S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act applies to all kinds of benefits, whether monetary or non-monetary, to which a workman may be entitled under an award, and that the sub-section comes into play when the benefits have to be computed or calculated and there is a dispute as to the calculation or computation.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - S. 33-C (2) - BENEFIT - INTERPRETATION - MONETARY BENEFIT - COMPUTATION - CORRESPONDING SCALE - WORKMEN - SUPERVISORS - FIXATION OF BASIC PAY.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a supervisor in the appellant bank, claimed that his basic salary should be fixed in accordance with the Sastry award, which provided for a special allowance of Rs.50/- per mensem for supervisors. The appellant contended that the respondent's basic salary could only be fixed at the highest on the scale for graduate clerks, and that the respondent was not entitled to the special allowance.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the word "benefit" used in S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not confined merely to non-monetary benefit which could be converted in terms of money but is concerned with all kinds of benefits, whether monetary or non-monetary, to which a workman may be entitled, say, for example, under an award and that the sub-section comes into play when the benefits have to be computed or calculated and there is a dispute as to the calculation or computation.
Issues: 1. Whether an application can be made under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for the computation of a monetary benefit to which a workman is entitled under an award? 2. How should the basic salary of a supervisor be fixed under the Sastry award?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act applies to all kinds of benefits, whether monetary or non-monetary, to which a workman may be entitled under an award, and that the sub-section comes into play when the benefits have to be computed or calculated and there is a dispute as to the calculation or computation. 2. The Court held that the corresponding scale for the purpose of fixation of basic pay under the Sastry award is the corresponding scale which relates to a workman at a time before the Sen award. In the present case, the supervisor's scale was the corresponding scale for the respondent, and therefore his basic pay could not be fixed below what it would be under a point-to-point adjustment on the corresponding pre-Sen scale.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the labour court.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter. The respondent Kharbanda is a supervisor in the Punjab National Bank Limited which is the appellant before us. The dispute relates to the fixation of his salary in accordance with the All- India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award (hereinafter referred to as the Sastry award). The respondent made an application to the Central Labour Court, Delhi, under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act), and his case was that he was entitled to certain benefits capable of being computed in terms of money under the Sastry award, but the appellant had made a wrong calculation in fixing his basic salary. Therefore, the respondent prayed that the benefit to which he was entitled by fixation of his basic salary correctly should be computed in terms of money and determined by the labour court. His case further was that when his basic salary was rightly fixed under the Sastry award he would be entitled to a sum of Rs.6,428.28 nP. as arrears up to the date of his application.

2. The application was opposed on behalf of the appellant and two contentions were raised to meet the case put forward by the respondent. In the first place it was urged that the application was not maintainable under S. 33-C (2) of the Act and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide it. Secondly, it was urged that the manner in which the appellant had fixed the basic salary was correct and there was therefore no force in the contention of the respondent that he was entitled to certain benefits of which he had been deprived and which should be calculated by the labour court.

3. Before we deal with the two points which arise in the present appeal we may refer to the provisions of the Sastry award out of which the present dispute arises. Originally another tribunal known as the Sen tribunal was appointed in June 1949 to go into the disputes between various banks all over the country and their employees. The Sen tribunal made an award after an exhaustive inquiry but on appeal to this Court the said award was set aside in 1951. Thereafter Act II of 1951 was passed as a temporary measure for freezing certain provisions of the said award an order to prevent the spread of the prevalent unrest amongst the bank employees in question. The said dispute was then referred by the Central Government to the Sastry tribunal in January 1952. This tribunal held an elaborate inquiry and made its award which was published on April 20,1953. Appeals were preferred by the banks and their employees against the said award before the Labour Appellate Tribunal substantially confirmed the recommendations and directions of the Sastry tribunal with certain modifications. In the present appeal, we are not concerned with the further history of the dispute, for it is admitted that the provisions of the Sastry award with respect to the matter in controversy before us have remained unmodified when finally the dispute was set at rest by the Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Act, (No. XLI of 1955).

4. The Sastry tribunal decided after considering the matter from all aspects to provide only one scale for clerks in all banks, though banks themselves were divided into four classes and the places where the banks were situate were divided into three areas. In the present appeal we are concerned with Class A, area I, for which the grade provided was from Rs. 85 to Rs. 280 with varying increments (see Para 119 of the award) to which it is unnecessary to refer. After having provided one cadre of clerks, the Sastry tribunal then considered the question of certain special posts where the incumbent required special skill for the efficient discharge of his duties and the problem before it was whether there should be a separate scale for such special posts or whether the incumbents of such posts should be in the same scale as clerks with certain advantages in the shape e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document