High Court Of Calcutta
A.C. Gupta, S.K. Datta, JJ.
Sankar Prasad Banerjee : Appellant
Versus
Central Govt Labour Court : Respondent
Decided On : Apr 20,1974
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - RES JUDICATA - APPLICABILITY TO INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATIONS - PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS APPLICABLE TO INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATIONS, BUT IT IS NOT INFLEXIBLE AND MAY BE RELAXED IN APPROPRIATE CASES, SUCH AS WHEN THERE IS A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES OR WHEN THE AWARD IS BASED ON PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE DETERMINATION OF WAGE STRUCTURE ON EXISTING PRICE INDEX.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a clerk in the Central Accounts Office of the Imperial Bank of India, claimed entitlement to a Central Office allowance, which was payable to employees of the Central Office in Bombay. After the Imperial Bank was taken over by the State Bank of India, the petitioner continued to work in the Central Accounts Office, which was located in Calcutta. The petitioner filed two applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming the Central Office allowance for different periods. Both applications were dismissed by the Central Government Labour Court, the first on the ground of res judicata and the second on the merits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the principle of res judicata is applicable to industrial adjudications, but it is not inflexible and may be relaxed in appropriate cases, such as when there is a change in circumstances or when the award is based on prevailing circumstances like determination of wage structure on existing price index. In the present case, the court found that there was no change in circumstances that would justify relaxing the principle of res judicata. The court also found that the Labour Court was justified in holding that the subsequent application was barred by res judicata.
Issues: 1. Whether the principle of res judicata is applicable to industrial adjudications? 2. Whether the principle of res judicata can be relaxed in appropriate cases? 3. Whether the Labour Court was justified in holding that the subsequent application was barred by res judicata?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of res judicata is applicable to industrial adjudications, but it is not inflexible and may be relaxed in appropriate cases, such as when there is a change in circumstances or when the award is based on prevailing circumstances like determination of wage structure on existing price index. In the present case, the court found that there was no change in circumstances that would justify relaxing the principle of res judicata. The court also found that the Labour Court was justified in holding that the subsequent application was barred by res judicata.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.
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.
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:
(a) As a matter of economy and convenience the Central Board of the Imperial Bank decided in 1925 to locate a part of the Central Office, namely Chief Inspector's Section and accounts Section permanently at Calcutta and to allocate the duty of moving with the Managing Governors to the other part namely Managing Governor's section. These departments located at calcutta were placed under general control of the Chief Inspector and the office was reignited as the Chief Inspector's Of
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.