Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1030 of 2001
PETITIONER:
REGIONAL MANAGER, BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
REGIONAL LABOUR COMMNR. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/02/2001
BENCH:
D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil.
JUDGMENT:
D.P.MOHAPATRA, J.
Leave granted.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
The controversy raised in this appeal relates to the
question whether certain part-time sweepers serving under
the Bank of Rajasthan Limited, appellant herein, are
entitled to scale of wages or only fixed wages . From
the materials available on record it is clear that according
to the settlement arrived at between the management of the
Bank and the Union representing the workmen those part-time
sweepers who were working for more than six hours in a week
were entitled to the benefit of scale of wages and the
sweepers rendering service for less than six hours in a week
were to receive fixed wages.
On a dispute raised by the General Secretary of the Bank
Workers Union Respondent No.4, the Central Government
referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal
for adjudication :
Whether the action of Zonal Manager, Bank of Rajasthan
Limited, Zonal Office, New Delhi, in not giving the salary
to all the nine employees named below, employed in 8
different branches of the bank as part time sweepers is
legal and valid ? If not, to what relief the workmen are
entitled to ?
1.Smt.Khajani Devi 2. Smt.Ramo Devi
3. Smt.Saroj 4. Smt. Dhanpati
5. Sh.Jai Bhagwan 6.Smt.Kamlesh Devi
7.Smt.Vinod 8 Smt. Sumitra Devi.
9. Smt. Chander Kala
The Industrial Tribunal disposed of the case,
I.D.No.38/91 by the Award dated 26th December, 1994, on the@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
following terms :@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
Both the parties had agreed for inspection of the site
in order to ascertain the number of working hour. On the
basis of the inspection report the Chart Ex.M-1 was filed by
the management and the workmen union accepted the Chart
Ex.M-1 and stated that the claim for rest of the money be
dismissed. The Management Representative also agreed to
this. In view of this situation it is ordered that the
payment according to the Chart Ex.M-1 be made to the workmen
and, their claim for rest of the amount/points is dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own costs of the dispute.
Feeling aggrieved by the Award the appellant filed C.W.
No.2235/98 and C.M.No.3635/98 before the Delhi High Court
which were disposed of by the single Judge by the Order
dated 2.9.1999, confirming the Award with a modification
regarding the award of interest. The operative portion of
the Order reads:
In view of the above, the impugned award does not call
for any interference/judicial review as far as merits of the
award is concerned under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India except to the extent of the grant of 12% interest. In
view of the above, the impugned award is set aside/modified
to the extent of the grant of 12% interest. Rest of the
award does not call for any judicial review. The petitioner
shall comply with the modified award as above within eight
weeks from today."
Against the said order of the single Judge the appellant
filed an appeal, L.P.A.No.483/1999 which was dismissed by@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
the Division Bench by Judgement/Order dated 4.11.1999@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
holding inter alia that from the papers on record it was
clear that the respondents were putting in work for more
than one hour per day, and therefore, they were rightly
given the benefit by the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal. The present appeal filed by the Bank is directed
against the said Judgment/Order.
In the Order dated 9.5.2000 this Court while issuing
notice confined the question to be examined to whether the@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
Tribunal was justified in awarding back wages in favour of@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJ
the workmen Mrs. Dhanpati Devi and Jai Bhagwan from the
date of their respective appointments.
It was not disputed before us that the controversy
raised in the present proceeding is confined only to the
aforementioned two workmen. The question is whether they
are entitled to back wages from the respective dates of
their appointments or from any other subsequent date. From
the facts noted in the preceding paragraphs it is clear that
the dispute regarding the claim of scale wages was decided
by the Industrial Tribunal by the Award passed on 26th
December, 1994. The Award was passed on determination of
the question whether these workmen were rendering service
for more than six hours in a week. On the materials placed
before it the Tribunal accepted the case of the Union that
the workmen concerned were infact rendering service for more
than six hours a week and rejected the case of the
management to the contrary.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed in
the preceding paragraphs it is our view that the calculation
of the back wages on the basis of the entitlement as held in
the award should be made from the date of the award i.e.
26th December, 1994. The Award passed by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal as confirmed by the High
Court stands modified to this extent only. The appeal is
disposed of on the above terms. No cost.