D.S.Sinha, J. - (1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated May 23, 1985 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, the respondent No. 1, under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act.
(2.) The relevant facts, as they emerge from the pleadings of the parties, are that Harinder Mohan Singh, the respondent No. 2, was working as a Cashier in the Charbagh Branch of the State Bank of India at Lucknow and he was discharged from service with effect from May 14, 1973. Aggrieved by the order of discharge; dated May 14, 1973, the respondent No. 2, raised an industrial dispute which led to a Reference under Section 10 of the Act vide order of the Central Government dated March 11, 1977. During the pendency of the Reference before the Industrial Tribunal, a settlement was arrived at on May 29, 1981 which led to an award of the same date in terms of the settlement. According to the petitioner, the amount payable to the respondent No. 2 under the award came to Rs. 1,12,297/41 and the respondent No. 2 was paid an amount of Rs. 68,488/41 after deducting at source the income tax payable on the amount due to the respondent No. 2 under the award which was Rs. 43,809/-. The respondent No. 2 felt dis-satisfied with the payment made to him. He thought that he was also entitled to the payment of bonus, banker's contribution towards the Provident Fund and the gratuity besides certain amount of interest. He, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 through an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. By means of its order dated May 23, 1985, the respondent No. 1 has upheld the claim of the respondent No. 2. Hence, this petition.
(3.) The court has heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.K. Yog, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, at length and in detail. Sri Sinha contends that the respondent No. 1 has committed an error apparent on the face of record by including the sums of bonus, banker's contribution towards the provident fund and gratuity in the computation of wages payable to the respondent No. 2 under the award dated May 29, 1981, in as much as the expression 'wages' cannot be taken to include bonus, banker's contribution towards the provident fund and the gratuity. Further contention of Sri Sinha is that the respondent No. 1 fell into error in directing the payment of interest in respect of the amount deducted by the Bank at source and paid to the Income Tax Department. In answer to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. A.K. Yog, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, submits that, in fact, the parties to the award dated May 29, 1981 had understood and intended that while computing the wages payable to the respondent No. 2, the bonus, banker's contribution towards the provident fund and gratuity would also be included, and that the Bank had wrongly deducted the amount of Income-tax causing loss of interest to the respondent No. 2 and as such the respondent No. 2 was liable to be compensated by the Bank by paying interest.;