{"id":82903,"date":"1981-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981"},"modified":"2017-03-17T02:43:21","modified_gmt":"2017-03-16T21:13:21","slug":"reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981","title":{"rendered":"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1699, \t\t 1982 SCR (1) 107<\/div>\n
Author: A Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, A.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nC.T. DIGHE AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/07\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nPATHAK, R.S.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1699\t\t  1982 SCR  (1) 107\n 1981 SCC  (3) 545\t  1981 SCALE  (3)1105\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1986 SC1830\t (39)\n\n\nACT:\n     Labour dispute-Changes  made by  the  employer  in\t the\nexisting scheme\t of  promotion\tduring\tthe  pendency  of  a\nreference  before   the\t Tribunal-Whether   such  a   change\ncontravened the\t provisions of\tsection 33  (1) (a)  of\t the\nIndustrial Disputes  Act, 1947 giving rise to complaint will\ndepend on  the nexus  of the  changes made and the nature of\nthe reference pending before the Tribunal.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     On May  13, 1972  the Reserve  Bank  of  India,  Bombay\nissued Administration  Circular No.  8 introducing a revised\nscheme for promotion of employees as staff officers Grade A.\nFeeling that the aforesaid Circular adversely affected them,\nthe stenographers  filed  a  writ  petition  in\t the  Andhra\nPradesh High Court challenging its validity, Their grievance\nwas that by the said circular No. 8 they were placed en-bloc\nbelow the  clerks which\t made  their  chances  of  promotion\nillusory. On  March 5,\t1973 the  Andhra Pradesh  High Court\ndismissed   the\t   writ\t  petition,    but   made    certain\nrecommendations to  avoid  frustration\tand  dissatisfaction\namong the  stenographers. In  1973 charters  of demands were\nsubmitted to  the Reserve  Bank of  India by  the employees'\nassociations.  On   January  23,   1976\t the   Bank   issued\nAdministration Circular\t No. 5\tmodifying Circular  No. 8 to\nremedy the  alleged adverse effect suffered by stenographers\nas a result of Circular No. 8.\n     On June 16, 1979, the Central Government in exercise of\npowers conferred  by section  7B of  the Industrial Disputes\nAct, 1947  constituted a  National Industrial  Tribunal with\nhead-quarters at  Bombay and referred to it for adjudication\nan industrial  dispute existing\t between the Reserve Bank of\nIndia and  their Class III workmen. The dispute as described\nin the\tSchedule  to  the  order  of  reference\t related  to\n\"specific matters..  ......    ....pertaining  to  Class-III\nworkmen\" enumerated  in the Schedule. The Schedule listed 35\nmatters in  all, item  No.  12\tof  which  is  described  as\n\"promotion\".  During  the  pendency  of\t the  reference,  on\nOctober\t 10,   1979  the   Reserve  Bank   of  India  issued\nAdministration Circular\t No. 6 introducing certain change in\nthe scheme  of promotion  set  out  in\tcircular  No.  8  by\nrelaxing certain  conditions of eligibility for the personal\nassistants, stenographers,  tellers and\t the clerical staff.\nFeeling aggrieved, some clerks (Grade I) who were empanelled\nfor promotion  to the  post of\tStaff Officer  Grade A after\npassing the  test, filed  two complaints before the National\nTribunal under\tsection 33A  of the  Industrial Dispute\t Act\nalleging (i)  that as  a result\t of Circular  No. 6 many who\ncould not  have been  considered for promotion in preference\nto the\tcomplainants had Circular No. 8 been in force, would\nnow be entitled to a higher preference,\n108\nand (ii)  that the  alterations made  during the pendency of\nthe reference  before  the  National  Tribunal\tamounted  to\nchanging their\tconditions of  service to their prejudice in\nviolation of  section 33  (1) (a) of the Industrial Disputes\nAct inasmuch as their chances of promotion would recede. The\nNational Tribunal  by its  award  dated\t September  3,\t1980\ndisposed of  these two\tcomplaints holding  that the Reserve\nBank  of   India  had\tchanged\t to  the  prejudice  of\t the\ncomplainants their  conditions of  service by  modifying the\nexisting scheme\t of  promotion\tduring\tthe  pendency  of  a\nreference before  the Tribunal\tand thereby  contravened the\nprovisions of  section 33  (1) (a).  Hence  the\t appeals  by\nspecial leave.\n     Allowing the appeals and dismissing the complaints, the\nCourt\n^\n     HELD: 1:  1. The order of reference did not require the\nTribunal to  adjudicate on  all possible matters relating to\npromotion. The\tTribunal should have defined the area of the\ndispute referred to it for adjudication before proceeding to\nconsider whether  the promotional scheme set out in Circular\nNo. 6  could be said to be connected with that dispute. [117\nG-H]\n     1 : 2. Item No. 12 of the Schedule annexed to the order\nof reference  is described  as \"promotion\". Demand No. 19 in\nthe Charter  of Demands\t presented by  the All India Reserve\nBank Employees\tAssociation mentions  \"promotional avenues\",\nbut  the  matters  specified  under  the  head\t\"promotional\navenues\" relate\t to the\t creation of  more promotional posts\nand the\t upgrading of  certain posts. Demand No. 19 does not\nthus relate  to the  promotional scheme\t in question. Demand\nNo. 27\tof the Charter of Demands submitted by the All India\nReserve\t Bank\tWorkers\t  Organisation\t is   described\t  as\n\"promotional policy\"  and all that is said in the charter of\ndemands\t is  that  the\tmatters\t \"should  be  discussed\t and\nfinalised on  the  basis  of  prerequisites  of\t promotional\npolicy submitted  in 1969\".  Demand No. 27 could, therefore,\nhave no\t connection with  the promotional  scheme set out in\nCircular No. 6 issued in 1979. [116 C-E]\n     1: 3.  Under section  10 (1A)  the\t Central  Government\ncould refer  to the  National Tribunal\tan  existing  or  an\napprehended dispute;  the order\t or reference  in this\tcase\nshows  that  it\t was  not  an  apprehended  dispute  but  an\nindustrial dispute  that \"exists  between the  employers  in\nrelation to  the Reserve  Bank of  India and their class III\nworkmen in respect of the matters specified in the schedule\"\nannexed to  the order which was referred to the Tribunal for\nadjudication. As  section 10 (1A) expressly says, any matter\nappearing to  be connected  or relevant\t to the\t existing or\napprehended dispute  can also  be referred  to the  National\nTribunal  for  adjudication,  but  obviously  unless  it  is\ndetermined what\t the dispute  was that has been referred for\nadjudication, it is not possible to say whether a particular\nmatter is connected with it. [117 C-E]\n     2: 1.  What  circular  No.\t 6  did\t was  to  relax\t for\nstenographers and  personal assistants\tthe conditions\tthey\nhad to\tsatisfy to  be able  to sit  for the  test. It\tthey\npassed the  test, they\twould get  into the panel along with\nemployees belonging  to the  clerical  cadre  who  also\t had\npassed the  test. Vacancies  in the  posts of  staff officer\nGrade A\t are filled  by recruiting employees from the panel.\nThe panel  is a permanent one. Alterations of the conditions\nof  the\t eligibility  governing\t employees  belonging  to  a\nparticular cadre  can amount  to changing  the conditions of\nservice of  employees who  belonged another  cadre, assuming\nfor the present\n109\nthat the  said conditions  were conditions  of service.\t The\nchanges introduced  in\trespect\t of  the  stenographers\t and\npersonal assistants  may have  an impact  on the promotional\nprospects of employees from another cadre who are already in\nthe panel or even of those who were expecting to be included\nin the\tpanel, but  this would\tnot amount to changing their\nconditions of  service. The  conditions\t of  service  of  an\nemployee cannot\t include an  implied right  to\tprevent\t the\nemployer from  altering the  conditions of  service of other\nemployees.  In\t a  given   case  such\t alteration  may  be\ninequitable, and  a way\t may  be  found\t in  the  Industrial\nDisputes Act  to redress  the  grievance  of  the  employees\naffected thereby. [118 B-F]\n     2: 2.  It was  competent for  the Bank  to introduce  a\ncombined  promotional\tscheme\tfor   the  clerical   staff,\nstenographers, and  personal assistants and the Bank was not\nbound to  wait until all employees belonging to the clerical\ncadre whose  names were\t already in  the panel when Circular\nNo. 6  was introduced  had been\t promoted as  staff officers\nGrade A.  There was no such assurance given by the Bank when\nit introduced  Circular No.  8. The  Bank did  not undertake\nthat it\t would not take any step to change the conditions of\nthe stenographers  and the personal assistants were required\nto satisfy  to be  able to  appear in the test until all the\nclerks already\tempanelled were\t promoted.  Circular  No.  6\ncannot therefore  be assailed  on the  ground  that  it\t was\nintroduced when\t some employees\t belonging to  the  clerical\ngrade whose  names were\t already in the panel remained to be\npromoted. [121 B-E]\n     Being in  the panel  in any  particular year  does\t not\nensure a  fixed place  in the panel for an employee until he\nis promoted.  The right\t the complainants now claim is based\non  the\t  change  in   the  conditions\tof  service  of\t the\nstenographers made to their detriment earlier. [121 E-F]\n     Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal<\/a> [1977] 1 SCR 377,\nfollowed.\n     3. It  is well  settled that  a rule  which affects the\npromotion of  a person\trelates to  his condition of service\nbut this  is not  so if\t what is  affected is  a  chance  of\npromotion  only.   Though  a  right  to\t be  considered\t for\npromotion  is  a  condition  of\t service,  mere\t chances  of\npromotion are  not and\tthat a\trule  which  merely  affects\nchances\t of  promotion\tcannot\tbe  regarded  as  varying  a\ncondition of service. [121 G-H, 122 A, C-D]\n     The fact  that as\ta result  of  the  changes  made  by\nCircular No.  6 the  complainants lost\ta few  places in the\npanel affects  their chances  of promotion but not the right\nto be  considered for promotion. That being so, it cannot be\nsaid that  the alterations  made by Circular No. 6 amount to\nchanging the  conditions of service of the complainants; the\ngrievance made by the complainants does not therefore appear\nto have any basis. [122 G-H, 123 A-B]\n     Mohd. Shujat  Ali and  others etc.\t v. Union of India &\nOrs. etc.,  [1975] 1  SCR  449;\t State\tof  Mysore  v.\tG.B.\nPurohit, C.A.<\/a>  2281 of\t1965  decided  on  25-1-1967  (S.C.)\nunreported, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals No. 2815 &
\n2816 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
110<\/span><\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t special leave\tfrom the Award dated the 3rd
\nSeptember, 1980\t of  the  National  Industrial\tTribunal  at
\nBombay in  Complaint No. NTB 2 and NTB 3 of 1980 arising out
\nof Reference No. NTB 1 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2607 of 1980
\n     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Award dated the 3rd
\nSept. 1980  passed  by\tthe  National  Industrial  Tribunal,
\nBombay in Complaints Nos. NTB 2 & 3 of 1980 in Reference No.
\nNTB 1 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3150 of 1980
\n     Appeal by\tSpecial\t leave\tfrom  the  Award  dated\t 3rd
\nSeptember, 1980\t passed by the National Industrial Tribunal,
\nBombay in Complaints Nos. NTB 2 & 3 of 1980 in Reference No.
\nNTB 1 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     F.S. Nariman  R.A. Shroff,\t H.S. Parihar and Shradul S.
\nShroff, for  the Appellant in CAS 2815-16\/80, for Respondent
\nNo. 2 in CA. 2607\/80 & for Respondent No. 1 in C.A. 3150\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     C. N.  Murthy and\tP. P. Mittal for Respondent No. 1 in
\nCA. 2815-16\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     M.K. Ramamurthy, P.S. Khera and S.K. Dawar, for RR 2-70
\nin CAS. 2815-16\/80, for Respondent No. 3 in CA 2607\/80 & for
\nRespondent Nos. 3 & 40-67 in CA. 3150\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     K.K. Venugopal,  C.N. Murthy  and P.P.  Mittal 1980 for
\nthe Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     A.K. Sen,\tA.K. Gupta,  Brij Bhushan, N.P. Mahendra and
\nMiss Renu Gupta, for the Appellants in CA. 3150\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     S.K. Bisaria for RR. 2-4 and 6-39 in CA. 3150\/80.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     GUPTA, J.\tThese are four appeals by special leave from
\nan Award  of the  National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, made
\non September  3, 1980  disposing  of  two  complaints  under
\nsection 33-A  of the  Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947 holding
\nthat the employer,
\n111<\/span>
\nReserve Bank  of India,\t Bombay had changed to the prejudice
\nof the complainants their conditions of service by modifying
\nthe existing  scheme of\t promotion during  the pendency of a
\nreference before  the Tribunal\tand had\t thereby contravened
\nthe provisions\tof section  33 (1)  (a) of  the\t Act.  Civil
\nAppeals 2815  and 2816\tof 1980\t have been  preferred by the
\nReserve Bank  of India, Bombay. In civil appeal 2607 of 1980
\nthe appellants are some of the stenographers employed in the
\nBombay office  of  the\tReserve\t Bank  of  India.  The\tfour
\nappellants in  civil appeal  3150 of 1980 are also employees
\nof the Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, one of whom is a clerk
\ngrade I\t and  the  other  three\t are  officiating  as  staff
\nofficers grade\tA. How\tthe appellants in Civil Appeals 2607
\nand 3150  are affected\tby the\tAward will  appear from\t the
\nfacts stated below.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts leading to the making of the complaints under
\nsection 33-A are as follows. On June 16, 1979 the Government
\nof  India,   Ministry  of  Labour,  in\texercise  of  powers
\nconferred by section 7B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
\nconstituted a National Industrial Tribunal with headquarters
\nat Bombay  and referred to it for adjudication an industrial
\ndispute existing between the Reserve Bank of India and their
\nclass III  workmen. The dispute as described in the schedule
\nto the\torder of  reference  related  to  “specific  matters
\npertaining to class III workmen” enumerated in the schedule.
\nThe schedule  listed 35 matters in all, item No. 12 of which
\nis described as ‘Promotion’.\n<\/p>\n
     On May  13,  1972\tappellant  Reserve  Bank  of  India,
\nBombay, had issued Administration Circular No. 8 introducing
\na  revised  scheme  for\t promotion  of\temployees  as  Staff
\nOfficers Grade\tA. This\t Circular  No.\t8  prescribed  as  a
\ncondition for  promotion passing  a test consisting of three
\npapers on the following subjects: noting, drafting, precis &
\nessay writing,\t(ii) Reserve  Bank of  India Act,  and (iii)
\nfunctions  and\t working  of  the  Reserve  Bank  of  India.
\nCandidates with\t less than  15 years’  service in  class III
\ncadre at  the time of the test and who had not passed in the
\nsubjects ‘Practice and Law of Banking’ and ‘Book-keeping and
\nAccounts’ in  Part I of the Institute of Bankers Examination
\nwere to\t appear and  pass in an extra paper divided into two
\nparts on  the aforesaid\t two subjects.\tCandidates  who\t had
\npassed in  either or  both these  subjects in  part I of the
\nInstitute  of\tBankers\t Examination   were  exempted\tfrom
\nappearing in  the corresponding\t part or  both parts of this
\npaper. The circular further provided that an estimate of the
\nvacancies anticipated  to occur\t in  each  office  during  a
\n‘panel year’ i. e. from September 1 to
\n112<\/span>
\nAugust 31, was to be declared by the Bank in advance and the
\nnumber of  candidates in  that office  to be  called for the
\ntest to\t fill the vacancies in that office was not to exceed
\ntwice the number of such vacancies. A candidate who had been
\nunsuccessful in\t more than  one test  was to be treated as a
\nrepeater and the number of such repeaters sitting for a test
\nwould be  in addition to the aforesaid number of candidates.
\nAn employee  in the substantive rank of teller, stenographer
\ngrade II,  stenographer grade  I or  personal assistant\t was
\neligible to  appear in the test under this circular provided
\nhe had put in a minimum period of 15 years’ service in class
\nIII cadre. A further condition relating to these three types
\nof   employees,\t   tellers,   stenographers   and   personal
\nassistants, was\t that they  could be called to appear in the
\ntest only  if a\t clerical candidate  of the  same length  of
\nservice found  a  place\t within\t twice\tthe  number  in\t the
\ncombined seniority  list. The  said three types of employees
\nwere required  to pass\tboth parts I and II of the Institute
\nof Bankers examination, or if they were graduates, in part I
\nonly. Those  of them  who would\t pass the  test were  to  be
\nposted on  the clerical\t desk for  one\tyear  for  acquiring
\nexperience and\tthereafter they\t were to  be absorbed in the
\nnext  list  to\tbe  prepared  on  the  result  of  the\ttest
\nsucceeding the\tone in\twhich they  had passed. They were to
\nrank in\t seniority below the juniormost successful candidate
\nin the\ttest in\t which they qualified. A further requirement
\nwas that  the stenographers  and personal  assistants should
\nhave worked for at least 5 years as such; this condition was
\nthought necessary  because it was possible that some of them
\nmay have been employed as typists for some time.\n<\/p>\n
     Feeling that  the aforesaid  circular No.\t8  adversely
\naffected them,\tthe Stenographers  filed a  writ petition in
\nthe Andhra  Pradesh High  Court challenging  the validity of
\nthe circular.  The main grievance seems to have been that by
\nthe said  Circular No.\t8 they were placed en bloc below the
\nclerks which  made the\tchances of  promotion so far as they
\nwere concerned\tillusory.  The\tAndhra\tPradesh\t High  Court
\ndismissed the writ petition with the following observations:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “…..the clerks  and the  stenographers who\thave
\n     passed at\tthe qualifying\twritten examination  do\t not
\n     acquire any right to promotion by merely being put in a
\n     panel. As\tobserved by  the Supreme  Court in  the case
\n     cited in  Gangaram v.  Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C.
\n     2178,  the\t  effect  of   passing\tat   the  qualifying
\n     examination is only
\n113<\/span>
\n     to remove\ta hurdle in their way for further promotions
\n     to the posts of staff officers, grade II. In the matter
\n     of actual\tpromotion there\t is nothing  illegal in\t the
\n     department promoting the clerks as a group in the first
\n     instance  and   postponing\t the   promotions   of\t the
\n     stenographers to  a  later\t stage…..It  is  urged  on
\n     behalf of\tthe petitioners\t that previous\tto  the\t new
\n     scheme, the stenographers were placed at the top of the
\n     clerks en\tbloc and  that they have now been brought to
\n     the bottom.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  This argument\t is based  upon a misconception that
\n     the panel\tcreates any rights. Hence nothing turns upon
\n     the place fixed in the panel”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The High  Court however\t made  certain\trecommendations\t “to
\navoid\tfrustration    and   dissatisfaction\tamong\t the
\nstenographers”. It  was suggested that “the Reserve Bank may
\nframe suitable\trules for  fixing the  seniority  among\t the
\nstaff officers,\t grade II,  on some  rational and  equitable
\nprinciples, i.e.,  by length of service or marks obtained at
\nthe qualifying examination or by adopting a reasonable ratio
\nbetween the  two classes,  so that  the chances\t of  further
\npromotions for\tthe stenographers may not be illusory”. This
\njudgment was  delivered on  March 5,1973.  In the  months of
\nMarch and  November, 1973  charters of demand were submitted
\nrespectively  by   the\tAll   India  Reserve   Bank  Workers
\nOrganisation  and  the\tAll  India  Reserve  Bank  Employees
\nAssociation. The  latter Association  is the  one  which  is
\nrecognised  by\t the  Bank.   On   January   23,   1976\t  by
\nAdministration Circular No. 5 the Bank modified Circular No.
\n8 to  remedy the  alleged adverse  effect  suffered  by\t the
\nstenographers as  a result  of Circular\t No. 8.\t On June 16,
\n1979 the  order referring to the National Tribunal at Bombay
\nthe dispute  between the  Bank and the class III workmen was
\nmade. The All India Reserve Bank Employees Association filed
\na writ\tpetition in  the Calcutta  High Court  in July\t1979
\nchallenging this  order of  reference.\tThe  High  Court  at
\nCalcutta  issued  an  injunction  restraining  the  National
\nTribunal from  adjudicating on\tthe reference until the writ
\npetition  was  disposed\t of.  A\t settlement  was  thereafter
\nreached between\t the Bank  and the  All India  Reserve\tBank
\nEmployees Association  and the\tinjunction was\tvacated.  On
\nNovember 21,  1979 the\tBank and  the Association applied to
\nthe Tribunal jointly for making an award on the basis of the
\nsettlement.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  meantime on  October,  10,\t 1979  the  impugned
\nCircular No.  6\t was  issued.  The  following  changes\twere
\nintroduced by Circular
\n114<\/span>
\nNo. 6  in the  scheme of promotion set out in Circular No. 8
\nrelating to  personal assistants, stenographers, tellers and
\nthe clerical staff:\n<\/p>\n
     (1)  The eligibility period so far as these three types
\n\t  are concerned\t was reduced  from 15  years  to  10
\n\t  years service.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  The condition requiring stenographers and personal
\n\t  assistants to\t put in\t 5 years service as such was
\n\t  dispensed with.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  Their period\tof training  on\t clerical  desk\t was
\n\t  reduced from 1 year to six months.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)  They were  to be fitted according to the length of
\n\t  their service\t in the\t panel for the year in which
\n\t  they passed  the test and not in the next panel as
\n\t  before.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (5)  Those who  are graduates among these three groups,
\n\t  even if they had not passed in all the subjects in
\n\t  part I of Indian Institute of Bankers examination,
\n\t  would be  eligible for exemption from appearing in
\n\t  the additional  paper\t on  ‘Practice\tand  Law  of
\n\t  Banking’ and\t‘Book-keeping and  accounts’ if they
\n\t  had passed  in these\ttwo  subjects  in  the\tsaid
\n\t  examination.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (6)  This benefit\tof exemption  which was available to
\n\t  the  clerical\t  staff\t of   15   years’   standing
\n\t  previously was  extended to  those of them who had
\n\t  put in only 10 years service.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The two  complaints (complaint Nos. 2 and 3 of 1980) on
\nwhich  the   impugned  award   has  been   made\t were  filed
\nrespectively on\t July 22,  1980\t and  August  1,  1980.\t The
\ncomplainants who  were clerks grade I had passed the test in
\nthe panel  year 1978-79 and were empanelled for promotion to
\nthe post of staff officer grade A. The grievance made in the
\ntwo complaints\tis that the result of the changes introduced
\nin the promotional scheme by Circular No. 6 relaxing for the
\nstenographers and  personal assistants\tthe conditions\tthey
\nwere required  to satisfy to be able to sit for the test and
\npermitting them\t to be\tfitted according  to the  length  of
\ntheir service  in the  panel for  the year in which they had
\npassed the  test, was  that many  who could  not  have\tbeen
\nconsidered for\tpromotion in  preference to the complainants
\nhad circular No. 8 been in force, would
\n115<\/span>
\nnow be\tentitled to  a higher  preference. According  to the
\ncomplainants the alterations made during the pendency of the
\nreference before  the National Tribunal amounted to changing
\ntheir conditions  of service to their prejudice in violation
\nof section  33 (1)  (a) of  the Industrial Disputes Act. The
\ncomplainants in\t complaint No.\t2 of 1980 stated that if the
\nalterations introduced\tby Circular  No. 6  were allowed  to
\ncontinue “the  chances of  promotion would  become bleak for
\nthem’;\tcomplainants   in  complaint  No.  3  of  1980\talso
\nexpressed a  similar apprehension  that as  a result  of the
\nchanges introduced  “their chances of promotion would recede
\nfurther and further”.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants  in civil  appeal 2607  of 1980  who are
\nstenographers  acquired\t  eligibility  to   appear  in\t the
\nqualifying test\t because of  the modifications introduced in
\nthe  existing  scheme  by  Circular  No.  6.  All  the\tfour
\nappellants in  civil appeal  3150 of  1980 are from clerical
\ncadre, three of whom are officiating as staff officers grade
\nA; they\t are also  beneficiaries of  the relaxations made in
\nthe existing  scheme by\t circular No.  6. The  appellants in
\nboth these  appeals are\t obviously  affected  by  the  Award
\nallowing the  complaints and  declaring circular  No.  6  as
\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 33\t (1) (a)  prohibits the\t employer during the
\npendency of a proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute
\nbefore a  Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal from
\naltering to  the prejudice  of the  workmen concerned in the
\ndispute their  existing conditions  of service.\t Sub-section
\n(2) of\tsection 33,  however, permits  the employer to alter
\nthe conditions\tof service  in\tregard\tto  any\t matter\t not
\nconnected with\tthe dispute  in accordance with the standing
\norders applicable  to the workman concerned or in accordance
\nwith the  terms of the contract between the employer and the
\nworkman. The  right given  to the employer under sub-section
\n(2) is subject to the condition laid down in sub-section (3)
\nof section  33 that the right can be exercised only with the
\nexpress permission  in writing of the authority before which
\nthe proceeding\tis pending. Section 33-A of the Act provides
\nthat where an employer contravenes the provisions of section
\n33 during the pendency of proceedings before a Labour Court,
\nTribunal or National Tribunal any employee aggrieved by such
\ncontravention may  make complaint  in writing to such Labour
\nCourt, Tribunal or National Tribunal, and on receipt of such
\ncomplaint the  Labour Court,  Tribunal or  National Tribunal
\nshall adjudicate  upon the complaint as if it were a dispute
\nreferred to  it or  pending before it in accordance with the
\nprovisions  of\t the  Act   and\t submit\t its  award  to\t the
\nappropriate government.\t Section 31  (1) of the Act provides
\nfor penalty  for contravention\tof the provisions of section
\n33; an
\n116<\/span>
\nemployer found\tguilty of  such contravention  is punishable
\nwith imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,
\nor with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with
\nboth.\n<\/p>\n
     In this case circular No. 6 was not introduced with the
\npermission of  the National  Tribunal, Bombay,\tbefore which
\nthe reference  was pending; to determine whether thereby the
\nprovisions of section 33 have been contravened, the question
\nthat requires  to be  answered is  whether  the\t alterations
\nintroduced by  Circular No. 6 are connected with the dispute
\npending in  reference before  the  National  Tribunal.\tThis
\nagain leads  to the  question, what was the dispute that was
\nreferred  to   the  National   Tribunal\t for   adjudication?
\nAccording to  the complainants\ttheir promotional  prospects
\nwere adversely affected by the impugned circular. Item 12 of
\nthe schedule  annexed to the order of reference is described
\nas ‘Promotion’.\t Demand No.  19 in  the charter\t of  demands
\npresented  by\tthe  All   India  Reserve   Bank   Employees
\nAssociation  mentions  ‘Promotional  avenues’  but,  as\t the
\nNational Tribunal  itself  noticed,  the  matters  specified
\nunder the  head ‘promotional avenues’ relate to the creation
\nof more\t promotional posts  and\t the  upgrading\t of  certain
\nposts. Demand No. 19 does not thus relate to the promotional
\nscheme in question. The impugned award also refers to demand
\nNo. 27\tof the charter of demands submitted by the All India
\nReserve\t Bank\tWorkers\t organisation.\t Demand\t No.  27  is
\ndescribed as  ‘Promotional Policy’  and all  that is said in
\nthe charter  of demands\t under this  head is that the matter
\n“should be  discussed and  finalised on\t the basis  of\tpre-
\nrequisites of  promotional policy  submitted in 1969”. It is
\nnot  therefore\t clear\thow  demand  No.  27  could  have  a
\nconnection with\t the promotional  scheme set out in circular
\nNo. 6  issued in  1979. The  award does\t not  refer  to\t the
\nstatements of  claim filed  on behalf  of the workmen; it is
\nlikely that because of the order of injunction issued by the
\nCalcutta High  Court to\t which we have earlier referred, the
\nunions representing  the workmen were not able to file their
\nstatements of claim before the National Tribunal disposed of
\nthe complaints under section 33A. The Tribunal however held:
\n“Industrial Disputes  Act contemplates\treference  in  wider
\nterms than  the actual\titem in\t dispute. Section 10 (IA) of
\nthe  Industrial\t  Disputes  Act\t  which\t provides   for\t the
\nappointment of\tthe National Tribunal shows that the Central
\nGovernment could  form its  opinion not only on the existing
\ndispute but also on the apprehended dispute and the order of
\nreference can  cover not  only the  dispute but\t any  matter
\nappearing to  be connected  with or relevant to the dispute.
\nIn view\t of it,\t it  cannot  be\t said  that  when  the\titem
\n‘Promotion’ has been referred to
\n117<\/span>
\nthe Tribunal,  it has  the limitation  of remaining  in\t the
\nframe work of the demand.. the Tribunal has the jurisdiction
\nto decide  on the  natural meaning  of the words used in the
\nitem of reference.. The item seems to have been deliberately
\nstated in  terms.. it  looks to\t be referring to the process
\ninvolving promotions.”\tHaving said  so the  Tribunal added:
\n“The extent  of such  process  will  have  to  be  carefully
\ndefined because\t there is  no  dispute\twith  the  axiomatic
\nprinciple that\tpromotion is  a matter\tin the discretion of
\nthe employer”.\n<\/p>\n
     It is difficult to follow the steps of reasoning in the
\nextract from  the award\t quoted above;\tit is also not clear
\nhow the\t view expressed\t therein helps\tin ascertaining what
\nwas the\t dispute referred  to the Tribunal for adjudication.
\nNo one\tcan deny  that under  section 10  (IA)\tthe  Central
\nGovernment could  refer to the National Tribunal an existing
\nor an  apprehended dispute;  the order\tor reference in this
\ncase however  shows that  it was  not an apprehended dispute
\nbut an industrial dispute that “exists between the employers
\nin relation to the Reserve Bank of India and their class III
\nworkmen in respect of the matters specified in the schedule”
\nannexed to  the order which was referred to the Tribunal for
\nadjudication. As  section 10 (IA) expressly says, any matter
\nappearing to  be connected  or relevant\t to the\t existing or
\napprehended dispute  can also  be referred  to the  National
\nTribunal  for  adjudication,  but  obviously  unless  it  is
\ndetermined what\t the dispute  was that has been referred for
\nadjudication, it is not possible to say whether a particular
\nmatter is  connected with it. The Tribunal thought it unjust
\nto restrict  the meaning of the word ‘promotion’ to what was
\nsuggested by  the charters  of demand and decided to give it
\nits  “natural  meaning”\t which\taccording  to  the  Tribunal
\nincludes “the  process involving  promotion”.  The  question
\nhowever remains\t how did  the Tribunal\tsatisfy itself\tthat
\nwhen by\t the order  of reference  a specific matter, namely,
\n‘promotion’ was\t referred to  it for  adjudication,  it\t was
\nimplied that the word should be given a “natural meaning” in
\nthe sense  in which  the Tribunal  understood it.  We do not
\nthink it  reasonable to\t suppose that the order of reference
\nrequired the  Tribunal to adjudicate on all possible matters
\nrelating to promotion. We therefore accept the contention of
\nthe appellants\tthat the  Tribunal should  have defined\t the
\narea of\t the dispute  referred to it for adjudication before
\nproceeding to  consider whether\t the promotional  scheme set
\nout in\tCircular No.  6 could  be said\tto be connected with
\nthat dispute.\n<\/p>\n
118<\/span><\/p>\n
     Having reached  this conclusion we should have sent the
\nmatter back  to the  National Tribunal\tfor ascertaining the
\nscope of the dispute referred to it for adjudication, if the
\nassumption  were   correct  that   the\talterations  in\t the
\npromotional scheme  introduced by Circular No. 6 amounted to
\nchanging the  conditions of  service of the complainants; if
\nnot,  remitting\t  the  matter\tto  the\t  Tribunal  will  be
\nunnecessary. What  Circular No.\t 6  did\t was  to  relax\t for
\nstenographers and  personal assistants\tthe conditions\tthey
\nhad to\tsatisfy to  be able  to sit  for the  test. If\tthey
\npassed the  test, they\twould get  into the penal along with
\nemployees belonging  to the  clerical  cadre  who  also\t had
\npassed the  test. Vacancies  in the  post of  staff  officer
\nGrade A\t are filled  by recruiting employees from the panel.
\nThe panel,  it appears\tfrom the  award, is a permanent one.
\nHow those  who come  out successful  in the  test are  to be
\nfitted in  the panel  has been\tstated earlier. The panel is
\nmade up\t of employees  belonging to  different cadres. It is
\ndifficult  to  see  how\t alteration  of\t the  conditions  of
\neligibility governing  employees belonging  to a  particular
\ncadre can  amount to  changing the  conditions of service of
\nemployees who  belonged to  another cadre,  assuming for the
\npresent that the said conditions were conditions of service.
\nThe changes  introduced in  respect of the stenographers and
\npersonal assistants  may have  an impact  on the promotional
\nprospects of employees from another cadre who are already in
\nthe panel or even of those who were expecting to be included
\nin the\tpanel, but  it is  not possible\t to agree  that this
\nwould amount  to changing their conditions of service. It is
\ndifficult to  think of\tthe  conditions\t of  service  of  an
\nemployee as  including\tan  implied  right  to\tprevent\t the
\nemployer from  altering the  conditions of  service of other
\nemployees.  In\t a  given   case  such\t alteration  may  be
\ninequitable, and  a way\t may  be  found\t in  the  Industrial
\nDisputes Act  to redress  the  grievance  of  the  employees
\naffected thereby,  but in  this case the question is whether
\nif amount  to altering\tthe  condition\tof  service  of\t the
\ncomplainants. In  Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal<\/a> this
\nCourt upheld  the validity  of the combined seniority scheme
\nintroduced by  the Reserve  Bank for the clerical staff. The
\nfirst paragraph\t of the\t head note  to the report summarizes
\nthe facts on which challenge to the scheme was based:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “At every  centre of\tthe Reserve  Bank  of  India
\n\t  there\t  were\t five\tdepartments,   the   General
\n\t  Department and four Specialised Departments. There
\n\t  was a separate
\n119<\/span>
\n\t  seniority  list   for\t the   employees   in\teach
\n\t  Department at\t each centre  and  confirmation\t and
\n\t  promotion of\temployees was  only in the vacancies
\n\t  arising within  their Department  at each  centre.
\n\t  There\t were\ttwo  grades   of  clerks   in\teach
\n\t  Department, namely,  Grade I and Grade II. The pay
\n\t  scales of  Grade I  and Grade II clerks in all the
\n\t  departments were  the same and their conditions of
\n\t  service were\talso identical.\t There was automatic
\n\t  promotion from  Grade II  to Grade  I and  when  a
\n\t  clerk from  Grade II\twas promoted to officiate in
\n\t  Grade\t I,   he  got\tan  additional\t officiating
\n\t  allowance of\tRs. 25\/-  per month. There were also
\n\t  several categories  of non-clerical  posts in\t the
\n\t  General as  well as  Specialised Departments,\t and
\n\t  their pay  scale was\tthe same as that of Grade II
\n\t  clerks. In  view of  expanding activities  in\t the
\n\t  Specialised  Departments,   there   were   greater
\n\t  opportunities for  confirmation and  promotion for
\n\t  employees in\tthe Specialised\t Departments than in
\n\t  the  General\t Department.  This   gave  rise\t  to
\n\t  dissatisfaction amongst  employees in\t the General
\n\t  Department and they claimed equal opportunities by
\n\t  having a  combined  seniority\t list  for  all\t the
\n\t  clerks for confirmation and promotion. The Reserve
\n\t  Bank, sought\tto justify  the\t separate  seniority
\n\t  lists\t on   the  ground  that\t the  work  in\teach
\n\t  department was  of  a\t special  nature  and  inter
\n\t  transferability  was\t undesirable  and   hard  to
\n\t  achieve. As  a result of the recommendation of the
\n\t  National  Tribunal.\thowever,  the  Reserve\tBank
\n\t  introduced the  Optee Scheme\tof 1965\t as a  first
\n\t  step towards\tequalization of opportunities. Under
\n\t  the  scheme,\t the  option   to  go  over  to\t the
\n\t  Specialised Departments  was confined to confirmed
\n\t  Grade II  clerks and officiating Grade I clerks in
\n\t  the  General\t Department.  If  he  exercised\t the
\n\t  option, he  was eligible to be selected. If he was
\n\t  selected. he would be entitled to be absorbed only
\n\t  as Grade  II\tclerk  in  one\tof  the\t Specialised
\n\t  Departments with  the result\tthat if\t he  was  an
\n\t  officiating  Grade   I  clerk\t  in   the   General
\n\t  Department at\t the time  of the  exercise  of\t the
\n\t  option, he  would lose  the benefit of officiation
\n\t  in Grade  I in  the General Department as also the
\n\t  monetary benefit of Rs. 25\/-. His seniority in the
\n\t  cadre\t of  Grade  II\tclerks\tin  the\t Specialised
\n\t  Department in\t which\the  was\t absorbed  would  be
\n\t  deter-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
120<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  mined on  the\t basis\tof  his\t length\t of  service
\n\t  calculated from  the date of his recruitment if he
\n\t  was a graduate when he joined service, or from the
\n\t  date of  his graduation  if he  became a  graduate
\n\t  whilst in service.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was  argued in Paliwal’s case that the combined list
\nwas invalid because it discriminated against the petitioners
\nvis-a-vis other\t grade II  clerks who  had opted  under\t the
\noptee Scheme of 1965. This Court held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The contention  of the  petitioners was that some
\n\t  of the  Grade II  clerks who\thad opted  under the
\n\t  optee Scheme\tof 1965\t were promoted\tas  Grade  I
\n\t  Clerks, while\t the petitioners  continued as Grade
\n\t  II Clerks  and before\t their\tturn  for  promotion
\n\t  could arrive,\t the Combined  Seniority Scheme\t was
\n\t  brought into force and that prejudicially affected
\n\t  their promotional  opportunities and\tthus brought
\n\t  about\t unjust\t  discrimination   between   persons
\n\t  belonging to\tthe same  class. This contention has
\n\t  no force  and must  be rejected.  We have  already
\n\t  discussed and\t shown that  it was competent to the
\n\t  Reserve Bank\tto introduce  the Combined Seniority
\n\t  Scheme for the purpose of integrating the clerical
\n\t  staff in  all the departments and the Reserve Bank
\n\t  was not  bound to  wait until\t all the  transferee
\n\t  Grade II  Clerks under  the optee  Scheme of\t1965
\n\t  were\tpromoted   as  Grade   I  Clerks   in  their
\n\t  respective Specialised  Departments. There  was no
\n\t  such assurance  given by  the Reserve Bank when it
\n\t  introduced the  optee Scheme\tof 1965. What it did
\n\t  was merely  to equalise the opportunities of Grade
\n\t  II Clerks in the General Departments with those of
\n\t  Grade II  Clerks in  the Specialised\tDepartments.
\n\t  The Reserve  Bank did\t not undertake\tthat it will
\n\t  not  take  any  steps\t for  bringing\tabout  total
\n\t  integration of the Clerical services until all the
\n\t  transferee Grade  II\tClerks\twere  promoted.\t The
\n\t  Reserve  Bank\t  was  entitled\t  to  introduce\t the
\n\t  Combined Seniority  Scheme at\t any time it thought
\n\t  fit and  the validity\t of the\t Combined  Seniority
\n\t  Scheme cannot\t be assailed  on the  ground that it
\n\t  was  introduced   at\ta  time\t when  some  of\t the
\n\t  transferee Grade  II Clerks  still remained  to be
\n\t  promoted and was discriminatory
\n121<\/span>
\n\t  against them. It may be that some transferee Grade
\n\t  II Clerks  had already obtained promotion as Grade
\n\t  I Clerks by the time the Combined Seniority Scheme
\n\t  was introduced,  while others like the petitioners
\n\t  had not. But that cannot be helped. It is all part
\n\t  of  the  incidence  of  service  and\tin  law,  no
\n\t  grievance can be made against it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These observations  in Paliwal’s case are equally applicable
\nto the\tcase before  us. It  was competent  for the  Bank to
\nintroduce a  combined promotional  scheme for  the  clerical
\nstaff, stenographers,  and personal  assistants and the Bank
\nwas not\t bound to  wait until all employees belonging to the
\nclerical cadre\twhose names  were already  in the panel when
\ncircular No.  6 was  introduced had  been promoted  as staff
\nofficers Grade\tA. There  was no such assurance given by the
\nBank  when  it\tintroduced  circular  No.  8  on  which\t the
\ncomplainants rely.  The Bank did not undertake that it would
\nnot take any step to change the conditions the stenographers
\nand the\t personal assistants  were required to satisfy to be
\nable to\t appear in  the test  until all\t the clerks  already
\nempanelled were promoted. Circular No. 6 cannot therefore be
\nassailed on  the ground\t that it  was introduced  when\tsome
\nemployees belonging  to the  clerical grade whose names were
\nalready in the panel remained to be promoted. That cannot be
\nhelped, and,  as observed in Paliwal’s case, “it is all part
\nof the\tincidence of  service and in law no grievance can be
\nmade against  it”. Being in the panel in any particular year
\ndoes not  ensure a  fixed place in the panel for an employee
\nuntil he  is promoted.\tIt may\tbe recalled that in 1964 and
\nagain by circular No. 8 in 1972 the stenographers conditions
\nof service  were altered  to their  prejudice. The right the
\ncomplainants now  claim\t is  based  on\tthe  change  in\t the
\nconditions of  service of  the stenographers  made to  their
\ndetriment earlier.\n<\/p>\n
     The grievance of the complainants really relates to the
\nchanges\t affecting  their  chances  of\tpromotion.  We\thave
\nearlier quoted\tfrom the charters of demand to show that the
\ncomplainants themselves\t looked upon the alterations made by
\ncircular No. 6 as affecting their “chances of promotion”. It
\nis well settled that a rule which affects the promotion of a
\nperson relates\tto his\tcondition of service but this is not
\nso if what is affected is a chance of
\n122<\/span>
\npromotion only.\t This Court  in Mohd.  Shujat Ali and others
\netc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. held:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “But when we speak of a right to be considered for
\n\t  promotion, we must not confuse it with mere chance
\n\t  of promotion-the  latter would  certainly not be a
\n\t  condition of\tservice…that though  a right to be
\n\t  considered  for   promotion  is   a  condition  of
\n\t  service, mere chances of promotion are not.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In Shujat  Ali’s case the respondents went down in seniority
\nand it\twas  urged  that  this\taffected  their\t chances  of
\npromotion. In  Shujat Ali  reference  was  made\t to  earlier
\ndecision of  this Court,  State of  Mysore v.  G.B.  Purohit<\/a>
\nwhere also  it was held that though a right to be considered
\nfor promotion  is a  condition of  service, mere  chances of
\npromotion are  not and\tthat a\trule  which  merely  affects
\nchances\t of  promotion\tcannot\tbe  regarded  as  varying  a
\ncondition of  service. The  facts of Purohit’s case and what
\nwas decided  in that  case have\t been summarized  in  Shujat
\nAli’s case as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “What happened  in State of Mysore v. G.B. Purohit<\/a>
\n\t  was that  the districtwise  seniority of  Sanitary
\n\t  Inspectors was  changed to Statewise seniority and
\n\t  as a\tresult of  this change, the respondents went
\n\t  down in seniority and became very junior. This, it
\n\t  was urged,  affected their  chances  of  promotion
\n\t  which\t  were\t protected…This   contention\t was
\n\t  negatived and Wanchoo J., as he then was, speaking
\n\t  on behalf  of this  Court observed:  It is said on
\n\t  behalf of the respondents that as their chances of
\n\t  promotion have  been affected\t their conditions of
\n\t  service have\tbeen changed  to their disadvantage.
\n\t  We see  no force  in this argument because chances
\n\t  of promotion are not conditions of service.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The fact  that as\ta result  of  the  changes  made  by
\ncircular No.  6 the  complainants lost\ta few  places in the
\npanel affects  their chances  of promotion but not the right
\nto be considered for promotion.\n<\/p>\n
123<\/span><\/p>\n
that being  so, it  cannot be said that the alterations made
\nby circular  No. 6  amount to  changing\t the  conditions  of
\nservice of  the complainants;  the  grievance  made  by\t the
\ncomplainants does  not therefore  appear to  have any basis.
\nThe appeals  are  accordingly  allowed\tand  the  complaints
\ndismissed, in the circumstances of the case the parties will
\nbear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.D.K.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n124<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1699, 1982 SCR (1) 107 Author: A Gupta Bench: Gupta, A.C. PETITIONER: RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: C.T. DIGHE AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/07\/1981 BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. PATHAK, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nReserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1981-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-16T21:13:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-16T21:13:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981\"},\"wordCount\":5158,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981\",\"name\":\"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-16T21:13:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-16T21:13:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981","datePublished":"1981-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-16T21:13:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981"},"wordCount":5158,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981","name":"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-16T21:13:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/reserve-bank-of-india-bombay-vs-c-t-dighe-and-others-on-27-july-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reserve Bank Of India, Bombay vs C.T. Dighe And Others on 27 July, 1981"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}