Kerala High Court
Mr. Surendran Nair.P.V vs The Assistant General Manager ... on 24 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 344 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
MR. SURENDRAN NAIR.P.V
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O VISWANATHAN NAIR G,PRASANNA MANDIRAM
PUNNARCODE,PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., KUMARAPURAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 565.
BY ADV DENNIS VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
SYNDICATE BANK PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT,
HEAD OFFICE,DOOR NO. 16/355 & 16/365A,
MANIPAL UDUPI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA STATE-576 104.
** NAME AND ADDRESS AMENDED AS
CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE AT 112,
J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU- 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
AS PER THE ORDER DTD 5.4.2024 IN IA 1/24
2 THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER
SYNDICATE BANK, MARKET ROAD,
KANNANKULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA
PIN-682 301.
** ADDRESS AMENDED AS
W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018
2
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK,
TRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, HOSPITAL ROAD
TRIPUNITHURA, TRIPUNITHURA- 682301
AS PER THE ORDER DTD 5.4.2024 IN IA 1/24
SRI.R.S. KALKURA, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018
3
EASWARAN S. , J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C) No.344 of 2018
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of May 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is an Ex-serviceman from the Indian Air
Force who was re-employed with the respondent, erstwhile
Syndicate Bank as a Clerk with effect from 17.9.2013. He was
discharged from the Airforce on 30.4.2001 and re-employed as a
Clerk with erstwhile Syndicate Bank on 17.9.2013. According to the
petitioner, he was entitled to a pay fixation at the rate fixed in the
pay certificate at the time of discharge. In other words, the
petitioner contends that he had last drawn pay at Rs.7,699/- which
ought to have been taken by his employer while fixing his pay into
the entry cadre as Clerk in the erstwhile Syndicate Bank. Later, the
last drawn pay of the petitioner was revised as per Ext.P1 on
23.6.2015 notionally and the pay was increased to Rs.12,660/-.
According to the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any
steps to refix the pay in terms of the last drawn pay as evidenced
from Ext.P1. Therefore, the petitioner has sought the following
reliefs:
(i) To issue a mandamus or any other Writ, Order,
or Direction directing the respondent Bank to
re-fix the basic pay of the petitioner at an
amount of Rs.16,060/- with effect from
17.09.2013 as per Exhibit P1 last pay
Certificate in his Designation as a Clerk with
the Respondent Bank, by declaring that, Exhibit
P1 Last Pay Certificate issued by the Indian Air
Force is legal and the petitioner is legally
entitled to get his Basic Payment re-fixed at an
amount of Rs.16,060/- with effect from
17.9.2013 as per Exhibit P1 last Pay Certificate.
(ii) To issue a mandamus or any other Writ, Order,
or direction, directing the respondents to
consider Exhibit P2(b) request/representation
filed by the petitioner most expeditiously or
within such time as may be fixed by this
Honourable court.
2. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit. In
the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that the pay fixed at the
time of entry into service of the Bank was at Rs.8,000/- and
therefore, there was no requirement to refix the pay in terms of the
last drawn pay of the petitioner. In so far as the contention of the
petitioner that a revision had taken place as per Ext.P1, it is
contended that as soon as the revision took place, there was a
consequential refixation of pay in terms of the 10 th Bipartite
Settlement entered on 25.5.2015. In terms of the said Bipartite
Settlement, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.13,075/-.
Therefore, it is the case of the respondents that there is no disparity
in fixing the pay as contended by the petitioner.
3. I have heard Sri.Dennis Varghese the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. R.S. Kalkura, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Syndicate
Bank was merged with Canara Bank and, accordingly, IA No.1 of
2024 was filed to substitute the respondent as Canara Bank which
stood allowed by this Court on 05.4.2024.
5. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the
Bar.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated
the submissions based on the averments contained in the writ
petition. According to Sri. Dennis Varghese, the petitioner's pay was
liable to be refixed at Rs.7,699/- at the time of entry into service
and later, at Rs.16,060/- as per Ext.P1 Last Pay Certificate.
7. On the other hand, Sri. R.S. Kalkura, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent bank, based on the Bipartite
Settlement, contended that the claim of the petitioner stood already
redressed and therefore no further relief could be granted.
8. A reading of Ext.R2(e) shows that the Bipartite Settlement
was entered on 26.6.2015 wherein, the pay in respect of Class IV
employees was refixed in pursuance to the discussions with the
registered trade unions. It is now settled law that any dispute qua
the Bipartite Settlement cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parties aggrieved
by any clause under the Bipartite Settlement will have to necessarily
invoke the remedy available under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act by raising an appropriate dispute under Section 12 of
the Act.
9. Be that as it may, primafacie ,this Court finds that the
claim of the petitioner to have the pay fixed at Rs.12,660/- based
on Ext.P1 stood redressed in terms of the Entry No.3 to Annexure K
in Exhibit R2(e ). If the petitioner has a case that the said fixation is
not proper and he is entitled to more, it is necessarily up to him to
raise appropriate disputes before the authorities constituted under
the Industrial Disputes Act.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
recording the statement in the counter affidavit that the pay of the
petitioner has been fixed at Rs.13,075/- in terms of Ext.R2(e)
Bipartite Settlement and leaving open the right of the petitioner to
question the said fixation if it does not suit his requirement and if
violates any other provisions of law in an appropriately constituted
proceeding under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. No
order as to costs.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.,
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 344/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAST PAY CERTIFICATE DATED
23.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN AIR FORCE TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02.06.14 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK SEEKING
RE-FIXATION OF BASIC PAYMENT FROM AN AMOUNT OF
RS. 8,000/-TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.16,060/-
EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 03.06.14
P2(a) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOWING SUBMISSION OF
EXHIBIT P2 PETITION.
EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/REQUEST DATED
P2(b) 20.09.2014 SEEKING RE-FIXATION OF BASIC PAYMENT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.09.15 SUBMITTED
P2(c) BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BANK.
EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL OCTOBER 2015
P2(d) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
BANK.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.9.2013
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT DATED
R2(b) 4.9.2013
Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE IBA CIR HR&IR CIR 2013-
R2(c) 14/589/8764 DATED 30.1.2014
Exhibit TRUE COY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING
R2(d) NO.PD.HRDD.0088.PAY EXSCR.1734 DATED 5.12.2016
Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE 10TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DATED
R2(e) 26.6.2015 AS PER CIRCULAR NO.260-2015-BS-PD-30-IRD
Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 04/5/2014 ISSUED BY THE
R2(g) DIRECTORATE OF AV TO THE PETITIONER
