STATE BANK OF INDIA versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, DHANBAD & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 11-04-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

126 
STATE BANK OF INDIA 
Y. 
THE PRESil>ING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 
LABOUR COURT, DHANBAD & ANR. 
A'pril 11, 1972 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM; P. JAGANMOHAN 
K. K. MATHEW. JJ.J 
REDDY AND 
Labour Law-Industrial Dis-pute-Sas~ry Award par6'graph 292, cons-
truction of-Direction in clause (2) of paragraph 
whether excludes 
Claus~ 4.(b)-Clause 5(a) of paragraph, applimbilit,v of. 
The second respondent was 
employed on 3-1-1947 as a Grade II 
Clerk in too. Imperial Bank of India (taken over by the State Bank of 
India in 1955) on a ecale running from Rs. 70 to Rs. 170. Shoirtly 
afWr, he was given a raise of Rs. 4 because of his proficiency in using 
the machine. 
On 1-1-49 he was 
promoted to Grade 
I. The Sastry 
Award prescribed a uniform scale of pay for clerks of Grade I & JI 
and gave directions to make fitments in that grade. 
The second respon-
dent disput~ the conputiation of benefits admiscible to him undet the 
Award. 
In the consequent industrial 
dispute the Labour 
Court fixed 
the basic pay of the second respondent under paragraph 292
1 of 
the . 
Award as Rs. 164 p.m. as on 1-4-1954. The Labour Court; accepted 
his contention that clause (4)(b) of paragraph 292 should !Jj:· read with 
clause 5 (a) and that the latter clause was applicable to him because be-
fore. the Award came into force he was plromoted from Grade II to 
Grade I. The High Court confirmed the decision of the Labour Court. 
In appeal by the State Bank of India to this Court the questions that 
fell-for determination were: (i) whether the direction in clause (2) 
of 
paragraph 292 that the basic pay in the new· scale shall not exeoeed what 
point tO point adjustment would have given to the workman in tOO new 
scale has the effect of excluding clause (4)(b); (ii) whether s. (5)(a) 
of the paragraph was applicable to the second respondent. 
HELD : (i) The report of the Gajendragadkar Commission made it 
clear ·that what the Award meant in clause (2) when it referred to point-
to-point adjustment is the placing of each employee at the stage in t)te 
new . scale to which re would have risen by reason of length of service 
had he entered service in the new scale. What was sought to be ensured by 
clause (2) was that the adjusted basic pay in the new scale shall not ex· 
ceed the point-to-point adjustment or the maximum of the scale.. I( the 
meaning given to the phrase point-to-point adjustment is what is stated by 
the Commission in the report, then there would be no itripediment in giving 
effect to the directions in clause ( 4 )(b) . It would 
not therefore 
be 
right to say that clause ( 4) (b) is to be ignored or that the advantage 
ends only with that,given in clause (4)(a). [136G-!37A] 
(ii) The directions given in clause 5 (a) are that the length of ;erv1ce 
in 
the 
scale 
in 
which 
the 
workman 
is 
and 
in 
which he 
gets an increment or increments either at the initi:ll start dr bv special 
promotion should be that which he would have taken to reach the basic 
pay which he would draw on 3 !st January 1950 with 
the 
initial start. 
The condition precedent to the applicbaility of the directions in 
this 
clause is the receipt of increment or increments by way of special pro-
motion. The use of the word ··special" would itself >how that what is 
contemplated is advance increments in the same grade. [1370-FJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
D 
E 
F 
.G 
H 
STATE BANK v. LABOUR COURT (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 127 
As the 2nd respondent di4 not get any increment or increments in 
the existing scale which was Grade I either at the iritial start or by way 
of special promotion, the directions in clause 5 (a) were inapplicable .IQ 
him and his nctual servico in , the 
c"'1re had to be computed for the 
purpose of clause ( 4) (b). The words 'same cadre' in the latter clause 
would refer to both Grade II and Grade I. The actual service in both 
the grades will alone be considi:red 
for giving him an increment for 
every three years of service which in his case would work out to one 
increl'nent in respect of his 3 years' service from 31-1-47 to 31-1-50. 
[137H-138BJ 
[The Court, applying the principles as laid down above, held that 
the second respondent had to be fitted in the new scale C>n a basic pay 
of ll.s. 148]. 
r 
State Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Mehra, [1961) 2 L.L.J. 
383 
and Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. I,. 
Kharbanda, 
[1962] 
Suppl. 
2 S.C.R. 977, refurred tC>. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 1270 of 1968. 
Appeal from 

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