Case Note & Summary
Background: This matter arose from a review petition filed by State Bank of India against a Supreme Court judgment dated April 22, 1963 in Civil Appeal No. 707 of 1962. The original dispute concerned computation of monetary benefits allegedly due to a bank clerk under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in relation to annual increments under the Sastry Award as modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Facts: The workman, M. Selvaraj Daniel, was appointed as a clerk in State Bank of India on December 14, 1953. He filed an application before Labour Court, Delhi, complaining that the Bank gave him annual increments from April 1 each year, whereas under the Sastry Award he was entitled to increments in December each year, on the anniversary of his appointment. The Labour Court rejected the application. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Labour Court's order and held that since the appointment was on the pay scale fixed by the Sastry Award, which had come into force on April 1, 1953, the workman was entitled to annual increments on December 14. The Court computed the sum due as Rs.146 plus dearness allowance. The Bank then sought review. Legal Issues: (1) Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent in the Supreme Court's earlier judgment; (2) whether under paragraph 292 of the Sastry Award, as modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal, future annual increments for workmen who joined service after January 31, 1950 took effect from April 1 or from the anniversary of appointment. Arguments: The Bank, through the Attorney General, argued that the Supreme Court erred in assuming the workman's first appointment was on the Sastry Award pay scale. It contended that the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision directed that pay scales would start from April 1, 1954, and that the Sastry Award's operation regarding pay scales had been stayed before December 14, 1953. The workman argued that he was appointed after the Sastry Award came into force and was entitled to increments on December 14. Court's Analysis: The Court noted that the appointment letter was not on record. It observed that A and B Class Banks had not appealed against the wage structure because the Sastry Award was less favorable to clerks than the earlier Sen Award, which had been declared void. Therefore, it was reasonable to think that after April 1, 1953 the Bank would make appointments on the Sastry Award pay scales. The Court held the Bank failed to show any error in the earlier judgment. Even if the workman had not been appointed on the new scale, the Court examined paragraph 292. It found that for workmen who joined before January 31, 1950, the modified award expressly provided that future increments would take effect from April 1 each year. However, for workmen who joined after January 31, 1950, paragraph 292 contained no direction on the date for future increments; they were to be fitted into the new scale point to point as though it had been in force since joining. The Court reasoned that the necessary and inevitable consequence was that increments would fall on the anniversary of appointment. Decision: The review petition was dismissed. The Court affirmed its earlier judgment that the workman was entitled to annual increments on December 14 each year and had been correctly computed at Rs.146 plus dearness allowance.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Annual Increment Date - Sastry Award Paragraph 292 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33(c)(2) - Workmen who joined service after January 31, 1950 were fitted into new scale on point-to-point basis without any direction for future increment commencement date. The Court held that the necessary and inevitable consequence is that future increments fall on the anniversary of appointment date, not April 1. (Paras 285-292, 401) B) Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Record - Review Application Fails - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - The Bank claimed error in assuming appointment was on Sastry Award scale; however, appointment letter not on record and Bank could not show stay of wage structure. Court held no error was made in disposing the appeal, so review dismissed. (Paras 42, 292, 401)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition should be allowed on the ground that the Supreme Court erred in holding that the workman was appointed on Sastry Award pay scale and in computing annual increments on December 14; and whether under para 292 of Sastry Award future increments for post-January 31, 1950 workmen take effect from April 1 or anniversary of appointment.
Final Decision
The review petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed its earlier judgment and held that the workman was entitled to annual increments on December 14 each year, computed at Rs.146 plus dearness allowance.
Law Points
- Review application fails if no error apparent
- Interpretation of para 292 Sastry Award regarding future increments
- Workmen appointed after January 31
- 1950 get increments on anniversary date
- Absence of direction means logical consequence
- Industrial Disputes Act s.33(c)(2) computation
