STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to quash the order of the labour court at Dhanbad, dated 22 December 1964, in an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, The petitioner is the State Bank of India and respondent 2 is one of its employees. He had joined service as a grade II clerk on 13 January 1947, the scale of pay of that grade being Rs. 70 -4 -126 -EB -130 -5 -175. On 1 January 1949, he was promoted to grade I on the scale of Ra. 100 -8 -180 -EB -10 -250. These two scales were laid down by a previous award of the industrial tribunal, popularly known as the Gupta award, which was binding between the State Bank of India and its employees. Later on there was another award, known as the Sastri award, which came into force with effect from 1 April 1954. By that award the two grades in the clerical branch were merged into one grade with the scale of Rs. 85 -5 -100 -6 -112 -7 -140 -8 -164 -9 -245 -10 -265 -15 -280. With a view to fit the existing employees into the new scale the Sastri award laid down certain Rules, which, as subsequently modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, are as follows: 292 (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. 292(4). Subject to Rules (1) to (3) a workman's basic pay in the new scale shall be fixed in the following manner:

(2.) Respondent 2 contended that by virtue of the aforesaid rules his basic pay should have been fixed at Rule 112 on 31 January 1950, that in addition to four increments for the years 1951, 1952,1953 and 1954 (viz., Rs. 7 -7 -7 -8=Rs. 29), he should also have been given three increments for the period prior to 31 January 1950, by virtue of Clause (b) of Rule 292 (4) mentioned above. He, therefore, claimed that his pay should have been fixed at Rs. 164 with effect from 1 April 1954. The State Bank of India, however, contended that he was not entitled to any increment in respect of the period prior to 31 January 1950, though ex gratia it was willing to give him one increment of Rs. 7 for that period. Thus, according to the State Bank, be was entitled to fixation of pay at Rs. 148 per month with effect from 1 April 1954. The dispute was taken up before the said labour court under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Apart from the aforesaid dispute, the bank also objected to the maintainability of the application under Section 33C (2). This point was held against the bank by the labour court, and Sri Lai Narain Sinha for the bank did not challenge that finding before us.

(3.) Thus the sole question for consideration by us now is whether the decision of the labour court to the effect that the pay of respondent 2 should be fixed at Rs. 164 per month with effect from 1 April 1954, by virtue of Sastri award (as subsequently modified) should be interfered with by this Cout. It was fairly conceded that this Court's jurisdiction is limited to an examination as to whether there is any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Sri Lai Narain Sinha urged that such an error of law was apparent from the every finding of the labour court on the subject, as will be clear from the following extract from the order of the labour court: On the other hand, the learned Counsel, Sri P. Ginwalla, for the opposite party (i.e., the State Bank), stressed the difference in the terminologies, viz., scheme, grade and cadre, and contended that efficiency bar in the same grade should be ignored but not differences between one grade and Anr. The exact significance of the aforesaid arguments is not quite intelligible and has not, in my opinion, taken away a jot or tittle from the arguments based on the provisions of the Sastri award, according to which the applicant's pay is fixed at Bs. 164.