w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Southern Railway Coop. Bank Limited v/s A. Swamy and Another


Company & Directors' Information:- SOUTHERN BANK LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65923WB1934PLC008104

    Civil Appeal No. 794 of 1998

    Decided On, 09 August 2000

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, HON'BLE JUSTICE M. B. SHAH AND HON'BLE JUSTICE S. B. MAJMUDAR

   



Judgment Text

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 11-3-1997 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.


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' Cooperative 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 Railway Cooperative Bank Limited at Mysore. That order was confirmed by the learned Single Judge.


The Division Bench considered the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Union of India (Rly. Board) v. J. V. Subhaiah (1995 SC 1919) 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 Cooperative 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

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

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.
O R