Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENTLABOUR COURT, DHANB
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/04/1972
BENCH:
ACT:
Labour Law-Industrial Dispute-Sastry Award paragraph 292,
construction of-Direction in clause (2) of paragraph whether
excludes Clause 4(b)-Clause 5(a) of paragraph, applicability
of.
HEADNOTE:
The second respondent was employed on 3-1-1947 as a Grade II
Clerk in the- Imperial Bank of India (taken over by the
State Bank of India in 1955) on a scale running from Rs. 70
to Rs. 170. Shortly after, 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 1. The Sastry Award prescribed a
uniform scale of pay for clerks of Grade I & II and gave
directions to make fitments in that grade. The second
respondent disputed the computation of benefits admissible
to him under the Award. In the consequent industrial
dispute the Labour Court fixed the basic pay of the second
respondent under paragraph 292 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 be read with
clause 5(a) and that the latter clause was applicable to him
because before the Award came into force he was promoted
from Grade If to Grade 1. 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 nay in the new scale shall
not exceed what point to point adjustment would have given
to the workman in the 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 the/ new scale to which In 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 exceed the point-to-point adjustment or the
maximum of the scale., if 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 impediment
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-137A]
(ii The directions given in clause 5(a) are that the, length
of service in the scale in which the workman is and in which
he gets an increment or increments either at the initial
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
start or by special promotion should be that which he would
have taken to reach the basic pay which he would draw on
31st January 1950 with the initial start. The condition
precedent to the applicability of the directions in this
clause is the receipt of increment or increments by way of
special promotion. The use of the word ’special’ would
itself show that what is contemplated is advance increments
in the same grade. [137D-F]
127
As the, 2nd respondent did, not got any increment or
increments in the existing_scale which was Grade I. either
at the initial start or by way of special promotion, the
directions in clause 5(a) were inapplicable to him and his
actual service in-the cadre had to be computed for the
purpose of clause (4)(b). The words ’same’ cadre in the
latter clause would refer to both Grade 11 and Grade 1. The
actual serviceman both the grades will alone be considered
for giving him an increment for every three years of service
which in his case would work out to one increment in respect
of his 3 years service from 31-1-47 to 31-1-50.
[137H-138B]
The Court, applying the principles as laid down above, held
that the second respondent had to be fitted in the new scale
on a basic pay of Rs. 1481.
State Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Mehra, [1961] 2 L.L.J.
383 and Punjab National Bank Lid. v. K. L. Kharbanda, [1962]
Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 977, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 1270 of 1968.
Appeal from the Judgment dated the April 24, 1967 of the
Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 567
of 1966.
S. T. Desai, H. L. Anand, V. N. Koura and Ashok Grover, for
the appellant.
Respondent No. 2 appeared in person.
The Judgment of, the Court was delivered by
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This appeal by certificate raises a
question as to the interpretation and proper application of
paragraph 292-of the Sastry Award (hereinafter called ’the
Award’). The 2nd respondent was employed on 13-1-1947 as a
Grade II Clerk in the Imeperial Bank of India on a scale of
Rs. 70-4126-EB-130-5-175. This Bank was subsequently taken
over by the State Bank of India under the State, Bank of
India Act (Act XXIII of 1955). ’A, few months after the
respondent was employed he was given a pay of Rs. 74/-
because of his proficiency in using ’the machine. On 13-1-
48 he earned an increment and his basic pay was Rs. 78/-.
On 1-1-49 he was promoted to Grade I so that on the date of
his promotion he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 100/-. On
1-1-50 he earned an increment and his basic pay I was Rs.
108/-. The Sastry Award prescribed a uniform scale of pay
for clerks of Grades 1 & 11 and gave directions to make
fitments in that Grade,. The 2nd respondent disputed the
computation of the benefits admissible to him under, The’-
Award and. consequently applied for a settlement of his
dispute. under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act
(XIV of 1947) which was referred to the Labour Court. The
Labour Court allowed the application and fixed the basic
’Pay of the Applicant under paragraph 292 of the Award at
Rs. 164/- p.m. as on 1-4-1954 with directions to the
appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 1647.91 for
the period from
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
128
1-4-54 to 31-12-61. The appellant challenged the Award
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution but the High
Court accepting the interpretation placed by the Lavour
Court on paragraph 292 of the Award dismissed the petition.
Inasmuch as the dispute between the parties is dependent
upon the view which can ’reasonably Ile taken of paragraph
292 of the Award, it will be necessary to examine the
directions contained therein,. We give below the relevant
directions of that paragraph as amended:--
"292. Section 11-for workmen Who entered
service of the. Bank before 31st January
1950-
(1) The workman’s basic pay
as on 31st January 1950 shall not be reduced
in any case.
(2) Subject to rule (1) the
adjusted basic pay in the: new scale shall not
exceed what point-to-point adjustment would
give him or the maximum in the new scale.
(3) In the matter of
adjustment all efficiency bars, whether in the
previously existing scales or in the new
scales fixed by the award, should be ignored.
(4) Subiect to rules (1) to (3) a
workman’s basic pay in the hew scale shall be
fixed in the following manner :-
(a) A workman shall first be fitted into the
scale of pay fixed by the said award
(hereinafter called the new scale) by placing
him at the stage in the new scale equal to, or
next above, his basic pay as on 31st January
1950 in the. present scale then in force
(herein called the existing scale).
(b) To the basic pay into which he is fitted
under cl. (a) the annual increment or
increments in the new scale as from that stage
onwards should be added at the rate of one
increment for every completed three years of
service in the same cadre as on 31st January
1950 upto a limit of twelve years’ service;
thereafter one increment for_every four years
of service up to another eight years’ service
and after that one increment for every five
years of service.
(4A) After adjustments are made in accordance
with the directions Riven, three further
annual increments in the new scale will be
added thereto for service for the three years
1951 to 1953. In addition, the work man will
be entitled to draw his normal increment
129
for 1954 on 1st April 1954. Thereafter each
succeeding years’ annual’increment shall take
effect as and from 1st April of that year."
(5) (a) Where a workman
received an- additional increment or
increments in his basic pay either at the
initial start or by way of special promotion
later on, his, length of service will be taken
to-be the period which would ordinarily be
necessary to bring a workman with the usual
initial start without special promotion to
that basic pay as (on) 31st January 1950, in
the existing scale (fractions being rounded
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
off to the nearest integer)
(b) Similarly where a workman’s
increment or increments have been withheld
prior to 31st January 1950 the length of
service in his case will be calculated by
subtracting the number of Wars for which the
increments have been withheld.
(c) x x x x
(6) x x x x"
It may be mentioned here that prior to the. Award another
Award known as the Sen Award was given on 12-8-50. This
latter award, however, was declared void by the Supreme
Court on 9-4-51. The pre-Sen scales were those fixed by the
Award of an Industrial Tribunal known as Gupta Award
admissible to the employees of the Imperial Bank of India,
as it then was. The scales applicable to the 2nd respondent
who was employed on 13-1-47 in the Calcutta Branch were Rs.
70- 4-126-EB-130-5-175 when he was in Grade II and Rs.
100-8-180EB-10-250 when he was promoted to Grade 1. The
Award as subsequently modified prescribed only one scale of
pay’ of Rs. 85-5-100-6-112-7-140-8-164 9-245-10265-15-280
for clerical staff in ’A’ class Banks in Class I areas.
This scale applied to the clerical staff employed at the
Calcutta Branch. It will be seen that the fitment of the
basic salary of persons in Grade 11 and Grade in the new
scales became a matter of some controversy due to the
difficulty of variation in the total number of years for
each of the grades in which an employee had to work out his
increments. In Grade II the maximum grade could be attained
in 24 years while Grade I had arrange of 17 years. In the
new grade an employee took 24 years to reach the maximum.
In other words, the number of years required to reach the
maximum of basic pay from the initial basic Pay in Grade II
and that in the new scale was the same, namely 24 years.
The only difficulty that would’ present itself
130
in the fitment of pay in the new grade in respect of a
promotion made prior to the coming into force of the new
scales from Grade 11 to Grade 1. It is for this reason the
directions contained in clauses 3, 4 and 5 of paragraph 292
were evolved basing the fitment both on the actual pay drawn
and the increments which a person would nationality have
earned having regard to tin number of years which/he would
have taken in the new scale to draw the pay which he was
actually getting on the date when the Award was brought into
force. Ignoring the efficiency bar as provided in clause
(3) of paragraph 292, a workman has to be fitted under
clause (4) (a) into the scale of pay fixed by the Award
placing him at the stage in the new scale equal to or next
,over his basic pay as on 31-1-50 in the pre-Sen scale ’then
in force. it is not disputed by the parties that on 31-1-50
the 2nd respondent was drawing Rs. 108/- and since in the
new scale he could not be fixed in Rs. 108/- he has to be
fitted in Rs. 112/-. As clause (4) is also subject to
clause (2) the adjusted pay in the new scale is directed not
to exceed what point to point adjustment would give the
workman or the maximum in the new scale. Does this mean
that after the fitment under clause (2) is made clause, (4)
(b) is to be ignored and only those increments specified in
clause (4) are to be added ? Or is the workman also en
-titled to the increments specified in, (4) (b) and if so,
is that clause to be read with clause 5 (a) as contended by
’the 2nd respondent?
On the assumption that clause (4) (b) is applicable the
workman would be entitled to one; increment for every three
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
completed years of service in the cadre as on 31-1-50.
There is also no dispute that ’he had completed three years
from 13-1-47 to 31-1-50 and on this basis he would be
entitled to one increment so, that the basic pay would be
Rs. 119. Under clause (4A) he would further be entitled to
three increments in the new scale for his service for the
’three years 1951 to 1953. It is at this stage that the
appellant and the 2nd respondent part ways. The appellant
contends that the basic pay in the new scale is arrived at
after adjustment under clauses (4) (a) and (4A) to three
further increments, namely, 7+7+7=21 which added to Rs.
119/would be Rs. 140/- and since the fitment was being made
as from 1-4-54 he will be entitled to one more increment
which is Rs. 8/- giving him a total basic pay of Rs. 148/-.
The 2nd respondent, however, contends that clause (4) (b)
should be read with clause (5) (a) because before the, Award
came into force. he was promoted to Grade I and his basic
pay in that grade should be taken into consideration for
which clause (5) (a) was designed. The appellant takes the
stand that this clause is not applicable because the
additional increments under that clause are only in ,respect
of any ’increment or increments in the basic pay at the
131
initial stage-or by way of special promotion later on in the
same cadre which under clause (4) (b) must mean Grade II.
As the 2nd respondent was not given any increments in the
basic pay at the initial stage nor was he given any
increment by way of special promotion he will not be
entitled to the benefit given by clause (5) (a). In this
view, it is submitted that the interpretation placed by the
Labour Court brings para 292 (5) (a) in direct conflict with
para 292(4)(b) because the former was only a deeming deeming
provision and was intended for computation of length of
service. The Labour Court as well as the High Court,
however, interpreted the word ’cadre’ in para. 292 (4) (b)
as covering all workmen in the cadre of clerks and not
different cadres, which means that both grade 11 and grade I
of the pre-Sen Award are included in the same cadre and not
different cadres.
The, High Court referred to paragraph 91 in which it was
mentioned that Gupta Award had reduced the four cadres of
clerks with different grades of pay employed by Imperial
Bank of India into two grades, namely, the junior clerks and
senior clerks and though para 531 has used expressions like
’officers grade’ and ’clerical grade it is not possible to
hold that each grade of clerks with a particular scale of
pay was considered to be a cadre by itself. In its view the
mere mention of one grade or two grades for the clerical
staff does not justify the conclusion that each grade with a
particular scale of pay was taken to be a separate cadre of
I service. On the contrary its impression was that the
clerical staff was taken ’to be a cadre even if it had at
one point of time different grades with different scales of
pay. it accordingly held ’that the interpretation placed by
the Labour Court was correct and that the expression ’in the
same cadre’ occurring in paragraph 292 (4) (b) of the Award
was equivalent to the expression ’in the same grade’. On
this interpretation paragraph 292 (5) (a) was read with
paragraph 292 (4) (b). If so read, the respondent would be
entitled to three increments instead of one increment as
contended by the 2nd respondent. Once the amount to be
added to the basic pay drawn as on 31-1-50 is fixed in the
new scale which is Rs. 112/- by reference to the deeming
provision under (5) (a) read with (4) (b) the second
respondent would be entitled to three increments for every
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
notional year on the basis that if he had not been special
increments at the beginning and promotion to Grade I on
given 1-1-49 he would have taken 10 Years to reach the basic
pay he was then drawing. Applying this Principle he would
get three increments of pay for three years amounting to.
Rs. 21/-, which added to Rs. 112/- would give him a basic
salary of Rs. 133/There after under clause (4A) for the
years 1951 to 1953 he would have to be given 3 further
increments, namely, 7+8+8= 23 and thereafter he would earn
another increment as on 1st
132
April 1954 so that the increments under clause (4A) would be
Rs. 31/- which added to Rs. 133/- would entitle him to a-
basic salary of Rs. 164/-. This is the claim of the 2nd
respondent which has been upheld on the, basis of the
interpretation placed both by the Labour Court and the High
Court.
Before we embark on an examination of the rival contentions
it will be useful to mention that after the Award the
question of its implementation was considered by the Labour
Appellate Tribunal which gavelits decision on 28-4-1954.
The Central Government thereafter modified the Labour
Appellate Tribunal’s decision on 24-8-54 and on the same
date appointed Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was), to
enquire into and ascertain the effect of the decision. of
the Labour Appellate Tribunal as modified by the Central
Government in respect of the emoluments of the Bank
employees. On 25-7-1955 the Commission made its report
which were incorporated in the Industrial Disputes (Banking
Companies Decision) Act (XLI of 1955). The Award with
modifications as already set out, was to become effective
from the 1st of April 1954. The decision in this case will,
’therefore, depend upon the interpretation to be placed on
the modified directions. Though both sides have given their
own respective examples of the fitment that should be made
under these directions, the question whether the assumption
underlying the- respective worksheets is valid or not would
ultimately depend upon the proper interpretation of the
directions relating to the fitment of the emoluments of the
employees in the new scale.
The learned Advocate for the appellant during his main argu-
ments did not lay stress on clause (2) of paragraph 292 and
in fact stated that these can be ignored. What was
emphasised was ,that clause (a) cannot be read with clause
(b) as contended by the 2nd respondent; that the existing
scale mentioned in clause (4) (a) is the pre-Sen scale and
the weightage that is admissible to the 2nd respondent is in
that existing pre-Sen scale of one increment for every 3
years of actual service which would only entitle him to one
increment as he had actually served for 3 years from 13-1-
1947 to 31-1-1950 which latter date is the crucial date on
which fitment has to be made as specified in the directions
in paragraph (4) (b). Alternatively it was contended that
even if clause (5) (a) was to be read with clause (4) (b),
though that clause was inapplicable as the 2nd respondent
had got a promotion from Grade II to Grade T,-as he had on
1-1-1949 served 2 years and if to that service is added the
notional service under clause (5) (a) after he eat his
promotion to Grade I he would have served 2 more years. ,
This advantage he would have enjoyed as he would have-been
fitted in Rs. 102/- in the Junior scale and
133
would have taken 2 more years to reach the basic pay of Rs.
112/-. Even on this basis the 2nd respondent would only be
entitled to one increment.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
The learned Advocate for the-appellant while replying to the
submissions of the second respondent who presented his case
personally, raised for the first time a contention based on
clause (2) in support of which he cited the decision of this
Court in State Bank of. India v. Prakash Chand Mehra(").
According to this submission a limitation was introduced by
clause , (2) which is made applicable to the fixation of
basic pay under clause (4) by the words ’subject to clauses
(1) to (3)’. The direction in clause (2) that the basic pay
in the new scale shall not exceed what point-to-point
adjustment would have given him in the new scale, it is
said, excludes clause (4) (b) and the 2nd respondent would
not be entitled to any increment,for every completed three
years of service in the same cadre as on 31-1-50. If this
view is accepted the 2nd respondent would merely be entitled
to 4 increments at the rate of Rs. 7/- each in the new scale
as on 1-4-54, and his pay will have to be fixed at Rs. 140/-
and not as earlier contended on behalf of the appellant, at
Rs. 148/-. There is no difficulty in so far as clause (4)
(a) is concerned because the basic pay of the 2nd respondent
in the existing scale of Grade I which was Rs. 108/- would
be fitted in the new scale in that next nearest basic pay of
Rs. 112/-. As we stated earlier, the pre-Sen scale for
Clerks was comprised of both Grade I and Grade 11. In the
Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda(2), this Court
had said that the Sastry Award provided one grade for all
clerical workmen by whatever name they were known in the
Bank. It cannot be disputed that a workman in Grade 11 as
well as in Grade I is nonetheless in the pre-Sen scale which
are in the same cadre. Clause 4(b) directs that to the
basic pay into which he is fitted under clause (a) one
increment for every completed 3 years of his service in the
same cadre as on 31-1-50 should be added. This in our view
is an additional advantage which is sought to be given and
is not to be restricted by clause (2) which on the
interpretation suggested would terminate the advantage of
placing him in the new scale with clause (4) (a) itself.-
Some meaning has to be given to the words ’to the basic pay’
in clause (4) (b) which can only- be additional increment or
increments based on the length of service. It is true that
in State Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Mehra(’,), it, was
observed :
"Giving as we must, natural meaning to the
words used in rules 2 and 4, we are of opinion
that in no case can the basic pay be fixed at
a higher figure than
(1) [1961] 2 LLJ 3 8 3.
(2) [1962] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 977.
134
what the point-to-point adjustment would,
give to the workman or the maximum
in the new scale. Under rule 4 (a) the
workman’s basic pay is Rs. 90 and under rule
4(b) to this basic pay has to be added two
increments, in respect of the new scale so
that the basic pay 2, at Rs. 100. If that
were correct, the salary would be Rs. 126 on 1
April 1954. There is however the limitation
introduced by rule 2 which is made applicable
to the fixation of the basic pay under rule 4
by the words "subject to rules 1 to 3".
Admittedly, point-to-point. adjustment would
give the respondent a basic pay of Rs. 90.
This limit cannot therefore be, exceed; and
so, in spite of rule 4 (b) ’ the basic pay for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
applying the new scale would be Rs. 90 and not
Rs. 100".
In that case the respondent had entered the Bank’s service
on, 20-2-43 and on the 31st January 1950 he was getting a
salary of. Rs. 86/- p.m. On 1-4-54 he was employed at
Abohar Branch of the Imperial Bank of India and on 15-5-54
he was transferred to Amritsar. Under the classification in
the Bank Award, Abohar was class IV area while Amritsar was
a Class 11 area. On the basis that Abohar was a class IV
area the respondent’s salary was fixed by the Bank on 1-4-54
at Rs. 112/ p.m. and on his transfer to Amritsar, a class
II- area, in consideration of his length of service he was
given three increments and ’his salary was fixed at Rs.
133/-. The respondent’s case was that he was entitled to
three increments over Rs. 126/- which it is said he was
drawing at Abohar, i.e. Rs. 148/- p.m. On a dispute being
referred under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, the Labour Court, Delhi accepted the respondent’s case
that his pay should be fixed at Rs. 148/- p.m. Though the
court did not apply clause (4) (b) it nonetheless came to
the same conclusion. on the basis that Abohar was treated
as a class IV area with retrospective effect from 1-4-54 and
the calculation on that basis would fix his basic salary at
Rs. 126/- on 1-4-54 and on transfer from that area to
Amritsar, a class 11 area, he would get an increment and his
salary would be fixed at Rs. 133/-. In that case the
meaning and significance of the term ’point-to- " point
adjustment’ mentioned in clause (2) was not discussed nor
has there been anything said. as to the contingencies in
which those directions were to be applied. If point-to-
point adjustment signifies the fixation of the workman at
the stage in the new scale equal to or above his basic pay
as on 31-1-50, clause (4) (a) itself has provided for that
and there was no need for clause (2) or clause (4) (b). A
perusal of ’the report of the Gajendragadkar Commission in
this respect, however, furnishes a clue to this
135
enigma. In paragraphs 109 to, 111 the Commission sets out
directions in the Award, the modification made by the Labour
Appellate Tribunal and the Government’s decision thereon. A
reference to paragraph 109. would not only show the nature
of the scheme proposed in the Award but indicates what in
fact was, meant by point-to-point adjustment. It is there
observed as follows :
" 109. In fitting the existing staff in the
revised pay structure the Sen Tribunal gave
employees the benefit of what virtually
amounted to point to point adjustment that is,
the placing of each employee at the stage in
the new scale to which he would have risen by
reason of the length of his service had he
entered service on the new scale. After a
careful consideration of the various aspects
of the question raised by the provisions con-
tained in the Sen Award the Sastry Tribunal by
and large followed the recommendations of the
Central Pay Commission that when persons on
the existing scale of pay were brought on to
the new scales recommended for them, their
initial pay should be fixed at the stage in
the proposed scale next above the pay they
were, drawing in the existing scale and
special increments added to it at the rate of
one increment in the proposed scale for every
three completed years of service subject to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
certain ceilings in regard to the increase to
be allowed. The Sastry Tribunal recommended
that a workman should first be fitted into the
scale of pay fixed by its award at the stage
in the new scale equal to or next above his
basic pay as on the 31st January 1950 in the
existing scale (pre-Sen scale) and annual
increments in the new scale as from that stage
onwards added at the rate of one increment for
every completed three years of his service
subject to a maximum of 4 increments. It also
recommended that two further annual increments
in the new scale should be added to the basic
pay fixed in the manner described above for
service or the two years 1951 and 1952 and the
worker should be entitled to draw his normal
increment for 1953 and succeeding years from
1st April of each year. There were, besides,
certain other recommendations aimed at giving
protection to a workman’s basic pay and
emoluments as on the 31st January 1950, and
covering cases of special increments granted
or increments withheld etc. It also
recommended. that subject to a workman’s basic
pay as on the 31st January 1950 not, being
reduced in any case the adjusted, basic,pay in
the new
136
scale should not exceed What point to point
adjustment would give’ him or the maximum in
the new scale".
The Labour Appellate Tribunal agreed with the scheme of
_adjustment given by the Award except in regard to the
weightage in respect of which it recommended the removal of
the 12 years’ limit for adding one increment for every three
years. In its place it proposed a tapering off of the
weightage after 12 years, by the addition of one increment
for every 4 years in the next 8 years and one increment for
every 5 years for the next five years. Though the
Government modified the Labour Appellate Tribunal’s
recommendation by confirming the Award, it decided to adopt
what was proposed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in
respect of the weightage of one increment for every three
years. The Commission, however, did not accept the
Government’s decision but made the following recommendations
in para 112:--
"112. The question raised by the modification
thus made by Government is not likely to
affect a very large number of employees. On
the merits, it seems to me that much can be
said in favour of the view taken by the Labour
Appellate Tribunal. If, in adjusting em-
ployees in the new wage structure, they are
entitled to have their previous service taken
into account, it is difficult to appreciate
why a line should be drawn at the end of
twelve years’ service and it should be held
that an employee would not be entitled to
claim any credit for any period of service
beyond the said line. The modification made
by Government confirms the provisions made by
the Sastry Tribunal, and these provisions, as
I have just indicated, allow certain
increments in lieu of twelve years’ service.
If fairplay and equity. Justify these
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
provisions, it would seem to follow that the
same considerations would justify the
additional provisions that have been made by
the Labour Appellate Tribunal decision. On
the merits, therefore, I am inclined to agree
with the view taken by the Labour Appellate
Tribunal".
It would appear clear from the above recommendation 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 the new scale to which he would
have risen by reason of the 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 exceed the point-to-point adjustment or the
maximum of the scale. If the meaning given to the phrase
point-to-point adjustment, is what is stated by the
137
Commission in the report, then there, would be no impediment
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).
The next question is what is it that clause (5) (a) Provides
for ? Does it provide for computing the length of service
for the purposes of giving One increment for every three
Years of notional service worked out on the basis of the
service that would be required for a workman to Mach the
basic pay which lie was drawing in the existing scale ? The
contention of the 2nd respondent is sat taking the basic pay
drawn by him as on 31st January 1950 to the nearest integer
the length of service should be computed on the basis of
the number of years which he would have to serve in the
junior scale to draw that amount of basic pay. It appears
to us on a careful examination of the terms of clause (5)
(a) that the directions in this clause are inapplicable to
him. Clause (5) (a) provides for only the, cases of those
who start on a higher initial basic pay by getting
additional increments or are, given advance increments in
any scale whether junior or senior. In such contingencies
how the length of service for the purposes of clause (4) (b)
is to be computed was provided for in clause (5) (b). The
directions given in that clause are that the length of
service in the scale in which he is and in which he got an
increment or increments either at the initial start or by
special promotion should be that which he would have taken
to reach the basic pay which he would draw on 31st January
1950 with the initial start. The condition precedent to the
applicability of the directions in this clause is the
receipt of increments or increment by way of special
promotion. An increment is in the same scale while a
promotion is from one scale to a higher scale. A promotion
from a lower grade to a higher grade though both the grades
may be in the same cadre is not an increment or increments
by way of special promotion. The use of the word ’special’
would itself show that what is contemplated is advance
increments in the same grade. What is sought to be taken
into account by the Award is the actual service of the
workman or where he has been given increments in the same
scale he is sought to be compensated by giving him a
corresponding advantage in the new scale. This is sought to
be effected by taking into account the increment or
increments earned in the cadre in computing the length of
service under clause (4) (b). As the 2nd respondent did not
get any increment or increments in the existing scale which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
was Grade I either at the initial start or by way of special
promotion, the actual service in the cadre has to be
computed for the purposes of clause (4) (b). The words
’same cadre’ in that clause as explained earlier would refer
to both Grade IT and Grade 1. The actual service in both
the
10-LI208SuPCI/72
138
grades will alone be considered for giving him an increment
for every three years of service which in his case works
out to one increment in respect of his 3 years.’ service:
from 13-1-47 to 31-1-50. Even if the initial. increment of
Rs. 4/- in Grade II which was given to him for being
proficient in the working of a machine is taken into account
under clause: (5) (b) that would add one more year to the
three years of actual service rendered .by him but that
does, not give him any further advantage. He will, only be
entitled to one increment under clause (4) (b). In the
result we. hold that the 2nd respondent has to be fitted in
the new scale on a basic pay of Rs. 148/- and on that basis
the emoluments to which he would be entitled will have to be
worked out. We accordingly direct the Labour Court to
give the necessary directon in this regard.
The appeal is,, therefore, allowed and the judgment and
decree of the High Court affirming the Award of the Labour
Court is set aside but in the circumstances, without costs.
G.C. Appeal
allowed.
139