SANKAR PRASAD BANERJEE Vs. CENTRAL GOVT LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the petitioner against an order dated September 16, 1971 passed by A. K. Sen, J. summarily dismissing his application under Article 226 (1)of the Constitution. The petitioner's case in brief is that he was appointed a clerk by the Imperial Bank of India on January 13, 1947 and was assigned to work in its Central Accounts Office. The petitioner was duly confirmed in his appointment on August 1, 1947. The said Bank, constituted under the Imperial Bank of India Act, 1920 functioned under the control of two Managing Governors who had their separate establishment with assistants and clerks. This office establishment was known as central Office and had three sections (I) Managing Governors Section (b)Chief Inspector's Section and (c) Ac counts Section. The entire staff of the central Office moved with the Managing Governors who used to visit by rotation Bombay, Madras and Calcutta to hold Central Board meetings. Since about 1925, the Chief Inspector's section and the Accounts Section of the Central Office were located at Calcutta under the supervision of the Chief inspector. From 1927 the above two departments of the office of the Chief inspector were known as "central accounts Office" under the charge of the Superintendent.

(2.) WITH effect from January 1930, the Assistants and clerks in Central office who were given daily and transfer allowances, were given, in lieu fixed monthly allowance of Rs. 67/- and rs. 50/- respectively. On July 1, 1955 the State Bank of India, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, took over the undertaking of the imperial Bank, and its employees be came under the provisions of the said act employees of the State Bank under same terms and conditions. In 1963 the petitioner came across a letter of december 19, 1962 which directed that all members of the Central Office and departments under its control in Bombay, who were not drawing Central office allowance, were to be paid an allowance of Rs. 35/- per mensem. The petitioner was never paid the said central Office allowance though he had been working and still continued to work in the Central Accounts Office which formed part of the Central Office of the Imperial Bank. It was customary with the Imperial Bank to pay the central Office allowance mentioned above but the State Bank was with drawing such customary benefits.

(3.) THE petitioner with other employees made representations to the authorities but as no relief was obtained he filed an application under section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Central Government labour Court for necessary relief. The application numbered as LC. 6 of 1968 was confined to the claim for period from July 1, 1955 to August 31, 1968 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per mensem totalling Rs. 7900/- The application was opposed by the State Bank corn ending that the benefit claimed was not admissible under section 33c (2) of the act. It was stated that the benefit was payable only the workmen serving in the Central Office in Bombay as defined in section 16 (1) of the State blank of India Act and was never payable to workmen working outside Bom bay. Under the service conditions of the petitioner, such amount was never payable nor paid at any time and was met included in the Sastry and Desai awards as modified by agreement and the Central Office never included the clerks and assistants of the Central accounts Office. By judgment dated May 21, 1969 the Central Labour Court gave its award holding inter alia: