Ar. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.R.G. Wariyar for appellant, Mr. P.O. Parameswara Panicker for respondents 1 to 3 Mr. Benny Gervacis for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for respondent No. 5 in W.A. 1547/1998. Heard Mr. Benny Gervacis for appellant, Mr. P.G. Parameswara Panicker for respondents 1 to 3, Mr.T.R.G. Wariyar for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for respondent No. 5 in W.A. 1553/1998.
2. Writ Appeals were filed by the South Malabar Gramin Bank and the Union of India against the judgment in O.P. 1871/1997 whereby the appellant bank was directed to extend the benefits of the VI Bipartite Settlement to the employees of the Bank within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. The Original petition was filed by the Co-ordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees' Union and South Malabar Gramin Bank Officers' Federation and two others. They preferred the same for a declaration that the employees and Officers of the Bank are also entitled to get the benefits of the VI Bipartite Settlement and Officers' Wage Revision. They also prayed for a direction to implement all revisions of pay, allowances and other service benefits which are implemented in the sponsor Bank from time to time.
3. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the Union, of India and by the Chairman of the South Malabar Gramin Bank at Malappuram. According to the Bank the Regional Rural Bank and the Board of Directors are not legally competent to take a decision regarding the payment of salaries to their employees and these are matters to be determined by the Central Government. Only if a formal order under Section 17 of the Regional Rural Bank is passed by the Government of India, a revision in salary can be implemented by the Bank. In other words any revision by the State Government in the pay scale and allowances of the posts with which Officers and other employees of the Regional Rural Bank have been equated, need be adopted by the Bank with the approval of its Board of Directors under intimation to the Government. It is submitted that after implementation of the wage revision as per the NIT award it can no longer be contended that Ext. P3 should be given effect to. It is further submitted that the Regional Rural Bank Employees Union were not parties to the VI Bipartite Settlement. Moreover, Bipartite Settlement is binding only on the members of the Indian Banks Association and that the Regional Rural Banks are not members of the Indian Banks Assiciation. When the National Industrial Tribunal Award was accepted by the Government of India the VI Bipartite Settlement has not yet become operational. The award does not provide that future settlements entered into between A class banks and their trade unions will be automatically made applicable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks. In order to implement the wages revision the same has to be approved and cleared by the Government of India under Section 17(1) of the Regional Rural Banks Act. As such the petitioners in the O.P. are not entitled to contend that the VI Bipartite Settlement should be automatically implemented in their case.
4. As already noticed the Co-ordination Committee filed the Original Petition to quash Exts.P6, P10 and P11 to the extent they hold that the employees and officers of the South Malabar Gramin Bank are not entitled to the benefits of VI Bipartite Settlement and Officers' wage revision that followed it without a determination to that effect by the Government of India and to declare that the employees and officers of the second respondent Bank are entitled to the benefits of pay revision and other service benefits that are given to the employees and officers of their sponsor bank from time to time as and when they are given to the employees and officers of the sponsor bank. A prayer by way of mandamus directing the Board of Directors of the second respondent Bank in the O.P. to pay to the employees and officers of the bank the benefit of VI Bipartite Settlement and Officers' wage revision that followed in was also prayed for.
5. C.S.RAJAN, J. by his judgment impugned in this appeal allowed the Original Petition holding that the appellants have accepted the fact that the employees/officers of the Regional Rural Bank were to be given parity in the pay scales and other service conditions with comparable posts in the Sponsor Banks and there was no impediment to implement the VI Bipartite Settlement in the case of the employees/officers of the South Malabar Gramin Bank. Learned Judge also directed the second respondent to pass consequential orders within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
6. We have heard the respective counsel appearing on either side. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Union of India that the learned single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact of provisions in so far as the fixation of wages of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks. It is submitted that the NIT award does not have the effect of extending to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks automatically any scales of pay that may be settled between the Commercial Banks (Sponsor Banks) and their employees and that the same has to be considered by the Central Government in exercise of its powers vested under Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act. It is further stated that the impact of the order on the Central Government and the State Government as also the sponsored Banks who are shareholders in the Regional Rural Banks would be highly detrimental to their interest. It is their contention that the learned Judge ought not to have by an interpretative process held that the statutory requirement is fulfilled particularly when the Central Government who has to perform the statutory requirement says that they have not yet passed orders under Section 17. According to them the judgment has in effect rendered the latter part of Section 17 otiose and that the Central Government has to take the decision based on the viability of the Rural bank, the structure of the rural economy and many other factors and they also have to ensure that the purpose of the act is not defeated in the process. Such a power vested in the Central Government cannot be exercised indirectly by means of an interpretative process by the single Judge in exercise of his powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is in this context learned Judge ought to have approached Ext.P1 which is only an order issued under Section 17 on the basis of a study of the then existing conditions. Such an order under Section 17 ought not to have been converted into an order in perpetuity by the learned Judge by embarking upon an interpretative process.
7. Mr. T.R.G. Wariyar, learned senior counsel appearing for the South Malabar Gramin Bank would submit that the judgment of the single Judge has in effect rendered the latter part of Section 17 otiose and that under the statute the Central Government is to have due regard to the scales of pay existing in the State Government and the local authorities while deciding on the remuneration of the RRB employees and if the interpretation placed by the learned single Judge is to be accepted, the only consideration for the Central Government while issuing orders under Section 17 will be the scales of pay of the employees of the sponsor banks. So also the Government will not have to pass any order at all since under Ext.P1 according to the leaned Judge the Government of India and the appellant Bank are duty bound to implement the pay scales of the employees of the sponsor banks in the appellant bank. Mr. Wariyar would further submit that the financial implication of the judgment of the learned single Judge is quite severe and will necessarily result in increasing the accumulated losses of the RRBs throughout India and most of the RRBs may never be possible to revive from the financial burden. He would further contend that the learned Judge ought to have followed the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in C.O.No. 12653/1995 dated September 5, 1995 which was placed before him for consideration. In the above said judgment the High Court of Calcutta while dealing with a similar situation held that the Central Government has to pass orders under Section 17 directing implementation of the VI Bipartite Settlement, before the Gramin Banks can implement the same on their own. After having taken note of the above fact the learned single Judge went wrong in proceeding to hold that Ext.Pl itself is an order under Section 17 directing implementation of VI Bipartite Settlement.
8. Mr. P.G.Parameswara Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the Co-ordination Committee invited our attention to the factual and legal aspects of the matter and also took us through the relevant passages of the NIT award, the report of the Equation Committee headed by Shri. Kotiah, report of the Working Group headed by R.C. Gupta and the acceptance of the Government of India by Exts.P1 and P2 orders. According to Mr. Panicker Ext.P1 is intended to effect the revisions of emoluments effected from time to time. It was not intended to confine to any particular revision or revisions. According to him the contentions now urged based on financial viability, profitability etc. are in effect going back to the stage prior to the award of the NIT and therefore the Central Government is estopped from doing so. He would further submit that if (sic) profitability is not the criterion, the VI Bipartite settlement could not have been implemented in many of the commercial banks. He invited our attention to the statistics published by the Reserve Bank of India. The total loss suffered by the nationalised banks during 1995-1996 is Rs. 11,383.40 crores. Even then the VI Bipartite Settlement was implemented in those banks in May 1995 with effect from November 1, 1992. The loss suffered by the Indian Bank for the year 1996-1997 alone would come to Rs. 389 crores and for the year 1997-1998 is Rs. 301.50 crores. Their accumulated loss amounts to Rs. 2,000 crores. The loss suffered by the United Bank of India for 1996-97 is Rs. 113.6 crores. The loss of UCO Bank for the year 1996-1997 is Rs. 176.2 crores and for the year 1997-98 is Rs. 96 crores. Inspite of the huge loss suffered, the Central Government has approved the implementation of VI Bipartite Settlement and simultaneous officers pay revision in the said banks. Therefore he would urge that the Central Government has to take fresh decision to implement the VI Bipartite Settlement is not sustainable and Ext.P1 is a direction under the second proviso to Section 17 of the Act covering the future wage revisions and pay revisions also which is clarified by Ext.P2 order issued by NABARD.
9. On the above pleadings and of the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for respective parties the following issues would arise for consideration. They are:
a) Whether the NIT award, report of the Equation Committee headed by Shri Kotiah, report of the working group headed by R.C.Gupta and their acceptance by the Government of India by Exts.P1 and P2 orders render the employees and officers of the RRBs. automatically entitled to scales of pay and other service benefits applicable to employees and officers of sponsor banks in terms of Bipartite Settlements and consequent officers wage revision as and when they are implemented to them.
b) Whether whenever there is pay revision in commercial banks (sponsor banks) the employees and officers of the Regional Rural Banks should also be given the same benefits.
c) Whether Exts.Pl and P2 entitle the Board of Directors of the RRB to extend the benefit of Bipartite Settlement and Officers Pay Revision to the employees and officers of RRBs as and when they are implemented for employees and officers of Sponsor Banks.
d) Whether the contention of the Union of India and the appellant bank that without fresh decision under Section 17(2) the employees of the appellant bank will not get the benefit of VI Bipartite Settlement and Simultaneous Officers' Pay Revision is valid in law.
e) Whether the interpretation placed by the learned Judge on Ext.P1 order is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity.
f) Whether the contention of the appellant bank to the effect that the Central Government has to take a fresh decision to implement VI Bipartite Settlement is sustainable in law.
10. Before adverting to answer the above issues we would like to highlight certain factual and legal aspects of the matter and then proceed to discuss and decide the issues now formulated. The appellant South Malabar Gramin Bank is a Regional Rural Bank constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Government of India has established Regional Rural Banks with a view to develop the rural economy by providing loans and banking facilities for the purpose of development of agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive activities in the rural areas particularly to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The Regional Rural Banks were intended to combine the local knowledge and familiarity of rural problems which the co-operative banks possess with and the degree of business organisation, ability to mobilise deposits, access to central money markets and a modernised outlook which the commercial banks have. Section 3 of the Act deals with the establishment and incorporation of RRBs. The Central Government may if requested so to do by a Sponsor Bank by notification in the official gazette establish in a State or Union Territory one or more RRBs. and specify their local limits. Section 6 of the Act provides that of the capital issued by a RRB, 50% shall be subscribed by the Central Government, 15% by the concerned State Government and 35% by the Sponsor Banks. The South Malabar Gramin Bank is sponsored by the Canara Bank and its area of operation is the Districts of Malappuram, Kozhikode and Wyanad in Kerala. Section 17 in chapter III of the Act deals with staff of RRBs. Section 17 reads as follows:
"17. Staff of Regional Rural Banks:- (1) A Regional Rural Bank may appoint such number of officers and other employees as it may consider necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of its functions and may determine the terms and conditions of their appointment and service.
Provided that, it shall be lawful for a Sponsor Bank, if requested so to do by a Regional Rural Bank sponsored by it, to send, during the first five years of the functioning of a Regional Rural Bank, such number of officers or other employees on deputation to the Regional Rural Bank as may be necessary or desirable for the efficient performance of its functions:
Provided further that the remuneration of officers and other employees appointed by a Regional Rural Bank shall be such as may be determined by the Central Government, and, in determining such remuneration, the Central Government shall have due regard to the salary structure of the employees of the State Government and the local authorities of comparable level and status in the notified area.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or any other law for the time being in force, no award, judgment, decree, decision or order of any industrial tribunal, court or other authority, made before the commencement of this Act, shall apply to the terms and conditions in relation to the persons appointed by a Regional Rural Bank.
(3) The officers and other employees of a Regional Rural Bank shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be entrusted or delegated to them by the Board."
11. According to the employees of the Bank the duties and functions that were being discharged by them were the same if not more onerous as those that were being discharged by the staff of the sponsor banks and other commercial banks in the area. Since the scale of pay applicable to them were much lower than those applicable to the employees and officers of the sponsor banks and other commercial banks, the All India Gramin Bank Workers Organisation filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of Section 17 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 as ultravires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Another writ petition was filed by the All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association seeking for a direction to fix the emoluments of RRB employees in conformity with the principle of equal pay for equal work and for bringing about parity in emoluments between the employees of RRBs and employees of the nationalised commercial banks. The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated September 1, 1987. In terms of the said order the Government of India appointed a National Industrial Tribunal (NIT) consisting of Justice S. OBUL REDDI, retired Cheif Justice of High Court of Andhra Pradesh as its Chairman. The dispute referred to in the NIT was as follows:-
"Dispute relating to the pay, salary other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks in terms of the pleadings of the parties in Writ Petitions (Civil) No. 7149-50 of 1982 and No. 132 of 1984 filed in the Supreme Court of India."
It was stated in the order that the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding. The question referred to the NIT was the dispute relating to pay, salary etc. payable to the employees of the RRBs in terms of the pleadings of the parties in the writ petitions filed before the Supreme Court of India. It was contended that the officers and employees of Regional Rural Banks has also required banking skill and that they were doing the same kind of banking business like their counterpart in the rural branches of Commercial Banks and that turnover in branches of Rural Banks matched with those of the Commercial Banks located in the same rural areas. Several other contentions were also made. The main contention put forward before the Supreme Court and before the NIT by the Central Government and the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) was that the RRBs have been established to aid and help small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers, artisans and small entrepreneurs residing in the rural areas and that they are therefore conceived to be low cost-based financial institutions to help the rural population by providing them credit on easy terms. It was further contended that RRBs are not economically strong to bear and pay to its staff wages/salaries and other allowances on par with the commercial banks and that the economic position of the RRBs will become much worse if it overheads such as salaries and allowances which constitute a substantial percentage of the total overheads were to be increased as demanded by the petitioners in the writ petition. The National Industrial Tribunal framed several issues for determination and after examining 313 witnesses from all over India and after marking 1085 documents in evidence passed its award on April 30, 1990. The NIT held that the duties and functions of the officers and other employees of the RRBs. were similar to those of officers and employees in comparable posts in rural branches of sponsor banks. It was held that there was no appreciable difference in the duties and functions of the employees in the two types of branches in the rural sector. The NIT also found that undisputably the commercial banks and RRBs carry on similar banking business and participate in the development of rural economy as partners in rural development, acting as instrumentalities of the State in accordance with the Directive Principles of the Constitution and that the RRBs have brought a socio economic reformation in the lives of the small farmers, traders, agricultural labourers, artisans, scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and weaker sections. The duties and functions of the officers and other employees of the RRBs were found to be similar to those of the officers and other employees in the comparable post of rural branches of sponsor banks and that there is no appreciable difference in the duties and functions of the employees in the two types of branches in the rural sector.
12. At the time of hearing our attention was drawn to para 4.183, 4.424, 4.239, 4.425, 4.428. The NIT submitted its award to the Government of India on April 30, 1990. The Government of India constituted an Equation Committee on October 5, 1990 appointing Mr. P.Kotiah, Managing Director of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) as Chairman of the Committee. The said Committee submitted its recommendation to the Government of India on January 16, 1991. The Government of India accepted the NIT award and the report of the Equation Committee. On February 22, 1991 the Government issued ExtP1. order stating that they have accepted the award of the NIT and the recommendations of the Equation Committee. The Chairman and the Directors of the RRBs were given instructions in terms of Proviso (1) of Section 17(1) of the RRB Act for implementing the award of the NIT and the recommendations of the Equation Committee. Para 14 of Ext.P1 says that the allowances/special allowances and other benefits which are provided in Bipartite Settlement and the service regulations of the concerned sponsor banks be extended to the employees/officers of RRBs. respectively. The benefits of the IV and V Bipartite Settlements and Officers' Wage Revisions which followed the same, were extended to the employees and officers of the RRBs. Since there were certain anomalies in the recommendations of the Equation Committee in matters like reckoning of past service for I awarding increments, equation of posts and the like which again subjected the officers and employees of the RRBs to discriminatory treatment, the Government of India appointed a Committee to frame service regulations, recruitment cum promotion policy and other matters relating to the implementation of NIT award read with the report of the Equation Committee. Mr.R.C.Gupta, Chief General Manager, NABARD was appointed as Chairman of the Committee who submitted their report on February 17, 1992. The Government of India accepted the report of the working group and also issued necessary instructions to the RRBs for implementation of the NIT Award read with the report of the Equation Committee and working group vide Ext.P2 letter dated March 20, 1993. The Chairman and Managing Director of all sponsor banks were directed to follow the instructions issued by the Government of India in their order dated February 22, 1991 under Ext.P1 scrupulously. Under these instructions it is contended by Mr.Panicker appearing for the co-ordination Committee that by the acceptance of all the reports by the Government of India and issuance of Exts.P1 and P2 orders renders the employees and officers of RRBs automatically entitled to scales of pay and other service benefits applicable to the employees and officers of the sponsor banks in terms of Bipartite settlement and consequent officers wage revision as and when they are implemented to them. The above contention of Mr. Panicker, in our opinion, merit acceptance. We see force and merit in the contention. Exts.P1 and P2, in our view, are not confined to IV and V Bipartite settlements and consequent officers pay revision. They are intended to cover subsequent bipartite settlement and officers pay revision also. It is not necessary that as and when Bipartite settlement and officers pay revision are entered into and implemented in sponsor banks, separate orders should be passed making or extending such benefits applicable to RRBs every time. The award and reports deal with the question of discrimination between employees and officers of the commercial banks on the one hand and the employees and officers of RRB on the other in the matter of salary and service benefits generally and not prevailing at any particular point of time. Hence whenever there is pay revision in commercial banks/sponsor banks we are of the opinion that the employees and officers of RRBs should also be given the same benefit. Issue No. b is answered accordingly.
13. The VI Bipartite settlement was entered into between the representatives of the Indian Banks' Association and the representatives of the Employees Union in May 1995, which was to be given effect to from November 1, 1992. There was simultaneous revision of scales of pay of officers also with effect from that date. The employees and officers of RRBs claimed that they are also entitled to the benefit of VI Bipartite Settlement and agreement for officers pay revision as consequence flowing from the NIT award, report of the Equation Committee and the working group and their acceptance by the Government of India by orders Exts.P1 and P2. In this context it is useful to refer to Ext. P3 which is an order by which the Central Government directed that as and when the State Government revise the scales of pay of their employees and officers, the benefit of the revision should be extended to employees and officers of RRBs by the Board of Directors of RRBs. The effect of Exts.P1 and P2 are the same as Ext.P3. Exts.P1 and P2, in our view, entitle the Board of Directors of the RRB to extend the benefit of Bipartite Settlement and officers pay revision to the employees and officers of RRB's as and when they are implemented for employees and officers of the sponsor banks.
14. We have already noticed as to why the employees of the Regional Rural Banks were constrained to file the Original Petition. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties held that the whole idea which prompted the Supreme Court in settling the dispute by appointing a Tribunal was to finally settle the matter forever and the award of the Tribunal concurred in principle that the employees/officers of the Rural Banks must be given parity in the pay scales and other service conditions with comparable posts in the sponsor bank. The learned Judge further held that in order to achieve the above object the periodical pay revisions in the sponsor banks must be reflected in pay structure of the Gramin Bank also and that otherwise there will be no purpose in accepting in principle the award of the Tribunal and at the same time ignoring the subsequent settlements reached between the employees and management of the sponsor banks. The interpretation placed by the learned single Judge on Ext.Pl order is correct and therefore does not suffer from any infirmity as contended by the learned counsel for the Union of India and the appellant bank. The contention of the appellant bank that RRBs are involved in rural financing alone and not in industrial financing and that profitability and deposit mobilisation of RRBs are not comparable with those of commercial banks is not correct. The said contention, in our opinion, is not relevant. Contentions based on financial viability, profitability and the like have been urged before the NIT by the Central Government and the NABARD. The contentions were rejected by the NIT. NIT held that the Regional Rural Banks Act had been enacted and the RRBs set up with a definite purpose and that it cannot be defeated by reasons of financial viability, profitability etc. The Central Government has accepted the award and issued directions as contemplated in second proviso to Section 17 of the Act. Ext P1 in our opinion is intended to reflect the revisions of emoluments effected from time to time. It was not intended to confine to any particular revision or revisions. The contention now urged by the Union of India and the appellant bank based on financial viability, profitability etc. are in effect going back to the stage prior to the award of the NIT. The said contention therefore is not tenable in law.
15. Mr. T.R.G. Wariyar contended that if the VI Bipartite Settlement is implemented there will be additional pay of Rs. 1,000/- per employee. The said contention in our opinion is not relevant for the purpose. The VI Bipartite Settlement and simultaneous pay revision of officers came into effect from November 1, 1992. The actual increase that the employees in workmen category would get if the VI Bipartite Settlement is implemented (as per the figures furnished) ranged from. Rs. 101.19 to Rs. 368.79 depending upon the seniority as on November 1, 1992, the date of its commencement. In the case of officers, the amount varied from Rs. 350 to Rs. 600 as on November 1, 1992 depending upon seniority. Therefore Rs. 500 crores is estimated as payable by the VI Bipartite Settlement and officers pay revisions are implemented for 196 RRBs and the arrears payable by each RRB would not exceed Rs. 60 lakhs per year.
16. Coming to the South Malabar Gramin Bank it is submitted mat there is no financial constraints in implementing the VI Bipartite settlement. A detailed statement has been furnished in para.32 of the counter affidavit filed by the Co-ordination Committee. The total amount payable to the employees including arrears from November 1, 1992 comes to less than Rs. 4 crores only. The profit earned by the appellant bank during 1997-1998 alone comes to around Rs. 9 crores. The expected profit for the year 1998-1999 is also around Rs. 9 crores. The Chairman of the appellant Bank had sent a letter on September 30, 1995 to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India requesting that the VI Bipartite Settlement may be extended to the employees of the appellant Bank. It is stated that a copy of the letter was given to the first petitioner in the O.P. In the said letter the Chairman had requested the Central Government to extend the benefits of the VI Bipartite Settlement to the employees and officers of the banks at the earliest. He has further stated in the letter that the South Malabar Gramin Bank has been able to run on profit since inception and that the bank have been able to achieve the social obligations of lending to the poor while maintaining the profitability over the years. It was also stated that the Bank has achieved a profit of Rs. 211 lakhs in the year 1994-95 and as per the revised D.A.P., the bank is planning for a profit of Rs. 225 lakhs in the year 1995-96. The Chairman has also categorically stated that the Bank would be able to absorb the additional expenditure due to the extension of benefits as per the VI Bipartite Settlement to the staff of the bank and still maintain viability and that the extention of the VI Bipartite Settlement would be in the larger interest of the institution. The appellant bank has not filed a reply affidavit, denying the above statement made in para 32 of the counter affidavit. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no justification of denying the benefits of VI Bipartite Settlement to the employees and officers of the appellant bank. In fact after implementation of the NIT award with a view to widening the range and scope of service the RRBs have been given more discretionary powers for purchase and discounting cheque/demand drafts. They have also been allowed to issue guarantees on behalf of their customers and have been allowed to install lockers, issue drafts and effect mail transfers. Almost all the business and services that is being done and rendered by the commercial banks are now being done and rendered by the RRBs also. Therefore the contention urged by learned counsel for appellants that the profitability of the rural banks is not at all comparable with the commercial banks is without any basis or substance. Moreover the pofitability of the bank is not the criterion for deciding the question of wage revision and pay revision of the employees and officers of the bank. If profitability is the criterion the VI Bipartite settlement could not have been implemented in many of the commercial banks. Therefore the contention of the appellants to the effect that Central Government has to take a fresh decision to implement the VI Bipartite Settlement is not sustainable and also not necessary in view of the direction contained in Ext.P1 under the second proviso to Section 17 of the Act covering future wage revisions and pay revisions also, which is further clarified in Ext.P2 order issued by the NABARD. In our opinion it is only for the Board of Directors of the appellant bank to extend the benefits of the VI Bipartite Settlement and Officers pay revision to the appellant Bank. The working group have also stated in para 6.7. of their report that in view of parity being established, it follows that with every change in pay scales, allowances/benefits etc. in the sponsor banks, similar changes may be necessary in the case of RRB staff also, notwithstanding the fact that both organisations are represented by different trade unions. Learned counsel for the appellant urged a contention that power vested in the Central Government cannot be exercised indirectly by means of an interpretative process by the learned single Judge of this Court and therefore the judgment of the learned single Judge is not sustainable. We are unable to agree with the said submission. There is no indirect exercise of the power vested in the Central Government by this Court as contended by the appellant The learned single Judge has in effect directed the Bank to implement Ext.P1 as it stands which is direction issued under proviso 2 to Section 17 of the Act. Neither the appellant nor the Central Government can be heard to say that the direction issued under the said proviso should not be implemented. In the concluding part of the argument learned counsel invited our attention to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court. In our view the said judgment cannot be taken to be an authority to contend that the Central Government's determination of salary is necessary again and again when fresh Bipartite Settlement and officers wage revision are arrived at as regards employees and officers of sponsor bank. The ratio of the decision of the Calcutta High Court is that in view of Sec. 8 of the RRB Act, which provides that the superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of a Regional Rural Bank vest in the Board of Directors and that the Chairman and the General Manager of the Bank have no jurisdiction to issue circulars implementing the VI Bipartite Settlement. The Calcutta High Court also directed the Central Government to apply their mind as regards the extension of benefits of the VI Bipartite Settlement in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act and to issue appropriate orders at an early date preferably within three months from the date of communication of the order. Though the order was pronounced on September 5, 1995 the Central Government has not taken any decision till now.
17. As per the NIT award there should be parity in the pay scale of the employees of the RRBs and the sponsor banks with effect from September 1, 1987. The only question left open by the NIT was regarding the equation of posts. When the NIT held that the RRB employees and- officers are entitled for pay and allowances on par with the employees and officers of the commercial banks, necessarily there arose the question of equating the posts as the category or names of the posts in both the banks were different. The question regarding the extension of benefits of the pay revision carried out in the commercial banks to the employees and officers of the RRBs was not left open to be decided by the Central Government as sought to be made out by the appellant. Only the method for equation of posts was left to be decided by the Government of India. Accordingly the Government of India constituted the Equation Committee and the said Committee submitted it report on January 16, 1991. NIT award and the report of the Committee were accepted by the Government of India. As per the Equation Committee report five years of service of Sub Staff, Junior Clerk, Field Supervisor, and Area Manager/Senior Manager in the RRBs is treated as equal to one year's service in the sponsor banks. Similarly three years of service of Senior Clerks/Officers/ Branch Managers in the RRBs is treated as equal to one year's service in the sponsor bank. That is to say a Junior Clerk who is having 10 years of service will be fitted at the second stage of pay of the sponsor bank and he will get only two increments for his 10 years of service whereas a Junior Clerk of sponsor bank having 10 years will be getting 10 increments and his pay will be fixed at the 10th stage. It is submitted that the employees and officers of the RRBs have already lost number of years of their service in view of the incorrect equation. Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that it would be injust and illegal to deny them the benefits of the VI Bipartite Settlement which is legally due to them as per the NIT award and Ext.P1. There is no justification to deny the benefits to the employees and officers of the appellant bank. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the appellants in both the appeals are not entitled to any reliefs. Both the appeals therefore fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.