http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENTLABOUR COURT, DHANB

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/04/1972

BENCH:

ACT: Labour  Law-Industrial Dispute-Sastry Award  paragraph  292, construction of-Direction in clause (2) of paragraph whether excludes Clause 4(b)-Clause 5(a) of paragraph, applicability of.

HEADNOTE: The second respondent was employed on 3-1-1947 as a Grade II Clerk  in  the- Imperial Bank of India (taken  over  by  the State Bank of India in 1955) on a scale running from Rs.  70 to  Rs. 170.  Shortly after, he was given a raise of  Rs.  4 because of his proficiency in using the machine.  On  1-1-49 he  was promoted to Grade 1. The Sastry Award  prescribed  a uniform  scale  of pay for clerks of Grade I & II  and  gave directions  to  make  fitments in that  grade.   The  second respondent  disputed the computation of benefits  admissible to  him  under  the Award.   In  the  consequent  industrial dispute  the Labour Court fixed the basic pay of the  second respondent under paragraph 292 of the Award as Rs. 164  p.m. as  on 1-4-1954.  The Labour Court accepted  his  contention that  clause  (4) (b) of paragraph 292 should be  read  with clause 5(a) and that the latter clause was applicable to him because  before  the Award came into force he  was  promoted from  Grade  If  to Grade 1. The High  Court  confirmed  the decision  of the Labour Court.  In appeal by the State  Bank of  India  to  this  Court  the  questions  that  fell   for determination were : (i) whether the direction in clause (2) of  paragraph 292 that the basic nay in the new scale  shall not  exceed what point to point adjustment would have  given to the workman in the new scale has the effect of  excluding clause  (4)(b); (ii) whether s. (5)(a) of the paragraph  was applicable to the second respondent. HELD : (i) The report of the Gajendragadkar Commission  made it  clear  that what the Award meant in clause (2)  when  it referred to point to-point adjustment is the placing of each employee  at the stage in the/ new scale to which  In  would have  risen  by reason of length of service had  he  entered service in the new scale.  What was sought to be ensured  by clause (2) was that the adjusted basic pay in the new  scale shall  not  exceed  the  point-to-point  adjustment  or  the maximum  of the scale., if the meaning given to  the  phrase point-to-point   adjustment  is  what  is  stated   by   the Commission in the report, then there would be no  impediment in  giving  effect to the directions in clause  (4)(b).   It would not therefore be right to say that clause (4)(b) is to be  ignored or that the advantage ends only with that  given in clause (4)(a). [136G-137A] (ii The directions given in clause 5(a) are that the, length of service in the scale in which the workman is and in which he  gets  an increment or increments either at  the  initial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

start or by special promotion should be that which he would have  taken  to reach the basic pay which he would  draw  on 31st  January  1950 with the initial start.   The  condition precedent  to  the applicability of the directions  in  this clause  is the receipt of increment or increments by way  of special  promotion.   The use of the  word  ’special’  would itself show that what is contemplated is advance  increments in the same grade. [137D-F]  127 As  the,  2nd  respondent  did, not  got  any  increment  or increments  in the existing_scale which was Grade I.  either at  the  initial start or by way of special  promotion,  the directions  in clause 5(a) were inapplicable to him and  his actual  service  in-the  cadre had to be  computed  for  the purpose  of  clause (4)(b).  The words ’same’ cadre  in  the latter clause would refer to both Grade 11 and Grade 1.  The actual  serviceman both the grades will alone be  considered for giving him an increment for every three years of service which in his case would work out to one increment in respect of his 3 years service from 31-1-47 to 31-1-50. [137H-138B] The Court, applying the principles as laid down above,  held that the second respondent had to be fitted in the new scale on a basic pay of Rs. 1481. State Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Mehra, [1961] 2  L.L.J. 383 and Punjab National Bank Lid. v. K. L. Kharbanda, [1962] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 977, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 1270 of 1968. Appeal  from  the Judgment dated the April 24, 1967  of  the Patna     High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 567 of 1966. S. T. Desai, H. L. Anand, V. N. Koura and Ashok Grover,  for the appellant. Respondent No. 2 appeared in person. The Judgment of, the Court was delivered by P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal by certificate raises  a question as to the interpretation and proper application  of paragraph  292-of the Sastry Award (hereinafter called  ’the Award’).  The 2nd respondent was employed on 13-1-1947 as  a Grade II Clerk in the Imeperial Bank of India on a scale  of Rs. 70-4126-EB-130-5-175.  This Bank was subsequently  taken over  by the State Bank of India under the State,  Bank  of India  Act  (Act XXIII of 1955).  ’A, few months  after  the respondent  was  employed  he was given a pay  of  Rs.  74/- because of his proficiency in using ’the machine.  On  13-1- 48  he earned an increment and his basic pay was Rs.  78/-. On 1-1-49 he was promoted to Grade I so that on the date  of his  promotion he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 100/-.   On 1-1-50  he earned an increment and his basic pay I  was  Rs. 108/-.   The Sastry Award prescribed a uniform scale of  pay for  clerks  of Grades 1 & 11 and gave  directions  to  make fitments  in that Grade,.  The 2nd respondent  disputed  the computation  of the benefits admissible to him under,  The’- Award  and.  consequently applied for a  settlement  of  his dispute. under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) which was referred to the Labour Court.   The Labour  Court  allowed the application and fixed  the  basic ’Pay of the Applicant under paragraph 292 of the  Award  at Rs.  164/-  p.m.  as  on 1-4-1954  with  directions  to  the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 1647.91  for the period from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

128 1-4-54  to  31-12-61.  The appellant  challenged  the  Award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution but the  High Court  accepting  the interpretation placed  by  the  Lavour Court on paragraph 292 of the Award dismissed the  petition. Inasmuch  as  the dispute between the parties  is  dependent upon  the view which can ’reasonably Ile taken of  paragraph 292  of  the  Award, it will be  necessary  to  examine  the directions  contained therein,.  We give below the  relevant directions of that paragraph as amended:--               "292.      Section 11-for workmen Who  entered               service  of  the.  Bank  before  31st  January               1950-               (1)                  The  workman’s basic  pay               as  on 31st January 1950 shall not be  reduced               in any case.               (2)              Subject   to  rule  (1)   the               adjusted basic pay in the: new scale shall not               exceed  what point-to-point  adjustment  would               give him or the maximum in the new scale.               (3)                   In    the   matter    of               adjustment all efficiency bars, whether in the               previously  existing  scales  or  in  the  new               scales fixed by the award, should be ignored.               (4)              Subiect to rules (1) to (3) a               workman’s basic pay in the hew scale shall  be               fixed in the following manner :-               (a)   A workman shall first be fitted into the               scale   of  pay  fixed  by  the   said   award               (hereinafter called the new scale) by  placing               him at the stage in the new scale equal to, or               next  above, his basic pay as on 31st  January               1950  in  the.  present scale  then  in  force               (herein called the existing scale).               (b)   To the basic pay into which he is fitted               under    cl.  (a)  the  annual  increment   or               increments in the new scale as from that stage               onwards  should  be added at the rate  of  one               increment  for every completed three years  of               service  in the same cadre as on 31st  January               1950  upto a limit of twelve  years’  service;               thereafter one increment for_every four  years               of service up to another eight years’  service               and  after that one increment for  every  five               years of service.               (4A) After adjustments are made in  accordance               with  the  directions  Riven,  three   further               annual  increments  in the new scale  will  be               added thereto for service for the three  years               1951 to 1953.  In addition, the work man  will               be entitled to draw his normal increment               129               for  1954 on 1st April 1954.  Thereafter  each               succeeding years’ annual’increment shall  take               effect as and from 1st April of that year."               (5)                     (a)  Where  a  workman               received    an-   additional   increment    or               increments  in  his basic pay  either  at  the               initial  start or by way of special  promotion               later on, his, length of service will be taken               to-be  the  period which would  ordinarily  be               necessary  to bring a workman with  the  usual               initial  start  without special  promotion  to               that  basic pay as (on) 31st January 1950,  in               the  existing scale (fractions  being  rounded

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

             off to the nearest integer)               (b)            Similarly  where  a   workman’s               increment  or  increments have  been  withheld               prior  to  31st  January 1950  the  length  of               service  in  his case will  be  calculated  by               subtracting  the number of Wars for which  the               increments have been withheld.  (c) x     x    x         x  (6) x     x         x         x" It  may be mentioned here that prior to the.  Award  another Award  known  as the Sen Award was given on  12-8-50.   This latter  award,  however, was declared void  by  the  Supreme Court on 9-4-51.  The pre-Sen scales were those fixed by the Award  of  an  Industrial  Tribunal  known  as  Gupta  Award admissible  to the employees of the Imperial Bank of  India, as it then was.  The scales applicable to the 2nd respondent who was employed on 13-1-47 in the Calcutta Branch were  Rs. 70-  4-126-EB-130-5-175  when  he was in Grade  II  and  Rs. 100-8-180EB-10-250  when  he was promoted to  Grade  1.  The Award as subsequently modified prescribed only one scale  of pay’  of Rs.  85-5-100-6-112-7-140-8-164  9-245-10265-15-280 for  clerical  staff in ’A’ class Banks in  Class  I  areas. This  scale  applied to the clerical staff employed  at  the Calcutta  Branch.  It will be seen that the fitment  of  the basic  salary  of persons in Grade 11 and Grade in  the  new scales  became  a  matter of some  controversy  due  to  the difficulty  of  variation in the total number of  years  for each of the grades in which an employee had to work out  his increments.  In Grade II the maximum grade could be attained in  24 years while Grade I had arrange of 17 years.  In  the new  grade an employee took 24 years to reach  the  maximum. In  other words, the number of years required to  reach  the maximum of basic pay from the initial basic Pay in Grade  II and  that  in the new scale was the same, namely  24  years. The only difficulty that would’ present itself 130 in the fitment of pay       in the new grade in respect of a promotion  made  prior to the coming into force of  the  new scales  from Grade 11 to Grade 1. It is for this reason  the directions contained in clauses 3, 4 and 5 of paragraph  292 were evolved basing the fitment both on the actual pay drawn and  the  increments which a person would  nationality  have earned  having regard to tin number of years which/he  would have  taken  in the new scale to draw the pay which  he  was actually getting on the date when the Award was brought into force.   Ignoring the efficiency bar as provided  in  clause (3)  of  paragraph  292, a workman has to  be  fitted  under clause  (4)  (a) into the scale of pay fixed  by  the  Award placing  him at the stage in the new scale equal to or  next ,over his basic pay as on 31-1-50 in the pre-Sen scale ’then in force. it is not disputed by the parties that on  31-1-50 the  2nd respondent was drawing Rs. 108/- and since  in  the new  scale he could not be fixed in Rs. 108/- he has  to  be fitted  in  Rs.  112/-.  As clause (4) is  also  subject  to clause (2) the adjusted pay in the new scale is directed not to  exceed  what point to point adjustment  would  give  the workman  or  the maximum in the new scale.  Does  this  mean that after the fitment under clause (2) is made clause,  (4) (b) is to be ignored and only those increments specified  in clause  (4)  are to be added ?  Or is the  workman  also  en -titled  to the increments specified in, (4) (b) and if  so, is that clause to be read with clause 5 (a) as contended  by ’the 2nd respondent? On  the  assumption that clause (4) (b)  is  applicable  the workman would be entitled to one; increment for every  three

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

completed  years  of  service in the cadre  as  on  31-1-50. There is also no dispute that ’he had completed three  years from  13-1-47  to  31-1-50 and on this  basis  he  would  be entitled  to one increment so, that the basic pay  would  be Rs.  119. Under clause (4A) he would further be entitled  to three  increments in the new scale for his service  for  the ’three  years  1951 to 1953.  It is at this stage  that  the appellant  and the 2nd respondent part ways.  The  appellant contends  that the basic pay in the new scale is arrived  at after  adjustment  under clauses (4) (a) and (4A)  to  three further  increments,  namely, 7+7+7=21 which  added  to  Rs. 119/would be Rs. 140/- and since the fitment was being  made as  from  1-4-54 he will be entitled to one  more  increment which is Rs. 8/- giving him a total basic pay of Rs.  148/-. The  2nd respondent, however, contends that clause  (4)  (b) should be read with clause (5) (a) because before the, Award came  into force. he was promoted to Grade I and  his  basic pay  in  that grade should be taken into  consideration  for which clause (5) (a) was designed.  The appellant takes  the stand  that  this  clause  is  not  applicable  because  the additional increments under that clause are only in ,respect of any ’increment or increments in the basic pay at the 131 initial stage-or by way of special promotion later on in the same  cadre which under clause (4) (b) must mean  Grade  II. As  the 2nd respondent was not given any increments  in  the basic  pay  at  the  initial stage  nor  was  he  given  any increment  by  way  of  special promotion  he  will  not  be entitled  to the benefit given by clause (5) (a).   In  this view, it is submitted that the interpretation placed by  the Labour Court brings para 292 (5) (a) in direct conflict with para 292(4)(b) because the former was only a deeming deeming provision  and  was intended for computation  of  length  of service.   The  Labour  Court as well  as  the  High  Court, however,  interpreted the word ’cadre’ in para. 292 (4)  (b) as  covering  all  workmen in the cadre of  clerks  and  not different cadres, which means that both grade 11 and grade I of the pre-Sen Award are included in the same cadre and  not different cadres. The,  High  Court referred to paragraph 91 in which  it  was mentioned  that Gupta Award had reduced the four  cadres  of clerks with different grades of pay employed  by  Imperial Bank of India into two grades, namely, the junior clerks and senior clerks and though para 531 has used expressions  like ’officers  grade’ and ’clerical grade it is not possible  to hold  that each grade of clerks with a particular  scale  of pay was considered to be a cadre by itself.  In its view the mere  mention  of one grade or two grades for  the  clerical staff does not justify the conclusion that each grade with a particular scale of pay was taken to be a separate cadre  of I  service.   On the contrary its impression  was  that  the clerical  staff was taken ’to be a cadre even if it  had  at one point of time different grades with different scales  of pay. it accordingly held ’that the interpretation placed  by the Labour Court was correct and that the expression ’in the same cadre’ occurring in paragraph 292 (4) (b) of the Award was  equivalent to the expression ’in the same  grade’.   On this  interpretation  paragraph 292 (5) (a)  was  read  with paragraph 292 (4) (b).  If so read, the respondent would  be entitled  to  three increments instead of one  increment  as contended  by  the 2nd respondent.  Once the  amount  to  be added  to the basic pay drawn as on 31-1-50 is fixed in  the new  scale  which is Rs. 112/- by reference to  the  deeming provision  under  (5)  (a)  read with  (4)  (b)  the  second respondent  would be entitled to three increments for  every

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

notional  year on the basis that if he had not been  special increments  at  the beginning and promotion to  Grade  I  on given 1-1-49 he would have taken 10 Years to reach the basic pay  he was then drawing.  Applying this Principle he  would get  three increments of pay for three years  amounting  to. Rs.  21/-, which added to Rs. 112/- would give him  a  basic salary  of  Rs. 133/There after under clause  (4A)  for  the years  1951  to  1953 he would have to be  given  3  further increments,  namely, 7+8+8= 23 and thereafter he would  earn another increment as on 1st 132 April 1954 so that the increments under clause (4A) would be Rs.  31/- which added to Rs. 133/- would entitle him  to  a- basic  salary  of Rs. 164/-.  This is the claim of  the  2nd respondent  which  has  been upheld on  the,  basis  of  the interpretation placed both by the Labour Court and the  High Court. Before we embark on an examination of the rival  contentions it  will  be  useful to mention that  after  the  Award  the question of its implementation was considered by the  Labour Appellate  Tribunal  which gavelits decision  on  28-4-1954. The  Central  Government  thereafter  modified  the   Labour Appellate  Tribunal’s  decision on 24-8-54 and on  the  same date  appointed  Gajendragadkar,  J. (as he  then  was),  to enquire  into and ascertain the effect of the  decision.  of the  Labour  Appellate Tribunal as modified by  the  Central Government  in  respect  of  the  emoluments  of  the   Bank employees.   On  25-7-1955 the Commission  made  its  report which were incorporated in the Industrial Disputes  (Banking Companies  Decision)  Act  (XLI of 1955).   The  Award  with modifications  as already set out, was to  become  effective from the 1st of April 1954.  The decision in this case will, ’therefore,  depend upon the interpretation to be placed  on the modified directions.  Though both sides have given their own  respective examples of the fitment that should be  made under these directions, the question whether the  assumption underlying the- respective worksheets is valid or not  would ultimately  depend  upon the proper  interpretation  of  the directions relating to the fitment of the emoluments of  the employees in the new scale. The learned Advocate for the appellant during his main argu- ments did not lay stress on clause (2) of paragraph 292  and in  fact  stated  that  these  can  be  ignored.   What  was emphasised  was ,that clause (a) cannot be read with  clause (b)  as contended by the 2nd respondent; that  the  existing scale  mentioned in clause (4) (a) is the pre-Sen scale  and the weightage that is admissible to the 2nd respondent is in that  existing  pre-Sen scale of one increment for  every  3 years of actual service which would only entitle him to  one increment  as he had actually served for 3 years from  13-1- 1947  to 31-1-1950 which latter date is the crucial date  on which fitment has to be made as specified in the  directions in  paragraph (4) (b).  Alternatively it was contended  that even  if clause (5) (a) was to be read with clause (4)  (b), though  that clause was inapplicable as the  2nd  respondent had  got a promotion from Grade II to Grade T,-as he had  on 1-1-1949 served 2 years and if to that service is added  the notional  service  under  clause (5) (a) after  he  eat  his promotion  to Grade I he would have served 2 more years.  , This  advantage he would have enjoyed as he would  have-been fitted in Rs. 102/- in the Junior scale and  133 would have taken 2 more years to reach the basic pay of  Rs. 112/-.  Even on this basis the 2nd respondent would only  be entitled to one increment.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

The learned Advocate for the-appellant while replying to the submissions of the second respondent who presented his  case personally, raised for the first time a contention based  on clause (2) in support of which he cited the decision of this Court  in State Bank of.  India v. Prakash  Chand  Mehra("). According to this submission a limitation was introduced  by clause  ,  (2) which is made applicable to the  fixation  of basic pay under clause (4) by the words ’subject to  clauses (1) to (3)’.  The direction in clause (2) that the basic pay in  the  new  scale shall  not  exceed  what  point-to-point adjustment  would  have given him in the new  scale,  it  is said,  excludes clause (4) (b) and the 2nd respondent  would not  be entitled to any increment,for every completed  three years  of service in the same cadre as on 31-1-50.  If  this view is accepted the 2nd respondent would merely be entitled to 4 increments at the rate of Rs. 7/- each in the new scale as on 1-4-54, and his pay will have to be fixed at Rs. 140/- and not as earlier contended on behalf of the appellant,  at Rs.  148/-.  There is no difficulty in so far as clause  (4) (a) is concerned because the basic pay of the 2nd respondent in  the existing scale of Grade I which was Rs. 108/-  would be fitted in the new scale in that next nearest basic pay of Rs.  112/-.   As we stated earlier, the  pre-Sen  scale  for Clerks  was comprised of both Grade I and Grade 11.  In  the Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda(2), this  Court had  said that the Sastry Award provided one grade  for  all clerical  workmen  by whatever name they were known  in  the Bank.   It cannot be disputed that a workman in Grade 11  as well as in Grade I is nonetheless in the pre-Sen scale which are  in  the same cadre.  Clause 4(b) directs  that  to  the basic  pay  into  which he is fitted under  clause  (a)  one increment for every completed 3 years of his service in  the same cadre as on 31-1-50 should be added.  This in our  view is  an additional advantage which is sought to be given  and is  not  to  be  restricted  by  clause  (2)  which  on  the interpretation  suggested would terminate the  advantage  of placing  him in the new scale with clause (4)  (a)  itself.- Some meaning has to be given to the words ’to the basic pay’ in clause (4) (b) which can only- be additional increment or increments based on the length of service.  It is true  that in  State Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Mehra(’,), it,  was observed :               "Giving  as  we must, natural meaning  to  the               words used in rules 2 and 4, we are of opinion               that in no case can the basic pay be fixed  at               a higher figure than               (1) [1961] 2 LLJ 3 8 3.               (2) [1962] Suppl. 2 S.C.R.  977.               134               what the   point-to-point  adjustment   would,               give to the workman  or  the           maximum               in the new scale.  Under rule 4 (a) the               workman’s  basic pay is Rs. 90 and under  rule               4(b)  to  this basic pay has to be  added  two               increments, in  respect  of the new  scale  so               that  the  basic pay 2, at Rs. 100.   If  that               were correct, the salary would be Rs. 126 on 1               April  1954.  There is however the  limitation               introduced by rule 2 which is made  applicable               to the fixation of the basic pay under rule  4               by  the  words  "subject to  rules  1  to  3".               Admittedly,  point-to-point. adjustment  would               give  the  respondent a basic pay of  Rs.  90.               This  limit cannot therefore be,  exceed;  and               so, in spite of rule 4 (b) ’ the basic pay for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

             applying the new scale would be Rs. 90 and not               Rs. 100". In  that case the respondent had entered the Bank’s  service on,  20-2-43 and on the 31st January 1950 he was  getting  a salary  of.   Rs.  86/- p.m. On 1-4-54 he  was  employed  at Abohar  Branch of the Imperial Bank of India and on  15-5-54 he was transferred to Amritsar.  Under the classification in the Bank Award, Abohar was class IV area while Amritsar  was a  Class 11 area.  On the basis that Abohar was a  class  IV area the respondent’s salary was fixed by the Bank on 1-4-54 at Rs.  112/  p.m. and on his transfer to Amritsar, a class II-  area, in consideration of his length of service he  was given  three  increments and ’his salary was  fixed  at  Rs. 133/-.  The respondent’s case was that   he was entitled to three  increments  over Rs. 126/- which it is  said  he  was drawing  at Abohar, i.e. Rs. 148/- p.m. On a  dispute  being referred  under  section 33C(2) of the  Industrial  Disputes Act, the Labour Court, Delhi accepted the respondent’s  case that  his pay should be fixed at Rs. 148/- p.m.  Though  the court  did not apply clause (4) (b) it nonetheless  came  to the same conclusion. on the basis that Abohar was  treated as a class IV area with retrospective effect from 1-4-54 and the calculation on that basis would fix his basic salary  at Rs.  126/-  on  1-4-54 and on transfer  from  that  area  to Amritsar, a class 11 area, he would get an increment and his salary  would  be  fixed at Rs. 133/-.   In  that  case  the meaning  and  significance of the term  ’point-to-  "  point adjustment’  mentioned in clause (2) was not  discussed  nor has  there  been anything said. as to the  contingencies  in which  those  directions were to be applied.   If  point-to- point  adjustment signifies the fixation of the  workman  at the  stage in the new scale equal to or above his basic  pay as  on 31-1-50, clause (4) (a) itself has provided for  that and  there was no need for clause (2) or clause (4) (b).   A perusal  of ’the report of the Gajendragadkar Commission  in this respect, however, furnishes a clue to this  135 enigma.   In paragraphs 109 to, 111 the Commission sets  out directions in the Award, the modification made by the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Government’s decision thereon.  A reference to paragraph 109. would not only show the   nature of  the scheme proposed in the Award but indicates  what  in fact  was, meant by point-to-point adjustment.  It is  there observed as follows :               "  109.  In fitting the existing staff in  the               revised  pay structure the Sen  Tribunal  gave               employees   the  benefit  of  what   virtually               amounted to point to point adjustment that is,               the  placing of each employee at the stage  in               the new scale to which he would have risen by               reason  of  the length of his service  had  he               entered  service  on the new scale.   After  a               careful  consideration of the various  aspects               of the question raised by the provisions  con-               tained in the Sen Award the Sastry Tribunal by               and large followed the recommendations of  the               Central  Pay Commission that when  persons  on               the  existing scale of pay were brought on  to               the  new  scales recommended for  them,  their               initial  pay should be fixed at the  stage  in               the  proposed  scale next above the  pay  they               were,  drawing  in  the  existing  scale   and               special increments added to it at the rate  of               one increment in the proposed scale for  every               three  completed years of service  subject  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

             certain ceilings in regard to the increase  to               be  allowed.  The Sastry Tribunal  recommended               that a workman should first be fitted into the               scale  of pay fixed by its award at the  stage               in  the new scale equal to or next  above  his               basic  pay as on the 31st January 1950 in  the               existing  scale  (pre-Sen  scale)  and  annual               increments in the new scale as from that stage               onwards added at the rate of one increment for               every  completed  three years of  his  service               subject to a maximum of 4 increments.  It also               recommended that two further annual increments               in the new scale should be added to the  basic               pay  fixed in the manner described  above  for               service or the two years 1951 and 1952 and the               worker  should be entitled to draw his  normal               increment  for 1953 and succeeding years  from               1st April of each year.  There were,  besides,               certain other recommendations aimed at  giving               protection  to  a  workman’s  basic  pay   and               emoluments  as on the 31st January  1950,  and               covering  cases of special increments  granted               or   increments   withheld   etc.    It   also               recommended. that subject to a workman’s basic               pay  as  on the 31st January  1950  not,  being               reduced in any case the adjusted, basic,pay in               the new               136               scale  should not exceed What point  to  point               adjustment  would give’ him or the maximum  in               the new scale". The  Labour  Appellate Tribunal agreed with  the  scheme  of _adjustment  given  by  the Award except in  regard  to  the weightage in respect of which it recommended the removal  of the 12 years’ limit for adding one increment for every three years.   In  its  place it proposed a tapering  off  of  the weightage  after 12 years, by the addition of one  increment for every 4 years in the next 8 years and one increment  for every  5  years  for  the  next  five  years.   Though   the Government   modified   the  Labour   Appellate   Tribunal’s recommendation by confirming the Award, it decided to  adopt what  was  proposed  by the  Labour  Appellate  Tribunal  in respect  of the weightage of one increment for  every  three years.    The  Commission,  however,  did  not  accept   the Government’s decision but made the following recommendations in para 112:--               "112.  The question raised by the modification               thus  made  by  Government is  not  likely  to               affect  a very large number of employees.   On               the  merits, it seems to me that much  can  be               said in favour of the view taken by the Labour               Appellate  Tribunal.   If,  in  adjusting  em-               ployees  in the new wage structure, they  are               entitled to have their previous service  taken               into  account, it is difficult  to  appreciate               why  a  line  should be drawn at  the  end  of               twelve  years’ service and it should  be  held               that  an  employee would not  be  entitled  to               claim  any  credit for any period  of  service               beyond  the said line.  The modification  made               by Government confirms the provisions made  by               the Sastry Tribunal, and these provisions,  as               I   have   just   indicated,   allow   certain               increments  in lieu of twelve years’  service.               If   fairplay  and  equity.    Justify   these

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

             provisions,  it would seem to follow that  the               same   considerations   would   justify    the               additional  provisions that have been made  by               the  Labour Appellate Tribunal  decision.   On               the merits, therefore, I am inclined to  agree               with the view taken by the Labour Appellate               Tribunal". It  would  appear clear from the above  recommendation  that ’What  the  Award meant in clause (2) when  it  referred  to point-’ to-point  adjustment  is  the  placing.  of   each employee  at the stage ’in the new scale to which  he  would have risen by reason of the length of service had he entered service in the new scale.  What was sought to be ensured  by clause (2) was that the adjusted basic pay in the new  scale shall  not  exceed  the  point-to-point  adjustment  or  the maximum  of the scale.  If the meaning given to the  phrase point-to-point adjustment, is what is stated by the 137 Commission in the report, then there, would be no impediment in  giving effect to the directions in clause (4)  (b).   It would not  therefore, be right to say that clause (4) (b) is to  be  ignored Or that the advantage ends  onlY  with  that given in clause (4) (a). The next question is what is it that clause (5) (a) Provides for  ? Does it provide for computing the length  of  service for  the  purposes of giving One increment for  every  three Years  of  notional service worked out on the basis  of  the service  that  would be required for a workman to  Mach  the basic pay which lie was drawing in the existing scale ? The contention of the 2nd respondent is sat taking the basic pay drawn by him as on 31st January 1950 to the nearest  integer the  length of service should be computed on the  basis  of the  number  of years which he would have to  serve  in  the junior  scale to draw that amount of basic pay.  It  appears to  us on a careful examination of the terms of  clause  (5) (a)  that the directions in this clause are inapplicable  to him.   Clause (5) (a) provides for only the, cases of  those who  start  on  a  higher  initial  basic  pay  by   getting additional  increments or are, given advance  increments  in any scale whether junior or senior.  In such  contingencies how the length of service for the purposes of clause (4) (b) is  to be computed was provided for in clause (5) (b).   The directions  given  in  that clause are that  the  length  of service  in the scale in which he is and in which he got  an increment  or increments either at the initial start  or  by special  promotion should be that which he would have  taken to  reach the basic pay which he would draw on 31st  January 1950 with the initial start.  The condition precedent to the applicability  of  the  directions in  this  clause  is  the receipt  of  increments  or  increment  by  way  of  special promotion.   An  increment  is in the  same  scale  while  a promotion is from one scale to a higher scale.  A  promotion from a lower grade to a higher grade though both the  grades may  be in the same cadre is not an increment or  increments by way of special promotion.  The use of the word  ’special’ would  itself  show  that what is  contemplated  is  advance increments  in the same grade.  What is sought to  be  taken into  account  by  the Award is the actual  service  of  the workman  or where he has been given increments in  the  same scale  he  is  sought  to be compensated  by  giving  him  a corresponding advantage in the new scale.  This is sought to be  effected  by  taking  into  account  the  increment   or increments  earned in the cadre in computing the  length  of service under clause (4) (b).  As the 2nd respondent did not get any increment or increments in the existing scale  which

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

was Grade I either at the initial start or by way of special promotion,  the  actual  service  in the  cadre  has  to  be computed  for  the purposes of clause (4)  (b).   The  words ’same cadre’ in that clause as explained earlier would refer to  both Grade IT and Grade 1. The actual service  in  both the 10-LI208SuPCI/72 138 grades will alone be considered for giving him an  increment for   every three years of service which in his  case  works out  to one increment in respect of his 3 years.’ service: from 13-1-47 to 31-1-50.  Even if the initial. increment  of Rs.  4/-  in  Grade  II which was given  to  him  for  being proficient in the working of a machine is taken into account under  clause: (5) (b) that would add one more year  to  the three  years  of actual service rendered .by  him  but  that does, not give him any further advantage.  He will, only  be entitled  to  one increment under clause (4)  (b).   In  the result we. hold that the 2nd respondent has to be fitted  in the new scale on a basic pay of Rs. 148/- and on that  basis the emoluments to which he would be entitled will have to be worked out. We accordingly    direct  the  Labour  Court  to give the necessary directon in     this regard. The  appeal  is,, therefore, allowed and  the  judgment  and decree  of the High Court affirming the Award of the  Labour Court is set aside but in the circumstances, without costs. G.C.                                                  Appeal allowed. 139