STATE BANK OF PATIALA versus RAM PRAKASH

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 06-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE BANK OF PATIALA 
v. 
RAMPRAKASH 
December 6, 1965 
A 
[P. 
B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., K. 
N. 
WANCHOO, 
B 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
P. 
SATYANARAYANA 
RAJU, JJ.J 
National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award (Desai Award) 
1962 para. 5.356 els. (i) to (iv)-lnterpretation and computation 
of 
benefits. 
The respondent-employees made applications nnder s. 33C(2) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act for determination and computation of the benefit 
to which they were entitled under the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank 
Disputes) Award (Desai Award) as they were not satisfied with the 
fixation of their pay by the appellant-bank under para 5.356 of the Desai 
Award. The Bank claimed that under clause (ii) of para 5.356 of the Desai 
Award, the adjusted basic pay in the new scale was not to exceed what 
point-1\'.l-point adjustment would give an employee on January 1, 1962 
and that this being the maximum permissible under cl. (ii), cl. (iv) could 
not g:.ve an employee more than the maximum arrived at under cl. (ii). 
The employees on the other hand claimed that they were entitled to what 
was provided by sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) and the two incre-
ments und.,,- sub-cl. (d) and that it did not matter whether what 
was 
thus arrived at exceeded the maximum provided under cl. (ii). The 
Labour Court partially accepted the employees' contention and fixed their 
pay accordingly. In appeal. 
HELD : The decision of this Court in Prakash Chand Mehrds oase 
would govern the interpretation of para 5.356 of the Desai Award also, 
which is in substance the same as para 292 of the Sastry Award as 
modified by the Labour Appellate decision. 
The adjusted basic pay in cl. (ii) has to be taken as on January I, 
1959. This follows from the fact 
that tho workman basic pay as 
on 
January 1, 1959 cannot be reduced and therefore when cl. (ii) speaks of 
adjusted basic pay it must refer to the same date as in cl. (i). Further 
cl. (iv) which provides for actual calculations 
starts with words "sub-
ject to rules (i) to (iii)'• and therefore the actual calculations made 
under cl. (iv) must be subject to els. (i) and (ii). This means in effect 
that the actual fixation under sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) will 
be subject to cl. (i) and cl. (ii). 
Under sub-cl. (a) of cl. (iv) a work-
man will be placed in the Sastry Awltrd as modified by placing him at 
the stage in the Sastry Award scale equal to or next ·above his basic pay 
as on January 1, 1959 in the scale then in force in the bank concerned. 
But in view of cl. ( i) this cannot be less than the actual basic pay of the 
workman as on January 1, 1959. Where under cl. (i) the actual basic 
pay as on January I, 1959 is more than what point.to-point adjustment· 
will give under cl. (ii), it cannot be ·reduced for cl. (ii) is subject to 
cl. (i). After this has been done the workman 
would be entitled 
to 
increments as provided in sub-cl. (bl read with sub-cl. (c) of cl. (iv), 
but this will be subject to cl. (i) and (ii) 
and the adjusted basic pay 
arrived at by giving the increments under sub-els. (b) and ( c) cannot 
exceed the adjusted basic pay as arrived at by point-to-point adjustment 
in the Sastry Award as modified or the maximum of that scale or the 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
' 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE BANK V. RAM PRAKASH (Wanchoo, J.) 
899 
actual basic pay as on !st January 1959, as the case 
may be. Thus 
sub°"!. (a) is subject to cl. (i) and the basic pay to be fixed on January 
I, 1959 has to be fixed by reading sub°"!. (a) of cl. (iv) and 
cl. 
(i) 
together. 
Then increments under sub-cl. (b) read with sub-cl. (c) 
of 
cl. (iv) have to be added, but this is again subject to the provisions of 
els. (i) and (ii). [903 E; 903 G-904 E] 
Once it is held that basic pay under cl. (ii) hao to be wo1ked out as 
on January I, 1959 the two increments provided by sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv) 
which are beyond that date must be given over and above what has been 
worked out under sub-els. 
(a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) of the Druai 
Award. The fact that by oversight sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv) was not made 
a separate clause would make no difference for sub°"!. (d) provide> for 
a period a~ter the date up to which cl. (ii) works. [904 H-905 B~ · 
State Bank of India Prakash Chand M.ehra, [1961] II L.L.J. 383, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1008 
and 1009 of 19q5. 
Appeals by special leave from the orders dated April l, 1965
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.