Jharkhand High Court
Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Thro' ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 April, 2006
Equivalent citations: (2006)IILLJ557JHAR
Author: R.K. Merathia
Bench: R.K. Merathia
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J.
1. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated September 28, 1994 passed in Refence Case No. 129 of 1992 by the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad, holding that withdrawal of additional increment to the employees of Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner Bank") was not justified.
2. Mr. Satish Bakshi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the award has been passed on two grounds. The first ground is that an additional annual increment was allowed to the employees of all the branches of sponsor Bank-State Bank of India in which computerisation was done or was to be done and, therefore, the employees and the petitioner Bank were entitled to parity with those employees of sponsor Bank-State Bank of India, who were working in the branches where there was no computerisation. He submitted that the second ground is that there was a violation of Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "the I.D. Act"), inasmuch as no notice of change in the condition of service was given to the employees of the petitioner Bank.
3. Mr. Bakshi submitted that both the grounds are untenable in law. He submitted that there were 195 Gramin Bank Branches all over the country, but by mistake only in the petitioner bank, the said additional annual increment was paid, but it was withdrawn in view of the circular issued by the concerned authority of the Central Government dated December 30, 1991 - Ext. M/2 (Annexure 3) under the provision of Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"). He further submitted that in such circumstance, it cannot be said there was any change in the condition of service without notice, attracting violation of Section 9-A of the I.D. Act.
4. Mr. Bakshi further submitted that pursuant to a policy decision, computerisation was to be done in the branches of sponsor Bank-State Bank of India phase wise. As the employees were to get training and then operate computers, they were given such special annual increment, but in the case of rural banks like the petitioner, there was no such policy decision for computerisation. However, by mistake, the management of the petitioner Bank allowed such increment to its employees which had to be withdrawn in view of the said circular of the Central Government (Annexure 3). He relied on the judgment of South Malabar Gramin Bank v. Coordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees' Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Federation and Ors. . By referring to the said judgment, he submitted that parity in pay will not mean the same pay and there may be a slight variation in the pay structure between the two groups of the bank employees. He, therefore, submitted that the employees or sponsor Bank-State Bank of India, who were to undergo training and were to operate computers, could not be equated with the employees of the petitioner bank as there was no scheme for computerisation of petitioner Bank. He further submitted that in the absence of any order of the Central Government passed under Section 17 of the Act, no such increment could be given to the staff of the petitioner Bank.
5. I find force in the submissions of Mr. Bakshi. There is no pleading/evidence/finding that there was any scheme for computerisation in the petitioner Bank, and/or the staff of petitioner bank had to undergo training and operate computers in the Bank. Thus, the employees of the petitioner bank cannot be equated with the employees of the sponsor bank-State Bank of India who were apparently given such increment pursuant to the policy for computerisation. Moreover respondent No. 3 has also not brought on record any thing to show that such increment was paid to the employees of any Rural Bank in the country.
6. I also agree with the submission of Mr. Bakshi that this is not a case of change of condition of service and that the Tribunal has wrongly held that there has been a violation of the provision of Section 9-A of the I.D. Act. The withdrawal of increment was pursuant to the circular issued under Section 17 of the Act. There was no circular to pay such increment to the staff of petitioner Bank. The increment in question was given by mistake.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned award is set aside and withdrawal of increment in question is held to be justified. However, there will be no order as to costs.