# STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. RAMPRAKASH

- **Citation:** [1966] 2 S.C.R. 898
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-12-06
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-bank-of-patiala-v-ramprakash-3764
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

STATE BANK OF PATIALA
v.
RAMPRAKASH
December 6, 1965
A
[P.
B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
C.J., K.
N.
WANCHOO,
B
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND
P.
SATYANARAYANA
RAJU, JJ.J
National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award (Desai Award)
1962 para. 5.356 els. (i) to (iv)-lnterpretation and computation
of
benefits.
The respondent-employees made applications nnder s. 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act for determination and computation of the benefit
to which they were entitled under the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank
Disputes) Award (Desai Award) as they were not satisfied with the
fixation of their pay by the appellant-bank under para 5.356 of the Desai
Award. The Bank claimed that under clause (ii) of para 5.356 of the Desai
Award, the adjusted basic pay in the new scale was not to exceed what
point-1\'.l-point adjustment would give an employee on January 1, 1962
and that this being the maximum permissible under cl. (ii), cl. (iv) could
not g:.ve an employee more than the maximum arrived at under cl. (ii).
The employees on the other hand claimed that they were entitled to what
was provided by sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) and the two increments und.,,- sub-cl. (d) and that it did not matter whether what
was
thus arrived at exceeded the maximum provided under cl. (ii). The
Labour Court partially accepted the employees' contention and fixed their
pay accordingly. In appeal.
HELD : The decision of this Court in Prakash Chand Mehrds oase
would govern the interpretation of para 5.356 of the Desai Award also,
which is in substance the same as para 292 of the Sastry Award as
modified by the Labour Appellate decision.
The adjusted basic pay in cl. (ii) has to be taken as on January I,
1959. This follows from the fact
that tho workman basic pay as
on
January 1, 1959 cannot be reduced and therefore when cl. (ii) speaks of
adjusted basic pay it must refer to the same date as in cl. (i). Further
cl. (iv) which provides for actual calculations
starts with words "subject to rules (i) to (iii)'• and therefore the actual calculations made
under cl. (iv) must be subject to els. (i) and (ii). This means in effect
that the actual fixation under sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) will
be subject to cl. (i) and cl. (ii).
Under sub-cl. (a) of cl. (iv) a workman will be placed in the Sastry Awltrd as modified by placing him at
the stage in the Sastry Award scale equal to or next ·above his basic pay
as on January 1, 1959 in the scale then in force in the bank concerned.
But in view of cl. ( i) this cannot be less than the actual basic pay of the
workman as on January 1, 1959. Where under cl. (i) the actual basic
pay as on January I, 1959 is more than what point.to-point adjustment·
will give under cl. (ii), it cannot be ·reduced for cl. (ii) is subject to
cl. (i). After this has been done the workman
would be entitled
to
increments as provided in sub-cl. (bl read with sub-cl. (c) of cl. (iv),
but this will be subject to cl. (i) and (ii)
and the adjusted basic pay
arrived at by giving the increments under sub-els. (b) and ( c) cannot
exceed the adjusted basic pay as arrived at by point-to-point adjustment
in the Sastry Award as modified or the maximum of that scale or the
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
'
E
F
G
H
STATE BANK V. RAM PRAKASH (Wanchoo, J.)
899
actual basic pay as on !st January 1959, as the case
may be. Thus
sub°"!. (a) is subject to cl. (i) and the basic pay to be fixed on January
I, 1959 has to be fixed by reading sub°"!. (a) of cl. (iv) and
cl.
(i)
together.
Then increments under sub-cl. (b) read with sub-cl. (c)
of
cl. (iv) have to be added, but this is again subject to the provisions of
els. (i) and (ii). [903 E; 903 G-904 E]
Once it is held that basic pay under cl. (ii) hao to be wo1ked out as
on January I, 1959 the two increments provided by sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv)
which are beyond that date must be given over and above what has been
worked out under sub-els.
(a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) of the Druai
Award. The fact that by oversight

## Text

STATE BANK OF PATIALA
v.
RAMPRAKASH
December 6, 1965
A
[P.
B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR,
C.J., K.
N.
WANCHOO,
B
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND
P.
SATYANARAYANA
RAJU, JJ.J
National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award (Desai Award)
1962 para. 5.356 els. (i) to (iv)-lnterpretation and computation
of
benefits.
The respondent-employees made applications nnder s. 33C(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act for determination and computation of the benefit
to which they were entitled under the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank
Disputes) Award (Desai Award) as they were not satisfied with the
fixation of their pay by the appellant-bank under para 5.356 of the Desai
Award. The Bank claimed that under clause (ii) of para 5.356 of the Desai
Award, the adjusted basic pay in the new scale was not to exceed what
point-1\'.l-point adjustment would give an employee on January 1, 1962
and that this being the maximum permissible under cl. (ii), cl. (iv) could
not g:.ve an employee more than the maximum arrived at under cl. (ii).
The employees on the other hand claimed that they were entitled to what
was provided by sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) and the two increments und.,,- sub-cl. (d) and that it did not matter whether what
was
thus arrived at exceeded the maximum provided under cl. (ii). The
Labour Court partially accepted the employees' contention and fixed their
pay accordingly. In appeal.
HELD : The decision of this Court in Prakash Chand Mehrds oase
would govern the interpretation of para 5.356 of the Desai Award also,
which is in substance the same as para 292 of the Sastry Award as
modified by the Labour Appellate decision.
The adjusted basic pay in cl. (ii) has to be taken as on January I,
1959. This follows from the fact
that tho workman basic pay as
on
January 1, 1959 cannot be reduced and therefore when cl. (ii) speaks of
adjusted basic pay it must refer to the same date as in cl. (i). Further
cl. (iv) which provides for actual calculations
starts with words "subject to rules (i) to (iii)'• and therefore the actual calculations made
under cl. (iv) must be subject to els. (i) and (ii). This means in effect
that the actual fixation under sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) will
be subject to cl. (i) and cl. (ii).
Under sub-cl. (a) of cl. (iv) a workman will be placed in the Sastry Awltrd as modified by placing him at
the stage in the Sastry Award scale equal to or next ·above his basic pay
as on January 1, 1959 in the scale then in force in the bank concerned.
But in view of cl. ( i) this cannot be less than the actual basic pay of the
workman as on January 1, 1959. Where under cl. (i) the actual basic
pay as on January I, 1959 is more than what point.to-point adjustment·
will give under cl. (ii), it cannot be ·reduced for cl. (ii) is subject to
cl. (i). After this has been done the workman
would be entitled
to
increments as provided in sub-cl. (bl read with sub-cl. (c) of cl. (iv),
but this will be subject to cl. (i) and (ii)
and the adjusted basic pay
arrived at by giving the increments under sub-els. (b) and ( c) cannot
exceed the adjusted basic pay as arrived at by point-to-point adjustment
in the Sastry Award as modified or the maximum of that scale or the
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
'
E
F
G
H
STATE BANK V. RAM PRAKASH (Wanchoo, J.)
899
actual basic pay as on !st January 1959, as the case
may be. Thus
sub°"!. (a) is subject to cl. (i) and the basic pay to be fixed on January
I, 1959 has to be fixed by reading sub°"!. (a) of cl. (iv) and
cl.
(i)
together.
Then increments under sub-cl. (b) read with sub-cl. (c)
of
cl. (iv) have to be added, but this is again subject to the provisions of
els. (i) and (ii). [903 E; 903 G-904 E]
Once it is held that basic pay under cl. (ii) hao to be wo1ked out as
on January I, 1959 the two increments provided by sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv)
which are beyond that date must be given over and above what has been
worked out under sub-els.
(a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) of the Druai
Award. The fact that by oversight sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv) was not made
a separate clause would make no difference for sub°"!. (d) provide> for
a period a~ter the date up to which cl. (ii) works. [904 H-905 B~ ·
State Bank of India Prakash Chand M.ehra, [1961] II L.L.J. 383,
relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 1008
and 1009 of 19q5.
Appeals by special leave from the orders dated April l, 1965
of the Central Government Labour Court, Jullundur, in cases
Nos. 409 of 1963 respectively.
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General, S. V. Gupte, SolicitorGeneral,
Niren De, Addi. Solicitor-Genera/,,
K. B. Mehta, V.
Sagar, H. L. Anand and B. C. Das Gupta, for the appellants.
M. K. Ramamurthi, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Wanchoo, J,
These two appeals by special leave raise a
common question as to the interpretation of paragraph 5.356 of
the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award of June
1962 (popularly known as the Desai award) and will be dealt with
together. It is unnecessary to set out the facts of the two appeals
at this stage.
It is sufficient to say that the respondents made
applications under s. 3 3-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
No. 14 of 1947, praying for determination and computation of the
benefit to which they were entitled under the Desai award as they
were not satisfied with the fixation of their pay by the appellantbank under para 5 .356.
The Desai award dealt with the method of adjustment in the
scales of pay fixed by it from para 5.329 onwards. It divided ~he
employees of the banks with which it was concerned in two groups.
The first group consisted of workmen who were drawing basic pay
on January l, 1962 according to scales of pay provided by the
All-India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award, 1953
(popularly known as the Sastry award) as modified by the Labour
Appellate Tribunal Decision (Bank Disputes). The second group
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
consisted of workmen who on January 1, 1962 were employed in A
banks which were not governed by the provisions of the Sastry
award as modified and were not thus drawing basic pay on the
footing of scales of pay provided by that award. In the first case
the Desai award provided that the workmen would be fitted in
the new scales of pay from January l, 1962 on stage to stage
adjustment basis, i.e., workmen who were drawing basic pay at a
particular stage in the time scale of the Sastry award as modified
would draw basic pay at the same stage in the new scale applicable to them under the Desai award.
Examples of how this
would be done were given in para. 5.348 of the Desai award. As to
B
c
the second group, the Desai award provided that these employees
would first be fitted in the appropriate scales provided in the
Sastry award as modified as on January l, 1962 and thereafter
they would be fitted in the new scales of pay provided byi the
Desai award as laid down in para. 5.348. Paragraph 5.356 then
went on to provide how these workmen would be fitted in the
Sastry award.
Here again the workmen were divided into two
groups, namely, those who entered service before January I, 1959
D
and those who entered service on or after January 1, 1959. In
the present appeals we are concerned with workmen who entered
service before January 1, 1959, and the fitment of these workmen
was dealt with in para. 5.356 of the Desai award, and it is this
paragraph which calls for interpretation in the present appeals.
We may at this stage mention that a similar question of fitment was considered by the Sastry award in para. 292 and certain
provisions were made thereunder. This paragraph was considered by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal from the
Sastry award and certain modifications were made thereunder by
paras 164 and 166 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal decision in
F
appeal. Paragraph 292 as modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal decision came up for interpretation before this Court in
State Bank of India v. Prakash Chand Mehra.(')
As the words of
para 292 of the Sastry award as modified by the Labour Appellate
· Decision are almost the same as the words of para. 5.356 of the
Desai award, we may set out the two paragraphs in parallel G
columns for comparison :
Sastry award as modified by the Labour
Appellate decision
For workmen who enterd service of the
bank before 31st January, 1950
!. The workman's basic pay as on 31st
January 1960 shall not be reduoed in any
case.
(I) (1961) 2 L.L.J. 383.
Desai award
For workmen who entered service of
the bank before !st January 1959
(i) The workman's basic pay as on
January l, 1959 shall not be reduoed
in any case.
H
<
....
' .
·•
A
B
c
D
E
F
STATE BANK v. RAM PRAKASH (Wanchoo, ·!.)
90~
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 n1axin1um in the new scale.
3, In the n1attcr of adjustment all cfficiencybars, whether in the previously existing
or in the ~cales fixed by us should be
ignored.
4. Sugbject to rules (1) to (3) a workman's
basic pay in the new scales shall be fixed
in the following-manner :-
(a) A workn1an shall first be fitted into
the scale of pay fixed by our award
01crein 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 prc-SE.n scale then in force
(herein called the existing scale).
(b) To the basic pay into which he is
fitted under cl. (a) the annual
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, up to a limit of
12 years' service; hereafter one
increment for every four years of
service up to another 8 years' service, and after that one incrcn1enr
for every five years of service.
(ii) Subject to rule (i), the adjust<d
bzsic f<iY in the fCa1c prcvid{G in the
Sastry award as modified shall not
exceed what point-to-point adjustment would give hitn or the maximum in the scale provided by the
Sastry award as modified.
(iii) Jn the matter of adjustment, all
efficiency-bars, whether in the previously existing scales or in the scales
provided by the Sastry award as
modified should be ignored.
(iv) Subject to rules (i) to (iii) a workman's basic pay in the scale provided by the Sastry award as modified shall be fixed in the following
manne~ :-
(a) A \vorkn1an shrJl first be fitted
into the scale of pay of Sastry
award as 1nodified by placing
him at the stage in the Sastry
a\vard scale as modified equal
to, or next above his basic pay
as on 1st January, 1959 in the
scale then in force in the bank
concerned (hereinafter called
the Bank's scale).
(b} To the basic pay into Vlhich he
is fitted
under clause (a)
annual increment or increments.
in scale provided by the Sastry
award as modified as from that
stage onwards should te added
at the rate cf one increment
for every completed three
years of his service in the same
cadre as on 1st January 1959.
(c) Such increments shall not however
exceed four in number.
(c) Such increments shall not hov.'-
everexceed four in nun1ber.
[NOTE : Omitted by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in view of change in
G
cl. (b).J
H
4-A. After adjustments are n1ade in accordance with clauses (a), (b) and (c) supra
two further increments in the new scale
will be added thereto for service for
the two years 1951
and 1952.
Io
addition
the
workman
will
be
entitled to draw his normal increment
for 1953 on 1st April 1963. Thereafter
each succeeding year's annual increment shall take effect as and from Isl
April of that year.
(d) After adjustments are made in
accordance with clauses (a),
(b)
and (c)
supra,
two
further
annual
increment&
in the
scale
provided by
the Sastry award as modified
will be added
ther~to for
service for the two years of
1960 and 1961.
B02
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
We are not concerned with clauses (5) and (6) of para 292 of A
the Sastry award or with clauses (v) and (vi) of para 5.356 of
the Desai award for purposes of the dispute between the parties
and have not therefore set them out.
It will be seen from the above comparison of the provisions
in the two awards that the substantial provisions of the Desai
award are exactly the same as the provisions of the Sastry award
as modified except (i) for changes necessitated by the fact that the
. Desai award was being given in 1962 and (ii) the provision in
the Sastry award corresponding to sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv) of para
5.356 of the Desai award was separated by the Labour Appellate
Tribunal Decision from cl. (4) and made clause (4-A).
We have already referred to the fact that para. 292 of the
Sastry award as modified came up for consideration before this
Court in the case of Prakash Chand Mehra(') and this Court
interpreted clauses (1) to (4-A) of the Sastry Award as modified
thus:
"We have therefore first to fix the basic pay in
accordance with rule 4 (a), and then allow annual increments in accordance wit.h rule 4 (b ). . But this is subject
to rules I and 2 above.
We are unable to accept the
contention raised on behalf of the respondent that the
words "subject to" have not the effect of making what
would otherwise follow from the application of rules
4(a) and 4(b) subject to "both the limits" laid down in
rule 2. 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 what
the point-to-point adjustment would give to the workman or the maximum in the new scale."
B
c
D
E
F
The dispute between the bank and the workmen in the present
case was this. The bank claimed that under cl. (ii) of the Desai
award, the adjusted basic pay in the new scale was not to exceed
what point-to-point adjustment would give an employee on
G
January 1, 1962. The bank further claimed that this being the
maximum permissible under cl. (ii) and cl. (iv) being subject to
cl. (ii) the method of fitment provided in cl. (iv) could not give
to an employee more than the maximum arrived at under cl. (ii).
Thus the bank's case was that once the maximum arrived at by
point-to-point adjustment as on January I, 1962, was reached H
under cl.
(ii), no further iucrements even under sub-cl.
(I) [19611 2 L.L.J. 383.
f)·.
"".
•
STATE BANK v. RAM PRAKASH (Wanchoo, !.)
903
A (d)
of
cl.
(iv) could be allowed.
The workmen on the
other hand claimed that they were entitled to what was provided
by sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) and the two increments under
sub-cl. (d) and that it did not matter whether what was thus arrived
at exceeded the maximum provided under cl. (ii).
The labour
court has partially accepted the workmen's contention and fixed
B the pay of the two workmen concerned accordingly. The bank
contests the correctness of this view.
We .are of opinion that neither the stand taken by the bank
nor the stand taken by the workmen is correct, and that the
C relevant
clauses
in para.
5.356
of
the
Desai
award
must be interpreted in the same manner as
the relevant
provisions · in the Sastry award as
modified were interpreted in Prakash Chand Mehrds case('). In this connection
it is brought to our notice that in para. 5.356 of the Desai award
it was stated that the award was giving directions similar to those
D provided under the Sastry award as modified subject to certain
changes which were considered necessary having regard to the
lapse of time after coming into force of the provisions of the
Sastry award as modified. It is urged on behalf of the appellant
that the Desai award made certain changes and therefore need
nQt be interpreted in the san1e way as was done in Prakash Chand
E Mehra's case(').
We see no force in this submission. It is true
that the Desai award said that certain changes were being made;
but these changes were considered necessary having regard to the
lapse of time.
However, the main intention of the Desai award
was also to give directions similar to those provided in the Sastry
award as modified. It is true that there are some verbal changes
F
in the Desai award; but these verbal changes are only due to
lapse of time and do not affect the substance of what was provided by the Sastry award as modified.
We do not agree with the case of the appellant-bank that in·
cl. (ii) the adjusted basic pay is to be as on January .i, 1962. We
G are of opinion that the adjusted basic pay in cl. (ii) has to be
taken as on January l, 1959. This follows from the fact that
the workman's basic pay as on January l, 1959 cannot be reduced
and therefore when cl. (ii) speaks of adjusted basic pay it must
refer to the same date as in cl. (i).
Further cl. (iv) which provides for actual calculations starts with the words "subject to
H
rules (i) to (iii)" and therefore the actual calculations made under
cl. (i') must be subject to clauses (i) and (ii).
This means in
(I) 11961) 2 L.L.J. 383.
LSSup.CI/66-11
904
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
effect that the actual fixation under sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of
A
cl. (iv) will be subject to cl. (i) and cl. (ii). Under sub-cl. (a) of
cl. (iv) a workman will be placed in the Sastry award as modified
by placing him at the stage in the Sastry award scale equal to or
•
next above his basic pay as on January l, 1959, in the scale then
in force in the bank concerned. But in view of cl. (i) this cannot
be less than the actual basic pay of the workman as on January l,
B'
1959. Where under cl. (i) the actual basic pay as on January 1,
1959, is more than what point-to-point adjustment will give under
cl. (ii), it cannot be reduced for cl. (ii) is subject to cl. (i). After
this has been done the workman would be entitled to increments
as provided in sub-cl. (b) read with sub-cl. (c) of cl. (iv), but this
will be subject to els. (i) and (ii) and the adjusted basic pay arrived
C
at by giving the increments under sub-els. (b) and (c) cannot
exceed the adjusted basic pay as arrived at by point-to-point
adjustment in the Sastry award as modified or the maximum of
that scale or the actual basic pay as on 1st January 1959, as the
case may be.
Thus sub-cl. (a) is subject to cl. (i) and the basic
pay to be fixed on January 1, 1959, has to be fixed by reading
D
sub-els. (a) of cl. (iv) and cl. (i) together. Then increments under
sub-cl. (b) read with sub-cl. (c) of cl. (iv) have to be added, but
this is again subject to the provisions of els. (i) and (ii).
After this has been worked ou~, then comes sub-cl. ( d) of cl.
(iv), and the main dispute in the present case is about this subE
'
clause. The appellant-bank's contention is that two further annual
increments allowed under sub-cl. (d) cannot be permitted in view
of cl. (ii) as interpreted by the appellant. But as we have held
that in cl. (ii) the adjusted basic pay has to be fixed as on
January l, 1959, sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv) will take effect and give
two annual increments for 1960 and 1961 which are beyond the
F
date which we have accepted as the right date for purposes of
cl. (ii). It is however urged on behalf of the appellant that subcl. ( d) is also subject to els. (i) to (iii) and therefore these increments if they go beyond what cl. (ii) provides cannot be given. This
argument has arisen because the Desai award did not separate
sub-cl. (d) as was done by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in its
G
modification of the Sastry award.
But as stated by the Labour
Appellate Tribunal when dealing with the Sastry aw;ud, it was
inherent in the Sastry award that increments for 1951 and 1952
should be provided after the basic pay was worked out as on
January 31, 1950. The same applies to the Desai award. Once
j.1
it is held-and that we hold-that basic pay under cl. (ii) has to H
be worked out as on January 1, 1959, the two increments provided by sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv) which are beyond that date must
...
)
1
STATE BANK v. RAM PRAKASH (Wanchoo, J.)
905
A be given over and above what has been worked out under sub-els.
(a), (b) and (c) of cl. (iv) of the Desai award. The fact that by
oversight sub-cl. (d) of cl. (iv) was not made a separate clause
would make no difference for sub-cl. ( d) provides for a period after
the date up to which cl. (ii) works. Therefore, two increments
under sub-cl. ( d) have to be given after adjustments have been
B made under sub-els. (a), (b) and (c) of ci. (iv) in accordance with
what we have interpreted these sub-clauses as well as els. (i) and
(ii) to mean. In effect the two increments provided in sub-cl. (d)
must always be given. But it may happen that increments provided in sub-cl. (b) read with sub-cl. (c) may in some cases be not
available where the actual pay as on January 1, 1959 which will
C not be reduced under cl. (i) happened to coincide with or was
more than the adjusted basic pay under cl. (ii). This interpretation is in accord with what was decided by this Court in Prakash
Chand Mehra's case('), and that decision in our opinion would
govern the interpretation of para. 5.356 of the Desai award also,
which as we have indicated, is in substance the same as para. 292
D
of the Sastry award as modified by the Labour Appellate decision.
We now turn to the actual fixation of pay in each case. We
shall first take the case of Ram Parkash (i.e. C.A. 1008). He
joined service on April 11, 1949. His basic pay as on January 1,
1959 was Rs. 106. His place of posting was Phagwara in area
I: III.
Point-to-point adjustment as on January 1, 1959, would
give him Rs. 106 in the Sastry award scale as modified. This is
equal to his actual salary as on January 1, 1959. Therefore under
sub-cl. (a) of cl. (iv) his salary has to be fixed as on January 1,
1959 at Rs. 106. He would not be entitled to any increments
under sub-els. (b) and (c), because his actual salary coincided
F
with the adjusted basic pay in the Sastry award scale as modified
as on January I, 1959. He would however be entitled to two
increments under sub-cl. (d) for the years 1960 and 1961 and his
salary therefore as on January 1, 1962 under the Sastry award
would COJ¥~ to Rs. 119. As Rs. 119 is the eleventh stage in the
·G
Sastry scale, Ram Parkash would be entitled to the eleveqth stage
in the Desai scale, which would be Rs. 170. The bank actually
fixed him at Rs. 176 on its own interpretation of the award. In
the circumstances, Ram Parkash was not entitled to any relief
from the labour court.
lH
Tek Chand Sharma respondent in C.A. 1009 was appointed
on November 15, 1950. His salary as on January 1, 1959 was
Rs. 100 and his place of posting was Nakodar in area IV of the
ti) [1961] 2 L.L.J. 383
906
SUPREME COURT
REPORTS
[1966] 2 S.C.R.
Sastry award.
His salary according to point-to-point adjustment
A
would come to Rs. 85. But under cl. (i) -his salary cannot be
fixed below Rs. 100, which he was actually getting. Under subcl. (a) of cl. (iv) his salary will be fixed at Rs. 100. He would
not be entitled to any increments under su6-cls. (b) and (c) of cl.
(iv) because he was gettipg more than what would be his adjusted
basic pay under cl. (ii).
Therefore, for pmposes of sub-cl. (a)
B
of cl. (iv) he would be fixed at Rs. 100 as on January 1, 1959, and
would be entitled to increments under sub-cl. ( d) which will bring
his salary to Rs. 112 as on January l, 1962. This is the thirteenth
stage in the Sastry scale. Nakodar is now in area III in the Desai
award. The thirteenth stage in the Desai award scale is Rs. 182
for that area. So his salary as on January 1, 1962 would be fixed
C
at Rs. 182. In addition he is entitled to two increments on account
of being a graduate and one increment on account of his having
passed the .. Jndian Institute of Bankers' examination. His actual
salary in the Desai scale on January 1, 1962 will be Rs. 182 plus
Rs. 33, i.e., Rs. 215.
The bank fitted him on Rs. 193. The
award of the labour court therefore ia the case of Tek Chand
Sharma is correct.
D
We therefore allow C.A. 1008 and set aside the order of the
labour court and dismiss the application of Ram Parkash.
We
make no order as to costs in the circumstances. C.A. 1009 is
hereby dismissed. We make no order as to costs in the circumE
stances.
•
C.A. 1008 allowed.
C.A. 1009 dismissed .
"'
J.