RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ARVIND S JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The employer namely Reserve Bank of India challenges the Award dated 4th August, 1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Labour court at Nagpur in C. G. I. D. A. Case No. 31 of 1989. The said award is delivered in the proceedings under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes act moved by the present respondent No. 1 claiming the stagnation increment after completion of 23 years of service as per the provisions of Dighe award which is applicable and which governs the subject-matter.

(3.) The case of respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court was that he joined the services on 20th November, 1963 and completed 24 years of service on 20-11-1987. As per the provisions of the Dighe Award he should have been given stagnation increment from 20-11-1987. He states that he was drawing his pay in time scale of Group A category and because of his improvement in qualifications namely passing of graduation examination and clearing CAII-B part 1 and CALLB Part II examinations. He was also given Award which is applicable and which governs the subject-matter. The case of respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court was that he joined the service son 20th November, 1963 and completed 24 years of service on 20-11-1987. As per the provisions of the Dighe Award, he should have been given stagnation increment form 20-11-1987. He states that he was drawing his pay in time scale of Group - A category and because of his improvement in qualifications namely passing of graduation examination and clearing CAII-B Part-I and CAII-B part-II examinations. He was also given advance increments. He states that on 20-11-1978 he was receiving his pay at Rs. 590/- as substantive pay which was inclusive of three advance increments in pay scale of Rs. 555 + Rs. 25 + Rs. 10. He further states that to reach the maximum of that scale, he was to draw only one increment and it was to be released on 20-11 -1979. On 7th July, 1979 he passed caiib Part II examination and therefore, he became entitled to two advance increments in terms of the Bipartite settlement of the year 1970. However, the local office did not ask him anything as to whether he was desirous to avail of the benefit of honorarium in the matter and according to him, he should have been given benefit of Honorarium as only one increment was left to reach maximum in the time scale after 4 months only and as released of two increments was, therefore, not possible. He contends that, therefore, he was put to loss and he further contends that his last date of increments was also shifted to 7th July, 1979 from 20th November, 1979.