Managing Director, Pali Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Labour Court, Jodhpur and Another

Govind Mathur, J.—The writ petition is placed before this Court today for its adjudication in the spirit of Lok Adalat. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the appropriate government by its notification dated 18.4.2000 referred an industrial dispute to Labour Court, Jodhpur in the terms that "whether denial of the benefit for grant of one additional increment being graduate to applicant Pravin Kumar Gupta represented through Regional Secretary Shri Lalit Sharma, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur by employer Managing Director, Pali Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Pali is just and valid? If not, then for what relief the workman is entitled?"

Learned Labour Court after examining all relevant facts and bipartite agreement arrived between the Cooperative Bank Employees Union and the employer Bank arrived at the conclusion that denial of additional increment as claimed for was not correct. Accordingly, the reference was answered with a direction to grant one additional increment to the workman w.e.f. 27.10.1979. Being aggrieved by the award impugned, this petition for writ is preferred.

As per the petitioner the additional increment could have not been granted to the employees being employed subsequent to 25.7.1977. The agreement between the union and the bank was in following terms:-

As per the employer, the Labour Court in the case concerned made a ceiling for grant of one additional increment and in view of that the workman was not entitled for the increment as claimed for.

Per contra, the stand of the employee is that as a matter of fact the award passed by the Labour Court nowhere puts any ceiling. The relevant portion of the award reads as under:-

It does not lay down that this will be given to old employees only meaning thereby that all entrants after this settlement were entitled to this benefit. This was therefore an express service condition agreed to between the employees and the employer. In my opinion this was a condition of service expressly laid down in a mutually settled agreement.

It is further pointed out that this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1308/1990, decided on 14.12.1994 alongwith SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1310/1990 affirmed an award passed by the Labour Court with regard to certain other similarly situated employees for grant of additional increment.

I have considered the rival submissions and looking to the fact that additional increment has already been allowed to several other employees, may that be in view of the orders passed by the Labour Court, I do not find any just reason to deny the same to the present respondent. The case of the petitioner is also required to be treated in uniformity with other employees. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The award impugned is affirmed.