WANCHOO, J.: - (1.) THE following Judgment of the court was delivered by
(2.) THESE two appeals by special leave raise a common question as to the interpretation of paragraph 5.356 of the National Industrial tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award of June 1962 (popularly known as the Desai award) and will be dealt with together. It is unnecessary to set out the facts of the two appeals at this stage. It is sufficient to say that the respondents made applications under s. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, praying for determination and computation of the benefit to which they were entitled under the Desai award as they were not satisfied with the fixation of their pay by the appellant- bank under para 5.356. The Desai award dealt with the method of adjustment in the scales of pay fixed by it from para 5.329 onwards. It divided the employees of the banks with which it was concerned in two groups. The first group consisted of workmen who were drawing basic pay on 1/01/1962 according to scales of pay provided by the ALL-India Industrial tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award, 1953 (popularly known as the Sastry award) as modified by the Labour Appellate tribunal Decision (Bank Disputes). The second group consisted of workmen who on 1/01/1962 were employed in banks which were not governed by the provisions of the Sastry award as modified and were not thus drawing basic pay on the footing of scales of pay provided by that award. In the first case the Desai award provided that the workmen would be fitted in the new scales of pay from 1/01/1962 on stage to stage adjustment basis, i.e., workmen who were drawing basic pay at a particular stage in the time scale of the Sastry award as modified would draw basic pay at the same stage in the new scale applicable to them under the Desai award. Examples of how this would be done were given in para. 5.348 of the Desai award. As to the second group, the Desai award provided that these employees would first be fitted in the appropriate scales provided in the Sastry award as modified as on 1/01/1962 and thereafter they would be fitted in the new scales of pay provided by the Desai award as laid down in para. 5.348. Paragraph 5.356 then went on to provide how these workmen would be fitted in the Sastry award. Here again the workmen were divided into two groups, namely, those who entered service before 1/01/1959 and those who entered service on or after January 1, 1959. In the present appeals we are concerned with workmen who entered service before 1/01/1959, and the fitment of these workmen was dealt with in para. 5.356 of the Desai award, and it is this paragraph which calls for interpretation in the present appeals. We may at this stage mention that a similar question of fitment was considered by the Sastry award in para. 292 and certain provisions were made thereunder. This paragraph was considered by the Labour Appellate tribunal in appeal from the Sastry award and certain modifications were made thereunder by paras 164 and 166 of the Labour Appellate tribunal decision in appeal. Paragraph 292 as modified by the Labour Appellate tribunal decision came up for interpretation before this court in State Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Mehra. (1) As the words of para 292 of the Sastry award as modified by the Labour Appellate Decision are almost the same as the words of para. 5.356 of the Desai award, we may set out the two paragraphs in parallel columns for comparison: JUDGEMENT_1665_AIR(SC)_1966Html1.htm We are not concerned with clauses (5) and (6) of para 292 of the Sastry award or with clauses (v) and (vi) of para 5.356 of the Desai award for purposes of the dispute between the parties and have not therefore set them out. It will be seen from the above comparison of the provisions in the two awards that the substantial provisions of the Desai award are exactly the same as the provisions of the Sastry award as modified except (i) for changes necessitated by the fact that the Desai award was being given in 1962 and (ii) the provision in the Sastry award corresponding to sub cl. (d) of cl. (iv) of para 5.356 of the Desai award was separated by the Labour Appellate tribunal Decision from cl. (4) and made clause (4-A). 'We have already referred to the fact that para. 292 of the Sastry award as modified came up for consideration before this court in the case of Prakash Chand Mehra(-') and this court interpreted clauses (1) to (4-A) of the Sastry Award as modified thus :'We have therefore first to fix the basic pay in accordance with rule 4(a), and then allow annual increments in accordance with rule 4 (b). But this is subject to rules 1 and 2 above. We are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that the words 'subject to' have not the effect of making what would otherwise follow from the application of rules 4(a) and 4(b) subject to 'both the lim its' laid down in rule 2. 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 what the point-to-point adjustment would give to the workman or the maximum in the new scale.'
(3.) THE dispute between the bank and the workmen in the present ,case was this. THE bank claimed that under cl. (ii) of the Desai award, the adjusted basic pay in the new scale was not to exceed what point-to-point adjustment would give an employee on 1/01/1962. THE bank further claimed that this being the maximum permissible under cl. (ii) and cl. (iv) being subject to cl. (ii) the method of fitment provided in cl. (iv) could not give to an employee more than the maximum arrived at under cl. (ii). Thus the bank's case was that once the maximum arrived at by point-to-point adjustment as on 1/01/1962, was reached under cl. (ii), no further increments even under sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv) could be allowed. THE, workmen on the other hand claimed that they were entitled to what was provided by sub-cls. (a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) and the two increments under sub-cl. (d) and that it did not matter whether what was thus arrived at exceeded the maximum provided under cl. (ii). THE labour court has partially accepted the workmen's contention and fixed the pay of the two workmen concerned accordingly. THE bank contests the correctness of this view. We are of opinion that neither the stand taken by the bank nor the stand taken by the workmen is correct, and that the relevant clauses in para. 5.356 of the Desai award must be interpreted in the same manner as the relevant provisions in the Sastry award as modified were interpreted in Prakash Chand Mehra's case(1). In this connection it is brought to our notice that in para. 5.356 of the Desai award it was stated that the award was giving directions similar to those provided under the Sastry award as modified subject to certain changes which were considered necessary having regard to the lapse of time after coming into force of the provisions of the Sastry award as modified. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the Desai award made certain changes and therefore need not be interpreted in the same way as was done in Prakash Chand Mehra's case(1). We see no force in this submission. It is true that the Desai award said that certain changes were being made; but these changes were considered necessary having regard to the lapse of time. However, the main intention of the Desai award was also to give directions similar to those provided in the Sastry award as modified. It is true that there are some verbal changes in the Desai award; but these verbal changes are only due to lapse of time and do not affect the substance of what was provided by the Sastry award as modified. We do not agree with the case of the appellant-bank that in cl. (ii) the adjusted basic pay is to be as on 1/01/1962. We are of opinion that the adjusted basic pay in cl. (ii) has to be taken as on 1/01/1959. This follows from the fact that the workman's basic pay as on 1/01/1959 cannot be reduced and therefore when cl. (ii) speaks of adjusted basic pay it must refer to the same date as in cl. (i). Further cl. (iv) which provides for actual calculations starts with the words 'subject to rules (i) to (iii)' and therefore the actual calculations made under cl. (iv) must be subject to clauses (i) and (ii). This means in effect that the actual fixation. under sub-cls. (a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) will be subject to cl. (i) and cl. (ii). Under sub-cl. (a) of cl. (iv) a workman will be placed in the Sastry award as modified by placing him at the stage in the Sastry award scale equal to or next above his basic pay as on 1/01/1959, in the scale then in force in the bank concerned. But in view of cl. (i) this cannot be less than the actual basic pay of the workman as on 1/01/1959. Where under cl. (i) the actual basic pay as on 1/01/1959, is more than what point-to-point adjustment will give under cl. (ii), it cannot be reduced for cl. (ii) is subject to cl. (i). After this has been done the workman would be entitled to increments as provided in sub-cl. (b) read with sub-cl. (c) of cl. (iv), but this will be subject to cls. (i) and (ii) and the adjusted basic pay arrived at by giving the increments under sub-cls. (b) and (c) cannot exceed the adjusted basic pay as arrived at by point-to- point adjustment in the Sastry award as modified or the maximum of that scale or the actual basic pay as on 1/01/1959, as the case may be. Thus sub-cl. (a) is subject to cl. (i) and the basic pay to be fixed on 1/01/1959, has to be fixed by reading sub-cls. (a) of cl. (iv) and cl. (i) together. Then increments under sub-cl. (b) read with sub-cl. (c) of cl. (iv) have to be added, but this is again subject to the provisions of cls. (i) and (ii). ;