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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1030  of  2001

PETITIONER: REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGIONAL LABOUR COMMNR. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/02/2001

BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil.

JUDGMENT:

D.P.MOHAPATRA, J.

Leave granted. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   The  controversy  raised in this appeal relates  to  the question  whether  certain part-time sweepers serving  under the  Bank  of  Rajasthan   Limited,  appellant  herein,  are entitled  to scale of wages or only fixed wages .   From the materials available on record it is clear that according to  the settlement arrived at between the management of  the Bank  and the Union representing the workmen those part-time sweepers  who were working for more than six hours in a week were  entitled  to the benefit of scale of wages  and  the sweepers rendering service for less than six hours in a week were to receive fixed wages.

   On a dispute raised by the General Secretary of the Bank Workers  Union   Respondent No.4, the  Central  Government referred  the  following dispute to the Industrial  Tribunal for adjudication :

   Whether  the action of Zonal Manager, Bank of Rajasthan Limited,  Zonal Office, New Delhi, in not giving the  salary to  all  the  nine  employees named  below,  employed  in  8 different  branches  of  the bank as part time  sweepers  is legal  and  valid ?  If not, to what relief the workmen  are entitled to ?

   1.Smt.Khajani Devi          2. Smt.Ramo Devi     3.  Smt.Saroj               4. Smt.  Dhanpati     5.  Sh.Jai Bhagwan          6.Smt.Kamlesh Devi     7.Smt.Vinod                 8 Smt. Sumitra Devi.     9. Smt. Chander Kala

   The   Industrial   Tribunal  disposed   of   the   case, I.D.No.38/91  by the Award dated 26th December, 1994, on the@@                      JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ following terms :@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

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

   Both  the parties had agreed for inspection of the site in  order  to ascertain the number of working hour.  On  the basis of the inspection report the Chart Ex.M-1 was filed by the  management  and  the workmen union accepted  the  Chart Ex.M-1  and  stated that the claim for rest of the money  be dismissed.   The  Management Representative also  agreed  to this.   In  view  of this situation it is ordered  that  the payment according to the Chart Ex.M-1 be made to the workmen and, their claim for rest of the amount/points is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs of the dispute.

   Feeling  aggrieved by the Award the appellant filed C.W. No.2235/98  and  C.M.No.3635/98 before the Delhi High  Court which  were  disposed  of by the single Judge by  the  Order dated  2.9.1999,  confirming the Award with  a  modification regarding  the award of interest.  The operative portion  of the Order reads:

   In  view of the above, the impugned award does not call for any interference/judicial review as far as merits of the award  is concerned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India except to the extent of the grant of 12% interest.  In view  of the above, the impugned award is set aside/modified to  the  extent of the grant of 12% interest.  Rest  of  the award does not call for any judicial review.  The petitioner shall  comply with the modified award as above within  eight weeks from today."

   Against the said order of the single Judge the appellant filed  an  appeal, L.P.A.No.483/1999 which was dismissed  by@@            JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ the  Division  Bench  by   Judgement/Order  dated  4.11.1999@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ holding  inter  alia that from the papers on record  it  was clear  that  the respondents were putting in work  for  more than  one  hour  per day, and therefore, they  were  rightly given  the  benefit  by the  Central  Government  Industrial Tribunal.   The present appeal filed by the Bank is directed against the said Judgment/Order.

   In  the  Order dated 9.5.2000 this Court  while  issuing notice  confined the question to be examined to whether the@@         JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Tribunal  was justified in awarding back wages in favour  of@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJ the  workmen  Mrs.  Dhanpati Devi and Jai Bhagwan  from  the date of their respective appointments.

   It  was  not  disputed before us  that  the  controversy raised  in  the present proceeding is confined only  to  the aforementioned  two  workmen.  The question is whether  they are  entitled  to  back wages from the respective  dates  of their  appointments or from any other subsequent date.  From the facts noted in the preceding paragraphs it is clear that the dispute regarding the claim of scale wages was decided by  the  Industrial  Tribunal by the Award  passed  on  26th December,  1994.   The Award was passed on determination  of the  question  whether these workmen were rendering  service for  more than six hours in a week.  On the materials placed before  it the Tribunal accepted the case of the Union  that the workmen concerned were infact rendering service for more than  six  hours  a  week  and  rejected  the  case  of  the management to the contrary.

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

   In  the facts and circumstances of the case discussed in the preceding paragraphs it is our view that the calculation of the back wages on the basis of the entitlement as held in the  award  should be made from the date of the  award  i.e. 26th  December,  1994.   The  Award passed  by  the  Central Government  Industrial  Tribunal  as confirmed by  the  High Court  stands  modified to this extent only.  The appeal  is disposed of on the above terms.  No cost.