# SAVANTH (K.) v. MYSORE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 398
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-02-28
- **Case number:** writ petition No. F 1176 of 1967
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna !Yer, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/savanth-k-v-mysore-road-transport-corporation-anr-7331
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Fixation of Pay-Initial fixation of pay in the revised
scale-Scope and
ambit of cltJ.use 4 of the Industrial Truce Agreement arrived at on Jannary 10,
1958 between the management of the Mysore Government Road
Tr11nspQrf
Department and the representatives of the State Transport Employees' Federation.
Consequent upon the Reorganisation of States and the formatio• of
the
enlar~ed Mysore State as well as the expansion of the Mysore
Government
!toad Transport Department, it was considered necessary by the members of
the State Transport Employees Federation and the Management of the Transport Department te have uniform pay scales, service conditions etc. for the
entire organisation of the Transport Department. Accordingly on January 10,
1958 an lndustrial Truce Agreement was concluded between the management
of the Transport Department and the respresentatives of the State Tr!nsport
Employees' Federation which as given retroactive e!Tect from April 1. 1957,
Clause 4(a) of the agreement required the pay of an employee to be fixed in
the new scale at a stage next above his pay .in the existing scale as on 1-~-1957
(including the increment, if any, accruing on that date).
After fixation liis
initial pay, in the revised scale. an employee become entitled nuder
clause
4(b) of the agreement be granted advance increment at the rate of one increment for 3 completed years of service, two increments for 4 completed years
of service l'lnd three increments for 6 or more completed years of service. The
fixation of pay was however made subject to clause 4(c)
which reads: "In
cases where the minimum pay in the new scale has to be granted under sob
cll'l.use (a) of clause, 4, the benefit of advance increments according to sub·
elause (b) above shall not accrue when the increase of the minimum pay in
the new scale over the pay in the existing scale exceeds Rs.
25/ •
plu~ oae
increment in the new scale. In other cases, where the initial pay has to be
fixed above the minimum, the total benefit under sub-clause
(a)
and
(b)
above shall be uniformly limited to Rs. 25/- plus one increment in the revised
scale subject to a minimum of Rs. 5 /-."
The initial pay in the revised scale of 175-15-325 of the
appellant who
joined the service on September 1, 1950 and who on the relevant date
was
drawing a pay of Rs. 150/- in the time scale of 150-10-200 was
fixed
@
Rs. 190/-.
Dissatisfied with the fixation, the appellant made a representation
to the management urging that his initial pay in the revised scale ought to
have been fixed at Rs. 220!-.
On August 1, 1961, the Mysore
State
Road
Transport Corporation was constituted and in view of the fact that the service
conditions of the employees of the erstwhile Transport Departn1ent \Vere protected by Act 34 of 1951, the appellant opted for service under the Corporation and kept on pursuing the earlier representation for
correct
fixation
of
pay.
His efforts having failed, he made an application
on December _20,
1965 before the Labour Court under section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for proper adjudication. Holding that the appellant's pay had
to be fixed at Rs. 220/- p.m. in the pay scale of Rs. 175-15-325 with a dearness
allowance @Rs. 50/- o.m. as on Anril 1, 1957. the Labour Court by its order
dated September 30. 1966 allowed the claim of the appellant and directed the
Corporation to pav him a sum of Rs. 3,345.29 ps. on account of the benefits
claimed by him.
When this view was challenged before the High Court by an
application under Art. 226. the High Court allowed the petition and held that
the fixation of pay
at Rs. 190/- made by the erstwhile management was
correct.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court
•
•
•
•
•
1
' )
•
SAVANTH v. Ms. J..T.C. (Jaswant Singh, !.)
39!)
HELD : 1. A plain reading of clause 4 of the Industrial Truce Agreement
A
mak1s it crystal clear that the pay of the appellant as on April J, 1957 in the
then eruting scale of Rs. 150-10-200 being admittedly Rs. 1501- i

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
398
SAVANTH (K.)
v.
MYSORE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
February 28, 1978
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Fixation of Pay-Initial fixation of pay in the revised
scale-Scope and
ambit of cltJ.use 4 of the Industrial Truce Agreement arrived at on Jannary 10,
1958 between the management of the Mysore Government Road
Tr11nspQrf
Department and the representatives of the State Transport Employees' Federation.
Consequent upon the Reorganisation of States and the formatio• of
the
enlar~ed Mysore State as well as the expansion of the Mysore
Government
!toad Transport Department, it was considered necessary by the members of
the State Transport Employees Federation and the Management of the Transport Department te have uniform pay scales, service conditions etc. for the
entire organisation of the Transport Department. Accordingly on January 10,
1958 an lndustrial Truce Agreement was concluded between the management
of the Transport Department and the respresentatives of the State Tr!nsport
Employees' Federation which as given retroactive e!Tect from April 1. 1957,
Clause 4(a) of the agreement required the pay of an employee to be fixed in
the new scale at a stage next above his pay .in the existing scale as on 1-~-1957
(including the increment, if any, accruing on that date).
After fixation liis
initial pay, in the revised scale. an employee become entitled nuder
clause
4(b) of the agreement be granted advance increment at the rate of one increment for 3 completed years of service, two increments for 4 completed years
of service l'lnd three increments for 6 or more completed years of service. The
fixation of pay was however made subject to clause 4(c)
which reads: "In
cases where the minimum pay in the new scale has to be granted under sob
cll'l.use (a) of clause, 4, the benefit of advance increments according to sub·
elause (b) above shall not accrue when the increase of the minimum pay in
the new scale over the pay in the existing scale exceeds Rs.
25/ •
plu~ oae
increment in the new scale. In other cases, where the initial pay has to be
fixed above the minimum, the total benefit under sub-clause
(a)
and
(b)
above shall be uniformly limited to Rs. 25/- plus one increment in the revised
scale subject to a minimum of Rs. 5 /-."
The initial pay in the revised scale of 175-15-325 of the
appellant who
joined the service on September 1, 1950 and who on the relevant date
was
drawing a pay of Rs. 150/- in the time scale of 150-10-200 was
fixed
@
Rs. 190/-.
Dissatisfied with the fixation, the appellant made a representation
to the management urging that his initial pay in the revised scale ought to
have been fixed at Rs. 220!-.
On August 1, 1961, the Mysore
State
Road
Transport Corporation was constituted and in view of the fact that the service
conditions of the employees of the erstwhile Transport Departn1ent \Vere protected by Act 34 of 1951, the appellant opted for service under the Corporation and kept on pursuing the earlier representation for
correct
fixation
of
pay.
His efforts having failed, he made an application
on December _20,
1965 before the Labour Court under section 33(c) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for proper adjudication. Holding that the appellant's pay had
to be fixed at Rs. 220/- p.m. in the pay scale of Rs. 175-15-325 with a dearness
allowance @Rs. 50/- o.m. as on Anril 1, 1957. the Labour Court by its order
dated September 30. 1966 allowed the claim of the appellant and directed the
Corporation to pav him a sum of Rs. 3,345.29 ps. on account of the benefits
claimed by him.
When this view was challenged before the High Court by an
application under Art. 226. the High Court allowed the petition and held that
the fixation of pay
at Rs. 190/- made by the erstwhile management was
correct.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court
•
•
•
•
•
1
' )
•
SAVANTH v. Ms. J..T.C. (Jaswant Singh, !.)
39!)
HELD : 1. A plain reading of clause 4 of the Industrial Truce Agreement
A
mak1s it crystal clear that the pay of the appellant as on April J, 1957 in the
then eruting scale of Rs. 150-10-200 being admittedly Rs. 1501- i.e. less than
the. minimum pay of the revised scale of Rs. 175-15-325, it had, according to
clause 4(a) of the Agreement to be fixed at Rs. 175/- which is the mininu;rn
of the revised sc.We.
The appellant having put in more than six years' service
and his case being clearly outside the pale of the prohibition envisaged by
the first part of swb-clause ( c) of clause 4 of the Agreement, he had
to
be
granted the benefit of three advance increments in terms of the formula centained in sub--clause (b) of clause 4 of the Agreement which \1/ouh.l take his
B
initial pay to R,;. 220/-. [402 D-E]
2. The second part of sub-clause (c) of Clause 4 of the Agreement operate
only in these cases which fell within the prohibition contemplated by the first
part of sub-clause (c) of clause 4 i.e. where the increase in the minimun1 pay
i• the revised scale over the pay in the scale which existed on April I, 1957
exceeds~Rs. 25/- plus one increment in the new scale i.e. if it exceeds R:i. 251plus Rs. 15/- totalling Rs. 40/-. As in the instant case the increase of the
C
minimum pay in the new scale does not exceed Rs. 40/-, the second
p8-rt
of
sub-dause (c) of clause 4 which is residuary cannot be invoked by the Corporation. [402 F.-G]
3. The words "in other cases" occurring in th~ residuary
part
of sub
clause (c) of clause 4, male it abundantly clear that it is only where a ca.se
does not fall within purview of the first part of sub-clause (c) of clause 4 that
it \vould be governed by the second pa•rt of the sub-chnrnc. [402 1-l, 403 Aj
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
1502
of
D
1971.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
14-12-197Cl of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition
1967).
.
E. Udayarathnam for the Appellant.
Order dated
No. 1176 of
S. V. Gupte Attorney General and J. Rama11111rthi for Respondent
No. I.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J.
This appeal by special leave which ;s directed against the judgment and order dated December 14, 1970 of the
E
High Court of Mysore at Bangalore allowing the writ petition
No.
F
1176 of 1967 filed before it by the first respondent herein under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and quashing the orders dated
September 30, 1966 and January 1, 1967 of the Labour Court,
Bangalore made in the appellant's application No. 171 of 1965 raises
an interesting questiou as to the scope and ambit of clause 4 of the
Indu1trial Truce Agreement arrived at on January 10, 1958 between
the Management of the Mysore Government Road Transport DepartG
ment and the representatives of the State
Transport Employees'
Federation .
It appears that the appellant entered the service of the Bangalore
Transport Company Ltd. on September 1, 1950 as a Probatmnary
Traflic Supervisor on a salary of Rs. 801- per mensem. On completion of his probationary period, he wa!i confinned in the said post on
H
a salary of Rs. 100/- in the pay scale of Rs. 100-10-150. By vir,ue
of the powers vested in it uuder the Bangalore Road Transport Services Act No. 8 of 1956, the Government of Mysore acquired the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978) 3 S.C.ll.
Bangalore Transport Company Ltd. with effect from October 1 1956
with the result that a.lo.ng with o~her employees of the '.:ompa~y, the
appellant became a c1v1l servant m the Transport Department of the
Government of Mysore which catered to the transport requirements
of the public.
In course of time, the appellant was
appointed as
Assistant Traffic Superintendent and was given a higher pay ·'>Cale of
Rs. 150··10··200.
On April 1, 1957 when he held that post, he was
in the pay scale of Rs. 150-10-200 and was drawing a oalary
of
Rs. 150/- P.M.
With the Re-organisation of the States and the formation of the enlarged Mysore State as well as the expansion of the
Mysore Government Road Transport Department (hereinafter refen-ed
to as Transport Department') comprising of the 1-Iubli Region of the
ex-Bombay State Road Transport Corporation, the Raichur Section
of the ex-Hyderabad State Road Transport
Department
and
the
Bangalore Transport Service of the ex-Bangalore Transport Company
Ltd. having their respective pay scales, service conditions etc., it was
considered necessary by the members of the State Transport Employees Federation as well as the Management of the Transport Department to have uniform pay scales, service conditions etc. for the entire
organisation of the Transport Department.
Accordingly, on January
10, 1958, an Industrial Truce Agreement was concluded between the
Management of the Transport Department :md the representative of tbe
Transport Employees' Federation which was given a retroa;;tivc effect
from April 1, 1957. Clause 4 of this Agreement which was intended to
bring about uniformity of pay scales in all the divisions of the Transport Department provided as follows :-
"4. Weightage in the revised pay scales will be admissible only to the regular employees of the Government Road
Transport Department of Ex-State
of Mysore
and
the
Bangalore Transport Service Unit.
(a) The pay of an employee shall be fixed in the new
scale at a stage next above his pay in the existing
scale on 1-4-1957, and, if his present pay is less than
the minimum of the revised scale, his pay shall be
fixed at such minimum in the revised scale.
Note-The pay in the existing scale on 1-4-1957
includes the increment, if any, accruing on that date.
(b) After fixing the pay as above i.e. 4(a) he shall be
granted advance increments in the revised scale as
under:
(1) For 3 completed years of service-1 Increment.
(2) For 4 completed years of service-2 Increments.
( 3) For 6 or more completed years of service-3
Increments.
Note-Service means, the entir~ service of the employee
irrespective of the grade held by him.
•
•
I •
•
-
' '
I
•
•
•
SAVANTH v. Ms. R.T.C. (Jaswant Singh, i.)
(c) In cases where the minimum pay in the new scale
has to be granted under sub-clause (a) of clause 4,
the benefit of advance increments according to subclause (b) above shall not accrue when the mcreasc
of the minimum pay in the new scale over the pay
in the existing scale exceeds Rs.
25/-
plus
one
increment in the new scale. In other cases
where
the initial pay has to be fixed above the minimum,
the total benefit under sub-clauses (a) and (b) above
401
shall be uniformly limited to Rs. 25 /-
plus
one
increment in the revised scale subject to a minimum
of Rs. 5/-.
(d) The above principle shall apply in fixing the initial
pay both in substantive and officiating appointments.
(e) When the weightage under sub-clause
(b)
above
takes the total pay beyond the scale, the difference
is treated as personal pay.
(f) The future increments will accrue from 1-4-1958."
A
B
c
After the conclusion of the aforesaid Industrial Truce Agreement,
D
then management of the Transport Department fixed the initial pay
of the appellant in the new scale at Rs. 190/-. Dissatisfied with this
fixation, the appellant made a representation
to
the
management
urging that his initial pay in the revised scale ought to have been fixed
at Rs. 220/- and that it had been wrongly fixed at Rs. 190/-.
On August 1, 1961, a Corporation styled as tbe
Mysore State
E
Road Transport Corporation' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') was constituted under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act (Act 34 of 1951). By virtue of a notification issued
by the Government of Mysore J;Pder section 34 of the Act, the Corporation took over the business of the Transport Department together
with all its liabilities as the sole successor of the Department. In view
of the fact that the said notification protected the service conditions of
F
the employees of the erstwhile Transport Department, the appellant
opted for service under the Corporation and kept on pursuing
the
earlier representation made by him for fixation of his initial pay as on
April 1, 1957 at Rs. 220/- in terms of the first part of sub-clause (c)
of clause 4 of the Industrial Truce Agreement.
The efforts made by
him in this behalf having proved ineffective, the appellant made
Q11
application on December 20, 1965 before the Labour Court under
G
section 330(2) of the lndnstrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming that his
initial pay as on April 1, 1957 had been wrongly fixed by the management of the Transport Department at Rs. 190 /- as against Rs. 220 /-
to which he was entitled bv virtue of clause 4 of the Industrial Truce
Agreement.
The appellant also claimed increase in
his
dearness
allowance in terms of the said Agreement. Holding that the appellant's
pay had to be fixed at Rs. 220/- P.M. in the pay scale of Rs. 175-15H
325 with a dearness allowance of Rs. 50/- P.M. as on April 1, 1957,
the Labour Court by its order dated September 30, 1966 allowed the
claim of the appellant and directed the Corporation to pay him a sum
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPO~US
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
of Rs. 3,345.29 p. on account of the benefit claimed by him.
T]lis
order was cballeng:ed by the Corporation before the High Cooct of
Mysore by means of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution.
By its aforesaid judgment and order dated December
14,_ 1970, the High Court allowed the petition and held that the erstwhile management of the Transport Department was right in
fixing
the initial pay of the appellant at Rs. 190/-. It is against this judgment and order that the appellant has come up in appeal to this Court
by special leave, as already stated.
In the absence of the appellant who bas chosen not to appear despite service, the learned Attorney General bas taken us through the
material on the record and has urged that the High Court was right
in reversing the order of the Labour Court and upholding the contention of the Corporation that the initial pay of the appellant could
be fixed only at Rs. 1901- and not at Rs. 220/- as claimed by the
appellant.
We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made
by the learned Attorney General but are unable to agree with him.
A plain reading of clause 4 of the Industrial Truce Agreement
reproduced above makes it crystal clear that the pay of the appellant
as on April 1, 1957 in the then existing scale of Rs. 150-10-200 being
admittedly Rs. 150/- i.e. less than the minimum pay of the
revis~d
scale of Rs. 175-15-325, it had, according to clause 4(a)
of the
agreement, to be fixed at Rs. 175/- which is the minimum of
the
aforementioned revised scale.
Now the appellant having put in more
than six years' service and his case being clearly outside the pale of
the prohibition envisaged by the first part of sub-clause ( c) of clause
4 of the Agreement, he had to be granted the benefit of three advance
increments in terms of the formula contained in sob-clause
(b)
of
clause 4 of the Agreement which would take his initial pay to
Rs. 220/-. The second part of sub-clause (c) of clause 4 of the
Agreement which is heavily relied upon
on behalf of the
Corporation has no applicability to the present case as that part would
operate only in those cases which fall within the prohibition contemplated by the first part of sub-clause (c) of clause 4 i.e.
wher~ the
increase in the minimum pay in the revised scale over the pay ID the
scale which existed on April 1, 1957 exceeds Rs. 25/- plus one increment in the new scale i.e. if it exceeds Rs. 25/- plus Rs. 15/- totalling
Rs. 40/-. As in the instant case the increase of the minimum pay in
the new scale does not exceed Rs. 40/-, the second part of sub-clause
( c) of clause 4 which is residuary cannot be inv?ked by t~e Corvo.ration.
The High Court was, therefore, patently m error m ho,dtng
that the case of the appellant was covered not by the first part of s_ubclause ( c) of clause 4 but by the second part thereof.
In so hold mg,
it obviously overlooked the signincance of the words "in othe_r cases"
occurring at the commencement of the second part of sub-cfause ( c)
of clause 4.
The said words make it abundantly clear that it is only
where a case does not fall within the purview of the first part of subclause ( c) of clause 4 that it would be governed by the second part .
•
•
I
•
•
'/
•
I
~
I
• •
SAVANTH v. Ms. R.T.C. (Jaswant Singh, J.)
403
of the sub-clause. As the case 'of the appellant was uot covered by
the ban imposed by the first part of sub-clause ( c) of clause 4 of the
Industrial Truce Agreement, he could not have been denied the benefit
-0f the advance increments which accrued to him under sub-clause (b)
thereof. Accordingly, the order of the Hi~h Court which suffers from
a patent error cannot be sustained .
In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and
order of the High Court and restore that of the Labour Court. In
view of the fact that the appellant has failed to appear, we make no
order as to costs .
S.R.
Appeal allowed.
A
B