CSB BANK LTD Vs. M.A. RAPPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the scope and effect of sub-sec. (2) to Sec. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act)? Should the workman's right to receive the benefit claimed by him be admitted or in other words, not disputed by the employer? If the employer dispute's the workmen's right to receive the benefit in question, does the Labour Court lose its jurisdiction? Is the jurisdiction of the Labour Court confined or limited only to computation of the benefit in terms of money? Let us consider.

(2.) This intra court appeal has been filed by the first respondent against the judgment dtd. 13/01/2023 in W.P.(C) No.19558/2012. The respondents herein are the petitioner and the second respondent respectively in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the first respondent Bank. He commenced his service as sub staff and was thereafter promoted to the clerical cadre during 1986. He superannuated on 31/05/2009. The post in which the petitioner was working was a permanent post and he was drawing daftary allowance on a permanent basis and also received the said allowance during leave period. At the time of his promotion, his salary was fixed as per Ext.P1 Circular No.221/1983 dtd. 02/12/1983. His salary in the clerical category was fixed taking into consideration the daftary allowance drawn by him. Accordingly, the first respondent Bank paid salary to the petitioner till 1992. However, in the year 1992, the first respondent Bank suo motu reviewed the pay scale of the petitioner and re-fixed the salary on promotion to a lesser scale with retrospective effect. When the salary was refixed, the daftary allowance drawn by the petitioner in the lower cadre was not taken into account. The difference in salary was also recovered in installments from the petitioner. As the Unions were agitating the issue before the Labour Authorities, the petitioner was advised that his grievance would also be redressed when the issue was finally decided. In Industrial Dispute No.268/2006, the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam was called upon to consider the question whether the first respondent Bank was justified in not taking special allowance for the purpose of fitment and in altering the date of increment to the date of promotion to the sub staff on promotion to the clerical cadre. The Tribunal as per Ext.P3 award dtd. 06/07/2007 found that the bank was not justified in strictly following Ext.P1 Circular dtd. 02/12/1983. The special allowance of subordinate staff who were discharging duties of a permanent nature attached to their post and of fitment in the promoted post were not taken into account. Thereafter, when the first respondent Bank implemented Ext.P3 award, the benefit of the same was given to one hundred and fourteen (114) workmen whose wages were fixed as per Ext.P4 circular dtd. 25/08/1993 issued by the bank changing the fitment formula on promotion to clerical cadre. Except one employee no other employee promoted as per Ext.P1 Circular was given the benefit of Ext.P3 award. As the benefits of Ext.P3 award were not granted to the petitioner, Ext.P6 claim petition under Sec. 33C (2) of the Act before the second respondent was preferred.