R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) Petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated September 28, 1994 passed in Refence Case No. 129 of 1992 by the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, holding that withdrawal of additional increment to the employees of Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner Bank") was not justified.
(2.) Mr. Satish Bakshi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the award has been passed on two grounds. The first ground is that an additional annual increment was allowed to the employees of all the branches of sponsor Bank-State Bank of India in which computerisation was done or was to be done and, therefore, the employees and the petitioner Bank were entitled to parity with those employees of sponsor Bank-State Bank of India, who were working in the branches where there was no computerisation. He submitted that the second ground is that there was a violation of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "the I.D. Act"), inasmuch as no notice of change in the condition of service was given to the employees of the petitioner Bank.
(3.) Mr. Bakshi submitted that both the grounds are untenable in law. He submitted that there were 195 Gramin Bank Branches all over the country, but by mistake only in the petitioner bank, the said additional annual increment was paid, but it was withdrawn in view of the circular issued by the concerned authority of the Central Government dated December 30, 1991 - Ext. M/2 (Annexure 3) under the provision of Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). He further submitted that in such circumstance, it cannot be said there was any change in the condition of service without notice, attracting violation of Section 9-A of the I. D. Act.;