http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.  SELVARAJ DANIEL

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/12/1963

BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) WANCHOO, K.N.

CITATION:  1966 AIR 1654            1964 SCR  (3) 280

ACT: Review  Application-No  error in  disposing  appeal-  Review fails-Sastry  Award, Para 292-Industrial Disputes Act,  1947 (14 of 1947), s. 33(c)(2).

HEADNOTE: The application for review arose out of a judgment passed by this  Court  it, Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1962.   The  appeal arose out of an application filed by a workman of the  State Bank under s.33(c)(2) of the industrial Disputes Act  before the  Labour Court.  He was appointed as a clerk in the  Bank on December 14, 1953.  He complained that ’the Bank had  not paid  him  the increment on the basis of the  Sastry  Award. His  case was that he was entitled under the award  to  have his annual increment in December each year.  The case of the Bank  was  that on the basis of the award  the  workman  was entitled  to get his annual increment in each year on  April 1. On these facts it was held that the workman would get the benefit of  281 the  new scales of pay from the very day of his  appointment i.e. from December 14, 1953.  Thus the appeal of the workman was allowed.  Hence the review. Held that (i) this application failed as this Court did  not commit  any error in disposing of the appeals. (ii) in  para 292  of  the Sastry Award special directions were  given  as regards the adjustment into the pay scale of the workmen who had joined the service of the Bank after January, 1950,  but in  their  case nothing was said as to the date  from  which future  increments  would take effect.   The  necessary  and inevitable consequence of the absence of any such  direction in  the  matter is that future increments would be  on  that date  of  the year when the workman was appointed.   On  the facts  of this case it was held that  the  appellant-workman would get the increments under the new scale on December 14, each year.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. Re.  C. A.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

No. 33 of 1963. Petition for Review of this Court’s judgment dated April 22, 19631, in Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1962. C.   K.  Daphtary, Attorney-General for India,  H.N.  Sanyal Solicitor-General  of  India, H.L. Anand, Das Gupta  and  V. Sagar, for the appellant. M K. Ramamurthy, R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and D. P.  Singh, for the respondent. 1963.  December 19.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J.-This application for review of a judgment given by  us on April 22 this year is by the Bank, which  was  the respondent in the appeal. The appellant who had been appointed a clerk in the Bank  on December 14, 1953, made an application under s. 33 (b)(2) of the  Industrial  Disputes  ,Act, before  the  Labour  Court, Delhi.   He complained that in applying to him the award  of the Sastry 282 Tribunal  in  the dispute between certain  banks  and  their workmen  as modified by the Labour Appellate  Tribunal,  the Bank had proceeded on the basis that under it the  appellant was  entitled  to get his annual increment in each  year  on April  1. According to the appellant, he was entitled  under the  award  to have his annual increment  in  December  each year,  Accordingly, he prayed that the benefit of  which  he was  being  deprived  by the Bank  should  be  computed  and directed to be paid to him.  At the hearing of the appeal it was contended before us on behalf of the appellant that on a proper interpretation of para. 292 of the Sastry Award which deals  with the question of adjustment of clerks already  in service into the scale of pay fixed by the award, he  should get  his increments on December 14, every year.  The  Bank’s contention  was that increments had been rightly given  from April 1. We did not however examine para. 292 as it appeared to  us  that when the appellant was first appointed  by  the Bank  on December 14, 1953 the appointment was on the  scale of pay as fixed by the Sastry Award.  There was,  therefore, in our opinion, no question of adjustment.  We held that  on those  terms  of appointment he was entitled to the  pay  as claimed  by  him in his application.  In this  view  we  set aside the order of the Labour Court, Delhi, which had rejec- ted  the  appellant’s application and computed  the  sum  to which  the  appellant was entitled under the  award  at  Rs. 146/- plus dearness allowance. In asking us to review this judgment it is submitted by  the learned Attorney-General who appeared for the Bank, that  it was an error to think that Daniel’s first appointment was on the pay scale as fixed by the Sastry Award.  He pointed  out that the Labour Appellate Tribunal which decided the appeals from  the  award  of the Sastry  Tribunal  gave  a  definite direction  in para. 401 of its judgment that  the  Appellate Tribunal’s decision as to pa  283 scales,  allowances  and provident fund  contributions  will start  from April 1, 1954.  This, according to  the  learned Attorney-General,  supersedes  the direction by  the  Sastry Tribunal  that  the award will come into force on  April  1, 1953.   When  it was pointed out that the  decision  of  the Appellate  Tribunal  was given long  after  the  appellant’s appointment  and  so  it might well be that  the  clerk  was appointed  on  the scale under the Sastry  Award  which  had already  come into force on April 1, 1953,  learned  Counsel submitted  that  the operation of the award as  to  the  pay scale had. been stayed soon after the, award was  pronounced

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

and  long  before  December 14, 1953.   We  find  it  stated however  in  para.  42 of the  Labour  Appellate  Tribunal’s decision that A and B Class Banks had not filed any  appeals against the wage structure.  The reason is not far to  seek. This  award  had  been  preceded by the  award  of  the  Sen Tribunal  that  was published on August 12, 1950.   The  Sen Award  was  declared void by the Supreme Court on  April  9, 1951.   The Sen Tribunal gave the clerks for A and  B  Class Banks the following scales of pay Class A Banks Class I areas.  Rs. 96-6-132-7-174-9 -190-205-9-250-10-290 Class II areas.  Rs. 82-5-112-6-148-7-162-172- 8-212-9-248 Class III areas. Rs. 70-4-94-5-124-6- 136-145-7-180--8-212 Class  B Banks Class I areas Rs. 92--6-128-7-170-8-186-200 -9-245-10-285 284 Class II areas Rs. 78-5-108 -6 -144-7-158-167-8-207-9- 243 Class III areas Rs. 66 4-90-5-120-6-132-140-7-175-8-207 The  award  of the Sastry Tribunal in this matter  was  less favourable to the clerks.  It gave the following scales:- Class A Banks Area I Rs. 85-5-100-6-112-7-140-8164-9 -245-10-265-15-280 Area II Rs. 73-4-.85 -5-100-6-112-7-140-8-164-9-245 Area III Rs. 66-3-69-4-85-5-100-6112-7-140-8-164- 9-227 Class B Banks Area I Rs. 73-4-85-100-6-112-7-140-8-164-9-245 Area II Rs. 66 -3-69 -4-85-100-6-1127- 140-8-164-9-227 Area III Rs. 57-3-69-4-85-5-100-6112-7-140-8-164-9--200 It  was in these circumstances that the A and B Class  Banks were  content to accept the award of the Sastry Tribunal  as regards  the wage structure and did not appeal;  though  the workmen being dissatisfied with the wage scale as awarded by the  Sastry Tribunal appealed against it.  It does not  seem to us unreasonable to think that having accepted the  Sastry Award  on  wage structure the Bank-an A Class Bank  -  would make its appointment after April 1, 1953  285 on  those  scales or pay.  It has to be mentioned  that  the appointment letter is not on the record. We are therefore still inclined to think that the  appellant Daniel was appointed by the Bank on December 14, 1953 on the pay scale as fixed by the Sastry Tribunal.  In any case, the Bank has not been able to satisfy us that any error was made in  disposing  of  the appeal on  the  basis  that  Daniel’s appointment  was  on the pay scale as fixed  by  the  Sastry Award.   This  is  sufficient  to  dispose  of  the   review application. As,  however,  arguments  were  addressed  to  us  in   this application  as  to  what  the  position  would  be  if  the appellant  had not been appointed on the pay scale as  fixed by  the  Sastry  Award and his pay had  to  be  adjusted  in accordance  with the provisions of para. 292, we propose  to give our decision on that point as well. The  question of adjustment to the new pay scales  formed  a distinct  item -Item No. 12-in the Government  Order  making the  reference to the Sastry Tribunal.  This was dealt  with in  Chapter XIII of the award in four sections.   Section  I sets  out the different contentions raised by  the  employer and the workmen’s Counsel.  Thus, after mentioning that  the employees  generally  asked for point to  point  adjustment, i.e.,  placing  of each employee at that stage  in  the  new scale  to which he would have risen by reason of the  length of  his service if he had entered service on the new  scale, the Tribunal stated that for the reasons given in paras. 113 to 117 of the Sen Award it agreed with the conclusion of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Sen  Tribunal  that  a compromise between  the  two  methods advocated by the parties should be adopted.  After a general discussion  of  the  arguments in paras.  285  to  291,  the Tribunal proceeded to give concrete directions in para.  292 dealing with the matter in six 286 sub-paragraphs,  as regards workmen who entered the  service of  the Bank before January 31, 1950; one sub-para.  was  as regards workmen who joined service of the bank after January 31,  1950; seven more sub-paras. 8 to 14 laid  down  general rules applicable to all workmen whether appointed before  or after January 31, 1950. This  scheme of adjustment was maintained by  the  Appellate Tribunal with the modification that 31st January 1953 in the Award  was substituted by "31st January 1954 and 1st  April, 1953 was substituted by title words 1st April, 1954.  Clause (d) of sub-para. 4 was deleted and in its place sub-para 4 (A)  was substituted which ran thus:-               "After adjustments are made in accordance with               the  directions  given, three  further  annual               increments  in  the new scale  will  be  added               thereto  for service for the three years  1951               to  1953.   In addition, the workmen  will  be               entitled to draw his normal increment for 1954               on  the 1st of April 1954.   Thereafter,  each               succeeding year’s annual increment shall  take               effect  as  and  from the 1st  April  of  that               year."               For workmen appointed before January 31,  1950               there  was  thus  a  definite  direction  that               succeeding year’s annual increment shall  take               effect from April 1, of that year.               Sub-paragraph  7 dealing with the workmen  who               joined  service  after January 31,  1950  runs               thus:-               "The  workmen  shall be fitted  into  the  new               scale  of  pay on a point to  point  basis  as               though  it had been in force since  he  joined               the  service  of the Bank, provided  that  his               adjusted  basic pay is not less than  what  it               would be under a point to point adjustment  on               the corresponding "preSen" scale."  287 It is important to notice that in this provision as  regards the workmen who joined service of the Bank after January 31, 1950,  no direction has been given as regards the date  from which annual increments should take effect.  Nor can we find anything  in  the  remaining seven  sub-paras.  laying  down generally  the rules’ any directions whatsoever  to  justify the  plea that the future increments of workmen  who  joined service of the Bank after January 31, 1950, would start from April  1,  of the year.  The provision in para 12  that  the adjusted  pay  shall  have effect from  April  1,  1954  has nothing  to do with the commencement of  future  increments. The  reason  why such a direction was given as  regards  the workmen   who entered the service of the Bank before January 31, 1950 and none was given as regards  workmen  who  joined after  that  date  appears to be  clear.   For  workmen  who entered  the  service of the Bank before  January  31,  1950 detailed  provisions for fitting them into the  scales  were made  including  the provisions for increments.  It  was  in view’  of this apparently that it was thought  necessary  to indicate  the  time  from  which  further  increments  would commence.  As the Tribunal brought the new scales into force with effect from 1953 the direction that logically  followed

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

was that each succeeding year’s annual increment would  take effect  as  and from April 1, of that year.   The  Appellate Tribunal  decided  to  adjust the pay up to  April  1,  1954 instead of’ April 1, -1953.  But that did not change   the logical position that each succeeding year’s increment would take effect as and from April 1 of that year. The  above considerations had no application to the  workmen who were directed to be fitted into the new scale of pay  on a point to point basis as though it had been in force  since they joined the service of the Bank.  On the basis that  the new scale was in force at the date when the workmen 288 joined  the service of the Bank there can be no escape  from the conclusion that the increments as provided in that scale would  take  effect  from the anniversary  of  the  date  of appointment. It  is unnecessary for us to consider here why  the  workmen who  joined the service of the Bank after January 31,  1950, were not being given increments in the same way as those who had  entered the service before that date.  Some  indication is  given  in the Tribunal’s observations that it  would  be proper to let bygones be bygones and there should be neither retrospective adjustment of pay or allowances actually  paid nor  further  claims  for  more than  what  has  been  given already.  Whatever  the  reason be  the  fact  remains  that special directions were given as regards the adjustment into the pay scale of the workmen’ who had joined the service  of the Bank after January, 1950, and in their case nothing  was said as to the date from which future increments would  take effect.   The  necessary and inevitable consequence  of  the absence  of any such direction in the matter is, as we  have already  indicated, that future increments would be on  that date of the year when the workman was appointed. We have thus reached the conclusion that even on application of  the  rules  of  adjustment into the  new  scale  on  the assumption   that   such  adjustment  was   necessary,   the appellant-workman  would  be entitled to the relief  he  had asked for. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs. Review application dismissed.  289