# STATF BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR v. SHRI HARi HAR NATH BHARGAVA

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 110
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-08-11
- **Case number:** Civil appeal No. 1923 of1966
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/statf-bank-of-bikaner-jaipur-v-shri-hari-har-nath-bhargava-5334
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

110
STATF BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR
v.
SHRI HARi HAR NATH BHARGAVA
August 11, 1971
1G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN
REooY, JJ.J
Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, s. · 33C(2)-Sastry Award-Power
·Of Attorney entrusting supervisory work-If entitled to supervisory
allowance for period when not called upon to discharge supervisory
functions.
A
B
The respondent, a clerk of the appellant bank, was entrusted with
C
·supervisory work and a general power of Attorney was executed. in
his favour
to endorse Hundies, cheques, warranty, Railway receipts,
pension bills and other negotiable and mercantile instruments and to
prosecute, defend, answer and oppose any suit. etc. on behalf of the
appellant bank.
The respondent filed an application before the Labour Court, Rajasthan under s. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying for computation of special allowance under the Sastri Award, on the ground
that he was discharging supervisory duties.
The Labour Court, allowed supervisory allowance of Rs. 40 p.m.
with consequential benefits. In appeal to this Court the appellant bank
contended that since the respondent was not called upon to perform the
functions enumerated in the power of attorney, he is not entitled to
any special allowance.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD : (i) The payment of a special allowance was called for when
an employee discharged duties of a supervisory nature or was accorded
the status of a person competent to discharge functions .of a supervisory
character. [115d]
·
(ii) Since the Management by the power of Attorney, had placed the
respondent in a category of persons with responsibility and entrusted
him with functions of a supervisory character and the employee was to
discharge that responsibility, he was entitled to supervisory allowance
no matter, whether he was actually called upon to discharge such functions or not for a certain period of time. [115F, 116B]
State Bank of Hyderabad v. V. A. Bhinde, [1969] 2 L. L. J. 713,
referred to.

## Text

110
STATF BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR
v.
SHRI HARi HAR NATH BHARGAVA
August 11, 1971
1G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN
REooY, JJ.J
Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, s. · 33C(2)-Sastry Award-Power
·Of Attorney entrusting supervisory work-If entitled to supervisory
allowance for period when not called upon to discharge supervisory
functions.
A
B
The respondent, a clerk of the appellant bank, was entrusted with
C
·supervisory work and a general power of Attorney was executed. in
his favour
to endorse Hundies, cheques, warranty, Railway receipts,
pension bills and other negotiable and mercantile instruments and to
prosecute, defend, answer and oppose any suit. etc. on behalf of the
appellant bank.
The respondent filed an application before the Labour Court, Rajasthan under s. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying for computation of special allowance under the Sastri Award, on the ground
that he was discharging supervisory duties.
The Labour Court, allowed supervisory allowance of Rs. 40 p.m.
with consequential benefits. In appeal to this Court the appellant bank
contended that since the respondent was not called upon to perform the
functions enumerated in the power of attorney, he is not entitled to
any special allowance.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD : (i) The payment of a special allowance was called for when
an employee discharged duties of a supervisory nature or was accorded
the status of a person competent to discharge functions .of a supervisory
character. [115d]
·
(ii) Since the Management by the power of Attorney, had placed the
respondent in a category of persons with responsibility and entrusted
him with functions of a supervisory character and the employee was to
discharge that responsibility, he was entitled to supervisory allowance
no matter, whether he was actually called upon to discharge such functions or not for a certain period of time. [115F, 116B]
State Bank of Hyderabad v. V. A. Bhinde, [1969] 2 L. L. J. 713,
referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal No. 1923 of1966.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated
February 14, 1966 of the Central Govt. Labour Court,
Rajasthan, Jaipur in Misc. Application No. CLC-4 of
1964.
G. L. Sanghi and P.M. Tiwari for the appellant
)
D
E
F
G
H
A
STATE BANK v. H. N. BHARGAVA (Mitter, I.)
111
M. K. Ramamurthi, J. . Ramamurthi and Vineet
Kumar, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
Mitter, J. This appeal by special leave is from an
order of the Central Government Labour Court, Rajasthan
passed on February 14, 1966 on an application under
s. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the
respondent, Hari Har Nath Bhargava, holding that the
latter was entitled to supervisory allowance under paragraph
c
164 (b) (9) of the Sastry Award even for the period when
the latter was not actually performing supervisory duties.
The facts in this case may be shortlx stated. The
respondent was appointed a clerk by the State Bank of
0
Jaipur in 1949. He was transferred to Kota in the year
1952. He was entrusted with supervisory work from 6th
April,· 1954. The bank executed a power-of-attorney in
his favour on May 31, 1954 in pursuance of a resolution of
its Board of Directors passed on 20th May, 1954. He was
transferred from Kota to Jaipur on July 12, 1955. On
E December 27, 1955 he was posted at Sikar where he had to
perform supervisory duties.
On January l, 1956 he was
promoted to the cadre of junior officers of the bank.
On March 31, 1964 the respondent filed an application
before the Central Government Labour Court, Rajasthan
F under s. 33-C (2) praying for computation of special allowance under what is known as the Sas try Award on the ground
that he had been discharging supervisory duties from 6th
April, 1954 to 1st January, 1956. By this time the Bank of
Jaipur had amalgamated with the Bank of Bikaner and the
amalgamated bank, the appellant before us, came to be
G known as. the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The
execution of the power of attorney dated 29th May, 1954
was admitted but the appellant denied "that the duties
entrusted to the respondent constituted performance by
him of any supervisory nature of work". A point was
also taken that although no period oflimitation is laid down
H by any statute with regard to applications under s. 33-C
of the Act the respondent's claim being a stale one should
not· be entertained.
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972]1 S.C.R.
. The appellant amended its written statement in 1965 "
wherein it was stated that the respondent was only required
to perform the functions enumerated in the power of
attorney as and when so directed by the bank. As a
matter of fact, he had been entrusted with supervisory
duties from 6th April, 1954 to 12th July, 1955 and there8
after from 27th December, 1955 to 6th January, 1956.
The respondent was examined before the Labour Court
where he said that he was "the second signatory at Kota
during the period, April 1954 to middle of July 1955".
At the Jaipur branch where he was transferred, there were c
many signatories above him, while at Sikar there was only
another such signatory and he was the second officer.
Obviously what he meant by the word "signatory" was a
person authorised by the bank to discharge the functions
covered by the power of attorney.
, . The relevant portion of ·the said power of attorney
read :-
·
"The Bai;ik do hereby nominate constitute and
appoint Shree Hari Har Nath Bhargava in the
service of the said bank at Kota to be the true
and lawful attorney of th(} said bank at its registered
office at Jaipur aforesaid or at any other place or
places in India where the said bank may . have
or establish branches or agencies and. to which
he may from time to time or at any time be appointed by the said bank as Branch Manager, Agent,
Sub-Agent, Accountant, or in any capacity
whatever for and in the name of and on behalf
of the said bank to do, transact jointly with
Secretary, Manager; Sub-Manager etc. the matters
and things mentioned thereafter."
D
E
F
G
The matters mentioned included the · endorsement of
"hundies, drafts, cheques, warrants, railway receipts, pension bills and other negotiable and mercantile instruments
and to commence, prosecute, enforce, defend, answer and
oppose any suit or other legal proceedings and demands
H
touching any matters in which the bank was or may there·.
after be _interested or concerned."
'
A
B
c
D
E
F
S'l'ATE BANK v. H. N. BHARGAVA (Mitter, J.)
11 J.
It is worthy of note that after the execution of the·
power of attorney the respondent was empowered to
discharge functions which could only be described as
supervisory in nature and unless there was a command
or direction ·that
he
should
not
act
thereon or
unless the power of attorney was cancelled his authority
to act in a supervisory capacity would continue in force.
The Sastry Award is not on record in extenso but
paragraph 164 thereof quoted by the Labour Court shows
that certain categories of employees were to be considered
as fit for special allowances. These included inter a/ia
stenographers, cashiers
(other than
routine clerks),
supervisors,
clerks-in-charge,
departmental-in-charges
and head clerks. The award noted that although scales
of basic pay and dearness allowance for clerical and subordinate staffs had been laid down for doing ordinary
duties, there were certain posts even in these grades for
which.an incumbent required special qualifications or skill
for the efficient discharge of the duties assigned and an
extra payment in such cases was necessary by way of
recognition of and compensation for the skill or responsibility. The award further noted that :
"Having regard to the numerous \:Janks of varying
sizes and resources, it is not possible to have one
general pattern of allowances for such special
types of work ....... It is neither easy nor desirable to bring them all into one fairly general
rule regardless of the bank's past practice or
present capacity."
Paragraph I 62 of the award shows that there were three
ways in which this extra payment might be provided for
G
(1) The employee might be given additional
increments in the same scale.
(2) He might be paid a lump-sum allowance
in addition to his other emoluments.
This
was said to have the advantage of carrying a
H
man even beyond the usual maximum limit.
(3) He might be given a higher scale leading up
to a higher maximum.
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 s.c.R.
According to the award it was on the whole better to adopt
either the first or the second method or sometimes even
a combination of both.
According to the Labour Court the underlying idea
behind the said award was that when one general scale for
-clerical service had been provided in the award, it was
thought just and proper that persons with special qualifications or skill required for discharging work carrying
with it greater responsibility than the usual work should
definitely get higher emoluments than the ordinary workmen. The Labour Court said that "this did not mean
that the person of the same qualifications and skill who had
been granted the powers of attorney by the bank should
be allowed special allowance only for any particular period
unless a man was temporarily appointed to do supervisory
work". In the result, the Labour Court allowed the
respondent supervisory allowance at Rs. 40 p.m. with
effect from 6th April 1954 to 31st December, 1955 with
consequential benefits'.
It is to be noted however that although a point had
been taken in the written statement of the bank about the
delay in the filling of the application under s. 33-C it had
not been pressed before the Labour Court.
Mr. Sanghi appearing for the appellant was prepared
to concede that so far as the periods 6th April, 1954 to
12th July, 1955 and 27th December, 1955 to 31st December,
1955 were concerned he was not contesting the claim.
But
in so far as the period 13th July, 1955 to 27th December,
1955 was concerned, his client was pressing the appeal as
a matter of principle as this would constitute a test case
by which other similar cases might fall to be decided.
This Court had to deal with a case where an identical
question arose. In State Bank of Hyderabad v. V. A.
Bhide (1) this Court had to consider the claims of the
respondents in that appeal for payment of special allowance
granted to supervisors under what were known as the
Sastry and Desai awards. It was there contended on behalf
of the appellant bank that in order to claim the supervisory
allowance the parties must establish that the main or essential duties entrusted to them and actually discharged by
{I) [1969] 2 L.L.J. 713.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE BANK v. H. N. BHARGAVA (Mitter, !.)
115
them were duties and functions of a supervisory nature.
This Court considered the Sastry and Desai awards and
observed (at p. 727) :
" .. before a person can claim the supervisory
special allowance, he must establish that he
has discharged the duties and functions which
are similar to or the same as the duties or functions assigned to supervisors coming under category 9. This decision [Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Panna
Lal Gupta and others (1)) also makes it clear
that in deciding the status of an employee claiming
the special allowance, the designation of the
employee is not decisive and what determines the
status is a consideration of the nature of the
duties and functions assigned to the employee
concerned."
In our view the payment of a special allowance is called
for when an employee discharges duties of a supervisory
nature or is accorded the status of a person competent to
discharge functions of a supervisory character. If no
power of attorney is executed as in this case but in fact
the employee is asked to render services of a supervisory
character and the employee does such work at the request
of the bank, he becomes entiled to the allowance. Once
however a power of attorney giving the wide powers of
agency as was done in this case is executed, it should be
held that the management had placed him in a category
of persons with responsibility and the employee was to
discharge the responsibility without any further request
in that behalf. · It may be that the initial giving of power
of attorney was necessitated by the fact that at Kota there
was only one officer besides the respondent who could
rJi~charge duties like eudorsing hundie<, drafts etc. and it
became r.ecessary for the bank to have a,•nconrl nffir.er
who could •:i.rry on this kind of work. ;But the power
of attorney dots not show that the ban~ thought it necessary to clothe the respondent with the said powers only
for discharging his dutl•s when he was at Kota. The
power of attorney was op~r.,tive at any branch of the bank
irrespective of the capacity w1;~h might be occupied by
the respondent at a particular pliJ}t of time. It may be
(I) [1961] l L.LJ. 18.
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] l 5.C.R.
that at Jaipur there was a number of officers superior
A
to the respondent who were empowered to discharge duties
mentioned in the power of attorney but this does not
necessarily lead to the inference -that the respondent losf
his responsibility or was denuded of the powers while he
was at Jaipur. If he discharged any of the duties mentioned in the power of attorney the same would be lawful
B
and would be binding on the bank. The fact that he was
not actually called upon to discharge such functions did
not take away from his responsibility or status of a person
·Competent to discharge functions of a supervisory character and we see no reason why he should be deprived c
of supervisory allowance unless the bank gave him notice
that he was not to act on the power of attorney while at
Jaipur. We therefore hold that the Labour Court had
·come to the correct conclusion.
Mr. Sanghi tried to urge the point that the Labour
Court should not have entertained the application as
D
being inordinately belated and that even though the Labour
Court did not adjudicate on this point it was open to the
bank to urge it before us. We made it clear that we were
not going to entertain this.. plea in view of the fact that
although the point had been taken in the written statement E
of the bank, it was not agitated before the Labour Court
and further was not taken even in the special leave petition.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order
for costs made at the time of the grant of the special leave
will stand.
·
s.c.
Appeal dismissed.