CW/2710/1991 of KESAR SINGH CONDUCTOR Vs RSRTC THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR on 5 May 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANAT JAIPUR BENCH,JAIPUR.

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7210/91.

The Rajasthan Sahkari Bank Karmchari Sangh.Versus.The Jaipur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. &Another.

Date of Judgment:11.2.2009.

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq.

Mr.Mahender Singh for the petitioner.Mr.Vijaindra Kumar Yadav)

Mr.Anand Singh Rajawat) for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed by thepetitioner Rajasthan Sahakari Bank KarmchariSangh, Jaipur, assailing the order dated 4[th]June,1991 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

The factual matrix of the case is thatthe appropriate Government made a referenceon an industrial dispute to the Industrial

..2..

Tribunal, Jaipur on the question whetherdemand of the Petitioner Sangh for parity inthe wages and allowances to its members atpar with the employees of the Rajasthan Co-operative Bank Ltd.,(hereinafter referred toas 'the Apex Bank') w.e.f. 1[st ]July,1983 wasjustified, and if so, what relief they areentitled to ? The Tribunal after adjudicationof the dispute answered the reference in theaffirmative and held that the demand of theemployees of the two Banks, namely, JaipurCentral Cooperative Bank Ltd.,Jaipur and theCentral Co-operative Bank, Tonk, is just,proper and genuine and the pay-scale of theclerks in the Apex Bank is Rs.446-1502, thepay scale of the IVth Class in the Apex Bankis 335-702. It was further held that the saidscales along with annual grade increments andstage to stage fixations shall be admissibleto the employees of the Central Cooperativebanks also.

The aforesaid award was challenged by theJaipur Central Co-operative Bank by filing awrit petition to this Court (S.B.Civil WritPetition No.338/88). This Court vide orderdated 5[th] April 1991 disposed of the writpetition by passing a consensual order. Theoperative portion of the aforesaid order isreproduced as under:- “Heard learned counsel for theparties.

Learned counsel for both theparties agree that the employees of thepetitioner namely the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Tonk and Jaipur,shall be given the same wages,allowance and facilities as are beinggiven to the employees of the State Co-operative (Apex) Bank. It was alsoagreed upon that the Registrar Co-operative shall examine whether thesystem of stage to stage fixation isprevalent in the Apex Bank or not. Incase, it is prevalent in the Apex Bank,

..4..

the same benefit shall also be extendedin favour of the employees of theCentral Co-operative Bank Ltd., Tonkand Jaipur. In case, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies finds that thesystem is not prevalent in the ApexBank, the benefit of stage to stagefixation shall not be made available tohe Bank employees of Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur and Tonk.TheRegistrar,Co-operativeSocieties, is, therefore, directed totake action in the matter in the lightof the order passed by this Courtwithin two months from today and heshould decide the matter within twomonths from today.

The writ petition is disposed ofaccordingly.

No order as to costs”.

A perusal of the aforesaid judgment ofthis Court would show that the Registrar Co-operative Societies was directed to examine

..5..

whether the system of stage to stage fixationwas prevalent in the Apex Bank or not and incase it was prevalent in the Apex Bank, thesame benefits shall also be extended to theemployees of the Central Co-operative BankLtd., Tonk and Jaipur. It was also directedthat if the Registrar Co-operative Societiesfinds that the system is not prevalent in theApex Bank, the benefit of stage to stagefixation shall not be made available to theBank employees of Central Co-operative BankLtd., Jaipur and Tonk.

The Registrar Co-operative Societies uponhearing both the parties examined the matterand passed an order on 4 June, 1991 whereinhe came to the conclusion that the stage tostage fixation taking into consideration theearlier increments in the old scale asclaimed by the Sangh is not prevalent in

..6..

the Apex Bank and the employees of CentralCo-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur and Tonk arenot entitled for such stage to stagefixation as claimed by them.

As a result of the finding and decisionof the Registrar Co-operative Societies, theApex Bank by it's order dated 11[th] July,1991issued an order in compliance of the order ofRegistrar in respect of fixation of theemployees in the revised pay scales witheffect from 1.7.1986 and ordered that theexcess payment made to the employees as theresult of fixing their pay stage to stage inthe pay scales equal to the employees of ApexBank in pursuance of award of Labour Courtwould not be payable to the employees or theconcerned Bank and whatever was paid pursuantto order of this Court w.e.f. 20.12.1989 to20.12.1990 may be recovered.

..7..

This writ petition was originally allowedby this Court vide judgment dated 30[th]July,1992. However, the aforesaid judgmentwas challenged before the Division Bench byway of filing appeal (D.B.Civil Appeal(Writ)No.520/1993) by Tonk Central Co-operativeBank Ltd., through its Managing Director onthe ground that it was not a party to thewrit petition nor any notice or opportunityof hearing was given to it. The said appealwas allowed vide judgment dated 23.1.2004 andthe matter was remanded back to the SingleBench for hearing afresh, with the directionto implead the Tonk Central Co-operative BankLtd., Tonk, through its Managing Director asparty respondent No.3 in the writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for thepetitioner and the counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondent Banks.

..8..

Mr.Mahender Singh learned counsel for thepetitioner has argued that the order ofRegistrar dated 4[th] June, 1991` and the orderdated of the respondent No.1 dated 11.7.1991are illegal and contrary to the directionsgiven by the High Court and also in violationof the award passed by the Tribunal. Hecontended that the Registrar CooperativeSocieties erred while passing the impugnedorder,and lost sight of the parity. Hecontended that a consent order was passed bythis Court wherein the Registrar wasentrusted to undertake to limited exercise toexamine whether stage to stage fixation isprevalent in the Apex Bank or not and in thatevent same benefit would then be extended tothe two Banks. He contended that theRegistrar could not while undertaking suchexercise and go into the correctness of theaward and the observations made in the judgment of this Court.

..9..

Arguments

judgment of this Court.

..9..

He contended that respondent No.2 hascommitted error while passing the order dated4[th] June 1991 and took it for granted thatthis Court by its judgment dated 5[th] April1991 has set-aside the award by giving freshdirection to decide the dispute about thestage to stage fixation. Learned counsel forthe petitioner argued that even on the meritof the case, the Registrar CooperativeSocieties has taken erroneous view of thematter by ignoring practically stage to stagefixation laid down by the Apex Bank. Theseries of documents produced before theRegistrar proved as a whole that stage tostage fixation was being followed by ApexBank which had given such benefits to itsemployees. Learned counsel for thepetitioner has referred to resolution No.5dated 21.4.1970 passed by the Board ofDirectors of Rajasthan Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jaiur, settlement between the Rajsthan State

..10..

Cooperative Bank Ltd and its employees dated1.6.1969, settlement dated 2.2.1973, 28[th]Dec.,1977, 7[th] March 1984 and 5[th] August 1987to bring home the point.

Learned counsel for the petitioner arguedthat the award of Labour Court regardingparity was binding on the parties thereto.Since it was an award made under Section 17of the Industrial Disputes Act and evenafter termination , the award will remain inforce as a binding agreement between theparties till it is replaced by a settlementor other award. It was not open to theRegistrar to terminate and unilaterallyrepudiate an award without complying with therequirements of Section 19. Therefore, theentire impugned order of Registrar is basedon misconception that this Court vide itsjudgment dated 5[th] April, 1991 has made a

..11..

fresh reference to the Registrar todecide the controversy in question. He wasmerely required to examine whether stage tostage pay fixation system was prevalent inthe Apex Bank and extend the same to theemployees of the Central Bank.

Learned counsel appearing for therespondents has opposed the writ petition andarguments advanced by Mr.Mahender Singh andsubmitted that the order passed by theRegistrar in pursuance of Order passed bythis Court on 5[th] April 1991 would equallybind the petitioner-Sangh. It was in thatorder that the Registrar was authorized todecide whether the system of stage to stagefixation was prevalent or not and in case thesame was prevalent, then only to extend thesame to the employees of Central CooperativeBanks. The Registrar within the scope of that

..12..

Order examined the system of fixation andlastly his finding was that such system wasnot prevalent. Consequently, the employees ofCentral Cooperative Banks Tonk and Jaipurare not entitled to such fixation as claimedby them. It was argued that the award of theTribunal holding the employees of the abovereferred to two Banks entitled to fixationshall stand modified by the Judgment of thisCourt and on that aspect, now it is to begoverned by the findings given by theRegistrar Cooperative Societies. The orderpassed by Registrar is just and proper andthe same was passed on appreciation ofevidence. The writ petition be thereforedismissed.

I have given my careful consideration tothe rival submissions and perused theimpugned order.

..13..

Although it is true that this Cort passeda consent order empowering the RegistrarCooperative Societies to examine the questionwhether the system of stage to stage fixationwas prevalent for the employees of the ApexBank, but with that writ petition wasdisposed of and this may result in makingimplementation of the award passed by theTribunal depended on the findings recorded bythe Registrar. As a matter of fact, howeverthere existed system of stage to stagefixation in the Apex Bank and the award ofTribunal thereby did not get obliterated. TheTribunal in it's order dated 14th July 1987held as under:- “I have to keep in my mindcertain facts which are too obviousto need reiteration. The first factis that the employees in the Branchin Jaisalmer District are getting the same wages, allowances and

..14..

facilities as are given in the ApexBank at Jaipur and at the same timethey are discharging the same workas is being discharged by theemployees of the banks. This givesstrength to the contention raisedbefore me by Shri Jain to theeffect that parity in the payscales must be granted on the basisof region-cum-industry formula.Another fact to be taken intoconsiderationisthatthecooperative bank at Kota hasreached a settlement with itsemployees where under the latterhave been given the same wages,allowances and facilities as areadmissible to the employees of theApex Bank. Another point to be keptin mind is that the purpose of thecooperative banks is not to earnprofit. The employees cannot bedeprived of what is due to them onone pretext or the other. Theirdemand cannot be defeated on theground that the three other unionsreached a settlement Ex.4-2 with

..15..

the banks on 7.2.85. Apart fromthis settlement dated .2.85 hasexpired on 30.86. Their demand alsocannot be defeated on the groundthat the employees have availedthemselves of the benefits whichaccrued to them under thesettlement Ex.M-2 dated 7.2.85.”

No doubt, the Registrar in passing theimpugned order has examined the matter onevidence of system of stage to stagefixation but in doing it could not altogetherignore the findings recorded by the Tribunal.Coming now to the order passed the Registrar,I find, though he has noticed the terms ofthe settlement dated 21[st] April, 1970 whichthe Apex Bank adopted by Resolution No.5, buthe declined to take the same intoconsideration on the premises that it was notincorporated in the in the settlement dated14[th] May 1980. For the settlement of 1980-84,

..16..

he held that formal fixation narrated

wherein there was different while insettlement of 1980, 159.6% of the basic paywhich formed the D.A was merged with pay andthe pay was fixed nearest to the next stagefixed for the Clerks. However, 212.6% of thebasic pay (D.A )of Class IV employees wasmerged with the pay and the pay was fixed atnearest stage in the new pay scales.

different while in

Regarding Settlement of 1984 in generalspecial allowance of Rs.50/- to Clerks andRs.20/- to Class IV were given. Butsubsequently by a resolution, it was reducedto Rs.25/- to clerks and Rs.20/- to Class IVrespectively. Even from the settlement of1970, it would be evident from Para 7 thereofthat in case pay scale was revised, it wasagreed that the basic of the fixationshall be stage to stage fixation. This

..17..

settlement was to remain operative for 3years. Another settlement came into force on1[st] September,72 and it would be evident fromPara 4 thereof that pay scales of Clerks andClass IV employees were revised with theirpay fixation and employees were allowed stageto stage fixation. The third settlement cameinto force on 22.2.73 under which also newpay scales for Class IV employees were agreedin Para No.9 & 10 which deal with fixationunder Service Rules of the employees. A Lookat the fixation settlement would show thatthe scale indicated therein were stage tostage fixation with the grant of incrementintermittently for different stages. Thiswould show that an employee drawingRs.150/-. The finding recorded by theRegistrar that there was no such stage tostage fixation, cannot be upheld becausestage to stage fixation is nothing but fixation at the corresponding scale in the revised pay-scale.

..18..

It is necessary to mention here that inthe various settlements, there shall be stageto stage fixation, but even where they agreedto the scale of pay with different stage,therein also it can be presumed that therewas system of stage to stage fixation. It isin that light that one has to appreciate themerger of 159.6% and 212.6% D.A with theexisting pay of the Clerks and Class IVemployee respectively in settlement of 1980so as to arrive at the nearest to the nextstage of which reference has been made inearlier pages.

Coming to the settlement which is

Annexure-9, a new pay scale was given toClerks and Class IV employees according towhich, the pay scale clerks was revised toRs.160-6-178-8-210-12-282-15-342-18-360=20-440-25-490 and the pay scale of Class IV was revised to Rs.130-2-1/2-113-3-128-4-148-5-188

..19..

respectively, from which, it would be evidentthat there was increase of salary and therebyfixation was made providing 9% increase onthe basic pay thereof. In fact, it amountsto fixation from stage to stage and this doesnot detract from the fact that actually payfixation was made from stage to stage.

With the above discussion, this writpetition deserves to be allowed and the sameis hereby allowed. The order passed by theRegistrar Cooperative Society dated 4[th] June1991 holding that the stage to stage fixationtaking into consideration the earlierincrements in the old scale as claimed by thepetitioner Sangh, is not prevalent the ApexBank is set-aside. It is held that stage tostage fixation was prevalent in the ApexBank, therefore, employees of the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaipur and Tonk are

..20..

also entitled to the stage to stage fixation.It is further held that the employees of theaforesaid two Banks are entitled to betreated similarly and identically in thematter of fixation of pay and increase in thepay as given to the employees of the ApexBank.

Conclusion

Resultantly, action of the respondents inmaking deduction/recovery as noticed above isheld to be illegal and the employees of theaforesaid two Banks are entitled to getrefund of the recovered amount as such.Writ Petition is accordingly allowedwith no order as to costs.

(Mohammad Rafiq)J.