# MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD v. V ASUDEV ANANT BHIDE ETC. !

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 365
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-04-24
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, V.1 Bhargava, C. A. Vaid!Alingam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/management-of-state-bank-of-hyderabad-v-v-asudev-anant-bhide-etc-4780
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

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 appellantBank 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]
. _ .
. : .
366
SuPREME COURT REPORTS
[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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,307 of 60,859. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39307 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
365
MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD
v.
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 appellantBank 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]
. _ .
. : .
366
SuPREME COURT REPORTS
[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
1o.
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
A
B
c
D
Lal, for the appellant (in all the appeals).
E
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).
F
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
G
H
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE BANK v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, J.)
367
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 :
"1. In 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.
2. Issuing 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.
.
'
3. Being .the Joint Custodian of the Currency Chest,
Coin Depot,' Safe Custody of Gold Ornaments and
rental docunients along with Manager or any other joint
368
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.
4. Verification of vernacular signatures on cheques
and drafts of any value.
5. Verification, 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.
6. Supervision 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.
7. Countersigning 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.
8. Procuring financial reports on parties ar.d sign·
iug the same as Head Cashier.
9. To 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.
10. Signing all the other periodical returns, Reserve
B&Qk Statements sent regularly, along with the other
si&ning authority.
A
B
c
D
p
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE BA~J.'. v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, J.)
369
11. Holding the keys of Cash-in-charge, jointly with
another authorised supervising officer or authority namely Manager or Accountant.
12. To be responsible for the entire working of the
Cash Department and for making good any shortage due
to over payment or under receipt.
13. To discharge finally all Cash receipt vouchers.
14. To 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.
15. To scrutinise, check and supervise the work of
Cashier and ' others working in the Cash Department
and also the 'messengers working in the Department.
'
16. To distribute, allot and change duties to the
employees working in Cash Department.
'
17. To get currency notes sorted and stitched into
bundles under his supervisiQ!l and check the same at the
time of closing cash.
18. To nominate persons to be employed under the
control of the Head Cashier.
19. To 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.
20. The 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.
!
21. Futther, 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
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[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.
22. The 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 allowA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
-=;:'
I
STATE B~ v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, /.)
371
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-·
D
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
•
E
F
G
H
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 ~..,
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"
-
A
B
c
D
E
F
STATE BANK v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, !.)
373
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
G
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
•
H
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
374
. ·- .,. .. -
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(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.
A
B
c
D
E
F
The second contention of Mr. Aggarwala relates to the claims
being barred under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This
G
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
H
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 -
..
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE BANK v. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, /.)
375
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
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[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
B
c
I)
E
F
G
H
8
c
D
.E
·G
H
STATB BANK v. VASUDBV (Vaidialingam, 1.)
377
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 a- finding 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
378
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[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
c
I)
F
G
H
.A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE BANK y. VASUDEV (Vaidialingam, J.)
379
•
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.