http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

                                        NON-REPORTABLE

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6578 OF 2002

Andhra Bank thro Reg. Manager, Visakha     .....Appellant

                   Versus

I.T.- cum- Labour Court & Anr.            .....Respondents

                   JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1.   This appeal by special leave arises out of the following

facts.

2.   The Central Government vide its order dated 1st July,

1971 declared Vishakhapatnam as a Group "A" city.           As a

consequence of the aforesaid declaration, the staff    of the

appellant bank claimed certain additional benefits such as

house accommodation, house rent allowance etc. While some

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

                                 2

of the other nationalized banks extended the benefits to their

employees, the Andhra Bank declined to do so on the plea,

inter alia, that it was running into huge losses and was unable

to meet the additional burden.              These differences led to

protracted    conciliation   proceedings       before    the   Assistant

Labour Commissioner, Vishakhapatnam, but no concrete

solution was arrived at. The Central Government thereupon

referred     the   dispute   to       the   Industrial   Tribunal    for

adjudication.      The respondent management i.e. present

appellant filed a written statement before the Industrial

Tribunal questioning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to

entertain the reference and further clarifying that on account

of several awards such as the Shastri Award, the Desai Award

and several bipartite settlements arrived at between the Bank

and its employees from time to time, there was no obligation

on the bank to give the benefits arising out of the declaration

dated 1st July, 1971. The Industrial Tribunal held that there

were two points for consideration:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

                             3

          1. Whether the Tribunal had the      jurisdiction to entertain the reference? and;

         2. Whether the management of Andhra      Bank was justified in denying the enhanced      rate of House Rent Allowance applicable to      project area to its award staff?

3.         The Tribunal held that as per the legal position the

Industrial Tribunal was competent to entertain the reference.

On point No.2 the Court observed that the Andhra Bank was

paying house rent to different categories of employees with a

ceiling of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 550/- and as the attempts at

conciliation had failed on account of the dilatory tactics on the

part of the Bank, the employees had absolutely no remedy but

to approach the Tribunal for the redressal of their claim. The

Tribunal in conclusion observed as under:

         "It can be taken judicial notice that the           State Government is paying 20% HRA to           the employees subject to a maximum of           Rs.1000/- When other banks are paying           money towards house rent allowance           where quarters are not provided the           denial of house rent allowance at the           enhanced rent by Andhra Bank to project           Area Group "A" cannot be said justified in           the circumstances stated above. As seen

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

                   4

from the annexure, the Union Bank of India of Vishakhapatnam has opted to pay or make housing accommodation to the award staff at Vishakhapatnam w.e.f. 24.06.92. In the said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the award staff of Andhra Bank i.e. (Clerical, Sub-Staff) would be entitled to house rent allowance at 20% of the basic pay as is provided in the case of the State Government employees in Group "A" project area like Vishakhapatnam.       The reference was registered as L.D., in the month of August,      1992.        In     the     said circumstances, the petitioner, Andhra Bank Award Staff Employees’ Union’s claim is justifiable.      The denial of enhanced rate of house rent allowance applicable to project area ‘ A’ to its award staff by the management of Andhra Bank is not justifiable. The point is answered accordingly.

     In the result an award is passed in favour of the petitioner, Andhra Bank Award Staff Union and against the respondent management situated at Vishakhapatnam,        Hyderabad,    Head Office (I) directed to consider payment of 20% of HRA to project area of Group ‘A’ at   Vishakhapatnam        on   par   with Government employees subject to a maximum of Rs. 1000/- however if housing accommodation is provided by the Andhra Bank, 10% of the basic pay shall be deducted for the concerned individual and the HRA calculated at 20% shall be surrendered by the concerned employee, I(a) or as is paid by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

                             5

         the other bank’s employee referred in the           annexure of the claim statement, (II) it           shall be effected from December, 1992           and (III) the award shall be implemented           by the management of Andhra Bank           within a month after receipt of the award           by the management".

4.   The award of the Tribunal was challenged by the Andhra

Bank by way of a Writ Petition in the Andhra Pradesh High

Court. The High Court in its judgment dated 13th April, 1998

first noted the facts of the case and observed that the

reference made to the Tribunal (i.e. on point No.1) was

justified and in order and on point No.2        which was the

material question observed as under:

         "Regarding point No.2, the Tribunal took           into consideration, the population of the           Vishakhapatnam City, facilities available,           particularly availability of residential           accommodation, the status of "Award           Staff", facilities given to the staff of the           type in other Banks and held that the           denial of House Rent Allowance, as           incorrect and unjust.

              The order of the Tribunal is a well           considered one and there is no illegality           or irregularity in the impugned order.           Hence, the writ petition is liable to be           dismissed".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

                            6

5.   Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal and the

judgment of the High Court, the Andhra Bank is before us in

appeal.

6.   Mr. Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

has very fairly submitted that the conclusion drawn by the

Tribunal and the High Court on point No.1 were not being

challenged in this Court but the findings on point No.2 were

clearly wrong inasmuch as that despite the plea of the Bank

that the declaration of 1st July, 1971 made by the Central

Government was inapplicable to the Bank in view of several

awards as well as bipartite settlements between the Bank and

its employees yet no finding whatsoever had been recorded on

this aspect by the Tribunal and this submission had also been

brushed aside by the High Court in a very casual manner.

The learned counsel for the respondent has, however,

submitted that the two forums below having exercised their

discretion in favour of the employees who had been fighting

for their cause for almost 30 years, the orders should not be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

                             7

interfered with more particularly as all other banks had

accepted and accorded the benefits to their employees under

the declaration dated 1st July, 1971.

7.   We have considered the arguments of the learned

counsel for the parties. It is true, as has been contended by

the learned counsel for the appellant, that both the Tribunal

as well as the High Court have ignored the vital aspect of the

matter i.e. the effect of the awards and settlements arrived at

between the management of the bank and its employees and

their effect thereon in determining their inter-se rights and

obligations.   The Tribunal has completely ignored this basic

issue and the High Court has also given short shrift thereto.

We are of the opinion that this is the crucial matter in the

dispute raised by the employees.        We accordingly allow this

appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and award of

the Industrial Tribunal on point No.2 and remand the case to

the latter for a fresh decision in accordance with law in the

background of the awards and settlements between the bank

and its employees vis-‘-vis the declaration of 1st July, 1971. In

the light of the fact that the matter has been pending in one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

                            8

forum or the other for the last two decades, we would request

the Industrial Tribunal to take a decision in the matter within

six months from the date of supply of a certified copy of this

judgment to the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.

                                   ................................. J.                                     (TARUN CHATTERJEE)

                                     .................................J.                                      (HARJIT SINGH BEDI) New Delhi Dated: May 9, 2008