IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 27028 of 2007(P) -------------------------- ID.225/2006 of LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, W/ISLAND BRANCH, KOCHI-682031. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL SECRETARY, STATE BANK OF INDIA UNION(MC), C/O S.B.I. ZONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.2712, KOCHI-682 031. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT(CENTRAL), KARSHAKA ROAD, COCHIN-16. R1 BY ADVS . SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27028 of 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNION. P2 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 19/05/1998 P3 : COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD.22.05.1999 P4 : COPY OF EXT.M1 P5 : COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 26.04.2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : R1(a) : COPY OF AWARD, DATED 26.09.1989 IN I.D.NO.28/1988 OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALLEPPEY. R1(b) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF CODE OF DISCIPLINE IN INDUSTRY AND RECOGNITION OF THE UNIONS. R1(c) : COPY OF LETTER, DATED 10-09-1985 BEARING NO.3448/MSG, ISSUED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, WILLINGTON ISLAND BRANCH. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27028 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners in this writ petition are officers of the State Bank of India, arrayed as the management in I.D.No.225/06 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam. They are challenging Ext.P5 award passed by the Tribunal in that industrial dispute. The issue referred for adjudication in that dispute was; “Whether the action of the Dy.General Manager, State Bank of India in withdrawing the special compensatory allowance paid at the rate of Rs.15/- and Rs.25/- per month to sub-staff and clerical staff employees employed in Willingdon Island, Cochin Port Trust and Overseas Branches w.e.f. 15.1.1995 is justified or not? If not justified, to what relief the workmen are entitled?” The Tribunal after considering the issue and the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that it was wrong on the part of the petitioners to stop payment of the special compensatory allowance and holding that the employees are W.P.(C)No.27028/07 2 entitled to get special compensatory allowance with arrears. That award is under challenge before me. 2. The contention raised by the petitioners before me is that, that issue is squarely covered by a settlement entered into between the management and the unions of employees on 8.9.1983, which provided that the allowance payable at any place shall be discontinued, if such allowance, called by any name whatsoever, ceases to be paid to the employees of the Central Government. According to the petitioners, the Central Government employees working in the Willingdon Island area are not being paid this compensatory allowance and therefore, by virtue of the said settlement, the employees of the bank are not eligible for the special compensatory allowance. 3. In answer to the contentions of the petitioners, the 1st respondent would contend that the settlement means that if the Central Government employees were being paid compensatory allowance before and the same ceases to be payable to the employees of the Central Government subsequently the same can be denied to the employees of the Bank. According to them, the Central Government employees of the Willingdon Island area were never paid compensatory W.P.(C)No.27028/07 3 allowance at any time and therefore, the question of the same ceasing to be payable to the employees of the Central Government does not arise. Hence, the said clause in the settlement does not apply to the employees of the bank of the Willingdon Island is the contention raised. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the very object of the clause in the settlement is to see that such allowance is paid to the employees of the bank only if the Central Government employees also get the same. Therefore, such a narrow interpretation, as sought to be put to the settlement by the 1st respondent Union, should not be adopted, but, a wider interpretation should be adopted taking into account the object and purpose for which the settlement has been arrived at. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. The only question to be decided in this case is as to whether the clause in the settlement dated 8.9.1983 is applicable to the stoppage of special compensatory allowance being paid to the employees of the bank at Willingdon Island. The clause 9 of the settlement has been extracted by the management in Ext.P2 written statement, which reads as follows: W.P.(C)No.27028/07 4 “Clause 9: Special Area Allowance: 'Parties agree that in terms of Clause 19 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 31.10.1979 and Clause 27 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 22.11.1979, special area allowance will be paid to all full time workmen staff working at places specified in Schedule III hereto at the rates stipulated against each such place, with effect from 1.3.1981, at the places set out in Column I of Schedule III, the rate of such special allowance being 10% of the basic pay (“pay” as defined in the Bipartite Settlement for payment of house rent allowance) subject to minimum and maximum amounts as set out in Column 2 of Schedule III against each such place. The Special Area allowance will be payable subject to the following conditions:- (a) The allowance payable at any place shall be discontinued if such allowance (called by any name whatever) ceases to be payable to the employees of the Central Government. (b) The allowance will continue to be payable at the stipulated rate only until such time as there is no direction to the contrary from the Government and thereafter subject to such direction. (c) Where, however, on the date on which this Settlement comes into force if any workmen at the specified places was receiving a special area allowance (called by any name whatever) and rate higher than than prescribed above, the difference in amount shall be protected and paid as an adjusting allowance. (d) The adjusting allowance referred to above shall cease to be payable to an employee when he ceases to draw special area allowance consequent on his transfer or posting elsewhere or stoppage of payment of the allowance at that place. (d) Assam Allowance (called by any name whatever) paid prior to or in terms of Settlement dated 21.4.1980 between the parties shall cease to be payable from 1.3.1981 at places where special area allowance is payable under the settlement. Appropriate adjustments will be made while disbursing the arrears of special area allowance in terms of this settlement.” Clause 9 (a) is the relevant clause. It is of general application W.P.(C)No.27028/07 5 to the employees of the Bank all over the country. The very reading of the said clause would go to show that the very object behind that clause is to see that the special compensatory allowance is paid only when the same is paid to Central Government employees working in the same area. I am of opinion that the word ' discontinued' and 'ceases' used therein would not indicate that the same is applicable only if the Central Government employees were once being paid that allowance and it has been subsequently stopped. That would be a too narrow interpretation. What is required in such circumstances is not literal interpretation but, a purposive interpretation. The very object of the said clause is to see that, in the matter of payment of special compensatory allowance, the banks' employees are equated with the employees of the Central Government. Admittedly, in Willingdon Island employees of the Central Government are not being paid compensatory allowance. Bank employees belong to the highest paid section of our Society. The pay of the corresponding categories in other establishments including Central Government service is not at all comparable. If that be so, when Central Government employees are not being paid W.P.(C)No.27028/07 6 special compensatory allowance, it defies logic as to how the banks' employees are entitled to the same, particularly in view of the above said settlement. Therefore, I am of opinion that the Tribunal was not right in interpreting that clause so narrowly. The result of the above discussion is that the decision in Ext.P5 award cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, Ext.P5 award is quashed. It is declared that the employees represented by the 1st respondent are not eligible for the special compensatory allowance since such allowance is not being paid to the Central Government employees working in Willingdon Island, which is the object of Clause 9(a) in the settlement dated 8.9.1983. Consequently the employees are not entitled to any reliefs in the industrial dispute. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.27028/07 7 W.P.(C)No.27028/07 8