LAKSHMI VILAS BANK LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Management of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order of the Industrial Tribunal/first respondent in I.D.No.78 of 1995 dated 20.11.2000 and to quash the same.

(2.) The petitioner contends that it is a Banking Company having its registered office at Kathaparai near Karur with branches and offices located at various Cities, Towns and Villages through out the country. The wages and allowances and other service conditions are governed by Sastry Award, Desai Award and settlements made under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 29.6.1990, an industrywise settlement was entered into and applicable to the petitioner and its workmen. The settlement provides for payment of House Rent Allowances (H.R.A.) at 6.5 per cent of basic pay for an area with a population of less than 10,000, House Rent Allowance (H.R.A.) at 8 per cent of basic pay for an area with a population 10,000 and above, but less than two lakhs and House Rent Allowance (H.R.A.) at 10 per cent of basic pay for an area with a population of more than 2,00,000.

(3.) The management further contends that prior to 1992, the Head Office was functioning at Karur which had a population of more than 10,000, but less than two lakhs. Therefore, the staff were getting H.R.A. at 8 per cent of their basic pay. In the year 1992 the Head Office was shifted from Karur town to a nearby village Kathaparai where the population was less than 10,000. Accordingly, the staff were only entitled to H.R.A.6.5 per cent of the basic. In terms of the settlement, the staff are also liable to be transferred within the same area and when such transfer takes places, they can draw allowances only at the rate applicable to the area in which the office is located. 3. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when the office was shifted from Karur to Kathaparai in 1992, the staff made a representation that by reason of their transfer they will be entitled to only 6.5 per cent as against 8 per cent H.R.A. and therefore, the management should consider some relief. The Board of Directors passed a resolution permitting to allow the staff to draw H.R.A. at 8 per cent and as a gesture of goodwill, the management also continued the allowance at 8 per cent on the clear understanding that the concession will not be extended beyond 31.3.1994. This was made clear to all the staff. Though the agreement clearly provided for fixation of H.R.A. as aforesaid, by way of abundant caution on 28.2.1994 the petitioner gave a notice under Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act conveying that the staff would receive H.R.A. only at 6.5 per cent of their basic pay as and from 1.4.1994. Aggrieved by the same, Union raised an industrial dispute. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal/the first respondent passed an award on 20.11.2000, holding that the ruling of the High Court/Division Bench in the case of CHERAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. UNION OF INDIA (W.A.No.1503 of 1991 dated 1.12.1997) was applicable to the facts of the case and the award was granted in favour of the workers. Hence the above writ petition.