry Award prescribed a uniform scale of pay for clerks of Grades I and II 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 disputes 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 per mensem as on 1-4-1954 with directions to the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.1,647.91 for the period from 1-4-1954 to 31-12-1961. The applicant challenged the Award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution but the High Court accepting the interpretation placed by the Labour 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 be 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 II - For workmen who entered service of the Bank before 31st January 1950- (1) The workman's basic pay as on 1st January 1950 shall not be reduced in any case. (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 new 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 Clause (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 for every four years of service up to another eight years' service and after the one increment for every five years of service. (4-A) 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 workman will be entitled to draw his normal increment for 1954 on 1st April 1954. Thereafter each succeeding year's annual increment shall take effect as and from 1st April of that year. (5) (a) Where a workman received an additional 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 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 years for which the increments have been withheld. (c) ********** (6) **********
(2.) It may be mentioned here that prior to the Award another Award known as the Sen Award was given on 12-8-1950. This latter award, however, was declared void by the Supreme Court on 9-4-1951. 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 13-1-1947 in the Calcutta Branch were Rs.70-4-126-EB-130-5-175 when he was in Grade II and Rs.100-8-180-EB-10-250 when he was promoted to Grade I. The Award as subsequently modified prescribed only one scale of pay of Rs.85-5-100-6-112-7-140-8-164-9-245-10-265-15-280 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 II and Grade I 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 a range of 17 years. In the new grade an employee took 24 years to reach the maximum. In other words, the number of years required to reach the maximum of basic pay from the initial pay in Grade II and that in the new scale was the same, namely, 24 years. The only difficulty that would present itself in the fitment of pay in the new grade was in respect of a promotion made prior to the coming into force of the new scales from Gr.II to Gr.I. 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 notionally have earned having regard to the 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 31-1-1950 in the Pre-Sen scale then in force. It is not disputed by the parties that on 31-1-1950 the 2nd respondent was drawing Rs.108/- and since 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 entitled 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
(3.) 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 31-1-1950. There is also no dispute that he had completed three years from 13-1-1947 to 31-1-1950 and on this basis he would be entitled to one increment so that the basic pay would be Rs.119/-. Under clause (4-A) 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 judgment under clauses (4) (a) and (4-A) 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 1-4-1954 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 initial stage or by way of special promotion later on in the same cadre which under clause (4) (b) must mean Grade II. 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 paragraph 292 (4) (b) because the former was only a 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 paragraph 292 (4) (b) as covering all workmen in the cadre of clerks and not different cadres, which means that both Grade II and Grade I of the pre-Sen Award are included in the same cadre and not different cadres.;