2007 Supreme(SC) 1510

2007(8) Supreme 675
Supreme Court of india
(From Karnataka High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Personal Manager, SBI & Anr. — Petitioners
versus
Krishna Grameena Bank Employees Union & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 2790 of 2006
Decided on : 28-11-2007

Important point
No formula of universal application can be laid down so far delay in seeking reference is concerned.

Headnote:(a)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – No formula of universal application can be laid down so far delay in seeking reference is concerned – It would depend on facts of each individual case. (Para 10)

       (2001)1 SCC 353; (2000)2 SCC 455; (2003) 4 SCC 27 – Relied upon.

       (b)Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – National Tribunal decided on the basis of parity – It, however, did not record any finding about the functional similarity – The National Tribunal and the Equation Committee also did not examine the question post wise although in SBI there is no post of Joint Custodian – In the State Bank of India and the sponsored bank there are two posts as cash officer and clerk cum cashier who perform distinct functions – The custody of the cash is held by the cash officer and as and when cashiers perform the additional function of cash officer they are paid an allowance of Rs.380/- which is called officiating allowance and not the keys allowance – Significantly in RRB the cash in charge is a workman, while in the sponsor bank he is an officer – The allowance for RRBs reduced to 189/- per month – In absence of any functional similarity or post parity, appeal allowed. (Para 9)

       (c)Service Law – Pay parity – RRBs and sponsor banks – In absence of any functional similarity or post parity taken into consideration by the National Tribunal or the Equation Committee the award for payment of 380/- not justified – Reduction as per circular of NABARD being approved by Central Government is not vitiated – RRB staff entitled to reduced allowance only – However no recovery directed. (Para 9)

       Facts of the case:

       1.On 1.9.1987 employees of Regional Rural Banks filed Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging salary structure in these Banks. The Supreme Court directed the issues to be referred to a National Industrial Tribunal.

       2.On 30.4.1990 the National Tribunal passed an award directing that the officers and employees of the RRBs. will be entitled to claim parity with their counterparts in the sponsor bank in the matter of pay scale with effect from 1.9.1987.

       3.On 16.1.1991 Government of India constituted an Equation Committee pursuant to the observations made in the Award.

       4.On 22.2.1991 Government of India issued instructions to all sponsor banks and RRBs for implementing NIT award and recommendation of the Pay Equation Committee.

       5.On 31.7.1991, arose the starting point of controversy so far as the present dispute is concerned.

       6.According to the appellants, on an erroneous reading of the award and without appreciating the fact that there is no post of “Joint Custodian of Keys” in the sponsor bank i.e. State Bank of India, the RRBs. issued a circular stating that “Joint custodian of Keys” (junior/senior clerk) will be eligible for a cash allowance of Rs.380/- per month.

       7.Another RRBs issued a circular stating that there is no comparable post of clerk or cashier holding keys as Joint Custodian in SBI and as per Government of India’s instructions, “cashier in charge” holding keys will be entitled to allowance of Rs.189/- per month and not Rs.380/- per month.

       8.The respondent-Union filed writ petition before the High Court. The Patna High Court which was dealing with similar issues granted liberty to Government and RRB to reduce the said allowance.

       9.On 21.4.1992 NABARD issued a Circular to all sponsor banks including SBI stating that of RRBs’ special allowance of only Rs.189/- shall be payable. This order of NABARD was issued with the prior approval of the Government of India.

       10.The writ petition filed by respondent was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

       11.Challenge was raised by the employees of another RRB before Andhra Pradesh High Court which held that employees are entitled to allowance at the rate of Rs.189/- and not at the rate of Rs.380/- per month. The appeal thereagainst was dismissed.

       Findings of the Court:

       In view of the National Tribunal and Equation Committee not considering functional similarity or post parity, appeal allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.