http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 20  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2218  of  1999. Appeal (civil)  2219     of  1999 Transfer Case (civil)   403      of  1999

PETITIONER: SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CO-ORD.COMMITTEE OF S.M.G.B.  EMP.UNION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/01/2001

BENCH: G.B.Pattanaik, B.N.Agarwal

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J       JUDGMENT

     PATTANAIK,J.

     South Malabar Gramin Bank and the Union of India, have filed  two civil appeals against the judgment of the  Kerala High  Court dated 25.11.1998.  The Division Bench of  Kerala High  Court by the impugned judgment, dismissed the  appeals filed  against the judgment of the learned Single Judge  and held  that  the Central Government having accepted  the  NIT Award  as  well as the report of the Equation Committee  and having  given effect to the 5th Bipartite Settlement between the  employees  of the sponsor bank and the management,  the employees  and  officers  of the Regional Rural  Banks  ipso facto  would be entitled to the revision of their wages,  as and  when  the  wages  of the  sponsor  bank  employees  get revised, pursuant to Bipartite Settlement and, therefore the subsequent  Bipartite  Settlements, namely the 6th  and  7th Bipartite  Settlements should be given effect to revise  the pay  structure of the officers and employees of the Regional Rural  Banks  also.   In  these   appeals,  apart  from  the respondents,  who had filed the writ petition in Kerala High Court,  namely  Co-ordination  Committee  of  South  Malabar Gramin  Bank Employees Union, All India Regional Rural  Bank Employees  Association,  who had filed the writ petition  in the  Karnataka High Court had applied for intervention,  All India Regional Rural Bank Officers Federation, who happen to be  the  petitioner  in Transfer Petition No.   403/99,  All India Gramin Bank Workers Organisation, who had filed a writ petition  in this Court, under Article 32 wherein order  has been  passed that writ petition would come after disposal of the  civil  appeals, had made their  respective  submissions through  different  counsel,  all   the  respondents  having supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Kerala High  Court, as upheld in appeal by the Division Bench.   It may  be noticed at this stage that the similar question  had been  raised  before the Calcutta High Court and  a  learned Single  Judge of the Calcutta High Court had dismissed those

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 20  

writ  petitions  by  judgment  dated  5.9.95  in  C.O.   No. 12653/95  and  C.O.  No.12869/95 and the appeal against  the same before the Division Bench is pending.  In the Karnataka High Court writ petition No.  17905/97 had been filed by All India  Regional  Rural Bank Employees Association and  that writ  petition  stood disposed of by judgment dated 11th  of November,  1998.  The High Court allowed the writ  petition, quashed  the  appointment  of the Committee as well  as  its Report  dated  17th May, 1997 and issued directions  to  pay salary and allowances to all the employees of Regional Rural Banks  w.e.f.   1.11.1992  in accordance with  the  pay  and allowances  and  benefits  implemented  in  respect  of  the employees  of  Nationalised  Commercial  Banks  as  per  the Memorandum of Settlement dated 14.2.1995 and as per the wage revision  given  to  those   officers  of  the  Nationalised Commercial  Banks  from 1.11.92 and 1.7.1993.   Against  the said  judgment, an appeal filed before the Division Bench is pending.

     Writ  Petitions  under Article 32 of the  Constitution had  been  filed  in  1982 and 1994 in  the  Supreme  Court, challenging the validity of Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks  Act,  1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)  on the  ground that the provision of Section 17 is ultra  vires of  Articles  14  and  16 of  the  Constitution.   The  writ petitions  had been filed by All India Gramin Bank  Workers Association  and by All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association.  The employees of the Rural Banks had all along been  making  a  grievance that in the matter of  their  pay structure,  they are entitled to get the same scale of  pay, as is available to the employees of rural banks of different nationalised commercial banks.  But since the Government did not  meet their demand, they filed the writ petitions  under Article  32,  as stated earlier.  It was prayed in the  writ petitions  that Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks  Act, be  struck  down,  as being ultra vires of Articles  14  and 16(1) of the Constitution and writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Union of India to fix the emoluments of  the Regional Rural Bank Employees in conformity with the judicial   maxim  of  Equal  pay   for  equal   work   and industry-cum-region  formula  and  bring about  parity  in emoluments  between  the employees of Regional  Rural  Banks inter se and employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks. While  these writ petitions were being heard in the  Supreme Court,  the Government of India agreed to appoint a National Industrial  Tribunal to decide the question relating to pay, salary,  other allowances and other benefits payable to  the employees  of the Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional  Rural  Banks  Act, 1976 and the  counsel  for  the petitioners  also agreed that a reference may be made to the proposed  tribunal.   This  Court, therefore  left  all  the contentions  open  and  directed the Central  Government  to refer  the dispute to the tribunal, preferably to a  retired Chief  Justice of a High Court, who will pronounce its award as  expeditiously  as possible.  In terms of  the  aforesaid orders  of  this  Court, the  Central  Government  appointed Justice S.Obul Reddi, retired Chief Justice of High Court of Andhra  Pradesh as Chairman of National Industrial  Tribunal and  referred  the  disputes  to  the  said  tribunal.   The Notification,  appointing  the  tribunal   stated  that  the decisions  of  the tribunal will be final and binding.   The tribunal  thus  appointed, passed an award  after  elaborate discussion  of the materials placed before it.  The ultimate directions  of the tribunal were that officers and employees

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 20  

of the Regional Rural Banks will be entitled to claim parity with  the officers and other employees of the sponsor  banks in  the  matter of pay scale, allowances and other  benefits and  the tribunal further directed that the aforesaid  award should  be  given effect to with effect from 1st  September, 1987.   With  regard  to equation of  posts  and  consequent fixation  of  the  new scales of pay, allowances  and  other benefits  for  officers and employees of the Regional  Rural Banks  at  par with the officers and other employees of  the comparable level in corresponding posts in sponsor banks and their  fitment into the new scales of pay as are  applicable to officers of sponsor banks, the tribunal held that it is a matter  which has to be decided by the Central Government in consultation  with  such  authorities  as  it  may  consider necessary  and  the  award, according to the  tribunal  will cover  all  the  existing Regional Rural Banks.  By  1st  of September,   1987,  the  employees   of   the   nationalised commercial  banks were getting their pay scales on the basis of  5th  Bipartite Settlement and by implementation  of  the award  of  Justice  S.   Obul Reddi, the  employees  of  the Regional Rural Banks were also given the benefit of the said 5th  Bipartite  Settlement  on the basis of  which  the  pay structure  of  the  Nationalised Commercial Banks  had  been determined.  Thereafter, when pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks were further revised in 1992 and 1997 by means of 6th and 7th Bipartite Settlements, as  there was no corresponding revision of the pay structure of  the  employees of the Regional Rural Banks, the  present litigation started which had ultimately culminated in filing of these appeals, one by Union of India and the other by the South  Malabar  Gramin  Bank Management.   Before  the  High Court,  the Bank took the stand that it is the Government of India,  who  has  to determine the salary  of  employees  of Regional  Rural Banks in terms of Section 17 of the Regional Rural  Banks  Act, 1976 and on the basis of the revised  pay structure  of  the Nationalised Commercial  Bank  Employees, pursuant to 6th and 7th Bipartite Settlements, the employees of  the Regional Rural Banks ipso facto cannot get their pay structure  changed.   It  was also stated that in  fact  the Reserve  Bank of India had appointed S.C.  Mahalik Committee to  examine  the  pay  structure of  the  employees  of  the Regional  Rural  Banks and to suggest changes therein.   The learned  Single  Judge  of  the   High  Court  came  to  the conclusion  that by the decision of the Government of  India dated  22nd February, 1991 implemented the award of  Justice S.Obul  Reddi  and thereby extended the benefits of 4th  and 5th  Bipartite Settlements and on principle having  accepted the  same, further consideration by the Government of  India or any order by the Government of India is not necessary for extending   the  benefits  of   the   subsequent   Bipartite Settlements  to  the employees and officers of the  Regional Rural  Banks  and  accordingly, the impugned  direction  was issued, which was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench.

     Mr.   P.P.Rao,  the learned senior counsel,  appearing for  the South Malabar Gramin Bank, contended before us that under  the  provisions of the Act, more  particularly  under second  proviso to Section 17(1) of the Act, it is only  the Central Government, who has been conferred with the power to determine  the  remuneration of the officers  and  employees appointed  by  the Regional Rural Bank and  for  determining such  remuneration,  the legislature has also indicated  the guidelines  and  this  being the position  the  question  of giving effect to any Bipartite settlement arrived at between

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 20  

the  employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks and  the Government  ipso facto to the remuneration structure of  the officers  and employees appointed by the Regional Rural Bank does  not arise.  According to Mr.  Rao, when the grievances and  the anomalies that existed prior to the appointment  of Justice  S.   Obul Reddi Tribunal were focussed  before  the tribunal  and  the  employees claimed the  applicability  of equal  pay  for equal work, the tribunal in  no  uncertain terms held that the said principle cannot be made applicable and yet the tribunal held that the employees of the Regional Rural  Bank  are  entitled  to claim  parity  with  the  pay structure  of  the employees of the Nationalised  Commercial Banks  and  in  fact,  directed implementation  of  the  pay structure  of  the employees of the Nationalised  Commercial Banks,  as  it stood then in the year 1987, which  had  been obtained  on  the  basis  of   the  4th  and  5th  Bipartite Settlements  and  the Government of India did implement  the said  award.  But neither the award anywhere indicated  that all  subsequent  pay  revision  of   the  employees  of  the Nationalised  Commercial  Banks  would pro  tanto  be  given effect to for determining the pay structure of the employees of  the Regional Rural Banks, nor such a direction could  be given in law as that would be contrary to the plain language of the second proviso to Sub-section(1) of Section 17 of the Act  and that would tantamount to usurping the  jurisdiction of  the  Central  Government.  According to  Mr.   Rao,  the expression  parity would not necessarily mean the same pay structure and therefore, the question of pay revision of the Regional  Rural Bank employees will have to be re-determined by  the Central Government in accordance with the guidelines stipulated  in  the  second  proviso  to  Sub-section(1)  of Section  17  and  that  in making  such  determination,  the existing  pay structure of the Nationalised commercial Banks on the basis of any subsequent Bipartite settlement would be undoubtedly  a relevant factor for the Central Government in arriving at a conclusion.  Mr.  Salve, the learned solicitor General,  appearing for the Union of India and Mr.  P.P.Rao, appearing  for  the Bank contended with vehemence  that  the financial  condition of the Regional Rural Banks is not that affluent  so  as to enable the management to offer  the  pay structure,  as  is  available  to   the  employees  of   the Nationalised  Commercial  Banks and in determining  the  pay structure  of the employees, the financial capacity as  well as  the  performance of the Bank cannot be totally  ignored, rather  the  same  should also be a germane  factor  in  the matter  of  determination.   According  to  Mr.   Rao,   the revision  of  pay  scales being a periodic exercise  in  all spheres  of  public employment and the Act having  conferred the  power  on the Union government by virtue of the  second proviso  to  Section 17(1) of the Regional Rural Banks  Act, 1976,  it  would be for the Central Government  to  exercise that  power  at  reasonable intervals,  depending  upon  the circumstances  of the case and then come to a conclusion  on consideration  of  all germane factors, as to what would  be the  pay  structure of the employees of the  Regional  Rural Banks.   Mr.  Rao also submitted that the legislature having clearly  indicated by use of the expression shall have  due regard  to  in  the second proviso to  Sub-  section(1)  of Section  17,  it  would  be   obligatory  for  the   Central Government  to  find out the pay scales of the employees  of local authorities as well as the notified area of comparable level  and  status, and in this view of the matter,  if  the contention  of  the  employees  is  accepted,  as  has  been accepted by the High Court of Kerala, it would tantamount to going   against  the  legislative   provision  and  such   a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 20  

construction is not permissible.  Mr.  Rao, very strenuously contended  that  the  findings arrived at  by  the  tribunal itself  would indicate that the tribunal never intended that as  and  when  the  pay structure of the  employees  of  the Nationalised Commercial Banks is changed on the basis of any Bipartite  Settlement,  the  same   should  ipso  facto  get reflected  by revising the pay structure of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks and in this view of the matter, the High  Court of Kerala committed serious error in issuing the impugned  directions.  Mr.  Rao, the learned senior  counsel further contended that the Regional Rural Banks are separate statutory  entities  managed by separate statutory Board  of Directors  subject to statutory controls by the Reserve Bank of India and the Govt.  of India.  On the aforesaid premises on  principle,  it cannot be held that the employees of  the Regional Rural Banks are entitled to the same scales of pay, as  are  available to the employees of the  sponsored  banks under   bipartite   settlements,     without   any   further determination  by the Govt.  of India or the Reserve Bank of India.   According  to  the learned counsel,  the  bipartite settlements  ordinarily bind the employers and employees who are parties to the same.  Since the Regional Rural Banks nor their  employees  were  parties to  such  settlements,  they cannot  claim any benefit under the settlements in question. According  to  Mr.  Rao, revision of wage structure  of  the employees  of  the  Regional  Rural Banks will  have  to  be undertaken  by  the Govt.  of India in accordance  with  the statutory  provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act and the  Court can issue mandamus to the Central Government  for exercise  of  power under Section 17, if the said power  has not  been  exercised  and in this view of  the  matter,  the Kerala  High  Court was wholly unjustified in directing  the pay  revision  of the employees, on the basis  of  bipartite settlements  arrived  at and given effect to, in respect  of the employees of the nationalised commercial bank.

     Mr.   DD.Thakur,  appearing for Respondents 1 to 3  in C.A.   No.  2218-2219/99, contended before us that the facts leading  to  the  appointment of Justice Obul  Reddi,  as  a National   Tribunal  to  decide   the  dispute  between  the employees  and  management  of  the  Regional  Rural  Banks, unequivocally  indicates  that the dispute related  to  pay, salary,  other allowances and other benefits payable to  the employees  of  the Regional Rural Banks.  The said  tribunal having  considered the dispute raised and having  determined the  same and that determination having been given effect to by  allowing  the  pay  structure of the  employees  of  the nationalised commercial banks as it stood on the date of the acceptance  of  the recommendations of the award of  Justice Obul  Reddi,  it  is only logical that as and when  the  pay structure  of  the employees of the nationalised  commercial banks  get  changed,  the same must be given  effect  to  in respect  of  the  employees  of the  Regional  Rural  Banks. According  to  Mr.  Thakur, Obul Reddi Tribunal having  held that  the employees of the Regional Rural Banks are entitled to  claim  parity  with the employees  of  the  nationalised commercial banks in the matter of pay structure, if there is no pay revision of the employees of the Regional Rural banks notwithstanding  such  revision in case of employees of  the nationalised  commercial banks, the decision of the tribunal to  maintain parity would be meaningless and the finality to the  said  decision  of the  tribunal  becomes  meaningless. Consequently,  even if the Central Government is required to exercise  its  power  under  proviso  to  Sub-section(1)  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 20  

Section  17,  then  the  same  is a  mere  clerical  act  in implementation  of the finally resolved dispute by award  of Justice  Obul  Reddi tribunal and adjudged from  this  stand point,  the  High Court was fully justified in  issuing  the impugned  direction.   Mr.  Thakur also contended  that  the power  of  the  Central  Government   under  proviso  2   to Sub-section(1)  of  Section  17  must be held  to  have  got exhausted  on  the date the Central Government accepted  the award  of Justice Obul Reddi and question of  re-determining the  remuneration  of  the employees of the  Regional  Rural Banks  would not arise, since they are entitled to a  parity with  the  remuneration  paid  to   the  employees  of   the nationalised  commercial banks.  Mr.  Thakur also urged that in  giving  effect  to  the award of  the  tribunal  and  in maintaining  the  parity between the employees of  the  RRBs with  the employees of the nationalised commercial banks, so far  as their remuneration is concerned, there can hardly be any justification to restrict the parity, only for a limited period  proximate  to  the date of the award and  not  after that.   It is contended by Shri Thakur that the parity  must be  maintained  for  all  times  to  come  and  necessarily, therefore,  as and when the remuneration of the employees of the  commercial banks is revised, pursuant to any settlement between  the employees and the management of such banks, the appropriate  authority must give effect to the same, so  far as  the employees of the Regional Rural Banks are concerned. Mr.   Thakur  urged that in fact by Government  order  dated 22nd  February,  1991, the bipartite settlement between  the management  and  employees  of the  nationalised  commercial banks,  so  far as their pay, allowances and other  benefits are  concerned,  was  given effect to and  extended  to  the employees/officers   of  the  Regional   Rural   Banks   and therefore,  there is no justification for not giving  effect to the subsequent bipartite settlement between the employees and management of nationalised commercial banks on the basis of  which the pay structure stood revised for the  employees of  the  commercial banks.  Mr.  Thakur also contended  that the  financial  capacity as well as the performance  of  the Regional  Rural  Banks had been placed before  Justice  Obul Reddi  Tribunal,  but  the tribunal positively came  to  the conclusion  that  the  said financial capacity cannot  be  a germane  factor  in  determining the pay  structure  of  the employees  of the Regional Rural Banks and then decided that there  should  be  a  parity between the  employees  of  the nationalised  commercial  banks  and the  employees  of  the Regional Rural Banks.  This being the position, it is futile for  the employer-management as well as the Govt.  of  India to  contend  that the pay structure of the employees of  the Regional  Rural  Banks  could  be  revised  only  after  due consideration  by  the  Govt.   of India  under  proviso  to Sub-section(1)  of Section 17 and after passing of any order thereunder.   According  to  Mr.  Thakur, such view  of  the matter  would  keep the dispute pending notwithstanding  the resolve  of the dispute by a tribunal appointed by the Govt. of  India  itself  and  notwithstanding the  fact  that  the Government  of India and the employer- management did accept the  recommendations of the tribunal and gave effect to  the said decision.

     Mr.   S.K.   Dholakia,  the  learned  senior  counsel, appearing  for  the  petitioners in  Transfer  Petition  No. 403/99,  filed  on behalf of All India Regional  Rural  Bank Officers  Federation,  contended that the lack of funds  or resources  of the employer-Regional Rural Banks will not  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 20  

any way affect the constitutional rights of the employees of such  rural  banks  enshrined  under   Article  14  of   the Constitution  of  India.   According to Mr.   Dholakia,  the determination  of  Obul  Reddi tribunal to  maintain  parity between  the  employees  of  the commercial  banks  and  the employees  of  the  Regional Rural Banks is  nothing  but  a decision  to  give equal treatment to the employees of  both the  organisations  and,  therefore, any  treatment  by  the employer  to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks which make  them  unequal with the employees of  the  nationalised commercial  banks would violate the provisions of Article 14 and  would be discriminatory in nature.  Mr.  Dholakia  also contended  that  the object of constituting  Regional  Rural Banks under the statute was not profit making but to develop rural economy and therefore, the contention of Mr.  Rao that the  financial resources is a vital consideration, cannot be accepted.   According  to Mr.  Dholakia, the award  of  Obul Reddi  on  the  basis of 4th and 5th  bipartite  settlements entered  into  between  the employees and  employer  of  the nationalised  commercial  banks  is   merely  an  index  for maintaining  parity and that being the position as and  when subsequent  bipartite  settlements are entered into  by  the employees and the employer of the commercial banks, the same must  be given effect to in determining the pay structure of the  employees  of the Regional Rural Banks, so that  parity could  be maintained.  In refuting the dismal picture of the Regional  Rural  Banks  placed  by  the  learned   Solicitor General,  Mr.   Dholakia placed before us the report of  the Reserve  Bank  of  India  which according  to  him  gives  a contrary picture.

     Mr.   D.A.  Dave, the learned senior counsel appearing for  All  India Regional Rural Bank Employees  Association- intervenor,  submitted that the failure of the  nationalised commercial  banks and the State Bank of India in  fulfilling their  obligation in the field of rural banking resulted  in the  establishment  of  the   Regional  Rural  Banks.   Such Regional Rural Banks have in fact taken over the function of the  rural  branches of the nationalised  commercial  banks. The  Parliament enacted the Act for constitution of Regional Rural  Banks  to  augment  the   rural  economy.   When  the employees  of such Regional Rural Banks had approached  this Court  by  filing  petition  under  Article  32,  voicing  a grievance   with  regard  to   their  salary  structure  and remuneration  and  claiming equal pay for equal  work  and industry-cum-  region  formula basis and wanted a writ  of mandamus  to  the  Union of India,  the  Central  Government itself chose to appoint a tribunal, who was none else than a Chief  Justice  of  a High Court and the  Government  itself decided  that  the decision of such tribunal would be  final and binding on the parties, with the obvious object that the controversies  would  be  resolved once for  all.   This  is apparent  from para 1.01 of the award of Justice Obul Reddi. The  very  nature of the dispute was such that it cannot  be limited  to  any specified period and on the other hand,  it must  be for all times to come.  This being the position and the tribunal having considered the grievances of the parties and the respective stand of the parties for over a period of two  and  a  half years and having given  its  findings  and holding  that the employees of the Regional Rural Banks  are entitled  to  claim  parity  with   the  employees  of   the nationalised  commercial  banks, it would be a  travesty  of justice,  if  such  parity  is maintained  on  the  date  of acceptance  of  the award and not thereafter.  According  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 20  

Mr.   Dave,  having  regard to the findings  arrived  at  by Justice  Obul  Reddi, and the ultimate conclusion  that  the employees  of the Regional Rural Banks are entitled to claim parity  with  the employees of the  nationalised  commercial banks  w.e.f.   1.9.1987  onwards,  the date  on  which  the Supreme  Court  disposed of the writ petition by  appointing the  tribunal and the Central Government having accepted the same  and  giving  effect to the same after  appointing  the Equation  Committee  for equation of posts  and  thereafter, extending  the  benefits  of  the pay  structure  which  the nationalised commercial banks had received under the 4th and 5th  bipartite  settlements  to  the  Regional  Rural  Banks employees,  there  cannot  be any manner of doubt  that  the employees  of the Regional Rural Banks would be entitled  to the  effect  of  the 6th and the 7th  bipartite  settlements arrived  at  between the employees and the employer  of  the nationalised  commercial banks and the High Court of  Kerala rightly  allowed  the relief sought for.  According  to  Mr. Dave,  that  an  award  of an industrial  tribunal  and  the obligations  arising  out  of an award remains  binding  and continue  to be binding on the parties which can be replaced only  by  a subsequent award or a settlement and that  being the  position,  there  is  no   other  alternative  for  the management  of  the  Regional  Rural Banks as  well  as  the Government  of  India  to  give effect to the  6th  and  7th bipartite  settlements  on  the  basis   of  which  the  pay structure  of  the employees of the nationalised  commercial banks  stood revised to maintain the parity in terms of  the award  of  Justice  Obul  Reddi and  such  decision  of  the tribunal(Justice  Obul Reddi) cannot be whittled down by  an executive order of the Central Government.  According to Mr. Dave,  the  claim  of  the Union  Government,  as  reflected through  the submissions of the learned Solicitor General on the  basis  of  financial constraint  and  current  economic policy  is nothing but a colourable exercise of power and is not  available  to be urged in view of the findings of  Obul Reddi  Tribunal.  In fact the tribunal itself considered the alleged  ground of incapacity to pay and negatived the  same while  granting  parity in the matter of emoluments  between the  employees of the Regional Rural Banks and the employees of  the  nationalised  commercial   banks.   Any  method  or contraviance, according to Mr.  Dave for non-maintaining the parity  at  any  point  of time would  grossly  violate  the decision  of the tribunal and as such cannot be sustained by this  Court.   Mr.   Dave also contended  that  the  dispute having  been resolved by an adjudication of a tribunal,  the issue  may  not be allowed to be re-opened, unless there  is material  change in the circumstances and in fact there  has been  no  change in the circumstances.  Mr.   Dave  contends that  the  dictionary  meaning of the  word  parity  being equality,  it is unthinkable that the so-called parity which had  been maintained w.e.f.  1.9.87 would be given a  go-bye by  taking recourse to the exercise of power under proviso 2 to  Sub-section(1)  of  Section 17 and even  if  such  power exists,  then that power has to be exercised in effectuating the  award and in not contravening the award.  In this  view of  the  matter  the  judgment of  the  Kerala  High  Court, according  to Mr.  Dave, need not be interfered with and the pay  structure  as  is  available to the  employees  of  the nationalised   commercial  banks  could  be  given  to   the employees  of  the Regional Rural Banks.  According  to  Mr. Dave, non-implementation of the benefits which the employees of  the  nationalised commercial banks have received on  the basis   of  the  subsequent   bipartite  settlement  to  the employees  of  the Regional Rural Banks, has  brought  about

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 20  

gross  disparity and this is contrary to the letter and  the spirit  of the award itself.  On the language of the  second proviso  to Sub-section (1) of Section 17 and the expression having  regard to used therein, Mr.  Dave contends that it merely  indicates that the appropriate authority should look into  those  conditions but in the present case, a  national tribunal having resolved the dispute by a long drawn process and  having adjudicated the same by clearly indicating  that the  pay structure of the employees of the State  Government and  the  local authorities, could not be a germane  factor, the  same  cannot be resorted to at this length of time  for nullifying  the  award  which  must be held  to  be  binding between the parties.

     Mr.   G.L.Sanghi,  the learned senior counsel who  was permitted  to  make his submissions, since a  writ  petition filed  under  Article  32 is pending before this  Court,  on behalf  of  All India Gramin Bank Workers Organisation  and All  India Gramin Bank OfficersOrganisation, contended that the  declaration made in award in paragraph 4.425 by  virtue of  a  judicial  adjudication,  has formed  a  part  of  the conditions of Service of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks  and,  therefore that cannot be tinkered with  by  any executive  order.  The learned counsel further urged that by taking  recourse  to  the  power conferred  on  the  Central Government  under  the second proviso to Sub-section (1)  of Section 17, it would not be open to over ride the award and, therefore,  as a necessary consequence, any revision of  pay structure  of  the employees of the nationalised  commercial banks  has to be given effect to so far as the employees  of the  regional  rural  banks are concerned  to  maintain  the so-called  parity  as determined by the tribunal of  Justice Obul  Reddi.  According to Mr.  Sanghi, the very idea of the employer  to appoint a committee for re-determination of the pay  structure of the employees of the Regional Rural  Banks is  nothing  but  an attempt to get over the effect  of  the grant  of  parity  under the Obul Reddi  tribunal  and  that should  not be permitted by any Court of law.  Refuting  the submissions of Mr.  P.P.Rao, appearing for the management of the  Regional Rural Banks and the learned Solicitor  General for the Union of India with regard to the performance of the regional  rural  banks,  Mr.  Sanghi placed  before  us  the letter  of  the Minister of State (Finance) to a  Member  of Parliament, showing deep appreciation for the role played by the Regional Rural Banks in all its twelve thousand branches in  the country at that point of time and Justice Obul Reddi Tribunal did take note of the said letter and referred to in paragraph  4.239  of  the award itself.   According  to  Mr. Sanghi, the High Court of Kerala in issuing mandamus and the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in striking down  the  appointment of a fresh Committee, have taken  the correct  decision and as such the Civil Appeals filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank should be dismissed.

     Mr.  Jitendra Sharma, the learned senior counsel whose application for intervention has been allowed, appearing for All India Gramin Bank Employees Association, contended that the  bipartite  settlement  between the management  and  the employees   of  the  nationalised   commercial   banks   are settlements  relating  to  entire   banking  industry,  such settlements  are  entered  into  under  Section  18  of  the Industrial  Disputes  Act.  Having regard to the  manner  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 20  

which  the dispute between the management and the  employees of  the Regional Rural Banks arose and having regard to  the manner  in  which  the said dispute stood  referred  to  the National  Industrial Tribunal and a retired Chief Justice of a  High  Court was appointed as such tribunal and  the  said tribunal  having  resolved  the  dispute by  coming  to  the conclusion  that  the employees of the Regional Rural  Banks are entitled to the maintenance of parity with the employees of  the  nationalised  commercial banks, any change  in  the pay-structure   of  the  employees   of   the   nationalised commercial  banks  must  be given effect to so  far  as  the employees  of  the Regional Rural Banks are concerned.   The learned  counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in  Food  Corporation  of  India Workers  Union  vs.   Food Corporation  of  India  and  Ors.,   1990  Supp.   SCC  296. According  to Mr.  Sharma the High Court of Kerala, both the learned  Single Judge as well as the Division Bench took the right view and that need not be interfered with.

     Before  formulating the questions to be considered and answered in the anvil of the submissions made by counsel for the  parties,  it would be appropriate for us to notice  the salient  features  of  the  award  of  Justice  Obul  Reddi, inasmuch  as  the bone of contention of the  parties  depend upon  the same.  The two writ petitions which had been filed in this Court under Article 32, sought for a parity with the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in respect of pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits.  The Court instead  of examining the same and answering the same,  left the  matter  to be heard and decided by a tribunal  and  the Central  Government agreed to appoint a National  Industrial Tribunal  to  decide the question relating to  pay,  salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of  the Regional Rural Banks constituted under the  Regional Rural  Banks Act, 1976.  In the petition filed under Article 32,  the validity of Section 17 of the Regional Rural  Banks Act  had  also  been assailed on the ground  that  the  said provision  is  ultra  vires  of Articles 14 and  16  of  the Constitution.   The Central Government had issued a circular dated 26.11.75, laying down the scales of pay and allowances applicable  to the officers and employees to be appointed by the  Regional  Rural Banks.  The Finance Ministry,  Economic Affairs,  Banking  Division, had issued a  communication  on 29th  of  April,  1980 to all the Chairmen of  the  Regional Rural  Banks in the country, deciding the pay-scales of  the employees  of  the said Regional Rural Banks in exercise  of power  under the second proviso to Sub-section(1) of Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act.  The Government of India issued  another similar communication by letter dated 5th of February,  1981.   The  grievances of the employees  of  the Regional  Rural  Banks  was  taken up on the  Floor  of  the Parliament  by some Members of the Parliament and  Professor Madhu  Dandavate had brought a private Bill to amend Section 17  of the Act.  The Employees Association and the  Finance Ministry  had several discussions on the problem, but yet as the  employees  were not satisfied with the decision of  the Union  Government,  they approached the Court under  Article 32.   The  Union Government as well as the Reserve  Bank  of India were averse to give parity in the matter of pay scales and  allowances between the employees of the Regional  Rural Banks  and  the  employees of  the  Nationalised  Commercial Banks.   The  tribunal of Justice Obul Reddi summarized  the pleadings in chapter I, indicated the evidence in chapter II

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 20  

and datas, particulars and information furnished in response to  his  questionnaire by the Chairman of the RRBs,  sponsor banks  and  State Governments in Chapter III and  formulated the  points  for determination in Chapter IV.  The  tribunal then  went  on examining the rival stand point and  answered the questions posed.  The tribunal came to hold:

     Indisputably,  Commercial  Banks and  Regional  Rural Banks  carry on similar banking business and participate  in the  development  of rural economy as partners in the  rural development,  acting  as instrumentalities of the  State  in accordance   with   the   Directive    Principles   of   the Constitution.   Establishment  of  RRBs is to  fill  in  the vacuum  in the economic development of the rural sector.  It is  a  national objective in the direction of ushering in  a welfare  state.   That  the  RRBs   have  brought  about   a socio-economic  reformation  in  the   lives  of  the  small farmers,  traders, agricultural labourers, artisans,  SC/STs and weaker sections is borne out by the evidence on record.

     On  the question as to the scope and ambit of  Section 17  of the Regional Rural Banks Act and whether proviso 2 to Section  17(1) of the Act offends Articles 14 and 16 in  the context  of Article 39(d) of the Constitution, the  tribunal held  that the employees of the Regional Rural Banks form  a separate  class  under  a separate statute and  so  are  the employees  of the Nationalised Commercial Banks.  Since  the Regional  Rural Banks have been constituted under  different statute,  the  officers and other employees of the  Regional Rural  Banks function in accordance with the requirements of that  Statute  and  they  thus  form  a  separate  class  by themselves.  The 2nd proviso to Section 17(1) is, therefore, not  hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.  The 2nd proviso  to  Section 17(1) does not take away or  limit  the jurisdiction  in  view of the order of the Supreme Court  to decide   the  question  relating  to  pay,   salary,   other allowances  and other benefits on the basis of the  evidence on  record, as the proviso is adaptable and supple, so as to extend its application to the facts and circumstances of the case.   The tribunal found that the wage structure should be such  that it should not be unduly below the paying capacity of  the  Bank at the top of the class nor unduly  above  the paying  capacity  of  the bank at the bottom of  the  class, which is reasonably well-managed.  The tribunal further held :

     The  employees of the RRBs and the employees of rural branches  of  commercial banks have a common object,  common purpose,  common  interest and community of  action.   Their duties and functions are similar and they perform the duties in  concerted  manner  for the economic  betterment  of  the weaker  section of the society, thus contributing their  own share  towards the achievement of the national objectives as envisaged  in  the  preamble  of the  Constitution  and  the Directive  Principles  of the State Policy.  The  fact  that employers  are  different, should not obsess ones  mind  in applying principles of equity and justice.

     The tribunal further held:

     It  is crystal clear that the equation of posts under the  second  proviso to Sec.17(1) of RRB Act, has  not  been made  taking into consideration or account the functions and duties of a B.D.O.or other employees of State Government and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 20  

duties of the RRB employees.  The most relevant factor to be considered  while  equating  posts  is  the  similarity   of functions and duties in a comparable department or industry. Without  regard to the apparent dissimilarities, the Central Government  erred  in the matter of equation of  the  posts. The  pay structure determined should have nexus or  relation to  not  only  the duties and functions of  the  Office  one holds,  but  it  should also be justly comparable  with  the posts   in  a  cognate   undertaking  or  sister   industry. Equations   are   always   made   with  reference   to   the qualifications, level of the post, nature, functions, duties and the position vis-a-vis similar posts with which they are equated.

     Repelling  the  plea  of the employer  that  financial viability  should  be  the criterion in  deciding  the  wage structure of the RRB employees, the learned tribunal held:

     The   RRBs  have  brought   about   socio-   economic revolution in the hitherto-unbanked under-developed priority sector  by  ameliorating  the   poverty  conditions  of  the under-privileged,  SC/STs  and other weaker sections of  the society.   That  is the paramount objective of the Act.   It should  not be lost sight of the fact that the total  losses suffered by rural branches of commercial banks is undeniably more  than  the total losses suffered by the RRBs.  But  the losses of the rural branches of commercial banks are made up by  the other branches in semi-urban and urban areas and the RRBs  unfortunately  for them cannot transfer the losses  to their sponsor banks.  The object and purpose is the economic development  of  the target groups and the  achievements  in that field certainly outweigh considerations of viability or losses.   When  the losses are on the increase even  in  the rural branches of commercial banks, the RRBs alone cannot be signled  out  to  bear  the cross.  I  can  find  no  better authority than the Chairman of the NABADRD who categorically stated that the ghost of profitability should not haunt us in  judging  the performance of the RRBs.  Establishment  of RRBs  is a national commitment in the direction of  ushering in   a  welfare  State  and  that   is  a  mandate  of   the Constitution.  It is in fulfillment of hopes and aspirations aroused  in the preamble and the Directive Principles of the Constitution  that  the  RRB Act has been  enacted  and  the performance  of  such institutions in furtherance  of  those principles,  shall  not be judged from the curved  angle  of viability  or  from  the point of view of  a  private  money lender  or  businessman  or  from   mere  profit  and   loss statement.

     It  also  came  to  the conclusion that  there  is  no justification in equating the post of a Branch Manager and a Field Supervisor as of a comparable level with the duties of Block  Development Officer or Extension Officer.  It is  not necessary to quote the other findings of the tribunal in its award.  Be it be stated that pursuant to the decision of the award  and in accordance with the directions of the tribunal that  the  award should be given effect to with effect  from 1.9.1987,  the  RRB  employees got the benefit of  the  pay- scales  and  other allowances as was prevalent in  the  year 1987 for the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks. Bearing  in mind the nature of dispute that was referred for the  adjudication  of the tribunal and the findings  arrived at,  we will have to answer the contentions raised in  these appeals.   But  before embarking upon the said exercise,  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 20  

would  be relevant to notice that the Union of India  itself had  filed  an Interlocutory Application in this  Court  for certain directions and it was averred therein:-

     11.   That the Central Government is very much  alive to  the need of wage revision in RRBs and is of the  opinion that  a wage revision in RRBs is long overdue.  The  setting up  of  Mahalik  Committee in November,  1996  and  suo-moto filing  of  an alternative package to this Honble Court  in May, 1999 is the testimony to the concern and responsibility felt by the Central Government.  That it was in this context that  discussions  were  held with the Unions to  break  the stalemate.   Based  on the discussions held with the  Unions and  keeping in mind the various factors affecting the  wage revision  as  stated  above,   the  Central  Government  now proposes  the  following package in the larger  interest  of RRBs,  their employees and depositors.  (i) As a gesture  of goodwill  and keeping in mind the genuineness of the  demand of  the  RRB employees, these employees may be  granted  new scales  w.e.f.  01.4.2000 in the line with scales granted to commercial   bank  employees  of   equivalent  level.    For determination  of  equivalent level, the recommendations  of Equation  Committee  shall be taken as the basis.   This  is going to be a step further as up till now RRB employees have been demanding new scales as per 6th Bipartite and Officers wage  revision  settlement only.  The new basic pay of  each RRB  employee  as  on  01.4.2000   would  be  determined  by notionally  granting  the benefit of 6th and  7th  bipartite settlement  and  officers wage revision w.e.f.   01.11.1992 and  01.11.1997  respectively.  The formula for  fitment  of salary  in  various scales may also remain the same  as  was adopted   for  commercial  bank   employees.   Thus,  as  on 01.4.2000,  the pay scales of the RRB employees would become equal to that of their counterparts in commercial banks.

     In  paragraph  (14)  of the said application,  it  was averred thus:

     (14).   That  the  above   proposal  of  the  Central Government is intended to help in promoting industrial peace and  bring  litigation  in  this regard to  an  end.   These proposals are being advanced without prejudice to the rights and  contentions  of  the  Government in  the  appeal.   The Central  Government  proposes  to   determine  under  Second Proviso  to Section 17 of the RRBs Act, the remuneration  of officers and other employees appointed by the Regional Rural Banks  in  terms of these proposals shall be valid till  the Central  Government revise the remuneration of officers  and other  employees  of RRBs afresh in exercise of  its  powers under the said proviso.

     The  aforesaid  assertion  unequivocally  states  that w.e.f.   1.4.2000,  the  pay scales of RRB  employees  would become  equal  to that of their counterparts  in  commercial banks  by granting them benefit of the 6th and 7th bipartite settlements on the basis of which there had been revision of wage  structure of the employees of the commercial banks  on 1.11.92 and 1.11.1997.

     On  the contentions raised by the learned counsel  for the   parties,   the   first   question  that   arises   for consideration  is  whether the award given by  Justice  Obul Reddi  and accepted by the State Government and given effect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 20  

to,  can be construed to mean that the pay scales and  other emoluments  of the Regional Rural Bank employees would stand automatically  altered, as and when the pay structure of the employees  of the commercial banks get revised, on the basis of  the so-called bipartite settlement between the  employer and  the employees of those commercial banks?  The award  no where  indicated  this  course of action nor could  it  have indicated  so,  in  view of the provisions of  the  Regional Rural  Banks  Act, conferring specific power on the  Central Government  to decide the pay structure of the employees  of the  Regional  Rural Banks.  The second proviso  to  Section 17(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 reads thus:

     Provided  further  that the remuneration of  officers and other employees appointed by a Regional Rural Bank shall be such as may be determined by the Central Government, and, in  determining  such remuneration, the  Central  Government shall  have  due  regard  to the  salary  structure  of  the employees  of the State Government and the local authorities of comparable level and status in the notified area.

     The  Legislature, therefore, while enacting a law  for establishment  and  incorporation of Regional  Rural  Banks, conferred  power  on the Central Government for  determining the  remuneration of the officers and employees appointed by the  Regional Rural Banks and that power conferred upon  the Central  Government by the legislature cannot be taken  away by  an  award  of  a tribunal, constituted  by  the  Central Government  for redressing the grievances of the  employees, which  were pending before a Court of law.  Even the  prayer in  the  writ  petition that had been filed in  the  Supreme Court  was  not  for  a declaration and  mandamus  that  the employees  of the Regional Rural Banks would be entitled  to the same scale of pay as and when the pay structure of their counterparts  in  the  nationalised   commercial  banks  get revised.  To construe the award of Justice Obul Reddi in the manner  as  was contended by the counsel, appearing for  the employees  of the bank would tantamount to making the second proviso  to Section 17(1) of the Act nugatory, redundant and otiose  and  by  no stretch of imagination  the  duties  and powers  conferred  on the Central Government under  the  Act could  be  made  nugatory  by interpreting  an  award  of  a tribunal.   The  disputes  raised  before  the  Court  being disputes  on  several questions of facts, the Court and  the Union  Government thought it fit to be adjudicated upon by a tribunal  and the tribunal on discussion on materials,  gave its  award.  The relevant findings of the tribunal which  we have  quoted earlier in this judgment does not in any manner even  contemplate  that  the power and jurisdiction  of  the Central   Government  under  the   second  proviso  to  Sub- section(1)  of Section 17 would become redundant and the pay structure  as decided in 1987, pursuant to the award of  the tribunal  in respect of the employees of the Regional  Rural Banks  would  automatically get revised as and when the  pay structure  of  the  employees of the  commercial  banks  get revised.   On the construction of the award of Justice  Obul Reddi  and  the provisions of the second proviso to  Section 17(1)  of  the Act, we have no hesitation to hold  that  the revision  of pay structure of the employees of the  Regional Rural Banks could be made, only after the Central Government exercises  its  power  under the provisions of the  Act  and determines  the  same.  If however, the  Central  Government fails  to  discharge its obligation as in the case in  hand, which would result in gross disparity between the pay-scales of the commercial banks and the Regional Rural Banks, then a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 20  

mandamus  could  be  issued to the  Central  Government  for performance  of its duties and the Central Government  would be  bound  to  perform its duties, taking into  account  all germane  factors, including the factor of the subsequent pay revision  of  the employees of the  Nationalised  Commercial Banks.

     The  next  question that arises for  consideration  is whether  the financial condition of the Regional Rural Banks could be a vital consideration for the Central Government in determining  the  pay  structure  of the  employees  of  the Regional Rural Banks?  Both Mr.  Rao, appearing for the bank as  well as Mr.  Salve, appearing for the Union of India had vehemently  urged before us that the financial condition  of the  Regional  Rural  Banks  is such that it  would  not  be possible  for  the  Union  of India to  give  them  the  pay structure  of  the employees of the Nationalised  Commercial Banks.   In support of this contention, several decisions of this Court had been placed before us.  In Express Newspapers (Private)  Ltd., and anr.  Vs.  The Union of India and Ors., 1959  S.C.R.   Page  12, while deciding  the  Constitutional validity  of the Working Journalists (Conditions of Service) and  Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 and the legality  of the  decision  of  the  Wage  Board  constituted  thereunder purporting  to  act  under Section 9 of the  Act,  no  doubt construed  Section 9(1) of the said Act and held that it was incumbent  on the Wage Board to take into consideration  the capacity  of  the  newspaper industry to pay the  rates  and scales  of wages recommended by it.  The observation of this Court  was in the context of construing Section 9(1) of  the Act  and  the  language used therein,  which  indicated  the prevalent  rate  of wages for comparable employment.   Under the  Regional  Rural Banks Act, while conferring power  upon the Central Government to determine the pay structure of the employees  of  the Regional Rural Banks, there has  been  no whisper that the financial condition of the bank or capacity of  the  employer to pay, would be a germane  consideration. The aforesaid decision, therefore is of no assistance to the appellant.   In the case of Standard Vacuum Refining Co.  of India  vs.  Its Workmen and anr., 1961(3) S.C.R.  Page  536, the  question  for consideration was whether  the  employees were  entitled  to  Bonus?   In  that  case  the  Industrial Tribunal,  in  a dispute held that the wages paid were  fair but  there  was still a gap between the actual wage and  the living  wage  and as such awarded bonus equivalent  to  five months basic wage.  When that award was assailed before the Supreme  Court and a plea was raised that no bonus could  be payable  when  the employees are being paid the living  wage standard, the Court had observed while proceeding to examine the  merits  of the contention that the employees are  being paid  a  living  wage:   Considerations  of  the  financial position  of the employer and the state of national  economy have  their say, and the requirements of a workman living in a  civilised  and  progressive  society   also  come  to  be recognised.

     But  the aforesaid observations bereft of the  context in  which  the  observations have been made, will be  of  no universal  application  and  at  any   time  would  have  no application  to  the  case  in  hand,  where  the  aforesaid contention  raised on behalf of the employer was  considered and  negatived  by  the tribunal, appointed  to  decide  the dispute  between the parties and that award of the  tribunal instead  of being challenged, has already been  implemented.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 20  

In  The Hindustan Times Ltd., New Delhi Vs.  Their  Workmen, 1964(1)  S.C.R.234, again an award of an Industrial Tribunal was  subject  matter  of challenge before  the  Court.   The dispute  before  the  tribunal was in relation to  the  pay, dearness  allowance,  adjustments, leave rules, gratuity  as well  as  the  working  hours and  age  of  retirement.   In considering the legality of the award and after referring to the  earlier  decision  of  the  Court  in  Standard  Vacuum Refining  Co., which we have already noticed, this Court had observed  the difference between the minimum basic wage  and the  fair wage and above the same, the living wage and it is in   that  context,  the  Court,  no  doubt  had  made   the observations  that  their  exist  need  of  considering  the problem  on  an  industry-cum-region  basis  and  on  giving careful consideration to the ability of the industry to pay. But  the  aforesaid  observations  cannot  be  pressed  into service in the case in hand, where the award of Justice Obul Reddi tribunal, unhesitatingly negatived the aforesaid stand of  the  employer and came to the positive conclusion  after elaborate  discussions of the purpose for which these  banks were  established  and  how a case of  very  special  nature concerning  the  employees of a banking  industry,  claiming parity  with  the  salary structure of the  employees  of  a sister  banking industry is being considered and ultimately, the  tribunal had observed that the Act has been enacted  in fulfillment  of  the  hopes and aspirations aroused  in  the preamble  and  the Directive Principles of the  Constitution and,  therefore,  the  performance of such  institutions  in furtherance of those principles is not required to be judged from the curved angle of viability or from the point of view of a private money lender or businessman or from mere profit and  loss statement.  At any rate, the aforesaid decision of the  tribunal in the form of an award was implemented by the Central  Government  and, therefore, having implemented  the same,  it would not be permissible for the employer-bank  or the  Union  of  India  to take such a plea  in  the  present proceedings.   In  Jacob  M.  Puthuparambil  and  Ors.   Vs. Kerala Water Authority and Ors., 1991(1) S.C.C.28, the Court was  considering the regularisation of employees serving for a  reasonably long period having requisite qualification for the  job.   While  indicating  what   the  preamble  of  the Constitution  obligates the State to secure to all  citizens and  while  stating  how the Directive Principles  of  State Policy engrafted in Part IV of the Constitution, reflect the hopes  and  aspirations  of  the   people,  the  Court   had observed:-

     This  part, therefore, mandates that the State  shall strive  to  promote the welfare of the people by  minimising the  inequalities in income and eliminating inequalities  in status,  facilities  and  opportunities;  by  directing  its policy towards securing, amongst others, the distribution of the  material  resources  of the community to  subserve  the common  good;  by so operating the economic system as not to result  in concentration of wealth;  and by making effective provision  for securing the right to work as also to  public assistance  in  cases  of unemployment,  albeit  within  the limits of its economic capacities.

     It  is  this  expression  within the  limits  of  its economic  capacities  in  the aforesaid case on  which  Mr. Rao, the learned senior counsel for the bank strongly relied upon  in  support  of  his  contention  that  the  financial capacity  must  be held to be a vital factor in  determining the  wage  structure of the employees of the Regional  Rural

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 20  

Banks.   We  are  afraid,  this   decision  is  also  of  no assistance  to  the  contentions raised inasmuch as  in  the dispute  between the employer and the employees which  stood resolved  by an award of the tribunal (Justice Obul  Reddi), one  of the contentions was whether the financial  viability would  be the sole criterion in deciding the wage  structure of   the  RRB  employees,  which   was  point  No.   10  for consideration  before  the tribunal and after  an  elaborate consideration  of  the relevant stand point as well  as  the evidence  laid  by  the parties on the point,  the  tribunal ultimately observed:

     4.239.   Now  we are dealing with a case  of  special nature  concerning  the  employees  of  a  banking  industry claiming  parity with the salary structure of employees of a sister  banking industry, which alone is comparable in terms of  duties,  functions  and responsibilities.  The  RRB  Act places  special emphasis on the development of rural economy by  providing  credit  and other  facilities  to  productive activities  in  the rural areas, particularly to  small  and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs,  and  for  matters  connected  therewith  and incidental  thereto.   The  reasons and objects of  the  Act provide  a highway for the social welfare and common good of the  rural poor living in the priority sector.  The preamble of  the  Constitution  envisages  to  all  citizens  social, economic  and  political  justice.  Article 38  in  Part  IV enjoins  on  the State to promote the welfare of the  people and to bring about a social order where social, economic and political  justice  prevail  in   all  the  institutions  of national  life.  In particular, the State is asked to strive to  minimise  the  inequalities  in  income  and   eliminate inequalities  in status.  The RRBs have brought about socio- economic revolution in the hitherto-Unbanked under-developed priority  sector  by ameliorating the poverty conditions  of the  under-privileged,  SC/STs and other weaker sections  of the  society.   That is the paramount objective of the  Act. It  should  not  be lost sight of the fact  that  the  total losses  suffered  by rural branches of commercial  banks  is undeniably  more than the total losses suffered by the RRBs. But the losses of the rural branches of commercial banks are made  up by the other branches in semi-urban and urban areas and  the  RRBs  unfortunately for them cannot  transfer  the losses  to  their sponsor banks.  The object and purpose  is the  economic  development  of  the target  groups  and  the achievements in that field certainly outweigh considerations of viability or losses.  When the losses are on the increase even  in  the rural branches of commercial banks,  the  RRBs alone  cannot be signled out to bear the cross.  I can  find no  better  authority than the Chairman of the  NABADRD  who categorically  stated  that  the  ghost  of  profitability should  not haunt us in judging the performance of the RRBs. Establishment  of  RRBs  is  a national  commitment  in  the direction  of  ushering  in a welfare State, and that  is  a mandate  of  the Constitution.  It is in fulfillment of  the hopes  and  aspirations  aroused  in the  preamble  and  the Directive  Principles  of the Constitution that the RRB  Act has been enacted and the performance of such institutions in furtherance  of  those principles, shall not be judged  from the curved angle of viability or from the point of view of a private  money lender or businessman or from mere profit and loss statements.

     This  conclusion of the tribunal has become final, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 20  

award  in question not having been assailed and on the other hand having been implemented.  In the aforesaid premises, it is  a futile attempt on the part of the employer as well  as the  Union  of  India to re-agitate the dispute,  which  has already  been resolved and has been given effect to.  In our considered  opinion, therefore, the aforesaid contention  on behalf  of the appellant cannot be sustained and it would no longer be open, either for the bank or the Union of India to raise a contention that in determining the wage structure of the  employees of the RRBs, the financial condition would be a relevant factor.

     The  next  question that arises for consideration  is, what  is the meaning of the expression parity used by  the tribunal  in  giving  its  award and  indicating  that  the officers  and  other employees of the Regional  Rural  Banks will be entitled to claim parity with the officers and other employees  of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay-scales, allowances  and  other benefits in paragraph 4.425  of  the award of the tribunal.  It may be noticed at this stage that on behalf of the employees, a claim had been made before the tribunal  for  application of the principle equal  pay  for equal  work and that was negatived by the tribunal, but all the  same  the tribunal directed to maintain a parity.   The meaning  of  the  word  parity   in  the  Concise   Oxford Dictionary  is equality;  being at par;  fact of being  even or  odd.   In Law Lexicon Dictionary, the word parity  has been  defined to mean being on a par with;  analogy;   close similarity   (as)  by  party  of  reasoning.    In   Webster Comprehensive  Dictionary, the expression parity has  been defined  to  mean  equality,  as   of  condition  or   rank; equivalent  position;  equal value;  close resemblance.   In the  Words and Phrases Volume 31, the word parity  means act providing for road construction to bring each country in state  to  parity required all counties to be  brought  in same  condition  regarding  aid in road  building,  parity meaning  equality.   In  view  of   the  definition  of  the aforesaid  expression  parity and in the context in  which the tribunal came to hold that the employees of the Regional Rural  Banks  would be entitled to claim a parity  with  the employees  of  the Nationalised Commercial Banks, the  Union Government,  while exercising its power under the proviso to Sub-section(1)  of  Section  17  would   be  guided  by  the aforesaid  conclusion  of  the  tribunal  and  will  not  be justified in deciding the pay structure for the employees of the  Regional  Rural Banks, which would bring  in  disparity between  the two groups of employees, even though there  may be  a  slight variation in the pay structure.  As  has  been stated  earlier, the aforesaid direction to maintain  parity was  duly given effect to and the employees of the  Regional Rural banks were given the pay structure applicable to their counter  parts  in the Nationalised Commercial Banks  w.e.f. 1987,  though subsequently in 1992 and 1997, there had  been revision  in  the  pay  structure of the  employees  of  the Nationalised  Commercial Banks.  Though, we have upheld  the contention  of the appellant with regard to the power of the Central  Government  to  decide  the pay  structure  of  the employees  of the Regional Rural Banks, yet there cannot  be any  doubt that in so deciding, the Central Government would be  duty bound to maintain the parity with the pay structure of the employees of the Nationalised Commercial Banks in the same  sense and spirit as Justice Obul Reddi decided and  as was  given  effect  to by the Union Government in  the  year 1987.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 20  

     In  the light of the conclusions arrived at by us, the contention of Mr.  Sanghi that the very idea of the employer to appoint a fresh Committee for re-determination of the pay structure  of  the employees of the Regional Rural Banks  is nothing  but an attempt to get over the effect of the  grant of  parity  under Justice Obul Reddi Tribunal, is  of  great substance.  It has to be borne in mind that the tribunal has devoted  a considerable time and has considered all  aspects of  the  dispute  between the parties and  the  notification itself  of the Union Government in appointing the  tribunal, indicated  that the decision of the tribunal shall be  final and  binding.   In this view of the matter, the  conclusions arrived  at  on different questions raised by the  tribunal, cannot  be  assailed  indirectly  by taking  recourse  to  a procedure  either  by the Union Government or by  the  Bank. Though, we have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the  Union  Government possesses the power to determine  the pay  structure  in  accordance with the  second  proviso  to Sub-section(1)  of Section 17 and, therefore, that power has to be exercised soon after any pay revision of the employees of  the Nationalised Commercial Banks is effected and  while exercising  that  power, the Union Government should try  to maintain  the  parity  between  the  pay  structure  of  the employees  of the Regional Rural Banks and the employees  of the Nationalsied Commercial Banks.

     In  view  of the aforesaid conclusions of ours on  the different  contentions  raised and in view of the fact  that the  Union  of  India in its Interlocutory  Application  had already  indicated  that the employees of the RRBs  will  be granted  the  new scales w.e.f.  1.4.2000 in the  line  with scales  granted  to commercial bank employees of  equivalent level,   we  direct  that  the   said  determination  be   a determination  under the second proviso to Sub-section(1) of Section  17  of  the RRB Act and as such the salary  of  the employees  of  the Regional Rural bank w.e.f.   1.4.2000  be determined accordingly.

     We also further direct that for maintaining the parity between  the  employees  of  the commercial  banks  and  the employees  of  the  Regional  Rural Banks,  the  said  Union Government shall decide the question as to what would be the salary  of  the employees of the RRBs subsequent to the  6th Bipartite settlement having been given effect to, in case of employees  of the commercial banks and with effect from what date  and the benefit flowing from such decision be given to the  RRB employees.  The decision in question shall be taken within a period of six months from today.

     Hereafter,  as  and  when  the pay  structure  of  the employees  of the nationalised commercial banks get  revised on  the  basis  of  any   bipartite  settlement,  the  Union Government should take a decision so far as the employees of the  Regional Rural Banks are concerned, within a reasonable time  and  bearing in mind the conclusions, we have  already arrived   at,  so  that  the   so-called  parity  could   be maintained.

     The  impugned judgment of the Kerala High Court,  must accordingly  stand  set aside.  These appeals  and  Transfer Petition stand accordingly disposed of.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 20  

     72