Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank vs The Presiding Officer on 10 June, 2022
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
Tamil Nadu Grama Bank,
Head Office,
No.6, Yercaud Road,
Hasthampatti,
Salem-6038 007. .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court,
Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road,
Chennai - 600 008.
2.Pandyan Grama Bank Employees Association,
rep. by its General Secretary,
No.6, Pitchai Street,
Virudhunagar-626 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 25.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.22682 of 2005.
____________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
For the Appellant : Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This writ appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment of
the learned Single Judge dated 25.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.22682
of 2005 whereby the writ petition preferred to challenge the Award
of the Labour Court was disposed of by modifying the Award in
reference to the argument placed by the writ appellant/writ
petitioner before the learned Single Judge.
2. It is a case where a dispute was raised by Pandyan Grama
Bank Employees' Association on the denial of one advance
increment to its members. The Labour Court adjudicated the
dispute and allowed the benefit of computer increment in favour of
the employees by referring to the judgments of the Apex Court as
well as the Karnataka High Court. It was assailed by the writ
appellant mainly on the ground that insofar as the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Gramin Bank Pensioners
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
Samiti and others in Special Leave Appeal No.39288 of 2012 with
W.P.(C) No.210 of 2013 and T.C.(C) No.38 of 2015 is concerned, it
was in regard to the denial of pensionary benefits and not the issue
of advancing increment and, therefore, the judgment of the Apex
Court in Special Leave Appeal No.39288 of 2012 was not applicable.
Insofar as the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of
All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association and others v.
Union of India, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division)
and others is concerned, it was not taken note of by the Apex Court.
Rather, the writ petition was allowed by a Single Bench with a
direction to grant one advance increment and the same was
challenged by maintaining an appeal before a Division Bench of
Karnataka High Court, however the same was dismissed for non-
prosecution. In view of the above, the judgments of the Apex Court
as well as the Kartanaka High Court could not have been referred to
by the Labour Court.
3. Further case of the writ appellant is that the direction of the
learned Single Judge to allow the benefit of advance increment from
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
the date on which the bank was fully computerized is going contrary
to the Circular issued by the NABARD dated 30.01.2003. The
NABARD has denied the benefit of increment while dealing with the
issue at Item No.5 of the said Circular and without a challenge, the
benefit of increment could not have been awarded to the employees.
It is more so when the Apex Court had left it open for the employees
to challenge the Circular of the NABARD. But ignoring the aforesaid,
the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellant to
provide advance increment to the employees from the date the bank
was fully computerized. In view of the above, a prayer is made to
set aside the Award of the Labour Court as well as the judgment of
the learned Single Judge.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant and also perused the materials available
on record.
5. It would be relevant first to refer the Circular of the
Government of India dated 22.02.1991 where a direction was given
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
to the Rural Banks apart from other Nationalized Banks to extend all
the benefits at par. The matter was taken up by the National Bank
for Agriculture and Rural Development [for short, "NABARD"] and a
circular was issued on 30.01.2003 and in Item No.5, the issue was
dealt with by the NABARD and is quoted hereunder:
5 Computer This is not covered in
allowance to items/benefits listed in
award staff annexure-VI to Government
of India circular dated
22.2.91 or in annexure-III to
NABARD's circular dated
20.3.93 quoted against
Sl.No.1. Computerisation
programme in RRBs is
planned for 50% of branches
in 5 years and the
infrastructure available in
most of the branches of
RRBs is poor/inadequate. In
the present scenario the
computerisation is being
perceived as a facilitation
measure. Hence, the award
staff in RRBs are not eligible
for computer allowance for
the present.
6. The decision of the NABARD at the relevant time i.e. in
January, 2003, makes a reference that RRBs are not fully
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
computerized, rather, it is in the process of computerization and
thus the staff in RRBs are not entitled for computer allowance for
the present. The word "present" is significant and refers to the
situation obtaining in the year 2003. When banks were not fully
computerized, then the decision not to allow computer allowance to
staff may be justified. But once banks are fully computerized, there
was no justification in not permitting the benefit of computer
allowance to the employees. Therefore, taking note of the
aforesaid, the learned Single Judge was cautious in dealing with the
issue and after deliberation, has modified the Award to allow the
benefit of computer allowance (one computer increment) from the
date on which the bank was fully computerized. It is also a fact that
one RRB before the Karnataka High Court is extending the benefit to
its employees, but it is not known why the RRB in the present case
is denying the similar benefit to its employees when they are
governed by one Circular.
7. Heavy reliance has been made on the NABARD's Circular
without clarifying as to why the benefit of computer allowance
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
should not be made admissible when the bank was fully
computerized. The Circular of the NABARD quoted above was to be
taken note of in the scenario that existed then and therefore only at
the end it was clarified that at "present" it would not be admissible.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the employees association should have impleaded the NABARD
as party to seek the benefit while the claim was made before the
Labour Court. The argument has been raised without clarifying the
fact as to why the appellant has given effect to the Government of
India's Circular dated 22.02.1991 on its own and dragged the
association to the litigation unnecessarily and now to take a plea as
to why NABARD was not impleaded as party. It is more so from the
date on which the bank was fully computerized. The aforesaid
shows nothing but the effort of the appellant-RRB to drag its
employees to unnecessary litigation and the instant appeal is for no
reason. The learned Single Judge has even referred to the order
passed by the Apex Court, which is extracted hereunder:
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
"SLP (C) No.39288/2012
Applications for impleadment are allowed.
The Union of India is before this court, aggrieved by
the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court
of Rajasthan dated 23.08.2012 passed in D.B.Civil
Special Appeal (W) No.2021/2011. The Division
Bench has declined to interfere with the judgment of
the learned single judge dated 15.09.2011.
Be that as it may, it is seen from the judgments of
the High Court of both Single and Division Benches
that the same is passed following the judgment of
the High Court of Karnataka dated 22.03.2011 and
the appeal filed by the Union of India against the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
22.03.2011 before the Division Bench has been
dismissed. It is pointed out by the learned senior
counsel for the respondent (s) that the dismissal was
set aside and the same was restored on 07.09.2012
and thereafter the same was dismissed again for
non-prosecution on 13.01.2014. Thus, the judgment
of the High Court of Karnataka has become final as
against the appellant/Union of India. The High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has only
followed that judgment of the High Court of
Karnataka, which has otherwise become final.
In that view of the matter, SLP(C) No.39288/2012 is
dismissed.
Pending application (s), if any shall stand disposed
of.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
W.P.(C) No.210/2013 & T.C.(C) No.38/2015
In view of the order passed in SLP(C)
No.39822/2012, no separate orders are required to
be passed in W.P.(C) No.210/2013 and T.C.(C)
No.38/2015. They are, accordingly, disposed of with
directions to the Union of India to implement the
judgment in respect of all the regional rural banks
expeditiously and at any rate within three months
from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment."
9. It makes a reference of the judgment of the Karnataka High
Court and the appeal filed by the Union of India against the said
judgment dated 22.03.2011 which was dismissed by the Division
Bench. Though the appeal was restored by an order dated
07.09.2012, the same was dismissed again for non-prosecution on
13.01.2014 and thereby the judgment of the Karnataka High Court
has become final.
10. The Regional Rural Banks are governed by the Circular
issued by the Union of India which is applicable and different RRBs
have to apply it without discrimination. The judgment of the Apex
Court quoted makes a reference of the judgment of the Rajasthan
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
High Court where it has followed the the judgment of the Karnataka
High Court, which has become final. The Apex Court has taken note
of the issue in reference to the judgment of the Karnataka High
Court and the Rajasthan High Court, seat at Jodhpur, with a
direction that no separate orders are required to be passed and also
to implement the judgment in respect of all the RRBs expeditiously.
The appellant, going against the direction of the Apex Court, has
filed the present appeal.
11. In view of the above, we find that there is no merit in the
appeal. The effort of the appellant bank is to unnecessarily drag its
employees to litigation. No reason is forthcoming from the side of
the appellant in filing the appeal when the issue was touched upon
by the Apex Court with required direction in reference to not only
the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, but also the judgment of
the Rajasthan High Court.
12. The act of the appellant bank is otherwise contemptuous
and casual filing of appeal by it is to be deprecated. Accordingly,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
finding no merit in the appeal and also no error in the judgment of
the learned Single Judge modifying the Award making the computer
allowance admissible from the date of computerization of the bank
fully, the same is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) to be deposited by the appellant bank with
the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within fifteen days
from today. The Registrar (Judicial) would ensure the compliance of
the said direction and if it is not made, the disposed of writ petition
may be listed before the Court for appropriate order for compliance.
The costs aforesaid can be recovered from the officer who had
advised to file the present appeal. Consequently, C.M.P.No.7006 of
2022 is closed.
(M.N.B., CJ) (N.M., J.)
10.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
To:
The Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court,
Shastri Bhawan, Haddows Road,
Chennai - 600 008.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
N.MALA, J.
bbr
W.A.No.1135 of 2022
10.06.2022
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
