Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6578 OF 2002
Andhra Bank thro Reg. Manager, Visakha .....Appellant
Versus
I.T.- cum- Labour Court & Anr. .....Respondents
JUDGMENT
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
1. This appeal by special leave arises out of the following
facts.
2. The Central Government vide its order dated 1st July,
1971 declared Vishakhapatnam as a Group "A" city. As a
consequence of the aforesaid declaration, the staff of the
appellant bank claimed certain additional benefits such as
house accommodation, house rent allowance etc. While some
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
2
of the other nationalized banks extended the benefits to their
employees, the Andhra Bank declined to do so on the plea,
inter alia, that it was running into huge losses and was unable
to meet the additional burden. These differences led to
protracted conciliation proceedings before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Vishakhapatnam, but no concrete
solution was arrived at. The Central Government thereupon
referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for
adjudication. The respondent management i.e. present
appellant filed a written statement before the Industrial
Tribunal questioning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to
entertain the reference and further clarifying that on account
of several awards such as the Shastri Award, the Desai Award
and several bipartite settlements arrived at between the Bank
and its employees from time to time, there was no obligation
on the bank to give the benefits arising out of the declaration
dated 1st July, 1971. The Industrial Tribunal held that there
were two points for consideration:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
3
1. Whether the Tribunal had the
jurisdiction to entertain the reference? and;
2. Whether the management of Andhra
Bank was justified in denying the enhanced
rate of House Rent Allowance applicable to
project area to its award staff?
3. The Tribunal held that as per the legal position the
Industrial Tribunal was competent to entertain the reference.
On point No.2 the Court observed that the Andhra Bank was
paying house rent to different categories of employees with a
ceiling of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 550/- and as the attempts at
conciliation had failed on account of the dilatory tactics on the
part of the Bank, the employees had absolutely no remedy but
to approach the Tribunal for the redressal of their claim. The
Tribunal in conclusion observed as under:
"It can be taken judicial notice that the
State Government is paying 20% HRA to
the employees subject to a maximum of
Rs.1000/- When other banks are paying
money towards house rent allowance
where quarters are not provided the
denial of house rent allowance at the
enhanced rent by Andhra Bank to project
Area Group "A" cannot be said justified in
the circumstances stated above. As seen
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
4
from the annexure, the Union Bank of
India of Vishakhapatnam has opted to
pay or make housing accommodation to
the award staff at Vishakhapatnam w.e.f.
24.06.92. In the said circumstances, I
am of the opinion that the award staff of
Andhra Bank i.e. (Clerical, Sub-Staff)
would be entitled to house rent allowance
at 20% of the basic pay as is provided in
the case of the State Government
employees in Group "A" project area like
Vishakhapatnam. The reference was
registered as L.D., in the month of
August, 1992. In the said
circumstances, the petitioner, Andhra
Bank Award Staff Employees’ Union’s
claim is justifiable. The denial of
enhanced rate of house rent allowance
applicable to project area ‘ A’ to its award
staff by the management of Andhra Bank
is not justifiable. The point is answered
accordingly.
In the result an award is passed in
favour of the petitioner, Andhra Bank
Award Staff Union and against the
respondent management situated at
Vishakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Head
Office (I) directed to consider payment of
20% of HRA to project area of Group ‘A’
at Vishakhapatnam on par with
Government employees subject to a
maximum of Rs. 1000/- however if
housing accommodation is provided by
the Andhra Bank, 10% of the basic pay
shall be deducted for the concerned
individual and the HRA calculated at
20% shall be surrendered by the
concerned employee, I(a) or as is paid by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
5
the other bank’s employee referred in the
annexure of the claim statement, (II) it
shall be effected from December, 1992
and (III) the award shall be implemented
by the management of Andhra Bank
within a month after receipt of the award
by the management".
4. The award of the Tribunal was challenged by the Andhra
Bank by way of a Writ Petition in the Andhra Pradesh High
Court. The High Court in its judgment dated 13th April, 1998
first noted the facts of the case and observed that the
reference made to the Tribunal (i.e. on point No.1) was
justified and in order and on point No.2 which was the
material question observed as under:
"Regarding point No.2, the Tribunal took
into consideration, the population of the
Vishakhapatnam City, facilities available,
particularly availability of residential
accommodation, the status of "Award
Staff", facilities given to the staff of the
type in other Banks and held that the
denial of House Rent Allowance, as
incorrect and unjust.
The order of the Tribunal is a well
considered one and there is no illegality
or irregularity in the impugned order.
Hence, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed".
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
6
5. Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal and the
judgment of the High Court, the Andhra Bank is before us in
appeal.
6. Mr. Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
has very fairly submitted that the conclusion drawn by the
Tribunal and the High Court on point No.1 were not being
challenged in this Court but the findings on point No.2 were
clearly wrong inasmuch as that despite the plea of the Bank
that the declaration of 1st July, 1971 made by the Central
Government was inapplicable to the Bank in view of several
awards as well as bipartite settlements between the Bank and
its employees yet no finding whatsoever had been recorded on
this aspect by the Tribunal and this submission had also been
brushed aside by the High Court in a very casual manner.
The learned counsel for the respondent has, however,
submitted that the two forums below having exercised their
discretion in favour of the employees who had been fighting
for their cause for almost 30 years, the orders should not be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
7
interfered with more particularly as all other banks had
accepted and accorded the benefits to their employees under
the declaration dated 1st July, 1971.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned
counsel for the parties. It is true, as has been contended by
the learned counsel for the appellant, that both the Tribunal
as well as the High Court have ignored the vital aspect of the
matter i.e. the effect of the awards and settlements arrived at
between the management of the bank and its employees and
their effect thereon in determining their inter-se rights and
obligations. The Tribunal has completely ignored this basic
issue and the High Court has also given short shrift thereto.
We are of the opinion that this is the crucial matter in the
dispute raised by the employees. We accordingly allow this
appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and award of
the Industrial Tribunal on point No.2 and remand the case to
the latter for a fresh decision in accordance with law in the
background of the awards and settlements between the bank
and its employees vis-‘-vis the declaration of 1st July, 1971. In
the light of the fact that the matter has been pending in one
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
8
forum or the other for the last two decades, we would request
the Industrial Tribunal to take a decision in the matter within
six months from the date of supply of a certified copy of this
judgment to the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.
................................. J.
(TARUN CHATTERJEE)
.................................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
New Delhi
Dated: May 9, 2008