State Bank of India vs Central Government Labour Court and Others

R.L. Narasimham, C.J.—This is an application to quash the order of the labour court at Dhanbad, dated 22 December 1964, in an application u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, The petitioner is the State Bank of India and respondent 2 is one of its employees. He had joined service as a grade II clerk on 13 January 1947, the scale of pay of that grade being Rs. 70-4-126-EB-130-5-175. On 1 January 1949, he was promoted to grade I on the scale of Ra. 100-8-180-EB-10-250. These two scales were laid down by a previous award of the industrial tribunal, popularly known as the Gupta award, which was binding between the State Bank of India and its employees. Later on there was another award, known as the Sastri award, which came into force with effect from 1 April 1954. By that award the two grades in the clerical branch were merged into one grade with the scale of Rs. 85-5-100-6-112-7-140-8-164-9-245-10-265-15-280. With a view to fit the existing employees into the new scale the Sastri award laid down certain Rules, which, as subsequently modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, are as follows:

292 (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.

292(4). Subject to Rules (1) to (3) a workman''s basic pay in the new scale shall be fixed in the following manner:

(a) A workman shall first be fitted Into the scale of pay fixed by our award (herein called the new scale), by placing him at the stage in the new scale equal to, or next above his basic pay as on 31 January 1950 in the pre-Sen scale then in force (herein called the existing scale).

(b) To the basic pay into which he Is fitted under Clause (a) 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 his service in the same cadre as on 31 January 1950 up to a limit of twelve years of service. Thereafter one increment for every four years of service up to another eight years of service and after that one increment for every five years of service.

292 (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 31 January 1950, in the existing scale (fractions being rounded off to the nearest integer).

(b) Similarly where a workman''s increment or Increments have been withheld prior to 31 January 1950 the length of service in his case will be calculated by subtracting the number of years for which the increments have been withheld.

Respondent 2 contended that by virtue of the aforesaid rules his basic pay should have been fixed at Rule 112 on 31 January 1950, that in addition to four increments for the years 1951, 1952,1953 and 1954 (viz., Rs. 7-7-7-8=Rs. 29), he should also have been given three increments for the period prior to 31 January 1950, by virtue of Clause (b) of Rule 292 (4) mentioned above. He, therefore, claimed that his pay should have been fixed at Rs. 164 with effect from 1 April 1954. The State Bank of India, however, contended that he was not entitled to any increment in respect of the period prior to 31 January 1950, though ex gratia it was willing to give him one increment of Rs. 7 for that period. Thus, according to the State Bank, be was entitled to fixation of pay at Rs. 148 per month with effect from 1 April 1954. The dispute was taken up before the said labour court u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Apart from the aforesaid dispute, the bank also objected to the maintainability of the application u/s 33C(2). This point was held against the bank by the labour court, and Sri Lai Narain Sinha for the bank did not challenge that finding before us.

Thus the sole question for consideration by us now is whether the decision of the labour court to the effect that the pay of respondent 2 should be fixed at Rs. 164 per month with effect from 1 April 1954, by virtue of Sastri award (as subsequently modified) should be interfered with by this Court. It was fairly conceded that this Court''s jurisdiction is limited to an examination as to whether there is any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Sri Lai Narain Sinha urged that such an error of law was apparent from the every finding of the labour court on the subject, as will be clear from the following extract from the order of the labour court:

On the other hand, the learned Counsel, Sri P. Ginwalla, for the opposite party (i.e., the State Bank), stressed the difference in the terminologies, viz., scheme, grade and cadre, and contended that efficiency bar in the same grade should be ignored but not differences between one grade and Anr. The exact significance of the aforesaid arguments is not quite intelligible and has not, in my opinion, taken away a jot or tittle from the arguments based on the provisions of the Sastri award, according to which the applicant''s pay is fixed at Bs. 164.

The passage quoted above shows dearly that the Court did not appreciate the point of law raised by Sri Ginwalla for the State Bank and has avoided to answer the same.

It will be noticed that in Clause (c) of Rule 292 (4) of the Sastri award it is stated that to the basic pay, as fixed under Clause (a), should be added" at the rate of one increment for every completed three years of service in the same cadre as on 31 January 1950." Here the words in the same cadre have a great significance. Respondent 2 was in grade I of the clerical post with effect from 1 January 1949, and he was in grade II of the clerical post from 13 January 1947. The question obviously arises as to whether the said rule In the Sastri award Included both grades I and II in the same cadre, or else whether the expression "cadre" was used with reference to the grade in which the employee was on 31 January 1950. The expressions "grade," "cadre," "scale of pay," are well-known in service rules, and the meaning to be given to them will depend on the well-established service practice of which evidence may have to be adduced before the labour court. That Court has to decide what was the meaning Intended to be given to the expression "same cadre" occurring in Rule 292 (4)(b) of the Sastri award. A careful perusal of the entire award, as well as of the previous award, namely, the Gupta award, and the evidence of the service practice that may be adduced by the parties, may be necessary before this point can be finally decided, and, when Sri Ginwalla raised this question, the labour court should not have brushed aside his argument saying that it was "not quite intelligible." The Court has clearly shirked its duty to decide this very important question of law and thus has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

I would, therefore, quash the order of the labour court dated 22 December 1964, fixing the pay of respondent 2 at Rs. 164 per month with effect from 1 April 1954, and direct it to re-bear the dispute and fix his pay according to law, after giving ''both the parties a reasonable opportunity to show what was meant by the expression "the same cadre as on 31 January 1950" in Rule 292 (4)(b) of the Sastri award. Both parties will bear their own costs.

R.J. Bahadur, J.

I agree.