Vijender Jain, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS is a petition directed against the order of the respondent-Bank impugning the letter dated 31st October, 1985 fixing the pay of the petitioner as Rs. 1173. 25 paise. However, this figure is wrong, as has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent at the outset of the hearing of this petition, this should be read as Rs. 1495. 10 paise.

( 2 ). Various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. K. Singh. The petitioner, admittedly, is an ex-serviceman and under the scheme of the Government for rehabilitation of the ex-servicemen, the petitioner applied for re-employment with the respondent-Bank and was appointed on 17. 10. 1984. According to him, at that time the Third Bipartite Settlement was in operation and his pay is to be protected on the basis of the said Bipartite Settlement as well as Government of India instructions, which have been issued from time to time to protect the pay scale of such category of employees. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision of pay scale on the basis of Fourth Bipartite Settlement is bad in law, firstly, on account of petitioner not being a party to the said Bipartite Settlement; secondly said Bipartite Settlement did not take into consideration the cases of employees like the petitioner i. e. ex-servicemen; and thirdly the revision of pay scale was arbitrary and without affording the petitioner any opportunity of being heard in the matter. Mr. Singh has further contended that the applicability of Fourth Bipartite Settlement retrospectively cannot take away the vested rights of the petitioner. In support of his arguments, he has cited P. D. Aggarwal and ors v. State of U. P. and ors. AIR 1987 SC 1676. This case deals with the length of service and how the continuity of service has to be determined in case of direct recruites and other Departmental promotees. A serious challenge was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the applicability of the Fourth Bipartite Settlement, which was arrived at between the representatives of the All India Bank Employees Association with the Management of the Bank on 17. 9. 1984, which was made applicable from 1. 7. 1983 and in this connection he has cited M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. The Workmen employed under M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. AIR 1978 SC 828, in which Supreme Court held |-

"accordingly, the theory of implied agreement by acquiescence sought to be built up on behalf of the appellant on the basis of the acceptance of the benefits flowing from the agreement even by the workmen who were not signatories to the settlement is of no avail to the appellant Company and cannot operate as an estoppel against the Sangh or its members. "

( 3 ). Counsel for the petitioner has also cited Delhi Cloth and General Missl Co. Ltd. v Union of India and ors. 1984 Lab. I. C. 1323, M/s. Ameteep Machine Tools v. Labour Court, Haryana and anr. 1980 (Supplement) SCC 355 and Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (1991) 1 SCC 4.

( 4 ). On the basis of the aforesaid authorities, Mr. Singh has argued that as the petitioner was not a party to the Fourth Bipartite Settlement, said Settlement was not binding on him and his pay has to be protected not in terms of the said Settlement but in terms of the Government orders and directions issued from time to time in relation to ex-servicemen category to which the petitioner belongs.

( 5 ). Repelling the contention of Mr. Jagat Arora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, that there was equally effacacious remedy available to the petitioner under the Industrial Disputes Act, and, therefore, this petition ought not to have been maintained and the same should be dismissed, Mr. Singh has argued that the writ petition was filed in the year 1985, which was admitted by this Court in 1986, i. e. approximately 10 years have passed and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document