Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1278 (DEL)

SYNDICATE BANK v. A. K. GARG

2006-08-01

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

body2006
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated February 5, 1988 passed by Labour Court on an application under section 33-C (2) of I. D. Act of the respondent directing the petitioner to pay halting allowance to the three employees. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts are that the petitioner was having its branch at Shahdra, Delhi. The petitioner set up an extension counter of its branch at Central Electronic Ltd. Complex, shahibabad, U. P. which is about 9 kms. from shahdra. All the three respondents were deputed to extension counter for different periods to work there. The three respondents claimed that they were entitled for halting allowance in accordance with the Bipartite Agreement for the following periods: 1]. Shri A. K. Garg - July 19, 1976 to february 4, 1978 - Rs. 8,490/-2]. Shri Jaswant Singh - October 16, 1978 to march 3, 1979 - Rs. 2,085/-3]. Shri Harminderarora - November 25, 1978 to March 19, 1980 - Rs. 8,897/- ( 3 ) THE above three respondents claimed that as per Bipartite Agreement dated november 8, 1973 between Bank and All India bank Employees Association, an amount of Rs. 15 per day as halting allowance was payable to non-subordinate staff and an amount of Rs. 12 per day as halting allowance was payable to subordinate staff. The claim was made by the three respondents for halting allowance shown before their names above. The Labour Court allowed the claim of the employees holding that the management had not been able to produce any document to show that these persons were sent to extension counter on regular transfer order or that they were posted there on regular basis. ( 4 ) THE argument of the petitioner is that halting allowance was payable to an employee only when he is posted at Head Quarters, but on some day, he is temporarily sent out of the headquarters for work. Halting allowance is not payable to persons who are posted for regular work at extension counter of the branch. The order of Labour Court was contrary to the Sastri Award and contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, perverse. The claim itself shows that the respondents were posted at extension counter not temporarily but for those periods and, therefore, they were not entitled for any halting allowances for long periods. The order of Labour Court was contrary to the Sastri Award and contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, perverse. The claim itself shows that the respondents were posted at extension counter not temporarily but for those periods and, therefore, they were not entitled for any halting allowances for long periods. However, whenever the respondents had been sent temporarily to extension counter, halting allowance was paid as has been observed by the labour Court itself. It is submitted that there was distinction between the posting to the extension counter on routine basis and regular posting. The Presiding Officer failed to distinguish between the two kinds of postings and failed to appreciate that halting allowance cannot be made the basis of earning or profit. ( 5 ) THE respondent filed counter affidavit stating therein that the contention raised by the petitioner were baseless and false and the award has been in accordance with the bipartite settlement arrived at between the union and the bank. The respondents were entitled for halting allowance for going daily to the extension counter which was about 9 kms. away from the main office. It was denied that the halting allowance was not payable to an employee posted on regular basis. Since the extension counter was part and parcel of the main branch, respondents could not have been transferred or posted there on regular basis. The posting of the respondents could only be to the main branch. The respondents were, therefore, entitled for halting allowance. ( 6 ) I have heard arguments and perused the record, the issues involve correct interpretation of Sastri award under which halting allowance was allowed to the bank employees. The relevant portion of Sastri Award and Desai award reads as under: sastri Award: "549. The All India Bank Employees association demands that a halting allowance of 6 1/4 percent of the monthly basic pay be paid to a workman in addition to other emoluments for any day during which he is absent from headquarters on duty. By halting allowance is meant the kind of allowance defined in the Reserve Bank of india Staff Regulations as a "payment made to an employee in addition to other emoluments for any day during which an employee is absent from headquarters on duty and is intended to cover the ordinary daily expenses incurred by him in consequence of such absence. By halting allowance is meant the kind of allowance defined in the Reserve Bank of india Staff Regulations as a "payment made to an employee in addition to other emoluments for any day during which an employee is absent from headquarters on duty and is intended to cover the ordinary daily expenses incurred by him in consequence of such absence. " The bank counsels were not opposed to the grant of halting allowance though they would eliminate all chances of making it a source of profit. " Desai Award: "halting allowance is intended to cover the ordinary daily expenses incurred by an employee when an employee is absent from headquarters on duty. It is not intended to yield any profit. The expense incurred by employee when absent from headquarters on duty do not vary according to the working funds of the banks in which they were employed and it is desirable that all classes of hanks should pay halting allowance at the same rate in the same area. " ( 7 ) A perusal of Sastri Award would show that the halting allowance payment is allowed to an employee in addition to other emoluments for any 'day' during which an employee is absent from headquarters on duty. It is intended to cover ordinary daily expenses for doing an outdoor duty. It is also clear from Desai Award that halting allowance was to compensate expenses incurred by an employee when sent on duty outside headquarters. It is abundantly clear that for claiming halting allowance, an employee is supposed to be posted in headquarters and is assigned some work outside the headquarters. If an employee is directed to report at an extension counter or a branch office of headquarters regularly, he does not go outside the headquarters for a day or two but goes out for months or years and his absence is not at headquarters but his presence is recorded at other duty point. The question of payment of halting allowance for absence from headquarters would, therefore, not arise. Halting allowance is meant only to meet ordinary daily expenses incurred by the employee in consequence for going out on duty out of the headquarters for day or two, but where a person is not to report to headquarters but is assigned a duty of reporting regularly at suboffice or extension counter, it would not be a case temporarily assigning a work. ( 8 ) THE Labour Court had awarded halting allowance to the respondents for the period shown above against their names. The periods for which the respondents claimed halting allowance itself shows that the respondents were posted at the. extension counter not for a day or two but for months together or more than a year. The observations of the Labour Court that no posting order was produced by the petitioner and, therefore, respondents were entitled for halting allowance, is contrary to natural course of business. Since the extension counter at Shahibabad was a part of Shahdra branch of the Bank, no separate posting order was necessary for extension counter. Mere oral directions can be given to an employee to go and report to extension counter and work there. The claim of the respondents that they were working at the extension counter continuously for such a long period is sufficient to show that they were given directions to report to extension counter only in that part of year. ( 9 ) I consider that the Labour Court fell in error by misreading the entitlement of halting allowance for long duration of postings at a sub-office or extension counter. The respondents in this case, as observed by the labour Court, were paid halting allowance for short durations when they were posted at extension counter. Mr. A. K. Garg was paid normal allowance from February 13, 1979 to february 17, 1979, February 28, 1979 to march 1, 1979, September 30, 1978, April 5, 1979 to April 6, 1979. This would show that halting allowance was paid as per Sastri award for temporary absence from the headquarters on duty. But halting allowance was not payable by the bank for continuous work at extension counter where the respondents were deputed. ( 10 ) I consider that the Labour Court did not interpret the Sastri award properly and the purposes for which halting allowance was payable to an employee. The halting allowance was not payable when halt was not for short period but was for months together. The order of the Tribunal is contrary to express provisions of Bipartite Agreement and is, therefore, perverse. ( 11 ) I, therefore, allow this writ petition. The order of Labour Court is set aside. No order as to cost.