Holding

The National Tribunal’s award was based on the parity principle, not on functional equivalence or equal‑pay‑for‑equal‑work, so the correct allowance for a cashier in charge of cash in RRBs is Rs.189 per month, leading to the appellants’ appeal being allowed.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over the special allowance payable to "cashier in charge of cash" in Regional Rural Banks (RRBs). The National Industrial Tribunal had awarded parity with sponsor banks but did not base its decision on functional equivalence or the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The Court held that the Tribunal applied the parity principle, and therefore the appropriate allowance for RRB cashiers is Rs.189 per month, not Rs.380. Consequently, the appeal by the SBI and other appellants was allowed, directing that no amount be recovered for the period 1 January 1991 to 21 October 1991 and that amounts already paid may remain. The judgment also noted that delay in seeking reference does not bar relief and that the post of "Joint Custodian of Keys" in sponsor banks is not comparable to the RRB post.

Issues considered

Whether the National Industrial Tribunal applied the principle of parity or the doctrine of equal pay for equal work in determining allowances for RRB employees.
Whether the Rs.380 per month allowance for "cashier in charge of cash" under the Fifth Bipartite Settlement is applicable to RRBs.
Whether the NABARD circular and Government instructions limiting the allowance to Rs.189 per month are valid and binding on RRBs.
Whether the delay in raising the dispute affects the entitlement to the claimed allowance.
Whether the post of "Joint Custodian of Keys" in sponsor banks is comparable to the RRB post for purposes of parity.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Acts. 10

Subjects

parity principleequal pay for equal workregional rural banksallowancecashier in chargejoint custodianbipartite settlementNational Industrial Tribunaldelayfunctional similarity

Judgment

r
1.

A PERSONAL MANAGER, SBI & ANR.
V.
KRISHNA GRAMEENA BANK EMPLOYEES UNION & ANR.

NOVEMBER 28, 2007
B ._..
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA,JJ.)

Service Law-Parity in, allowance and benefits-Special
allowance to 'cashier in charge ofcash '-Industry Level Settlement
c between sponsor banks and their Associations giving special allowance
of Rs.189 p.m. whereas Bipartite Settlement between SB! and its
federation giving Rs. 3801- p.m.-Award by Tribunal that employees
ofRRB entitled to claim parity in pay scale with counterparts in sponsor
bank-RRB 's Circular that no comparable post of clerk or cashier '
D holding keys as Joint Custodian in SBL as per instructions of the
Government 'cashier in charge' holding keys to be paid Rs. 1891-
Challenge to-Courts below holding Rs 3801- p.m. to be paid as •
allowance-On appeal, held: National tribunal applied principle of
parity and not functional similarity and also did not examine post
.. I

E wise-It did not apply principle of 'equal pay for equal work '-Jn SB!
and sponsored bank there are posts of cash officer and clerk cum
cashier who performs distinct functions-Cash Officer holds custody
ofcash and when cashier performs additional function ofcash officer
they are paid allowance of Rs. 3801- which is called officiating
F allowance and not keys allowance-In RRB cash in charge is workman
whereas in sponsor bank, he is an Officer.
The employees of Regional Rural Banks filed writ petitions
challenging their salary structure. The dispute was referred to the
National Tribunal. 54 (sponsor) banks and their Association signed
G 'Industry Level Fifth Bipartite Settlement' and it was agreed that ,,.
the employees of these 54 (sponsor) Banks would be paid special
allowance for clerical staff and 'Cashier in charge of cash' would be
paid special allowance ofRs.189 per month. Thereafter, the State
Bank of India and its federation entered into 'Fifth Bipartite
H 632
)
·~

PERSONALMANAGER,SBI v. KRISHNAGRAMEENA 633
BANK EMPLOYEES UNION
Settlement' and it was agreed that the workmen would be paid A
revised functional allowance and each 'cashier in charge of cash'
would be paid Rs.380/- per month. The National Tribunal passed an
award that the officers and employees ofRRBs' would be entitled
to claim parity with their counterparts in the sponsor bank in the
matter of pay scale. Pursuant thereto, Pay Equation Committee was B
constituted and it recommended that 'allowances and benefits' of
Bipartite Settlement of the sponsored bank were to be extended to
the RRBs' employees. Thereafter, Government oflndia instructed
all sponsor banks and RRBs for implementing the tribunal's award
and recommendation of the Pay Equation Committee. C

It was appellant's case that there was no post of 'Joint
Custodian of Keys' in the sponsor bank-State Bank oflndia and
the RRBs and also appellant no 2 issued a circular stating that' Joint
custodian of Keys' (junior/senior clerk) would be eligible for a cash n·
allowance of Rs. 380/- per month. Another RRB-Nagarjuna Gramin
Bank-sponsored by appellant No.1 issued a circular that there was
no comparable post of clerk or cashier holding keys as Joint
Custodian in SBI and as per Government oflndia's instructions,
'cashier in charge' holding keys would be entitled to allowance of
Rs.189/- per month and not Rs.380/- per month. The appellant No. E
2-RRB also issued a similar circular. Respondent-Krishna
Grameena Bank Employees Union filed writ petition for quashing
the circular issued by the appellant No. 2 on the ground that Fifth
Bipartite Settlement provided that the said allowance was to be paid
at the rate of Rs.380/- per month as cash allowance and joint F
custodian allowance was to be paid to the employees of sponsor bank
and there should be parity of allowance of the employees ofRRB
as per the National Tribunal's Award. Subsequently, NABARD
issued a Circular with the approval of the Government oflndia to
all sponsor banks including SBI stating that RRBs' special allowance G
of only Rs.I 89/- would be payable. The Single Judge of the High
Court allowed the writ petition of the respondent. In writ appeal, the
order of the single Judge was upheld. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A HELD: 1.1. The National Tribunal did not state anything about
the functional similarity and they also did not examine the question
post wise. The National Tribunal decided on the basis of parity. It
purportedly adopted the parity principle and not 'equal pay for equal
work' concept. The direction of the National Tribunal's was that the
B details were to be adopted by the Equation Committee. The
Equation Committee did not say that the two posts are equal because
of earlier position. In *Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank's case stress
was laid on comparable level and status. In SBI there is no post of
Joint Custodian. In the State Bank oflndia and the sponsored bank
C there are two posts as cash officer and clerk cum cashier who
perform distinct functions. The custody of the cash is held by the
cash officer and as and when cashiers perform the additional
function of cash officer they are paid an allowance ofRs.380/-which
is called officiating allowance and not the keys allowance.
D Significantly in RRB the cash in charge is a workman, while in the
sponsor bank he is an officer.
!Para 7 and 9] (638-G; 639-A; 641-F, G; 642-A]
*Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bankv. D.B. Sharma and Ors., (2001]
1 sec 353, relied on.
E
1.2. With regard to the delay in seeking the reference, no
formula of universal application can be laid down. It would depend
on facts of each individual case. (Para 10) [642-B]
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors., (2000]
F 2 SCC 455 and S.M Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager,
Karnataka, [2003] 4 SCC 27, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2790
of2006.
G From the final Judgment and Order dated 17. I .2005 of the High •
Court ofKarnataka at Bangalore in W.A No. 1070/2000 S-RES.
L. Nageshwar Rao, Subhra Kapur, Rajiv Kapur, Arti Singh and
Sanjay Kapur for the Appellants.
H Raju Ramachandran, Lalit Mohini Bhat and Naveen R. Nath for
_/
PERSONAL MANAGER, SBI v. KRISHNA GRAMEENA 635
BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [PASAYAT,J.]
the Respondents. A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the
judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing
the writ appeal filed by the appellant. B
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
3. On 1.9.1987 employees of Regional Rural Banks (in short the
'RRBs.') filed Writ Petition Nos. 7149-50of1982 and Writ Petition No.
132 of 1984 under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950 (in short C
the 'Constitution') challenging salary structure in these Banks. This court
directed the issues to be refelTed to a National Industrial Tribunal (in short
the 'National Tribunal'). On 26.11.1987 the National Tribunal was
constituted by the Government oflndia to consider the disputes relating
to pay, salary and allowances payable to the employees ofRRBs. On D
10.4.1989 "Industry Level Fifth Bipartite Settlement" was signed between
54 Banks and their associations, wherein inter alia agreed that special
allowances for clerical staff would be payable to the employees of 54
(sponsor) Banks, and "Cashier in charge of cash" would be entitled to
special allowance ofRs.189 per month. On 9.6.1989 an agreement was E
entered into between the State Bank oflndia and its federation, called
the "Fifth Bipartite Settlement" wherein revised functional allowance for
workmen was agreed to be paid and each "cashier in charge of cash"
was to be paid allowance of Rs.380/- per month. On 30.4.1990 the
National Tribunal passed an award directing that the officers and F
employees of the RRBs will be entitled to claim parity with their
counterparts in the sponsor bank in the matter of pay scale with effect
from 1.9.1987. On 16.1.1991 Government of India constituted an
Equation Committee pursuant to the observations made in the Award
wherein it was provided that "allowances and benefits" which are provided G
in the Bipartite settlement of the concerned sponsored bank may be
extended to the RRBs' employees. On 22.2.1991 Government of India
issued instructions to all sponsor banks and RRBs for implementing NIT
award and recommendation of the Pay Equation Committee. On
31. 7.1991, arose the starting point of controversy so far as the present H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A dispute is concerned. According to the appellants, on an erroneous
reading of the award and without appreciating the fact that there is no
post of"Joint Custodian of Keys" in the sponsor bank i.e. State Bank
ofindia, the RRBs. issued a circular stating that "Joint custodian of
Keys Gunior/senior clerk) will be eligible for a cash allowance of
B Rs.380/- per month. This was issued by the appellant No. 2. Another
RRB i.e. Nagaijuna Gramin Bank on 8.8.1991 which is also sponsored
by appellant No. 1 (SBI) issued a circular stating that there is no
comparable post of clerk or cashier holding keys as Joint Custodian
in SBI and as per Government of India and as per Government of
c India's instructions, "cashier in charge" holding keys will be entitled to
allowance of Rs.189/- per month and not Rs.380/- per month. The
appellant No. 2 RRB also issued similar circular clarifying that Joint
Custodian allowance shall be paid at the rate of Rs.189/- (as per
Industry Level Settlement) instead of Rs.380/- per month. The
D respondent-Union filed writ petition before the High Court. That writ
petition No. 23469of1991 was filed praying for quashing circular
dated 21.10.991 issued by the appellant No. 2 on the ground that Fifth
Bipartite Settlement entered between SBI and Staff Federation provided
that said allowance was to be paid at the rate ofRs.380/- per month
E as cash allowance and joint custodian allowance is payable to the
employees of sponsor bank and there should be parity of allowance
of the employees ofRRB as per the National Tribunal Award. By
judgment dated 27. l .1992 the Patna High Court which was dealing
with similar issues granted liberty to Government and RRB to reduce
the said allowance. On 21.4.1992 NABARD issued a Circular to all
F
sponsor banks including SBI stating that ofRRBs' special allowance
of only Rs.189/- shall be payable. This order ofNABARD was issued
with the prior approval of the Government oflndia. The writ petition
filed by respondent was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the
Karnataka High Court. Challenge was raised by the employees of
G another RRB i.e. Nagarjuna Gramin Bank which \Vas also sponsored
by SBI before Andhra Pradesh High Court. A Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that employees are entitled to
allowance at the rate of Rs.189/- and not at the rate of Rs.380/- per
month. The order of learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court
H
f
I

PERSONAL MANAGER, SBI v. KRISHNA GRAMEENA 637
BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [PASAYAT, J.]

was challenged before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal which as noted A
above was dismissed.
4. Stand of the respondent on the other hand appears to be that the
appellants have relied on the alleged circular of NABARD dated
~
21.4.1992 purportedly issued in exercise of power under Section 38 of B
the NABARD Act, 1981. It is submitted that the same cannot be treated
as a decision by the Government ofindia issued under Section 17(1 )(ii)
proviso of the Act. It was further submitted that the circular was
inapplicable to RRB acting under sponsor banks covered by industry level
settlement and not bank level settlement as is evident from a reading of
the said circular. In case of appellant no. 1 the power is exercisable by
c
the Government ofindia under Section 18 of the State Bank ofindia Act,
1985 and not the NABARD Act. It is submitted that the appellants' stand
that the post of"Cashier in Charge" of cash has become redundant in
the sponsor bank has been contested by the respondent on the ground
D
that the so called redundancy took place much after the 6th Bipartite
Settlement of 1995 whereas the offending circular was issued on
21.10.1991. It is stated that the appellants' stand that parity in pay
between the employees of the sponsor bank and the RRB according to
the NABARD in case of post of similar category is not correct on the
date the bank level settlement was made. Post of cashier in charge of the E
sponsored bank and in the appellant No. l in fact existed and there existed
a basis for parity. The re-designation of the post due to change of job
profile subsequent to the circular cannot be the basis of special/functional
allowance since the original determination of such allowance was made
on the basis of the existing job profile which in the case of appellant No. F
2 remains unaltered and the members of the respondent No. 1 continue
to discharge some function up to date.
5. It is to be noted that NABARD was not a party in the writ
•• petition. There is no stand taken by the respondent that the NABARD G
did not have the consent of the Government ofindia. It is accepted that
NABARD in its letter dated 21.4.1992 wrote to all RRBs as follows:
"Please refer to instructions contained in Finance Ministry
(Banking Division) letter No. 11-3190 RRB(I) dated 22nd
H
.)-
'

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 12 S.C.R.

A February, 1991 on the captioned subject. In this connection,
attention is invited to para 14 and also item 8(ii)(b) of Annexure
VI thereof. It has been reported that different banks are paying
different rates of allowance to the cashiers-in- charge of cash in
RRBs. In RRBs. Clerks-in-charge of cash shall be entitled to
B allowance provided to cashier-in-charge of cash in pay offices/
branches in the industry level bipartite settlement i.e. a special
allowance of Rs.164/- per month only from Ist September, 1987
as provided in the IV Industry level bipartite settlement. This
allowance will be payable to the RRB employees concerned from
c 1st September, 1987 i.e. the date of implementation of the Award
ofNIT. The excess allowance paid, if any, may be recovered from
the employee concerned excepting where specific court orders are
in operation. These instructions shall be uniformally applicable to
all RRBs. throughout the country.
D
This order is issued with the prior approval of the Ministry of
Finance (Banking Division), Government ofindia, New Delhi."
6. It is also to be noted that the Central Government is not objecting
to Rs.189/- though it is the stand of the respondent that there is functional
E similarity. If that logic should apply then that allowance ofRs.189/- shall
have to go. The Staff Circular No. 11 dated 31.7.1991 stipulated as
follows:
(i) "Senior among Jr. Clerk or Sr. Clerk wherever available will
act as Joint Custodian of safe keys alongwith Branch Manager
F and will hold one set of safe keys.
(iv) When an employee with custody of keys also officiates as
Branch Manager, he will be paid only the officiating allowance,
which is higher than the cash allowance during the period he
officiates as Branch Manager, the employee is eligible for only
G
one type of allowance at a time.
(v) (iia) Joint Custodian of keys (Junior Clerk/Senior Clerk) of the
branch will be eligible for a cash allowance ofRs.380/- p.m."
7. It is seen that the National Tribunal decided on the basis of parity.
H
PERSONAL MANAGER, SBI v. KRISHNA GRAMEENA 639
BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [PASAYAT, J.]
It, however, did not record any finding about the functional similarity. It A
did not go into the question post wise. It purportedly adopted the parity
principle and not 'equal pay for equal work' concept. National Tribunal's
direction was that the details were to be adopted by the Equation
Committee.
8. In Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Ors., B
[2001] 1 sec 353 it was observed in paras 5 & 7 as follows:
"In view of the rival submissions at the Bar, the first question that
arises for our consideration is whether the Tribunal had really
accepted the plea of principle of Equal pay for Equal work or had c
rejected the same and instead, had applied the principle of parity.
We have gone through the award passed by Justice Obul Reddi.
The dispute which had been referred to the tribunal for its decision
was the dispute relating to pay, salary, allowances and other
benefits payable to the employees of the Regional Rural Banks in D
terms of the pleading of the parties in the Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.
7149-50/82 and 132of1984, filed in the Supreme Court oflndia.
The first two writ petitions had been filed by the All India Grameena
Bank Workers Organisation and the third one had been filed by
the All India Regional Rural Bank Employees Association. It is E
undoubtedly true that in the writ petition prayer had been made
for issuance ofa mandamus to fix the emoluments of the Regional
Rural Bank employees in conformity with the laid down judicial
maxims of 'equal pay for equal work' and 'industry-cum region
formula' and bring about parity in emoluments between the F
employees of Regional Rural Banks Inter se and employees of the
Nationalised Commercial Banks. The Tribunal on consideration of
the stand of the parties and various statistics given by the Banks,
came to a conclusion that there would be no serious economic
repercussions, if the parity in the matter of pay-scales and
allowances, is given to the Regional Rural Banks employees. It also G
came to the conclusion that there cannot be any comparison
between the District Central Co-operative Banks and Regional
Rural Banks inasmuch as Co-operatives are a State subject and
the said banks are run by the State Governments; whereas Regional
H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A Rural Banks are run by the Central Govenunent under an Act of
Parliament. It also found that the work carried out by Regional
Rural Bank employees and Nationalised commercial bank
employees is the same, both in quality and quantity. It further found
that there are absolutely no grounds whatsoever to deny parity
B between the employees of the rural branches of the commercial
banks and those of Regional Rural Banks, applying the yardstick
of cost of living and volume of business. It also found that the
Regional Rural Banks and the rural branches of the commercial
banks perform the identical functions and duties. The tribunal came
c to hold on the basis of evidence on record that the employees of
Regional Rural Banks form a separate class under a separate statute
and so are the employees of the commercial banks. In paragraph
4.422, the tribunal held:
4.422. I further observed in para 4.149 that "I must make it
D very clear in this connection and let there be no ambiguity about
it, that my finding that the RRB employees form a separate class
and that, therefore, they are not discriminated against so as to
attract the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" has to be
disengaged and de-linked from the question of their claim for
E parity in their pay structure with the sponsor bank employees
in corresponding and comparable posts within the framework
of the 2nd proviso on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Shred of legal nuances, their claims have to be examined on
the principles ofjustice and equity".
F
Ultimately, the tribunal held that the officers and employees of the
Regional Rural Banks will be entitled to claim parity with the officers
and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter of pay
scales, allowances and other benefits. In paragraph 4.428, the
tribunal held as follows:
G
4.428. So far as the equation of posts and the consequent
fixation of the new scales of pay allowances and other benefits
for Officers and other employees of the RRBs on par with the
Officers and other employees of comparable level in
H corresponding posts in sponsor banks and their fitment into the
PERSONAL MANAGER, SBI v. KRISHNA GRAMEENA 641
BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [PASAYAT,J.]
new scales of pay as are applicable to Officers of sponsor A
banks in corresponding posts of comparable level, it is a
matter which has to be decided by the Central Government
in consultation with such authorities as it may consider
necessary. This will also include the pay scales, benefits, other
allowances and fitment of sub-staff of the RRBs with the sub- B
staff of sponsor banks. This Award is accordingly passed and
it shall cover all existing RRBs. The Award shall be given effect
to from Olst day of September, 1987.
In view of the aforesaid conclusions of the tribunal on the basis
of evidence placed before it, the conclusion is irresistible that the C
tribunal never applied the principle of'equal pay for equal work'
and on the other hand was of the view that the employees of the
Regional Rural Banks will be entitled to claim parity with the
officers and other employees of the sponsor banks in the matter
of pay scales, allowances and other benefits and for determining D
the parity, it left the matter to be decided by the Central
Government in cor -.iitation with such authorities as it may consider
necessary. We are, 1erefore, persuaded to accept the submissions
of Mr. Ramachan~ran, appearing for the appellant that while
resolving the dispute ofthe employees of the Regional Rural Banks, E
the tribunal did no apply the so-called principle of'equal pay for
equal work' and on the other hand applied the principle of parity
with the officers of the respective sponsor banks."
9. No where has the National Tribunal said anything about the F
functional similarity and as noted above they also did not examine the
question post wise. The Equation Committee does not say that the two
posts are equal because of earlier position. In para 6 of Kshetriya Kisan
Gramin Bank's case (supra) stress was laid on comparable level and
status. In SBI there is no post of Joint Custodian. In the State Bank of
0
India and the sponsored bank there are two posts as cash officer and
clerk cum cashier who perform distinct functions. The custody of the cash
is held by the cash officer and as and when cashiers perform the additional
function of cash officer they are paid an allowance ofRs.380/- which is
called officiating allowance and not the keys allowance. Significantly in H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A RRB the cash in charge is a workman, while in the sponsor bank he is an
officer. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is bound to
succeed. It is, however, directed that no amount shall be recovered from
the period from 1.1.1991 to 21.10.1991. The amounts already paid shall
not be recovered if not already done. There shall be no order as to costs.
B
10. It may be noted that so far as delay in seeking the reference is
concerned, no formula of universal application can be laid down. It would
depend on facts of each individual case.
11. However, certain observations made by this Court need to be
C noted. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. KP. Madhavankutty and Ors.,
[2000] 2 sec 455 it was noted at paragraph 6 as follows:
"6. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate
Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act.
It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and
D to revive matters which had since heel) settled. Power is to be
exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to
us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has
exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years
of the order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time
E reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even
said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not
be the subject-matter of reference under Section I 0 of the Act.
As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has
F become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the
reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the
circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there
was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question
was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that
G two other employees who were dismissed from service were
reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and "
subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by
the respondent for raising an industrial dispute was ex-facie bad
and incompetent."
H
PERSONAL MANAGER, SBI v. KRISHNA GRAMEENA 643
BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [PASAYAT,J.]
12. In S.M Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, A
Karnataka, [2003] 4 SCC 27 the position was reiterated as follows:
. (at para 17)
"17. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on account
of delay in raising the dispute by the appellants the High Court
was justified in denying relief to the appellants. We cannot agree. B
It is true, as held in Mis. Shalimar Works Ltd v. Their Workmen
(supra) AIR (1959) SC 1217, that merely because the Industrial
Disputes Act does not provide for a limitation for raising the dispute
it does not mean that the dispute can be raised at any time and
without regard to the delay and reasons therefor. There is no C
limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an industrial
tribunal, even so it is only reasonable that the disputes should be
referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after
conciliation proceedings have failed particularly so when disputes
relate to discharge of workmen wholesale. A delay of 4 years in D
raising the dispute after even reemployment of the most of the old.
workmen was held to be fatal in Mis. Shalimar Works Limited
v. Their Workmen (supra) AIR (1959) SC 1217, In Nedungadi
Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors (supra) AIR 2000
SC 839, a delay of7 years was held to be fatal and disentitled to E
workmen to any relief. In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors.
v. Union of India and Ors (supra) (1993) AIR SCW 2214, it
was held that a casual labourer retrenched by the employer
deprives himself of remedy available in law by delay itself, lapse
of time results in losing the remedy and the right as well. The delay F
would certainly be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence
relevant to adjudication being lost and rendered not available.
However, we do not think that the delay in the case at hand has
been so culpable as to disentitle the appellants for any relief.
Although the High Court has opined that there was a delay of 7 G .
to 9 years in raising the dispute before the Tribunal but we find
the High Court factually not correct. The employment of the
appellants was terminated sometime in 1985-86 or 1986-87.
Pursuant to the judgment in Daily Rated Casual Employees
Under P&T Department v. Union ofIndia (supra) AIR (1987) H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A SC 2342, the department was formulating a scheme to
accommodate casual labourers and the appellants were justified
in awaiting the outcome thereof. On 16-1-1990 they were refused
to be accommodated in the scheme. On 28-12-1990 they initiated
the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act followed by
B conciliation proceedings and then the dispute was referred to the
Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour Court. We do not think that the
appellants deserve to be non suited on the ground of delay."
13. Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
C N.J. Appeal allowed.