Delhi High Court
Shyam Lal vs Presiding Officer, Cgit & Others on 29 January, 2009
Author: Ajit Prakash Shah
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA NO. 242/2002
% Date of decision : 29th January, 2009
SHYAM LAL ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.S.P. Srivastava, advocate.
versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagat Arora, advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
The appellant was appointed as Sepoy, Subordinate Staff in Bank of
India on 18th February, 1972 and was promoted to clerical staff on 1st
April, 1981. Subsequently, he raised an industrial dispute through staff
union and the following Reference was made :-
"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of
India, New Delhi in not promoting Shri Shyam Lal,
Sub-Staff (now staff clerk, Northern Zonal Audit
Office, New Delhi) as Daftry with effect from
11.11.80 was justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. Industrial Tribunal noticed that a junior to the appellant,
Mr.T.C.Ramola was granted Special Allowance. Reference was made to the
Bipartite Settlement and it was held that the appellant herein should be
also paid Special Allowance for the period 11th November, 1980 till he was
promoted as a Clerk on 1st April, 1981. Industrial Tribunal clearly observed
that only special allowance was paid to Mr.T.C.Ramola and there was no
promotion as such and therefore the benefit of Special Allowance would
not be available to the appellant after his promotion to clerical cadre w.e.f.
1st April, 1981. The award records that the appellant being the senior most
should have been offered the posting in writing as it carried a special
allowance. However, it was not a promotion. The said Award was made by
the Industrial Tribunal on 14th May, 1998.
3. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for review/clarification
which was dismissed, inter alia, holding that there was no clerical error,
accidental slip or omission.
4. The appellant herein filed a writ petition claiming that he is entitled
to benefit of special allowance even after appointment to Clerical cadre,
which was dismissed by the impugned Order dated 13th February, 2002.
5. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that in
view of the terms of Reference, the Industrial Adjudicator was not
competent to pass the aforesaid Award and give "partial relief". While
deciding the reference, the Industrial Adjudicator was required to go into
the question whether the appellant herein was entitled to Special
Allowance and if so for which period. Industrial adjudicator as per the
terms of reference was required to decide what relief the workman was
entitled to. Industrial Tribunal could certainly decide the question whether
Special Allowance is payable even after the appellant was promoted as a
Clerk w.e.f. 1st April, 1981 and became entitled to clerical salary. We agree
with the learned Single Judge that the directions given by the learned
Tribunal fall within the scope of the reference itself.
Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 29, 2009
P
