Madras High Court
Indian Overseas Bank vs All India Overseas Bank on 23 March, 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 23/03/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice
and
The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Writ Appeal No. 2688 of 2004
and
W.A.M.P.No. 4970 of 2004
Indian Overseas Bank
rep. by its Chairman
and Managing Director,
763, Anna Salai,
Madras - 600 002. ...Appellant
-Vs-
1. All India Overseas Bank
Employees' Union
rep. by its General Secretary,
764, Anna Salai,
Madras - 600 002.
2. The Presiding Officer.
Industrial Tribunal,
High Court Buildings,
Madras - 600 104. ... Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order passed in W.P.No. 3923 of 1997 dated 22.04.2004.
For Appellant: Mr.V. Karthick
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan
For Respondent: Mr.C.R.Chandrasekaran
J U D G M E N T
Indian Overseas Bank vs All India Overseas Bank on 23 March, 2005
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 22.04.2004.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The facts in detail are given in the judgment of the learned single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.
4. The writ petition was filed by the respondent praying for quashing of the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Madras dated 29.3.1996. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge, and hence this writ appeal.
5. The short controversy in this case is whether the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension of an employee of the bank should be paid by taking into account the increments which fell due during the period of suspension.
6. The service conditions of the members of respondent no.1 (writ petitioner) are governed by bank awards as modified by the various Bipartite settlements. Paragraph-557 of Sastry Award reads: - "1. For the first three months one-third of the pay and allowance which the workman would have got but for the suspension.
2. Thereafter where the enquiry is departmental by the bank, one half of the pay and allowances for the succeeding months. Where the enquiry is by an outside agency, one-third of the pay and allowances for the next three months and thereafter one half for the succeeding months until the enquiry is over"
7. By the Bipartite settlement dated 08.09.2003 between the bank and its union, paragraph-557 of the Sastry Award, as endorsed by paragraph 17.14 of the Desai Award, was partially modified as under: - " Where the investigation is not entrusted to or taken up by an outside agency subsistence allowance will be payable of the following rates: -
1.For the first three months 1/3 of the pay and allowance which the workman would have got but for the suspension.
2.Thereafter 1/2 of the pay and allowances.
3. After one year full pay and allowance if the enquiry is not delayed for the reason attributable to the concerned workman or any of his representatives"
8. The appellant bank had been paying subsistence allowance up to the year 1988 by taking into consideration the increments which fell due during the period of suspension. However, subsequently the bank decided that the increments which fell due during the period of suspension should not be included for calculation of subsistence allowance and issued circular dated 21.1.1988 to all its offices to discontinue the inclusion of increments for the purpose of calculating subsistence
To read the full judgement, find the enclosed attachment
