H.L. Anand, Vidya Sagar and B. C. Das Gupta, for the respondent.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated December 11, 1961, of the Central Government Labour Court, Delhi in C.A. No.
N. Sanyal, Solicitor General of India.,
April 22.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA J. The appellant was appointed as a clerk in the State Bank of India, the respondent before us, on December 14, 1953.
The Labour Court rejected the preliminary objection but held on the merits that the annual increment of the appellant fell due from after April 1, 1954, and on April 1, in succeeding years.
The Labour Court companysidered the appellants petition and four other petitions together and disposed of these by the same order.
It may be mentioned that in other four petitions, two persons were appointed on February 24, 1950, one on March 15, 1951 and one on June 1, 1953, while the appellant, as already stated, was appointed on December 14, 1953.
On the merits the bank pleaded that it had acted in accordance with the terms of the Sastry Award in allowing increments on the 1st April of each year.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
95/ per month with a dearness allowance of Rs.
In applying to the appellant this award which is admittedly applicable to him the bank proceeded on the basis that under it the appellant was entitled to get his annual increment in each year on April 1.
Against this order of rejection this appeal has been filed by special leave of this companyrt.
On December 14, 1960, the appellant made an application under s. 33 c 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Delhi, praying that the benefit under the award of which he is being deprived by the bank by the alleged error in its implementation should be companyputed and directed to be paid to him.
At the time of appointment his salary was Rs.
The Sastry Award in the disputes between certain banking companypanies and their workmen as modified by the labour Appellate Tribunal was given statutory force by the Industrial Disputes Banking Companies Decisions Act, 1955.
It is necessary therefore to decide the appellants companytention that the Labour Court had erred in its decision on the merits.
707 of 1962.
K. Ramamurtthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. C. Aggarwala, for the appellant.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the application.
According to the appellant, however, he is entitled under the award to have his annual increment in December each year.
605 of 1961.
