The Southern Railways Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. A. Swamy & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 794 of 1998
Petitioner: The Southern Railways Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Respondent: A. Swamy & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 794 of 1998
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & M. B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 08, 2000
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Article 136- Industrial Tribunal awarding same pay scale to accountant of Southern Railways Co-operative Bank as being paid to accountant of Railways Employees’ Co-operative Credit Society at Madras and other places – No interference by High Court as findings based on appreciation of evidence. Held that no interference is called for under Article 136 also.
(Paras 2, 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Union of India & Ors. v. J.V. Subhaiah & Ors. reported in (JT 1995 (9)
SC 488)
SC 488)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.03.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 1567 of 1995. By the said judgment and order, the Division Bench confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Industrial Tribunal.
2. The Industrial Tribunal arrived at the conclusion after appreciating the evidence which was placed on record that the nature of work of the Accountant in the Railways Employees’ Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., at Madras, Trichinapally and Secunderabad is similar and the pay of the Accountant/Section Officer has been fixed at Rs. 500-900/-. On the basis of the said evidence, the Industrial Tribunal granted the same pay scale to the Accountant who was working in the Southern Railways Co-operative Bank Limited at Mysore. That order was confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The Division Bench considered the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. J.V. Subhaiah & Ors. reported in (JT 1995 (9) SC 488 = (1996) 2 SCC 258) and arrived at the conclusion that the said judgment was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Tribunal has passed its award after taking into consideration the pay scale of the Accountant working in other Co-operative Banks at Madras, Trichinapally and Secunderabad having similar nature of work and workload. The finding given by the Tribunal is based upon appreciation of evidence and the High Court refused to interfere with the said finding. In our view, it cannot be said that there is any error of law which would call for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.03.1997 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 1567 of 1995. By the said judgment and order, the Division Bench confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Industrial Tribunal.
2. The Industrial Tribunal arrived at the conclusion after appreciating the evidence which was placed on record that the nature of work of the Accountant in the Railways Employees’ Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., at Madras, Trichinapally and Secunderabad is similar and the pay of the Accountant/Section Officer has been fixed at Rs. 500-900/-. On the basis of the said evidence, the Industrial Tribunal granted the same pay scale to the Accountant who was working in the Southern Railways Co-operative Bank Limited at Mysore. That order was confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The Division Bench considered the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. J.V. Subhaiah & Ors. reported in (JT 1995 (9) SC 488 = (1996) 2 SCC 258) and arrived at the conclusion that the said judgment was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Tribunal has passed its award after taking into consideration the pay scale of the Accountant working in other Co-operative Banks at Madras, Trichinapally and Secunderabad having similar nature of work and workload. The finding given by the Tribunal is based upon appreciation of evidence and the High Court refused to interfere with the said finding. In our view, it cannot be said that there is any error of law which would call for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Hence the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
