STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. PARKASH CHAND MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal by the State Bank of India is as regards the effect of Para 292 of the Bank Award, as modified, on the respondent Parkash Chand Mehra. This respondent entered the Bank's service on February 20, 1943 it was then the Imperial Bank of India. On January 31, 1950 he was getting a salary of Rs. 86 per month. On April 1,1954 he was employed at the Abohar Branch of the Imperial Bank ; and on May 15, 1954 he was transferred to Amritsar under the classification in the Bank Award, Abohar was a class IV area while Amritsar was a class II area. On the basis that Abohar was a class IV area the respondent's salary was fixed by the Bank on April 1, 1954 at Rs.112 per month; and on transfer to Amritsar- a class II area, in consideration of his length of service, he was given three increments and his salary was fixed at Rs. 133 per month. The Respondent's case is that he was entitled to three increments over Rs. 126 which it is said he was drawing at Abohar, that is Rs.148 per month. As this claim was rejected by the Bank authorities he made as application under Ss.33 (b) determining the money payable under the Award. The Labour Court, Delhi accepted the respondents case that his pay should have been fixed at Rs.148 per month.

(2.) To determine the correctness of the Tribunal decision it is necessary first to see what the respondents pay would be at Abohar, on the basis that Abohar was a class IV area at the time of his transfer to Amirtsar, and what his salary would be under the modified Award at Amirtsar. We have to ascertain then, first the basic pay on January 31, 1950. The clauses of the Award which require consideration may be set out here conveniently:-

(3.) We have therefore first to fix the basic pay in accordance with Rule 4 (a), and then a low annual increments in accordance with R. 4 (b). But this is subject to Rules 1 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 (b) subject to both the limits laid down in R. 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 workmen or the maximum in the new scale. Under Rule 4 (a) the workman's basic pay is Rs. 90; and under Rule 4 (b) to this basic pay has to be added two increments in respect of the new scale so that the basic pay would become fixed, apart from the limitation of Rule 2, at Rs. l00 .If that were correct the salary would be Rs, 126 on April 1, 1954. There is however the limitation introduced by R. 2 which is made applicable to the fixation of the basic pay under Rule 4 by the words "subject to Rules, 1, to 3". Admittedly, point to point adjustment would give the respondent a basic pay of Rs. 90. This limit cannot therefore be exceeded; and so, in spite of Rule 4 (b), the basic pay for applying the new scale, would be Rs. 90 and not Rs. 100. The consequence of this is that the pay to which he would be entitled, at the time of the transfer was Rs. l12; on transfer to a class II area he would get three increments to give him the benefit of the higher area scale corresponding to the length of service, and his pay would be Rs. 133.