SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. versus A.R.CHACKO

Citation: [1964] 5 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 02-12-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

5 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
625 
~ 
such case of termination of service. The object in 
1963 
':\ 
making this provision appears therefore to be the same 
" 
as in the proviso, viz., to give the employee some State Bank of 
monetary assistance. It is difhcult to see why therefore 
I, dia 
· 
three months' pay and allowances paid under para 
v. 
521(2) (c) should not be held to include pay for a lesser Nanak Chand 
period as provided under the proviso to s. 33(2). 
Jain 
In our opinion, the payment for a longer period Das Gupta J. 
should be held to include payment for the shorter 
period and where three months' pay and allowances 
had been paid under the provisions of para 521 (2) (c) 
no further payment of one month's wages under the 
proviso to s. 33 (2) is required. 
We have therefore come to the conclusion that 
the Labour Court erred in dismissing the Bank's 
application under s. 33 \2) on the ground that 
the requirement or payment of one month's wages 
had not been complied with. 
Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the 
order of the Labour Court and direct that the appli-
cation under s. 33 (2) (b) be disposed of on merits. 
There will be no order as to costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. 
v. 
A.R.CHACKO 
(P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. W ANCHOO AND 
K.C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes-Promotion ofworkman-Pay-Application-
Whether lies under s. 33C(2)-Jurisdiction of Labour Court,-Sastry 
Award-if benefits accrue after Award ceased to be operative-
Accountant-If Workman-lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947(14of 1947) 
1/S.C.l./64-40 
1963 
December 2 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1964] 
1963 
ss. 7, 19(3), 19(6), 33C(2)-Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) 
Decision Act, 1955 (41 o/1955), s. 4. 
South Indian 
Bank Ltd. 
v. 
A.R. Chacko 
The respondent, a clerk in the appellant Bank, was promoted 
as Accountant and his pay was fixed in the new post. The res-
pondent filed an application under s. 33C(2) of the .Industrial 
Disputes Act claiming that he was entitled from the date of his 
joining as accountant (a) to the basic pay of his old grade with 
annual increments due on December 1, every year, (b) special 
allowance of Rs. 40 per month for the additional supervisory 
duties under para 164 of the Sastry Award, and (c) dearness allow-
ance in terms of the award, and prayed to the Labour Court for 
recovery of the amount due to him. In resisting this application 
the appellant contended (1) that such an application under 
s. 33C(2) was incompetent, (2) that in any case the matter would 
be one within the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal and not the 
Labour Court, (3) that the Sastry A ward had ceased to be operative 
long before the date of the respondent's appointment as an Accoun-
tant and. so no benefits accrued to him under that Award, and 
(4) that by his appointment as accountant, the respondent had 
ceased to be a workman and therefore not entitled to the benefit 
of the Sastry Award. The. Labour Court rejected all these ob-
jections and allowed the application. In appeal by special leave. 
Held: (i) Such an application by workmen lies under 
s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
Central Bank of India 
v. 
P.S. 
Rajagopalan, [1964] 3 
S.C.R. 140, followed. 
. 
(ii) In view of the provisions ofs. 7 ands. 33C(2), the Labour 
Court as specified by the Government and not the Industrial Tri-
bunal has jurisdiction to deal with this matter. 
(iii) The objection that no benefit as claimed could accrue to the 
respondent after the Sastry Award had ceased to be operative, 
must be rejected. The provision in s. 19(6) as regards the period 
for which the award shall continue to be binding is not in any 
way affected by s. 4 of the Industrial Disputes (Banking Compwies) 
Decision Act. 
The different provisions made by the legislature in s. 19(3) 
and s. 19(6) illustrate the distinction between an award being in 
operation and an award being binding on the parties. Section 
19(6) makes clear that after the period of operation of an award 
has expired, the award does not cease to be effective. 
Though in consequence of s. 4 of the Industrial Disputes 
(Banking companies) Decision Act, the Award remained in force 
only until March 31, 1959, it continued to have effect as a contract 
between the parties that had been made by industrial adjudication 
in place of the old contract. 
(iv) On consideration of the evidence in the present case, the 
respondent was merely a senior clerk, doing 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.