LexM. SELVARAJ DANIEL versus MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SU1'REME COURT REPORTS 275 We have therefore come to the conclusion that the Labour Court has erred in holding that the trans- fer was not made in accordance with the "standing orders" regarding transfers as contained in the Sastry Award. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Labour Court and order that the respon- dent's application under s.33A be rejected. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. ---- M. SELVARAJ DANIEL v. MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA JJ.) lndu•trial Di8pute-Sastry Award-From which date incre- ment will b• given-In the ca•e of perBon after January, 1U50- lndu•trial Dispufe8 Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), 1.33(c)(2). The appellant was appointed as a clerk in the State Bank of India on December 14, 1953. He made an application under •.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. He prayed before the Labour Court that he Wai enti• tied to Rs. 146/- plus dearness allowance as the benefit to which he was entitled under the Sastry Award but which had not been paid. The case of the appellant was that he wa• entitled under the Sastry Award to have his aunual increment in Decem· her each year as he was appointed on December, 14, 1953. The case of the Bank was that on the basis of the Sastry Award the appellant was entitled to get his annual increment in each year on April I. The. respondent raised a prelimhlary objec- tion that the question in regard to the increment of the appc· Hant could not be decided in an application under 1.33(c)(%) IJ6J c •• ,. 8.W,,6 C..P.,ation lit. y, CJ. Vilt•I - "" ,..,. I. JM .4Fll 21. 1969 M. S1lo1J1aj Danill V,· . Monagnn1n1 of Sta/1 Bank of India Dos Cupt• J. 276 SUPREME COURTREPORTS [1964JVOL. of the Act. The Labour Court rejected this preliminary objec· tion but on merits accepted the rase of the Bank. Hence the appeal. Hel.d that under s.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act the Labour Court has got jurisdiction to decide on an exami. nation of an award or settlement whether or not the workman ls entitled to the benefits claimed by him. The preliminary objection must therefore be held to have been rightly rejected .by the Labour Court. (2) that para 292 of the s .. try Award dealt with the question of fitting the existing stall' int<> the revised scales of pay. Persons who joined the service of the Bank after the date when tlir new scales came into force would not be governed by para 292 of the award for the simple reason that they were not "existing· staff" of the Bank. Such workmen would come straight into the revised scales of pay. Thus, the pre3'nt appe- llant appointed on December 14, 19.53, would get the benefit of the new sralea of pay from the very date of his appointment. In consequence, he would get the increments under the new scale on December 14, each year. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the order dated December 11, 1961, of the Central Government La- bour Court, Delhi in L.C.A. No. 605 of 1961. M. K. Ramam1irthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. 0. Aggarwala, for the appellant. - H. N. Sanyal, Solicitor-General of India, H.L. Anand, Vidya Sagar and B. 0. Das Gupta, for the respondent. 1963. April 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J.-The appellant was appointed as a clerk in the State Bank of India, the respondent before us, on December 14, 1953. At the time of • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 277 • appointment his salary was Rs. 95/· per month with a dearness allowance of Rs. 50/·. The Sastry Award in the disputes between certain banking companies and their workmen as modified by the labour Appellate Tribunal was given statutory force by the Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decisions Act, 1955. In applying to the appellant this award which is admittedly applicable to him the bank proceeded on the basis that under it the appellant was entitled to get his annual increment in each year on April I. According to the appellant, how- ever, he is entitled under the award to have his annual increment in December each year. On December 14, 1960, the appellant made an appli· cation under s. 33 (c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Delhi, praying that the benefit under the award of which he is being deprived by the bank by the alleged error in i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.