# Antud Nara.Jan Surku.t . - l!IU c It ALU v. baJI/ N•41aa Sur"-l

- **Citation:** [1964] 3 S.C.R. 256
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-03-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 787 and 731-752of1962
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/antud-nara-jan-surku-t-l-iu-c-it-alu-v-baji-n-41aa-sur-l-2886
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Industrial Dispute-Special allowance-Cashiers in charge
of cash-Single lock-box-Sastri Award, para. 164 (b) (7)-
Whether applicable to branches-Application under s. 330 (2),
Whether maintainable-lnd1otrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947), s. 330 (2).
Applications were filed by respondents, employees of
the appellant, under s. 330 (2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947, claiming special allowance admi8'ible to cashiers in
charge of cash in accordance with para 164 (b) { 7) of the
Sastry A ward on the ground that they were cashiers in charge
of cash in the branches in which they worked. Their claims
were allowed by the Central
Government Labour Court,
Delhi. The appellant came to this C..:ourt by special leave.
The contentions raised by the appellant were
that
applications under s. 330 (2) were not maintainable and the
Lahour Court had n.1 jurisdiction to deal with them, that the
respondents were working at a .Branch and not at a pay office
and therefore were not entitled to any special allowance under
para. 164 (b} (7) of the Sastry Award and that the respondents
could not be said to be Cashiers in chacge of cash at the
Branch .where they were working and therefore were not entit·
led to special allowance. None of the respondents was solely
or singly incharge of ca•h at the Branch and was mertly a
routine clerk even though he w~s ha,ndling cash
Held that applications under s. 330 (2) were· maintainable and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide them.
The respondents were entitled to the special allowance
as they were ca•hiers in char~e of cash at the Branch where
they worked. Para 164 (b) (7) of the Sa•try Award applied
not only to pay offices but also to branches of the banks.
The respondents were not mere routine clerks. They were
cashiers in charge of cash in the branches in which they worked.
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
257
Their duties and responsibilitks were of a 11.igher nature than
those of mere routine clerks. They were solely incharge of
the cash department of the Bank in which they worked. They
did both receiving and paying work and took charge of the
cash in the single lock box first thing in the morning and made
over charge of the single lock box last thing in the evening.
Routine clerks in the cash department may be paying
clerks, receiving clerks or even paying-cum-receiving clerko,
but they would not be entitled to any allowance unless it was
shown that they were in sole charge of the cash in the single
lock in the particular branch. That can only happen where
there is a single clerk doing the work of both receiving and
paying in the ca•h department of a branch. When the cash
department consist. of more
~han one person, it is only one
person, whether he is calied the Head Cashier or Assistant
Cashier, who would be in charge and would get an allowance
and not the other clerks working in the ca•h department who
may be doing either receiving work or paying work or even
both paying and receiving work.
Otmral Bank of India v. P. 8. Rajagopalan, C. A.
No. 823-826 of 62, dated 19,4.63.

## Text

256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
1963
THE CAN ARA BANK LTD.
April 22.
11.
•
ANANT NARAYAN SURKUND AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO,
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Special allowance-Cashiers in charge
of cash-Single lock-box-Sastri Award, para. 164 (b) (7)-
Whether applicable to branches-Application under s. 330 (2),
Whether maintainable-lnd1otrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947), s. 330 (2).
Applications were filed by respondents, employees of
the appellant, under s. 330 (2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947, claiming special allowance admi8'ible to cashiers in
charge of cash in accordance with para 164 (b) { 7) of the
Sastry A ward on the ground that they were cashiers in charge
of cash in the branches in which they worked. Their claims
were allowed by the Central
Government Labour Court,
Delhi. The appellant came to this C..:ourt by special leave.
The contentions raised by the appellant were
that
applications under s. 330 (2) were not maintainable and the
Lahour Court had n.1 jurisdiction to deal with them, that the
respondents were working at a .Branch and not at a pay office
and therefore were not entitled to any special allowance under
para. 164 (b} (7) of the Sastry Award and that the respondents
could not be said to be Cashiers in chacge of cash at the
Branch .where they were working and therefore were not entit·
led to special allowance. None of the respondents was solely
or singly incharge of ca•h at the Branch and was mertly a
routine clerk even though he w~s ha,ndling cash
Held that applications under s. 330 (2) were· maintainable and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide them.
The respondents were entitled to the special allowance
as they were ca•hiers in char~e of cash at the Branch where
they worked. Para 164 (b) (7) of the Sa•try Award applied
not only to pay offices but also to branches of the banks.
The respondents were not mere routine clerks. They were
cashiers in charge of cash in the branches in which they worked.
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
257
Their duties and responsibilitks were of a 11.igher nature than
those of mere routine clerks. They were solely incharge of
the cash department of the Bank in which they worked. They
did both receiving and paying work and took charge of the
cash in the single lock box first thing in the morning and made
over charge of the single lock box last thing in the evening.
Routine clerks in the cash department may be paying
clerks, receiving clerks or even paying-cum-receiving clerko,
but they would not be entitled to any allowance unless it was
shown that they were in sole charge of the cash in the single
lock in the particular branch. That can only happen where
there is a single clerk doing the work of both receiving and
paying in the ca•h department of a branch. When the cash
department consist. of more
~han one person, it is only one
person, whether he is calied the Head Cashier or Assistant
Cashier, who would be in charge and would get an allowance
and not the other clerks working in the ca•h department who
may be doing either receiving work or paying work or even
both paying and receiving work.
Otmral Bank of India v. P. 8. Rajagopalan, C. A.
No. 823-826 of 62, dated 19,4.63.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 787 and 731-752of1962.
Appeals by special leave from the cutler dated
March 16, 1962, and February 14, 1962 •f the
Central Government Labour Ceurt at Delhi in
L. C. As. Nos. 212 of 1962 and 869-ii and 937·9~6 ef
1961 respectively.
N. V. Phadke, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath
and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant (in C. A.
L No. 787 of 62).
S. N. Andley, for
the appellant (in C. As.
Nos. 731-752 of 62).
V. K. Krishna Menon, M. K. Ramamurthi,
R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. 0. Agarwal, for the
respondent {in C. A. No. 787 of 62).
196J
C111•ra Btrnk Lt~
v.
Antud Nara.Jan
Surku.t
. -
l!IU
c....It..ALU.
v.
baJI/ N•41aa
Sur"-l
W .... J.
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1964]\'0t.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri,. V. K.
Krishna
Menon, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh
and S. 0. Agarwal, for respondents, (in G. As.
Nos. 731-752 of 1962).
1963. April 22. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
WANOHoo J.- These appeals by special leave
arise from the orders of the Central Government .
Labour Court, Delhi, and will be dealt with together
as they raise the sam~ point. Appeals Nos. 731 to
752 are · by the Canara Industrial and Banking
Syndicate Limited while Appeal No. 787 is by the
Canara Bank Limited. In all these appeals there
were applications· by the employees of the two banks
under s. 33.c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, No.14
of 194 7, (herinafter referred to as the Act), which
have ,been allowed by the tribunal.
We shall give the facts in appeal No. 787 in
detail. The respondent in that appeal is a clerk employed by the bank at its Bandra branch and has been
working there since his appointment in October 11153.
The respondent claimed that he was entitled to a
special allowance of Rs. 15/- per month admissible to
cashiers in-charge of cash in pay offices in accordance
with para 164(b) (7) of the All India Indvstrial
Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award, (popularly known
as the Sastry award). He further claimed that he worked as cashier in-charge of cash at Worli and Bandra
branches of the bank and was entrusted with the sole
charge of handling cash as there was nobody else to
assist him.
He was doing the work both of receiving
and paying and was solely responsible in respect
thereof to the bank.
As such he was entitled to the
special allowance of Rs. 15/- per month under the
Sastry award, but the bank did not pay him the
amount. The respondent therefore prayed that the
benefit due to him may be computed in terms ttf
money and necessary order passed thereon ..
'
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
259
The bank resisted the claim of the respondent
and its case was (firstly) that such an application waa
not entertainable under s. 33-C (2) of the Act and the
labour court had no jurisdiction to decide it,
(secondly) that the respondent was working at a
branch and not at a pay office and therefore was not
entitled to any special allowance under para 164 (b)
(7) of the Sastry award, and (thirdly) that in any
case the respondent cannot be said to be a cashier incharge of cash at the branch where he was working
and therefore was not en tit led to any allowance.
The bank's contention in this connection was that
none of its employees was solely or singly in-charge of
cash at any of its branches and therefore the respondent could not claim any special allowance, particularly as he was merely a routine clerk even though
he was handling cash.
The tribunal went into the evidence as to the
duties of Shri A.N. Surkand respondent and found
that the respondent was doing the combined work of
both receiving and paying cash.' It relied in this
connection on a decision of Shri Jeejeebhoy in a
reference in Dev Karan Nanjee Banking Oo. v. Workmen (') under s. 6 of the Industrial Disputes (Banking
Companies) Decision Act, 1955, and held that as the
respondent was the sole clerk in the branch doing
the work of both receiving and paying cash and was
thus in-charge of the cash of the branch, he would be
entitled to the special allowance provided for cashiers
in-charge of cash at pay offices. It therefore passed an
order in favour of the respondent.
There is no doubt that the respondent, Anant
Narayan Surkand, was the sole paying and receiving
clerk in the bank's branch and there was no other
clerk working in the cash department. The manual
of instructions issued by the bank shows exactly what
the procedure is in the matter of dealing with cash.
According to this manual, at. the commencement of
(1) Oeatral ~I
l11<hulrlal Tribunal (Bombay) No, 2S of 1959.
/96J
Canara Bed Lti.
v.
411Qnt Narayan
· Su,kun'
W•ndioo J.
/95S
v.
AnaPll N01a_,an
Surkt1nd
Wa11c~oo J.
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] vot.
the day's business, the bank's strong-room is opened
by the Agent and the second key-holder who are iu
joint charge with independent · keys, of what may be
called the double lock.
An estimate of the day's
probable requirement is made and funds are withdrawn accordingly. The amount so withdrawn is
taken by the shroff (i. e. paying-cum-receiving clerk).
The box containing the shroff's overnight cash balance
(single lock) is also taken out of the strong-room and is
handed over to the shroff, who is to count the
balance in the single lock box when receiving it in the
morning.
At the close of the day's business, the
Agent takes over the cash ·held by the shroff. The
cash under single lock is also to be checked in the
presence of the shroff. Surplus cash.is returned to
the Agent and . all entries in the shroff's cash book
relating to sums taken out and placed in the double
lock are initialled by the Agent.
·These instructions show exactly what the shroff
(i. e. paying-cum-receiving clerk) has to do during the
course of the day. He receives first thing in the
morning the amount in the single lock and such
further sums as may be withdrawn from the double
lock.
He carries on both receiving and paying
transactions during the course of the day with the
help of the cash put at his disposal in the morning.
At the end of the day he has to· give an account to
the Agent and if the Agent thinks that there is surplus
cash after day's transactions he may withdraw the
surplus cash from the single lock and put it in the
double lock.
Thus throughout the day the receivingcum-paying clerk is in-charge of the cash in the
single lock and has to account for it at the end of the
day. There is no evidence in appeal No. 787 as to
who keeps the key of the single lock box, though in
the other group of appeals where also the facts are
similar, we have the further evidence that the key
of the single lock box is kept by the paying-cumreceiving clerk, whose duties are the same as the
-
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
261
duties of the shroff' (i. e. paying-cum-receiving clerk)
in appeal No. 787. It is on this evidence that we
have to determine whether the Central Government
Labour Court was right in coming to the conclusion
to which it did.
The question whether such
an application
under s. 330 (2) of the Act was entertainable by the
labour court and whether that court had jurisdiction
to decide it has been considered by this Court in
Oentral Bank of India Limited v. P. 8. Rajgopalan (' ).
It has been held there that an application of
this kind is maintainable and therefore the contention of the banks in this behalf must fail.
We are further of opinion that there is no force
in the second contention of the banks either. It is
true that para 164 (b) (7) of the Sastry award speaks
of cashiers in-charge of cash at pay offices.
We
recognise that strictly speaking a branch of the bank
is not the same thing as a pay office; but the question
whether the provision of para 164 (b) (7) would
apply to a branch was referred to Shri Jeejeebhoy
for clarification under s. 6 of the Industrial Disputes
(Banking Companies) Decision Act, 1955, (XLI of
1955) and Shri Jeejeebhoy held in 1959 that the use
of the words "pay office" was not intended to have a
restricted meaning referring only to those units which
actually had the designation of pay office and would
also apply to a branch in proper circumstances.
Shri Jeejeebhoy who made this clarification was the
Chairman of the tribunal which heard thr appeals
from the Sastry Award and gave the decision which
is known as the Labour Appellate Tribunal Decision
(Bank Disputes). In these circumstances the clarification as it comes from such a tribunal should be
accepted, particularly as it has stood unchallenged
since it was given in 1959.
The contention of the
banks therefore that para 164 (b) (7) would not
Ill tl964j Vol, SS. 0, R, Ii\'-
1963
r:anar• B"nk Ltd.
v.
An4nl N ar•1a•
Ssrku•d
1963
Canara Bank Ltd.
v.
An:ant Narayan
Surkund
Wanchoa J,
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (196<!] VOL.
apply in these cases because these · are cases of
branches and not of pay offices must ~ail.
We now come to the merits of the case. The main
. dispute that has been raised in that connection is that
cashiers with whom we are concerned are not cashiers
in-charge of cash.
The principal reason given on
behalf of the banks in this connection is that no
single person is in-charge of cash in a branch and
therefore the workmen concerned are not cashiers
in-charge. This argument in our opinion is disinge- ·
nuous. What the banks contend is that the person
in-charge of cash in a branch can only be the Agent
au\i the second key-holder. and no-one else. There
is uo doubt that the overall charge of cash, securities,
jcweliery and everything else in the double lock of
the bank is that of the Agent and the second keyholder; but that in our opinion does not dispose of
the matter, for on that view there can be no cashier
in-charge of cash in a branch however responsible
may be hi.s duty. We cannot therefore accept the
argument on behalf of the banks that unless the
cashier holds one of the keys of the double lock
he cannot be said to be in-charge of cash in the
branch. Generally speaking, no cashier would be
holding the second key of the double lock. That
would generally be held by some officer subordinate
to the Agent except in the case of very small branches where there is no ·officer other than the Agent.
On this view the clarification made by Shri
Jeejeebboy to the effect that when cl. (7) of para
164 (b) used the words "pay offices" it included
branches also would become practically useless, for
as we have said above it would be a very small
branch indeed where there would not be a second
officer to act as the second key-holder of the double
lock. We are therefore of opinion that when cl. (7)
of para 164 (b) uses the words "cashiers in-charge"
it refers to charge of cash in the single lock and not
charge of cash in the. double lock, and it is in that
..
-
...
3 S.C:.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
283
view that we have to see whether the workmen concerned in the present appeals were in-charge of cash
in the single lock.
On that point there can only be one answer
in our opinion. We have already indicated the
procedure that is in use in the branches with which
we are concerned and that shows that the sole receiving-cum-paying clerk is the person in-charge of the
single lock throughout the day when transactions are
goinf( on in the bank.
He takes charge of the cash
in the single lock first thing in the morning and
gives over charge of the balance of cash in the single
lock last thing in the day whereafter the single lock
box is put in the double lock. It is true that thereafter such a cashier is not in-charge of the cash in
the single lock after the single lock box is put in the
double lock and· theoretically the Agent and the
second key-holder are in-charge of the single lock
box as they are in-charge of whatever else there is in
the double lqck. But when cl. (7) of para 164 (b)
referq to charge of cash it can only be such charge as
is effective i. e. during the day while transactions
are going on in the bank. Therefore we are of
opinion that where there is a single cashier in a
branch who is doing both receiving and paying work
he must on the strength of the procedure that has
been given above be held in-charge of cash in the
single lock within the meaning of cl. (7). Our attention in this connection was drawn to the darification
made by Shri J eejeebhoy where the cashier was
concerned with other duties also besides being incharge of cash in the sense which we have mentioned
above.
That may be so.
But that in our opinion is
immaterial, for cl. (7) only speaks of charge of cash;
it does not speak of charge of securities or jewellery
etc., that may be in the bank or of other duties.
As
soon as a person is in-charge of cash in a branch in
the sense that he is the sole person in the cash department of the bank and is doing both receiving and
1'13
c-r• &nri LIL
v.
""""' x_,.,.
SUI'-
w..m •• J.
IMS
Ca•••• BIJllk Lii,
y,
A.nonl J{ar9a•
SurbuW
w.n<hoo '·
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL.
paying work and takes charge of the cash in the
single lock box first thing in the morning and makes
over charge of the single lock box last thing in the
evening, he must be held to be a cashier in -charge of
cash in a branch office. The evidence in the present
cases shows that the clerks concerned take charge of
the single lock box first thing in the morning.
Each
of them is the sole clerk in the cash department doing
both receiving and paying out cash throughout the
day when the bank is open and makes over charge of
the single lock box at the end of the day whereafter
the single lock box is kept in the double lock. In
these circumstances these clerks must be held to be
cashiers in-charge of cash in a .branch and as the
words "pay offices" used in cl. (7) have been clarified
as including a branch these cashiers would be entitled
to the special allowance mentioned in cl. (7).
We may in this connection refer to para 140 of
the Labour Appellate Tribunal decision where after
mentioning some equivalents the Appellate Tribunal
said that it must be left to the banks to pay the
appropriate allowances having regard to the duties
and responsibilities of a post. The intention therefore
of providing ~pecial allowance in para 164 ( b) was to
give something over and above the basic pay to those
clerks who had higher duties and responsibilities as
compared to routine clerks.
We are -of opinion that
the test is satisfied in the case of cashiers with whom
we are concerned, for they being the sole persons in
the cash department, they are in-charge of the cash
in the single lock box during the working hours of
the bank and their duties and responsibilities are
obviously· of a higher nature than those of mere routine
clerk.
Learned counsel for the appellants drew our
attention to another part of para 164 of the Sastry
Award which mentions the categories of employees
deserving special consideration and therefore fit for
•
3 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 265
special allowance and those categories include cashiers (other than routine clerks). It is urged that when
allowances were provided for cashiers in para 164(b),
the intention was to exclude routine clerks in the cash
department. These routine clerks in the cash department, it is urged, can be either paying clerks or
receiving clerks or paying-cum-receiving clerks. Assuming that is so, it does not follow that clerks like
the cashiers in the present cases were not in tended to
be entitled to a special allowance.
The reason
for this special allowance for cashiers was that they
were in-charge of cash and that, as we have explained means that they should be in sole charge of the
cash in the single lock box. Now routine clerks
in the cash department may be paying clerks, receiving clerks or even paying-cum-receiving clerks; but
they would not be entitled to any allowance unless it
was shown that they were in sole charge of the cash in
the single lock in the particular branch. That can only
happen when there is a single clerk doing the work
of both receiving and paying in the cash department
of a branch, for then only it can be said that he is in
sole charge of the cash in the single lock box of the
bank during the working hours. The words "other
than routine clerks" used in para 164 (b) are made
clear by four entries in the said paragraph, namely,
clauses 3,4,5 and 6.
These clauses provide for special
allowance for head cashiers. Uoits of 5 clerks and
above (cl. 3), for head cashiers, units of four clerks
and below (cl. 4), for assistant cashiers {above the
level of routine clerks, units of 5 clerks and above,
(cl. 5), and for assistant cashiers (above the level of
routine clerks), units of four clerks and below, (cl. 6).
These clauses will show that when the cash department consists of more than one person it is only one
person, whether he is called the head cashier or
assistant cashier, who would be in-charge and would
get an allowance and not the other clerks working in
the cash department who may be doing either receiving work or paying work or even both paying and
l96J
c ... ,. Bou Ltt.
v.
Ani11nt N•r•7ar1
S•rkUIUI
196~
---
Canar11. Bank Ltd.
v.
A_nant N•ray«n
Sur~u,,d
Wanchoo J.
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
receiving wo1k.
The reason why the clerks in the
present appeals are entitled to allowance is that they
are the sole clerks doing both receiving and paying
work and they have to take charge of the single lock
box in the morning and are responsible for it through-
- out the day and make over charge of the single lock
_box in the evening when the bank closes for the day.
It is only such sole clerks in the cash department of a
branch who would be entitled to an allowance under
cl. (7) of para 164 (b ).
Again our attention is drawn to paras 129 and
130 of the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
It seems to have· been llrged before the Appellate
Tribunal that receiving and paying cashiers should be
granted special allowance; but that was rejected. It
is urged that in view of this rejection it is not open to
the _workmen to urge that clerks like those with
whom we are concerned in the present appeals are
entitled to the allowance under para 164 (b) (7). In
the first place it appears to us on reading para 130 that
what was contemplated therein was receiving clerks
and paying clerks and not receiving-cum-paying clerks.
If that is so, the rejection of the allowance for receiving clerks and paying clerks will not affect the case
of receiving-cum-paying clerks.
But even if the
words used include receiving-cum-paying clerks that
does not again mean that receiving-cum-paying
clerks who are in sole charge of cash should not get
the allowance under para 164 (b).. It is clear to us
that when the case of receiving-cum-paying clerks
was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal it referred
only to those receiving-cum-paying clerks who were
not in-charge of cash, for it may be possible for a
bank to have a receiving-cnm-paying clerk along
with (say) a head cashier, and in such a case it is
only the head cashier who is entitled to the allwance
as he would be the person in charge and supervising
the work of other clerks,
'
I
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 267
Lastly it is urged that if this interpretation is
put on para 164 (b)
(7), it will create some
a\\omalies. It is pointed out in this connection that
in cl. ( 4) head cashiers (units of four clerks and
below) will get only Rs. ll/- in B class banks and
Rs. 8/- in C class banks as special allowance while
cashiers in -charge of cash like the clerks in the present
appeals would get Rs. 15/- in a B class bank and
Rs. 12/- in a C class bank as allowance. We however
find no anomaly in the fact that cashiers in-charge of
cash im pay offices (which words include branches)
would get a little more as allowance than head
cashiers in cl. ( 4) who have a unit of four clerks or
less. It may well have been thought by the Sastry
Tribunal that a sole cashier in-charge of cash in a cash
department doing both receiving and paying work
may have greater responsibility than a head-cashier
with four or less clerks below him. In any case this
difference in the allowance cannot in our opinion
affect the clear meaning of para 164 (b) (7).
In appeals 731-752, the facts are exactly the
same with this addition that the sole clerk doing
receiving as well as paying work in the branches of
this bank further has the key of the single lock box
always in his charge while in appeal No. 787 there is
no evidence as to who keeps the key of the single lock
box after it is put in the double lock.
That in our
opinion makes no difference to the responsibility and
in any case would be an added reason for the sole
clerks in the cash department in appeals Nos. 731 to
7 52 getting special allowance.
We therefore dismiss the appeals with costs, one
set of hearing fee.
Appeals di&missed.
-----
J9iJ
Q4n11ra Ba11k Ltd.
v.
Anant .Nar(!,,'lan
Surkr1nd
Wanchot1 J.