LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA versus M. SELVARAJ DANIEL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1965 M. Stfr;eraj Daniel ... Motta111111nt of ~l•le B•nk of /ndi• Dos Go;I• J, IMS 280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. entitled to Rs. 146/- plus dearness allowance as the benefit to ".Vhich he is entitle~ under the Sastry Award but which has not been paid . The Labour Court was, therefore, wrong m rejecting the appellant's petition. We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the La~our <?ourt, Delhi, and compute the sum to which he is entitled under the Award at Rs. 141i/- plus dear- neu allowance." No order as to costs. Appeal allowed. STATE BANK OF INDIA v. M. ~ELVARAJ DANIEL (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANOHOO, and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.) Review Application-No error in d-ispo•ing appeal~Review faik-Sa.try Award, Para 292-lndu•trial Di•putes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), •· 33(e)(2). · The application for review arose out of a judgment pas- sed hy this Court in Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1962. The appeal arose out of an application filed by a workman of the State Bank under s.33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before· the Labour Court. He was appointed as a clerk in the Bank on December 14, 1953. He complained that· the Bank had not paid him the increment on the basis of the Sastry Award. His case was that he was entitled under the award to have his an· nual increment in .December each year. The case of the.Bank was that on the basis of the award the workman was entitled to get his annual increment in each year on April •I. On theae facts it was held that the workman . would get the benefit of - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 281 the new scales of pay from the very day of his appointment i.t. from December 14, 1953. Thus the appeal of the workman wa1 allowed. Hence the review. H•ld. that (i) this applic•tion failed a! thi! Court did not commit any error in disposing of the appeal" (ii) in .para 292 of the Sa•try Award special directions were given as regards the adj111twent into tne pay scale of the workmen who had joinrd the mvice of the Bank aftet January, 1950, but in their case nothing was said as co the date from which future incrc· ments would take effect. The necessary and inevitable conse- quence of the absence of any such direction in the matter is that future increments would be on that date of the year when the workman was appointed. On the facts of this ca!e it was held that the appcllant·workman would get the increments under the new scale on December 14, each year. CIVIL APPELLATB JURISDICTION: Review Petit· ion No. Re. C.A. No. 33 of 1963. Petition for Review of this Court's judgment dated April 22, 1963, in Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1962. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, H.N. Sanyal, Solicitor-General of India, H.L. Anand, Das Gupta and V. Sagar, for the appellant. M.K. Ramamurthy, R.K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, for the respondent. 1963. December 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GuPTAj.-This application for review of a judgment given by us on April 22 this year is by the Bank, wpich was the respondent in the appeal. The appellant who had been appointed a clerk in the Bank on December 14, 1953, made an appli· cation under s. 33 (b)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court, Delhi. He complain- ed that in applying to _him the award of the Sastry 1965 Sl•I• Bak of ln,i• ... M, s.t..,~ D..W1I 1963 Stat• Bank of India v •. M. ')elvaraj Danitl Das &upta J. 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964) VOL. Tribunal in the dispute between certain banks and their workmen as modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the Bank had proceeded on the basis that under it the appellant was entitled to get his annual, increment in each year on April 1. According to the appellant, he was entitled nnder the award to have his annual increment in December each year, Ac- cordingly, he prayed that the benefit of which he was being deprived by the Bank should be computed and directed to be paid to him. At the hearing of the appeal it was contended before us on behalf of the appellant that on a proper interpreta- tion of para. 292 of the Sastry Award which deals with the question of adjustment of clerks already in service into the scale of pay fixed by the award, he should get his increments on December 14, every year. The Bank's contention was that increments had been rightly given from April 1. We did not however examine para. 292 as it appeared to us that when the appellant w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.