Management of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Vasudev Anant Bhide Etc.

Judgment

MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD V ASUDEV ANANT BHIDE ETC. April 24, 1969 [J. M. SHELAT, V.1 BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ.] Industrial Dlspute-rSastry and Desai Awards-Head Cashiers-Claim to special allowance a$ supervisors-When permissible. The appellan\-Banli! and its employees were parties to the Sastry and Desai Awards published on March 26, 1953 and June 13, 1962 respectively. The two awa~ds provided for the· grant of allowance to head cashi<1<s and a special !allowance to supervisors when a person falls in the category of a supervi'l"f, or is found eligible to be put in \hat category, by whatever nomeru:l~ such person may be designated, in view di the supervisory nature of the duties and functions assigned to him.

But in paragraph 338, the Sllstry Award· rejected the demand made by head cashiers to be treated! as supervisors while fixing emoluments appropriate to the position of supervisors, and the Desai Award, in paragraph 5.249, rejected a timilar de'1and by head <:ashiers for giving them supervisory. grades. The resP<>ndents in the present case were headcashiers elf the appellant- Bank and were receiving the special allowance due to them as head cashiers. The duties I and functions of head cashiers were set out in .the agreements entered ihlo between the Bank and the head cashiers. Tue items of work done pyl· the respondents were those usually done by head cashiers. They were also doing some items of work which could be call· ed supervisory. They filed applications before the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) of the Inaustrial Disputes Act, 1947, and claimed payment of the special allowance granted lo supervisors.

The Labour Court found· that the respondents 1 were discharging some supervisory functions wit»put specifying which paiit of their work was of a supervisory nature, and ollowed the clai!", , In appeal to thisl Court, HELD : ( 1) ~ Labour Court had been specified and conferred jurisdiction to entertain the applications. [374F] (2) The status ~ an emeloyee. as to whether he is a head cashie,nir. supervisor is not a Pure queslt<?n of fact and has to be in'ferred as a matter of law from the faqts found by the Labour Court. The !))ere fact that a· person whose dutie( are essentially and mainly that of a headcashier, for whom also a s~ial allowanee was payable under the two awards, :performs occasionally pr casually or as incidental to his work as a head,-· cashier, duties which may be characterised as supervisory, will not entitle him to claim the special allowance granted to ~ supervisor under the two awards.

The two lawards dealt with headcashiers and supervisors as entirely different° categories. -Only persons falling under the category of supervisors or disc'f!._~gi"ng functlons which were mainly or essenrially of a. · supervisory nature, ·Were treated as supervisors; and headcashiers were not treated on a par 'fith supervisors, because, the functions discharged by headcashiers and sijpervisors materially differ. If headcashiers were treat· ed as supervisora merely because they did some work of a supervisory. nature there shoUicl be no distinction between the two cate&0ries. [3778.C,. · 0-H; 378B-C; 3820'H; 383A.C; 384B-E] [1970] I s.c.R. In the present case, the work. done by the respondents, on thtir own admission and on tbe findings of the Labour Court, consisted of Ollly items of work which a beadcashier was bound to do. They never claimed that they fell within the category of supervisors or discharging any work essentially of a supervisory nature.

The work might have been important, responsible and onerous but on thal basis they were not entitled to the special allowance as supervisors. Even the few items of work claimed by them to be supervisory were really done by them as incidental to their main duties as headcasbiers. It was not necessa!¥ to remand the matter to the Labour Coun for investigation as to which parts of the item! of work claimed to have been done by the respondenlll could be dlaracterised as supervisory functions, because, the respondents only claimed that in the diocharge <1f their work as headcashiers, they were doina certain items of work which were of a supervisory nature, and not that they have been doing any wort which was essentially of a supervisory natnre. [3830-H; 3860-E; 387C-DJ Lloyds .• Bank v. Panna Lal Gupta, [1961] I L.L.J. 18 (S.C.); Pu11jab National Bcnk Ltd. v. Th•ir Workmm, (1961) ll L.L.J. 162 (S.C.) and 'Ea:i.rn Bank v. Shivdas Vishnu Naik [1963) II L.L.J. 36S (S.C.) referred CML APPELLATE JUIUSDICTION :

Civil Appeals Nos. 1916 to 1918 of 1968. Appeals by special leave from the order dated May 13, 1968 of the Labour Court (Central), Hyderabad in Civil Misc. Petitions N0s. 115 of 1963 and 4 and 5 of 1965. C. B. Agarwa/a, K. Srinivasamurthi, B. P. Singh and Naunir Lal, for the appellant (in all the appeals). H. R. Gokhale, M. K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for the Tespondent (in C.A. No. 1916 of 1968). M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu, J. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for the respondent (in C.A. Nos. 1917 and 1918 ol 1968). The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by Valdlalingam, J, These three appeals, by special leave, by the management of State Bank of Hyderabad are directed against the common order, dated May 13, 1968, passed by the Labour Court (Central), Hyderabad, allowing applications filed by each of the respondents herein under s. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act).

The claim of the respondents in each of these appeals was for payment of the special allowance granted to Supervisods under what are commonly known as the Sastry and Desai Awards. The Labour Court has accepted their claims in full and the management have come up in appeal to this Court. The short question ·which is raised for our decisions is whether the Labour Court was right in holding that the three respondents could claim the status of Supervisors entitled to the supervisory allowance tJilloC!er the Sastry and Desai Awards. Three applications, Central Miscellaneous Petitions N?s. 115 of 1963 and 4 and 5 of 1965 were filed by the respective res. pondents before the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) of the Act. As the averments cqntained in each of these applications were more or less common and the basis of the claim for special allowance was also the same,1 we will refer to the averments made in Application No. 115 of 1963 filed by Vasudev Ainant Bhide.

The ,defence raised by the management was also the same in ·all the three applicati?ns. Ln C.M.P. No.i 115 of 1963 Bhide has stated that he was working as an employee under the appellant as Head Cashier, in charge of the Ci!sb Department, at various branches from 1946 till the date of his filing the application viz., August 31, 1963 and, as such he was entitled to receive the special allowance under the Sastry Award, as modified, and also under the Delai Award. From 1946 to 1953 he was the Head Cashier and as such had to contr~l and supervise the work of seven empIOyees, including three Casbeirs, one Godown-keeper and one Cliowlddar. During 1953-55 he was in charge of the Cash Depmtinlllllt at Aurangabad Br~ch and as such he had to control and llllplll"· vise the work of six to seven employees, including four to fiw · Cashiers, one GOillown-keeper and one Chowkidar.

During 1955-58 he was Head Cashier at the Secunderabad Branch and as such he was hit charge of the Cash Dei;>artment and had to control and supervise the work of 28 Cashiers, one Godown- . keeper and one Cll.owkidar working under him. Later on he was the Head Cashier in Mahaboob Nagar Branch till the date of the application and a5 such he was controlling and supervising the work of 9 Casme~, 2 Godown-keepers and 3 Chowkidars. In paragraph 3 of his application, Bhide sets out the duties dis- · charged by him as Head Cashier as-follows : "

1In ch6-ge of Cash Department, which includes the checking, controlling and supervision of the work of Cashiers, Godown Keepers and Chowkidars working under hi*1.

2Issuing receipts to the public for payments made upto Rs. 10,.000/- independently, without the counter~ signing of t!1e same by any other Officer with signing authority.

3Being .the Joint Custodian of the Currency Chest, Coin Depot,' Safe Custody of Gold Ornaments and rental docunients along with Manager or any other joint SUPREMI COURT REPORTS [1970] l S.C.R, custodian and the applicant held responsible for any shortages therein, and for any omissions or commissions in this regard. It may be added here that the other Joint Custodian is allowed a Special Allowance of Rs. 50 to Rs. 75 per month as per classificatioo of the Bank in respect of this particular special responsibility, while the applicant is not given any special allowance for the same.

4Verification of vernacular signatures on cheques and drafts of any value.

5Verification, valuation and purchase of Bills from Constituents and !o check up and satisfy himself that the same ·is supported by genuine trade and docW11entary bills and whether the same covers the bill amount in question. It may be noted here that this special supervisory function is not entrusted to the Head Ca~hiers of any other Bank.

6Supervision and control of stocks, valuation, rates, deliveries of godown stocks, involving the work of godown-keeper throughout and also to countersign the pledge letters, delivery orders after due verification along with Godown Keeper. Ttll It years ago, the Head Cashier was also checking the physical stocks of goods pledged to the Bank and he was in charge and control of stock taking periodically. But this particular function has been stopped sinoe about 1 t years, while the applicant is responsible and continues to attend to and d1SCharge all other supervisory functions referred to above.

7Countersigning the pay-in-slips for cash deposited for credit of current deposit accounts, Home saving We accounts, Cash Credit accounts, and also on vouchers of Time Deposits, D.Ds. issued etc.

8Procuring financial reports on parties ar.d sign· iug the same as Head Cashier.

9To verify and sign the statements of Cash tra.nsactions operations in re.;pect of currency chest sent to Reserve Bank of India, daily, weekly, monthly and periodically, along with the other joint custodian of the Currency Chest.

10Signing all the other periodical returns, Reserve B&Qk Statements sent regularly, along with the other si&ning authority. p STATE BA~J.'. v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, J.)

11Holding the keys of Cash-in-charge, jointly with another authorised supervising officer or authority namely Manager or Accountant.

12To be responsible for the entire working of the Cash Department and for making good any shortage due to over payment or under receipt.

13To discharge finally all Cash receipt vouchers.

14To arrange despatch of insured parcels and covers containing valuable or currency notes and then get them sealed under his supervision and ill; the presenc.: of the !ICcountant, Manager or Officer-m-charge.

15To scrutinise, check and supervise the work of Cashier and ' others working in the Cash Department and also the 'messengers working in the Department.

16To distribute, allot and change duties to the employees working in Cash Department.

17To get currency notes sorted and stitched into bundles under his supervisiQ!l and check the same at the time of closing cash.

18To nominate persons to be employed under the control of the Head Cashier.

19To appoint a fit person to act for him as Head Cashier in case of his absence due to illness or otherwise, with tpe approval of the Head Office.

20The Head Cashier shall be responsible for the intra omissions of any member of the Staff under his control and for the correctness and genuineness of all hundies, clj.eques, securities, vouchers, deeds, d6cuments writipgs and signatures written in any national regional languages or character which the Head Cashier shall at any,,time during his employment as Head Cashier accept or d¢a! with as correct and genuine and he shall make good ,to the Bank any loss or damage that may be sustained by the Bank arising from any forged instrument, or signature coming into the hands of the Head Cashier in the course of his employment as Head Cashier and shall 1'e accepted or dealt with by him as correct and genuine.

21Futther, the Head Cashier shall enquire into and as far as bossible ascertain and if required to do so truly and faithfully reJ?Or! in writing about the identity, credit, solyency and c1rcurnstances of all persons being [1970] l S.C.R. subjects of Republic of India, who shall. have dealings of any kind with the Bank through the agency of the Head Cashier and shall make good to the Bank all losses and expenses by reason of any negligence or default or misr~presentation in any such enquiry or report made by the Head Cashier during the course of his employment as Head Cashier.

22The Head Cashier shall be responsible to the Bank for the safe custody of all bullion, cash securities and other property belonging to or deposited with the Bank and for the safe and proper storing, checking and keeping in the place or places appointed for the proper custody th~e<>f of th~ goods, produce and merchandise of any description whatsoever received by the Godown Keeper or Assistant Godown Keeper from time to time or brought from !ime to time imo the Bank's godowns. He shall be li~ble for any loss caused to the Bank by reason of receipt of bad or base coin or money or any forged or fraudulently altered Government Currency note or n()tes or by r.~n of payment of any money or delivery of. any· securities for money or property, effects, goods, produce or merchandise being made to wrong persons whether owing to forgery, mistake, fraud or otherwise."

In paragraph 4 he states that apart from the heavy and important responsibilities entailing the work of Head Cashier, he was regularly supervising and controlling the work done by the employees working under him w as such he was entitled to receive the Special AllowaflCC of Rs. 4 5 per month under paragraph 164(b) (9) of the Sastry Award and Rs. 60 per month under paragraph 5.282(18) of the ~ai Awaro, which is tho special allowance payable to 911pCrvisors. It is further stated by Bhide that he was paid only Rs. 25 per month as and by way of allowance and he claims the balance sum of Rs. 3577 .57 as due to him from the appellant which is a B-class Bank under the Bank Award. The management contested the claim on the following grounds. The application filed under s. 33C(2) was not main~le and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Tbc Labour Court had not been 'specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government' for entertaining applicatiqns under s.

33C(2) of the Act and therefore it had no Jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the appljcation. The applicant was a Head Cashier aud he was being /aid the special allowance dui: to him u.nder the two Awards an he ·was not entitled to claim the special allow- I STATE B~ v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, /.) ance payable to ~ Supervisor as he was not discharging any: supervisory functions. The applicant had not been controlling. and supervising the work of other employees and any such incidental work that he might have been doing was only restricted to his position and dhties as a Head Cashier. All the duties and functions referred to in his application were the normal functions and duties attached to the post of a Head Cashier and were within the terms of the agreement between the mana_gement and the employees such as :Phide functioning as Head Cashier.

None of the duties and fUnctiodl enumerated in the application bore the characteristics of being cl a.supervisory nature and such duties and functions were not beyond the legitimate sphere of a Head Cuhier. Bhide had been doing the duties of a Head Cashier and discharging the functions also of a Head Cashier. Bhide inever used to appoint nor had he appointed any person working under him; but in view of the persdnai responsibility and liabilities of the Head Cashier it was the practice fo allow him to suggest names of persons in whom ' he could have trust and confidence to work under him. He neither nominated nor appointed but merely sug-· gested names for acceptance and appointment. The appointment was actually made by other superior officers.

Bhide being a Head Cashier wail paid the fegitimate special allow"'arices payabkt to him under the ' two Awards and he was not entitled to claim the special aUowailces which were payalile only to a supervisor. i The Labour CC::ourt, in the first jnstance, decided the preliminary objection 1raised by the management that in the circumstances. mentioned by the petitioner in C.M.P. 115 of 1963 an application under, s. 33C(2) was not maintainable. This objection was over-ruled by the Labour Court _and it held that the application under s. 33C(2) was maintainable. The managen:ient Bank challenged this preliminary order before the Andhra fradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 201 oL 1964.

The High Court, by its order dated Au~st 25, 1964 upheld the order pf the Labour Court on the question of iurisdiction; but it cJireqted the Labour Court that the claim for supervisory allowance ~ould have to be considered h!lving due regard to the nature of 1 the duties and functions discharged by BbiCe and the relevant, provisions contained in the Sastry. and Desai- , Awards. 1 It was after tJle disposal or"the Writ Petition by the High Coilrt that the tw~ othe~ applications C.M.Ps. No. 4 and 5 of 1965 wero filed before . the f,abour . Court by Pyati and Deshpande respectively who were 'also Head Cashiers claiming the supervisory allowance under ilie Sastry and Desai Awards. There was a slight change made in lJiese two applications in that the applicants ~.., [1970] l S.C.R. ' ·ed that they were discharging as Head Cashiers multifarious supervisory duties enumerated by them in their applications.

The duties and functions mentioned by each of these applicants substantially tally with the awrments made in C.M.P. 115 of 1963. Pyati in his application averred that he was entitled to receive, under para. 164(b)(9) of the Sastry Award a Special Allowance of Rs. 45 per month from April 1, 1954 till December 31, 1961 but he was paid special allowance during that period only at the rate of Rs. 25 per month. He further claimed that for the period January 1, 1962 to December 31, 1963 he was entitled to receive the special allowance at the rate of Rs. 60 per month under para 5.282 of the Desai Award and he was paid only a special allowance at the rate of Rs. 25 per month. Since January 1, 1964 the Bank had been upgraded from B-class to A-dass and in consequence he claimed that he was entitled to receive a special allowance of Rs. 65 per month under the Desai Award whereas he was paid a special allowance only at the rate of Rs. 27 per month.

From November 1, 1964 he had been receiving a special allowance pf Rs. 35 per month instead of Rs. 65.-Accordingly, Pyati claimed a sum of Rs. 4696. 1 6 as due to him a~ Supervisory Special Allowance. Similarly, Deshpande, in his application C.M.P. No. 5 of 1965, claimed .a sum of Rs. 2028.95 as Supervisllry Special Allowan_cc under the two Qwards, after giving credit to the amounts of spedal allowance already paid to him. Both these applications were also contested by the managemen_t on the ground that the applicants were not doing any supervisory work and that they had been discharging the duties and functions which appertained to each of them as Head Cashier of the Bank The other objections raised by the Management in C.M.P. No. I 15 of 1963 were also raised in respect of these two applications. The three applicants gav" evidence in support of their respective claims to the effect that as Head Cashiers they were discharging supervisory duties and functions also.

The management also let in evidence to the effect that the duties and functions discharged by these three applicants were the duties and functions attached to the office of Head Cashier and that none of the applicants were discharging any supervisory functions. The Labourt Court over-ruled all the objections raised on behalf of the management and allowed the applications filed by the Head Cashiers. Issues No. 2 to 5 related to the question as to whether the three Head Cashiers were cmtitled to claim the STATE BANK v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, !.) Supervisory Special Allowance under the Sastry and Desai Awards, the nature of the functions which they were dischargmg and whether such work done by them involved any work of a supervisory nature. The Labour Court held that the various Exhibits placed before it showed heavy and onerous responsibilities on the Head Cashiers and also work involving supervision.

It further found that the P,vidence, oral and documentary, showed that the work of the Head Cashiers was partly of a highly responsible nature, partly clerical and. partly of a supervisory nature. The Labour Court further hel4 that the three applicants were discharging supervisory functions and their claims fell within the ambit of the Sastty and Desai Awards. Ultimately it found. that .the applicant had been doing the work alleged by them m their appucations and that such work done by them involved work 'supervisory in nature'. The Labour Court therefore allowed the claims in full, as asked for in the three applications. Dr. C. B. Aggarwala, learned counsel for the appellant Bank has raised the folldwing four contentions : (1) The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications under s. 33C(2) of the Act as it was not 'such Labour Court as may be specified in thi~ behalf by the appropriate Government'. (2) The applications filed under s. ,33C(2) are barred under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(3) If the claim of the Head Cashiers for the Supervisory Specia1 Allowance at the rate mentioned in the two awards is allowed,' the respondents will be drawing more than Rs. 500 per montH and, as such, they will not be 'workmen' eligible to file an application under s. 33C(2) of the Act. (4) The three respondents have been discharging only the duties and function that appertain. to the post of a Head Cashier which they were occupying and ·they were net ·discharging any supervisory functions and in cQll.sequence none of the respondents is entitled to the supervisory special a11owance u,nder the Sastry and Desai Awards. The finding of the· Labour Court that the respondents were discharging supervisory functions is not sustainable in law. Mr. H. R. G<!khale learned counsel for the respondent in C.A. No. 1916 of i968, whose contentions have been adopted by Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the respondents in C.As.

1917 and 1918 of 1968, has supported the order of the Labour Court in its entirety. Regarding the fast contention. that the Labour Court is not the one specified b~ the appropriate Government, Dr. Aggarwala has pointed out tha~ in this case the applications were filed in 1963 and 1965 and the evidence was closed and arguments were completed by November 25, 1967 on which date the case was reserved for orders. ' It was only on December 19, 1967 that the· LllSup.C. f./69-10 (1970] l S.C.R. Central Government issued the notification under sub-s. (2) of s. 33C of the Act specifying each of the Labour Courts mentioned in Column II as the Labour Court to determine the amount at which any benefit referred to in that sub-section sball be computed in terms of money in relation to workmen employed in any industry in the areas specified in Column Ill, in relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government.

Item 12 in this Notification is the Labour Court, Hyderabad, which dealt with the present applications. Therefore Dr. Aggarwal a contends that at the relev..!lnt time, that is in 1963, when C.M.P. No. 115 of 1963 was filed and in 1965 when C.P.Ms. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1965 were filed, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain those applications. As against this, Mr. Gokhale pointed out !hat the Central Government had issued a Notification on April 15, 1963 S.O. No. 1188, Ministry of Labour and Employment. and published in the Gazette of India on April 27, 1963. Item 5 ~!ates to the present Labour Court, Hyderabad, and that Court had been specified as the Labour Court for the State of Andhra Prllllesh to determine the amount at which any benefit referred to in lllb-e. (2) of s. 33C shall be computed in terms of money, in ~lltion to a workman employed in any industry in relation to whic:b. the Central Government is the appropriate Government.

0-1 further pointed out that this Notification would clearly eatablilh that as early as April 15, 1963 the Labour Court had been ipeeified and conferred jurisdiction to entertain applications under s. 33C(2) of the Act. The earliest application, C.M.P. No. 115 of 1963 was filed on August 31, 1963 on Which date the Labour Court had been specified. Counsel also points out that the Notification of December 19, 1967 relied on by the appellant was one issued in supersession of all earlier notifications in that regard. We accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that the Labour Court had been· specified under s. 33C(2) as early as April 15, 1963. It follows that this contention of Mr. Aggarwala has no substance. The second contention of Mr. Aggarwala relates to the claims being barred under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This ground of limitation has not been raised either before the Labour Court or even in the special leave applications filed in this Court. The appellant has filed C.M.P. No.1259 of 1969 for permitting him to raise this question of limitation based upon Art. 137 of the Limitation Act of 1963.

As no fresh facts had to be investigated and .the matter could be dealt with as a pure question of law, we permitted the appellant to raise this plea of limitation. As the averments in C.M.P. 1259 of 1969 will show, this plea of limitation ha~ been raised on the strength of the Full Bench judg - STATE BANK v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, /.) ment of the Bombay High Court in P. K. Porwal (Manager) v. Labour Court, Nagpur('). In this decision no doubt it has been held that Art. J 3 7 applies to applications under s. 33C(2) of the Act. Mr. Gokhale, on behalf of the respondents, urged that Art. 13 7 had no application to proceedings initiated under s. 33C(2). It has becqme unnecessary to go into, in great detail, and deal with the contention of the appellant as this contention is now concluded by a recent decision of this Court in Town Municipal Council, Athan; v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court Hubli( 2 ) which has 1disapproved the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Cpurt.

After a very elaborate reference to the corresponding provision in the earlier Limitation Act and the decisions bearing on, the same and after having due regard to the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963, this Court has held that Art. 137 of the 1963 Lirnitation Act does not apply to applications under s. 3}C(2) of ,the Act and that no limitation is prescribed for such applicatiops. Therefore the second contention also fails. · So fw; as the' thi}d contention is concerned Dr. Aggarwala ultimately s.tated that be did not press the contention, that the respondents were nbt entitled to maintain their applications as they . had ceased to be 'wdrkmen' on the date of their applications under s. 33C(2) of th!' Abt. In view of this statement by the learned counsel, it is unnecessary to consider this contention any further.

Coming to the l~t contention which is the most important, it now becomes n~ to consider the relevant scheme of the Sastry and Desaj A flards with particular reference to the directions given there.in ~garding the grant of special allowance to Supervisors. Befote we do so it is necessary to clear the ground by stating that all the three respondents were Head Cashiers and that they were paid tile sPeclal allowances due to Head Cashiers as per the Sastry and Desai Awards. The claim for supervisory allowance is made on the basis of the nature of work stated to have been done by the respondents in their respective applications which have been adverted to by us earlier.

While Bhide has stated in para 3 of his application 1 the various duties discharged by a Head Cashier which, accOrding to him, are heavy apd important, and that over and aboye th• items of work he has been regularly doing supervisory and cqntrolling duties in respect of the emplo~s working under hlm.:_Pyati and Deshpande have stated that. even , the items Qf work which &re done by a Head Cashier and which' I they were actually Cloing are themselves duties which partake of · a 'supervisory nature. The appellant Bank and its employees were all parties to the Sastry and Desai Awards. The appeftaat / (1) [1968] II. l.L.1.- ~OS. (2) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 51 [1970] l S.c.R. has filed a copy of the agreement that is usually entered into b&- tween the Bank and the Head Cashiers. The duties and functions ot a Head Cashier are set out therein and they are more or less similar to the items of work claimed to have been done by the respondents. Bhirle, who is the applicant in C.M.P. 115 of 1963, JS Witness No.7 for the •vorkmen, after referring to the various items of work done by him, states :

"I was doing such work from 1946 when I was first appointed as a head cashier. All head cashiers under the respondent do work similar to mine." :)imilarly Deshpande, the applicant in C.:-1.P. 5 of 1965, as Witness '.'lo. 1 for the wor~1»cn. stated: "As I am doing the supervisory duties mentioned in my petition I state that I am doing supervisory work in addition to being a head-cashier and hence I am claiming supervisory allowance. What all I have been doing is the dutv of a head cashier and because it involves work of a supervisory nature I am claiming supervisory allowance. . . . . The work specified by me as supervisory work done by me, was being done by the head cashiers from the time of even the inception of the Bank." Dr. Aggarwala severely criticised the findings recorded by the Labour Court on the ground that it has not stated which part of the work, if any, done by the respondents, is supervisory work.

On the other hand, the Labour Court has accepted in full the plea of the respondents that even minor items of supervisory work that may have been done by them as Head-Cashiers will entitle them to claim the supervisory special allowance. According to the appellant tl;e entire work dono by the respondents was only as Head Cashiers and no part of that work can be called supervisory so as to make them eligible to claim the special supervisory allowance. Dr. Aggarwala urged that at the time of the Sastry Award the Tribunal had an overall picture of the staff working in the various Banks as well as the duties discharged by them and it is on that basis that the Tribunal has given the various categories of persons in paragraph 164(b) of the Award and who will be eligible for the special allowance. The category of headcashiers dealt with in the Award is entirely different from the category of supervisors for whom a higher special allowance has been recognised under both the Awards.

Counsel also pointed out that the mere fact that the respon· dents, who were Ca~hiers, also incidentally did some supervisory work now aiid then will not make them eligible for getting the 8 STATB BANK v. VASUDBV (Vaidialingam, 1.) supervisory allowaoce. In order to claim the supervisory allowance, counsel urged that the parties must establish that the main or essential duties entruSted to them and actually discharged by them were duties and nmctions of a supervisory nature, which has not been established in. the present case, by any of the respondents. H all the lkad Cashiers who are already getting the special lillow.ance provided for. them un.der the two Awar?~ :ire also made eligible for the special supervISory allowance, diVISton of the various persons into different categories in the two Awards becomes meaningless and serves no purpose, and there will be no distinction between' Head Cashiers and Supervisors. Dr. Aggarwala further pointed out that at the relevant time a claim was made by the Head .Cashiers to be treated as Supervisors and this claim was rejected 'both by the Sastry Award and the Desai Award.

These as~,' counsel urged, have been totally missed and lost sight of by the ,.,abour Court when it 11ccepted the claims of the respondents. , A~rding to Dr. Aggarwala, unless a person comes under the ca1':gory of a Supervisor or discharges mainly supervisory functions, 4e will not be entitled to claim the supervisory special a1lowance. Mr. Gokhale, on the otlier hand, equa1ly vehemently urged that the question posed for consideration under contention no. 4, by the appellant, as to 'whether the respondents were carrying out supervisory functions to make them eligible for claiming the supervisory special allowance, is a pure question of fact on which the Labour Court had . recorded afinding in their· favour. He also contended that th~ Court should not interfere with a finding recorded by the Laboqr Court on such a question of fact. Mr. Gokhale also argued tJiat even if the respondents have done some items of work which appear to have some element of supervisory character, they will ~ eligible to claim the special supervisory a1lowance.

In this connection Mr. Gokliale referred us to certain statements contained in the applications filed by the respondents wherein they hll!i stated that in discharging their duties as Head Cashiers they had to do certain work of a supervisory nature. Such discharge of functions by the respondents and accepted by the Labour CoUrt, would entitle them to claim the supervisory special allowande. I We are not inclined to acceet the contention of Mr. Gokhale that the point arising Jor consideration is purely one of fact. In exercising its discretion under Article 136, this Court does not normally enter uJ?on pleas ori questions of fact and is also generally reluctant to mterfere with findings of fact recorded in a judgment or decision ~nder appeal. So in dealing with the question raised by the appCilant that the respondents had been wrongfully held entitled te plaim supervisory special allowance we will [1970] I S.C.R. proceed on the basis that the facts found by the Labour Court are correct.

The Labour Court has accepted the claim of the respondents regarding the items of work done by them, though it has not differentiated between the various items of work as to which of them is of a supervisory nature. We will also proceed on the basis that according to the Labour Court some items of work -done by the respondents as Head Cashiers can be called supervisory. But will that make them eligible for the supervisory special allowance ? The status of the three respondents has to be inferred as a matter of law from the facts found and ·therefore the question naturally arises as to whether the Labour Court has drawn the correct legal inference from the facts found by it. The Sastry Award was published in the Gazette on March 26, 1953. Chapter X of this Award deals with Special Allowances. In paragraphs 161 and 162, the Award refers to the fixation of scales of pay and d~arness allowance for clerical and subordinate staffs doing ordinary duties as such.

It also refers to the fact that there are certain posts even in those grades which require special qualifications or skill from its incumbent and an extra payment in such cases is necessary by way of recognition of the special skill and responsibility. Reference is then made to the demand for such extra payment designated as 'special allowances' and that it was with reference to work 'now performed by employees under various designations'. After referring to the various methods that could be adopted for giving a benefit to per;ons with special qualifications or skill for discharging work carrying with it a greater responsibility, the Tribunal ultimately comes to the conclusion that it has found it simpler to solve the problem by providing for a lump sum allowance called 'special allowance' in each of such cases where the Tribunal consideroo it necessary.

The Tribunal proceeds to state that it has provided only a minimum and 'in the case of big banks and particularly in their important offices it may be proper and desirable that the incumbents of such offices should be allowed more than what we have prescnbed'. In the concluding part of paragraph 162, the Tribunal states : "It may be that what we have prescribed as a minimum is less than what some big banks are at present giving and have thought it proper to give for such incumbents in some of their more important offices; but it is not feasible to provide for diverse conditions obtaining in various branches of banks where the volume of work differs to a considerable extent." In paragraph 163 the Tribunal states that it proposes to enumerate the categories for which special allowance should, in its STATE BANK y. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, J.) opinion be given.

In paragraph 164 the categories of employees who deserve to be specially considered as fit for special . albwance are given and they are : Graduates; Holders of bankmg diplomas like C.A.I.I,B. and C.A.I.B.; Comptists; Stenographers; Cashiers (other than routine clerks); Supervisors; Sub-Accountants; Clerks-in-charge; Departmental-in-charges; and Head Clerks. In clause (a) of this paragraph a special provision is made regarding the giving of two additional increments to graduates and holders of banking diplomas like C.A.I.I.B. and C.A.I.B. In clause (b) of this paragraph the rate of special allowances to be given for the other categories of employees is stated and the nine categories of C111Pioyees are also enumerated. They are to get the special allowance depending upon the bank coming under class A, B, C or D. IThe nine categories of employees enumerated in this sub-paragraph are as follows : I "1. Comptists~ 2. Head ·Odrks. and Stenographers. 3. Head C~rs :

Units of 5 clerks and above. 4. Head CaWers : Units of 4 clerks and below. 5. Assistant 1 Cashiers (above the level of routine clerks). 1Units of 5 clerks and above. 6. Assistax1t Cashiers (above the level of routine olerks). I Units of 4 clerks and below. 7. Cashierslin charge of cash in pay offices. 8. Cashiers ill charge or cash in Treasury pay offices, empJ.oyeO& in charge of pay offices or sub-offices. 9. Supervisl>rs, Superiniandents, sub-accountants, departmental-in-charges, employees in charge of treasury 1pay offices". There is a note to. the effect that in case where an employee comes within more !than one category, he should be entitled to the highest rate applicable to him. Paragraph 165 refers to a controversy that apPQl!rs to have been raised before the Tribunal as to whether some pf the categories mentioned above come under the definition of the term 'workman'. This question, we find, has been dealt with1 s~parately in Chapter XV.

Ilut it is empha· sised in paragraph l 65 what we are now providing must be under- ;:tood as the allowajlces applicable to incumbents of such of these posts where they are "workmen" '. In Chapter X~ the Tribunal deals with the question as to whether Head Cas¥ers arld certain other persons are to be treated as department-In-charges. In this connection in paragraph 338 it is mention~ by the Tribunal that some of the employees' unions demanded that head cashiers and treasurer's representatives should be treated as supervisors or heads of sections and should get emoluments appropriate to such positions of responsibility. The Tribunal does not appear to have recognised this demand and has wound up the discussion on this po~ by stating that it has 10 provide for an appropriate scale of emoluments for head cashier; or treasurer's representatives and those who do similar work.

The claim of the respondents for the special allowance a; supervisors is dealt with under paragraph 164(b)(9) of the Sastry Award. We may state that this Award was challenged by the Banks before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which substantially confirmed the directions issued in respect of payment of special allowances. The Desai Award was published in the Gazette on June 13. I 962. In Chapter V, under sub-heading (xxiii), the Award deals with supervisory staff. Io paragraph 5.196 it refers to the Sastry Tribunal having provided special allowances for supervisors at the rates mentioned therein, depending upon the class of Bank in which he is working. Jn paragraph 5.218 the Tribunal state<; that it is "left with no alternative except only to fix special allowances for workmen employed in a supervisory capacity"' as wa' done by the Sastry Tribunal, after applying to them the scales of pay provided for the clerical staff.

On this basis the Tribunal further states that it has fixed suitable allowances for supervisors in banks which come under Class A, B and C, including banks in the Excepted List. Tbe Tribunal further states : "In deciding whether a workman is entitled to supervisory allowance, the designation of the workman would not be decisive. In order to entitle a workman to such allowances what would be determinative would be the nature of the duties and functions assigned to him." Under sub-heading (xxiv) the Award deals with Special Al- IowaJ!ces. In paragraph 5.220 the Award refers to the decision of the Sastry Tribunal to provide a lumpsum allowance called special alowance to persons with special qualification or skill required for discharging work carrying with it greater responsibility.

It also refers to the further statement of the Sastry Tribunal that what it was providing was only a minimum and that in the case of big ban~s it may be proper and desirable that the 'incumbents :>f such offices' should be allowed more than what had been pres- STATE ·BA)-11: v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, J.) cribed. In paragraph 5.221 the categories of workmen employed in the various cl~ oi banks to whom special allowances were granted by the Sastry Tribunal are set out. They are the nine categories enumerated in paragraph 164(b) of tlle Sas try Award. In paragraph 5 .231 it is stated that the Sastry Award has been in operation for a long time and, as a result of decisions giv~n by Tribunals or otherwise, the categories of persons entitled to special aJJowances under the Sastry Awar4 as modified can now be regarded as fairly settled. In paragraph 5.249 the Award deals with Head Cashiers.

It refers to the demand made for giving supervisory grades to head cashiers, but this is not accepted by the Tribunal. On the other hand, an increase is made in the special allowances payable to head cashiers. The Tribunal then deals in paragraph 5.273 with Supervisors, Superintendents, Snb-Accountants and Departmental-in-charges. Here again, the Award granted an increase in the rate of special allowances for these categories of workmen depending upon their working in Banks characterised ·as A-class, B-class or C-class banks, including banks in the Excef.ted List. In paragraph 5.282 the Tribunal gives the categories of workmen and the amount of special allowances per month vthich such categories of workmen will get in A, B and C-class ltianks. There are twenty categories of workmen menti<?ned the~ein. Items 7 and 8 deal with Head Cashiers, of units of 5 clerks anti above and Head Cashiers of units of 4 clerks and below, respectijtely.

Item 18 deals with supervisors, superintendents, sub-accou.1Ji!ants and departmental-in-charges. It may be mentioned that iteu)s 7 and 8 correspond to items 3 and 4 in the Sastry Award and item 18 corresponds to i.tem no. 9 in paragraph 164(b) of the Sastry A:ward with this slight difference that employees in charge of treasilry pay-office are not dealt with under this clause. The rate of special allowMK:e is also higher" than that given under the Sastry Award. Paragraph 5.285 states that special allowances prescribed under the Award would be in supersession of those prescribed under the Sastry Award as modified. In paragraph 5.286 the Award states that special allowances are payable to employees who are workmen and who will continue to remain as workmen even after inclusion. of the amounts of such special allowance as wages.

In paragraph 5.287 it is stated that when an employee falls within more tljan one category, he will be entitled to receive the special allowan~e at the highest rate applicable to him. We may state that this i paragraJlh embodies the note appearing after the categories of eJAPloyees enUl)lerated in para 164(e) of the Sastry Award,. Pausill-g here for a minute, we may state that the Note in the Sastry 4ward and paragraph 5.287 ir: the Desai Award do not advance the case of the respondents any further. The effect SUPREMB COURT REPORTS [ 1970] 1 s.c.R. of the note is only that if an employee has been assigned work the discharge of which will bring him under two categories, one c.f which carries a higher rate of special allowance, he will be entitled to such higher rate.

In paragraph 5.288 it is noted that the Banks urged that the special allowance granted under the Award should be paid to the employees only when they were required to perform and when the~ in fact performed the special duties for the performance of whtch the allowances were prescribed. The banks also appear to have urged that such allowance should not become payable when n person is occasionally or casually asked to do some duty of the type attracting a special allowance. These contentions urged on behalf of the banks is dealt with by the Tribunal in the same paragraph as follows : "The special allowances which have been awarded are monthly special allowances. They are intended to compensate a workman for the performance of certain duties and the discharge of certain functions which constitute the normal part of the duties performed and the functions discharged by such person.

They are not intended to be paid for casual or occasional performance of such duties or the casual or occasional discharge of such functions.,, In paragraph 5.289 the Award states that a person will be entitled to a special allowance so long as he is in charge of such \\'Ork or the performance of such duties which attract such allowance, and that a person asked to work temporarily in a post carrying a special allowance would be entitled to such special allowance for such period during which he occupies that post. In paragraph 5 .290 special allowances are directed to be continued to be drawn by a permanent incumbent while on leave. In paragraph 5.291 the Award states that whenever a bank requires_ an employee to work in a post carrying a special allowance it should be done hy an order in writing to avoid any future controversy.

Having seen the relevant provisions in the two Awards, we have come to the conclusion that the scheme of both the Sastry and Desai Awards for grant of special allowance as Supervisors is th_at such specid allowances can be drawn only when a pel'Wll falls in the category of a supervisor or is found eligible to be put i11 that category, by whatever nomenclature such person may be designated, in view of the supervisory nature of the duties and functions assigned to him. The mere fact that a person whose duties are essentially and mainly that of a Head Cashier, 38 :J for whom also a special allowance is payable. ~der the tw?" Awards, perfgrms occasionally or c,asually or mc1dental . to his work as a Head Cashier, duties which may be characterised as superVisory, will not entitle h'.m to claim the higher rate of special allowance granted to a supervisor under the two Awards.

Both ·the Sastry a,nd 1:he Desai Tribunals had before them various types of persons working in the banks as well as the duties discharged by them. It is on that basis and after a careful C?ll;S!- deration of the duties so performed by them and the responsibilities attached to each po~t that the two Tribunals divided the persons into nine categories in the Sastry A ward and twenty cate· gories· in the Desai Award. We are not inclined to. ac?ept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that merely because certam items of work, which really form part of the regular work of Head Cashiers, can be consid¢red as being supervisory and are 'being done Ly the re_spondents, Jhey will .be entitled to claim the higher rate of supervisory speci'T allowance. We J:iwe alread~ referred to the evidence of the ·respondents that the work that w~ being done by them were all items of work forming part of the duties of a Head Cashier, from the inception of the bani: and all Hea1 Cashiers do similar work.

Therefore it follows that the wdrk done by the respondents, even on their own admission and on the findings of the Labour Court, consisted of only items .o.f work which a Head Cashier was bound to do; and the few ite!IIS (Jf work claimed by them to be supervisory were really done. by them as incidental to their main duties as Head Cashiers. I In this view, wb are not remanding the matter for further consideration by the1 Labour Court, for a clearer finding regarding the supervisory nature of the work done by the. respondents, becall§e none of the respondents has ever claimed thaf any of them is in the category of a supervisor, or that he has been doing work which is essentially work of a supervisory nature. -on the other hand, their specific claim is that they are doing the work of Head Cashiers and, in t1'e discharge of such work, they have also been _doing certain items which, according to them, ~e supervisory m nature.

Th~ Labour Court appears to have been impressed by the fact that 1the respondents are discharging duties which are highly responsibie, onerous and important. It has no doubt found that the respl!>ndepts are discharging supervisory functions and hence their claims come within the ambit of the Sastry and Desai Awards. But the Labour Court, as rightly point~d out by Dr. Aggarwala, has not cared to investigate which part of the items of work claimed to have been done by the respondents c.an be ch~racterise<l as supervisory functions. Further investigation on this aspect has become unnecessary in the view that we [1970] l SC.R. have expressed earlier about the circumstances under which a per52n can claim the special supervisory allowance under the two Awards and in view of the fact that none of the respondents has claimed that he has been doing work which iS essentially work of a supervisory nature.

In this connection it is also necessary to note that the appellant bank and its employees were parties to both the Sastry and Desai Awards. We have already referred to the fact that the Sastry Award advertS, in paragraph 338, to the demand made by Head Cashiers to be treated as supervisors or heads of sections. No doubt this demand was in respect of emoluments being fixed ap· propriate to position of responsibility of supervisors; but this claim was rejected by that Tribunal. A similar demand, on behalf of Head Cashiers, for giving them supervisory grades was rejected by the Desai Award in paragraph 5.249. These circumstances clearly show that the two Tribunals were not inclined to treat Head Cashiers on a par with Supervisors and that must be due to the reason that the functions discharged by the Head Cashiers and Supervisors materially differ.

The view expressed by us earlier that the Sastry and Desai Awards had in view persons falling under the category of supervisors or discharging suIJf'rvisory functions, by whatever nomenclature they may be desig· nated, is also clear from some of the statements macfe in the Awards, to which we shall refer presently. We will first take up the Sastry Award. In para 161 it is stated that the demand for extra payments, designated as 'special allowances', was made with reference to the 'nature of clerical and subordinate work now performed by employees under various designations'. In paragraph 162, again, it IS stated that the Tribunal has provided only a minimum special allowance and that it may be proper and desirable that 'the incumbents of such offi· ces' in some of the big banks should be allowed by thei.JI more than that awarded by the Tribunal. In paragraph 163 the Tr • bunal proceeds to 'enumerate the categories for which special allowances, in our opinion, be given'.

After specifying the categories of employees for whom spet;ial allowance is to be given, in paragraph 165 the Tribunal IS faced with the question as to 'whether the employees in these categories will fall within the definition of workmen'. This question is separately dealt with in Chapter XV, but in paragraph 165. regarding this aspect the Tribunal states : "What we are now providing must be understood as the allowances applicable to incumbents of such of these posts where they arc workmen". .WAn,4,~=. (VmJ~-.J.) Similarly, iii th~ Desai Award, in dealing ~~ Superyisot'Y Stall, in paragraph S.218 the Tribunal states that 1t IS left with no alternative except to ix special allowances for workmen: 'employed in a supervisory capacity' as was done by the Sastry Tribunal.

It is further stated iii the same paragraph that in deciding whether a workman is entitled to supervisory allowance, the designation of the workman would not be decisive and that in order to entitle the workman to such all~' wance what would be determinative would be the nature of the d ·cs and functions assigned to him. In paragraph 5 .221 the Tri unal itself has stated that the Sas try Tribunal provided special all ances for the 9 categories of workmen 'employed in various cl115ses of banks' as mentioned therein.

Iii dealing with a complaint made on behalf of the workmen that the Sastry Award had not specified the nature of the work to be done and the duties which were required to be performed by the various persons who were entitled to receive special allowances, the Desai ".tribunal states in para 5 .231 that the Sastry Award has been in :~ation for a long time lllld as a result of decisions given by ~bunals the categories ()f pel"S!>Qlk entitieili tp special allowances an be regarded as fairly settled. In paragraph 5,288 the Tri nal states that the special a!lowooces which have been award¢: are monthly special allowances intended to compensate a W9flabal1 for the performance of certain duties and the discharge of eerta,ln functions which constitute the normal part of the duties perfonmd and the functions discharged by such person and that tliey are not intended to be paid for casual or occasional performllllce of such duties as the casual or occasional discharge of. such runctions.

It is further mentioned in paragraph 5.289 that a person: is entitled to special allowance so long as he is in charge of suc;th lwor. k or the performance of such duties which attract such allowa ce and that a person asked to work temporarily in a post c a special allowance would be entitled to such a special allowance for such period during which he occupies that post. Mr. Gokhale, learn~ counsel for the respondent, referred us to the decision of this Court in Lloyds Bank v. Panna Lal Gupta(') and urged that the said decision is an authority for the proposition that if a per~ does work which appears to have some element of a supervisqry character, he Will be entitled to claim the supervisory allowa~ce under paragraph 164(b)(9) of the Sastry Award. In our op nion that decision does not lay down any such proposition.

In th t decision this Court had to deal with a claim made by certain cl~r"5 working in the audit department for payment. of the supervjs!>ry allowance under paragraph 164(b)(9) of the Sastry Award. tt must be stated at the outset that these (!) [1961] IL.W. 18. clerks do not come under any of the nine categories mentioned in the Sastry Award, eligible for the special allowance. The Tribu· nal had held that the clerks iii the audit department supervised the work o( almost all the persons in the establishment with a view to ensure the correctness al)d authenticity of the accounts and it further held that having regard to the nature of the duties and functions performed by them they should be tceated as 'supervisors· under category (9) of the Sastry Award. This Court set aside the award of the Lndustrial Tribunal and in so setting aside the award observed that before a clezk could claim a special allowance his work should appear to have some element of a supervisory character.

Even this prima /acie test, was enough to non-suit the three clerks therein. We do not understand this decision as lay· ing down that when any person, coming under one or other of the categories mentioned as items 1 to 8 of paragraph 164(b) can claim the higher· rate of allowance granted to supervisors coming under category 9, merely by establishing that while discharging the work which appertains to that particular category, he did some itemS of work which have an element of supervisory character. In fact, in the earlier part of the judgment it is stated that even if the three workmen before them do not by name or designation fall in category 9, 'they would neverthCiess be entitled to claim the special allowance if it appears that the duties performed by them and the functions discharged by them are similar to, or the same as, the duties or functions assigned to persons fallirig in that category'.

These observations, in our opinion, make it quite clear that before a person can claim the supervisory special allowance, he must establish that he has discharged the duties and functions which are simiiar to or the same as the duties or functions assigned to supervisors coming under category 9. This decision also makes it clear that in deciding the status cf an employee claiming the special allowance, the designation of the employee is not deci· sive and what determines the status is a consideration of the · ... nature of the duties and functions assigned to the employee toncemcd. A sirnHar claim for supervisory allowance, made by tellers in a bank, was rejected by this Court in Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Their Work111en( 1 ) on the ground that a telier does not perform supervisory functions and he does not have the status of a supervisor and that'the mere fact that the work done by a teller is responsible and onerous is not material in determining the ques· tio:i as to whether his work is supervisory in character or not.

A~ain, in Eastern Bank v. Shivdas Vishnu Naik(') this Court negatived the claim of certain routine-clerks for the special allow- (I) [!961) ll L.L.J. t6~. (c) [1963J II L.l .. J. J6•. a::ice payable to compcists, coming under category 1, on the ground that in the course of discharging their duties as routineclerks they had to operate the adding machines for the purpose of making additi911S mechanically. This Court further observed that obviously it was not the intention of the Sastry Award to make such perS911S eligible under category 1 of paragraph 164(b) as:- I "They are not descnbed as such, and the nature of the work, the responsibility attending 'to the work and the skill required of them for discharg~ the said work do not justify their claim to be comptists for the purpose of special 1111<>wance."

The work done by the Head Cashiers in the instant case may be considered very important, responsible and onerous, but, in out opinion, on the basis of the items of work claimed to be done by them, tJiey are not entitled to the special allowance as supervisors, under category 9 of paragraph 164(b) of the Sastry Award, or under the Desai Award. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the ·order of the Labour Court set aside. The three applications filed by the respondents before the Labour Court will stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. V.P.S. Appeals a/lowed.