http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: M.   SELVARAJ DANIEL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/04/1963

BENCH:

ACT: Industrial  Dispute-Sastry Award-From which  date  increment will  be  given-In the case of person after  January,  1950- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s.33(c)(2).

HEADNOTE: The appellant was appointed as a clerk in the State Bank  of India  on December 14, 1953.  He made an  application  under s.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the  Labour Court.  He prayed before the Labour Court that he was  enti- tled to Rs. 146/- plus dearness allowance as the benefit  to which  he was entitled under the Sastry Award but which  had not  been paid.  The case of the appellant was that  he  was entitled under the Sastry Award to have his annual increment in December each year- as he was appointed on December,  14, 1953.   The  case of the Bank was that on the basis  of  the Sastry  Award the appellant was entitled to get  his  annual increment  in each year on April 1. The respondent raised  a preliminary  objection  that the question in regard  to  the increment  of  the  appellant could not  be  decided  in  an application under s.33(c) (2) 276 of  the  Act.  The Labour Court  rejected  this  preliminary objection  but  on  merits accepted the case  of  the  Bank. Hence the appeal. Held  that under s.37(c)(2) of the Industrial  Disputes  Act the Labour Court has got jurisdiction to decide on an exami- nation of an award or settlement whether or not the  workman is entitled to the benefits claimed by him.  The preliminary objection  must  therefore  be held  to  have  been  rightly rejected by the Labour Court. (2)  that  para  292  of the Sastry  Award  dealt  with  the question  of  fitting the existing staff  into  the  revised scales  of pay.  Persons who joined the service of the  Bank after the date when the new scales came into force would not be  governed by para 292 of the award for the simple  reason that  they  were  not "existing staff" of  the  Bank.   Such workmen would come straight into the revised scales of  pay. Thus, the present appellant appointed on December 14,  1953, would get the benefit of the new scales of pay from the very date  of his appointment.  In consequence, he would get  the increments under the new scale on December 14, each year.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1962. Appeal  by special leave from the order dated  December  11, 1961,  of  the  Central Government Labour  Court,  Delhi  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

L.C.A. No. 605 of 1961. M.   K.  Ramamurtthi,  R.  K. Garg, D. P. Singh  and  S.  C. Aggarwala, for the appellant. H.   N.  Sanyal,  Solicitor-General of India.,  H.L.  Anand, Vidya Sagar and B. C. Das Gupta, for the respondent. 1963.  April 22.  The judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS  GUPTA J.-The appellant was appointed as a clerk in  the State  Bank of India, the respondent before us, on  December 14, 1953.  At the time of  277 appointment  his  salary  was  Rs. 95/-  per  month  with  a dearness  allowance  of Rs. 50/-.  The Sastry Award  in  the disputes between certain banking companies and their workmen as  modified  by  the labour Appellate  Tribunal  was  given statutory   force  by  the  Industrial   Disputes   (Banking Companies)   Decisions  Act,  1955.   In  applying  to   the appellant  this award which is admittedly applicable to  him the bank 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, however, he is entitled under  the  award to have his annual increment  in  December each  year.   On December 14, 1960, the  appellant  made  an application  under s. 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial  Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Delhi, praying that the benefit under the award of which he is being deprived by the bank by the  alleged error in its implementation should be  computed and  directed to be paid to him.  A schedule was annexed  to the  application purporting to show that on the  basis  that the  annual increment has to be allowed on December  14,  of each year and not on April, 1, the appellant was entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 146/- plus dearness allowance. In resisting this application the Bank raised a  preliminary objection that the question whether or not the appellant was entitled  to  the benefits as alleged by him  could  not  be raised or decided in an application under s. 33 (c) (2).  On the merits the bank pleaded that it had acted in  accordance with the terms of the Sastry Award in allowing increments on the 1st April of each year. The Labour Court rejected the preliminary objection but held on  the  merits that the annual increment of  the  appellant fell  due  from  after April 1, 1954, and  on  April  1,  in succeeding  years.   Accordingly,  the  Court  rejected  the application. 278 Against  this order of rejection this appeal has been  filed by special leave of this court. Before  us the appellant contends that the Labour Court  has erred in thinking that tinder the award annual increments to workmen appointed after January 31, 1950 and before the  new scales were brought into force, fell due on April 1, of each year, starting from April 1, 1954. The respondent in addition to supporting the decision of the Labour Court on merits further contended that the Court  had wrongly  rejected  the preliminary objection raised  by  the bank. The  scope of s. 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial  Disputes  Act has been elaborately considered by us in the Central Bank of India  Ltd.  v. P.S. Rajagopalan (1), and  we  have  decided there  that the Labour Court has got jurisdiction to  decide on  an examination of an award or settlement whether or  not the workman is entitled to the benefits claimed by him.  The preliminary  objection must therefore be held to  have  been rightly rejected by the Court.  It is necessary therefore to decide the appellant’s contention that the Labour Court  had erred in its decision on the merits.

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

The appellant’s case in the written statement was that under the Sastry Award his pay had to be fixed in accordance  with the  directions in cl. 7 of para 292 but that the  bank  had wrongly fixed his pay on the same basis as the employees who entered  service of the respondent before January 31,  1950. He claimed that if his pay had been fixed in accordance with cl. 7 of para 292 his annual increment would have fallen due on  December 14, of each year and not April 1, each year  as calculated by the bank.  The bank contended however that  as the adjusted salary would have effect under para. 292 (1)  [1964] Vol, 3 S. C. R. 140.  279 from  April  l,’1954 the increments were  rightly  given  on April  1,  of each year, after April 1,  1954.   The  Labour Court  considered  the appellant’s petition and  four  other petitions together and disposed of these by the same  order. It  may  be  mentioned that in  other  four  petitions,  two persons  were appointed on February 24, 1950, one  on  March 15,  1951 and one on June 1, 1953, while the  appellant,  as already stated, was appointed on December 14, 1953.  In  all the  cases the Labour Court accepted the  bank’s  contention based  on  para. 292 (12) which after  modification  by  the Labour  Appellate  Tribunal says : "The adjusted  pay  shall have  effect from April 1, 1954." The Court was  of  opinion that  this rule should apply to all persons appointed  after January 31, 1950 but before April 1, 1954. It is necessary to notice that para. 292 of the award  dealt with  the  question of fitting the existing staff  into  the revised  scales  of  pay.  The revised scales  of  pay  were brought into operation under para 627 with effect from April 1, 1953.  The award, it may be mentioned, was signed by  the members of the Tribunal between March 5, and March 20, 1953. It is easy to see that persons who joined the service of the bank  after  the date when the new scales  came  into  force would  not  be governed by para. 292 for the  simple  reason that  they  were  not "existing staff" of  the  bank.   Such workmen would come straight into the revised scales of  pay. Thus,  the present appellant appointed on December 14,  1953 would get the benefit of the new scales of pay from the very date  of his appointment In consequence., he would  get  the increments  under the new scale on December 14 of each  year and would thus he entitled to payment of Rs. 100/- per month from  December 14,1954 to December l3, 1955 at the  rate  of Rs.  106  per month from December 14, 1955 to  December  13, 1956  and  so on, as claimed by him in the schedule  to  his petition.  He is therefore 280 entitled to Rs. 146/- plus dearness allowance as the benefit to  which he is entitled- under the Sastry Award  but  which has not been paid. The  Labour  Court was, therefore, wrong  in  rejecting  the appellant’s petition. We  allow  the  appeal, set aside the order  of  the  Labour Court,  Delhi, and compute the sum to which he  is  entitled under  the Award at Rs. 146/- plus dearness  allowance.   No order as to costs.                       Appeal allowed.