MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD versus VASUDEV ANANT BHIDE ETC.

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.

p. 383, margin C

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 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 essentially work of a supervisory nature.

pp. 383–384, margin E

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.

p. 384, margin B

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 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 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 :

p. 384, margin E

"What we are now providing must be understood as the allowances applicable to incumbents of such of these posts where they arc workmen".

p. 384, margin H

"'

p. 385

.WAn,4,~=. (VmJ~-.J.)

p. 385

Similarly, iii th~ Desai Award, in dealing ~~ Superyisot'Y Stall, in paragraph S.218 the Tribunal states that 1t 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.

p. 385, margin A

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.

p. 385, margin B

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 (!) 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.

pp. 385–386, margin F

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( 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.

p. 386, margin F

A~ain, in Eastern Bank v. Shivdas Vishnu Naik(') this Court negatived the claim of certain routine-clerks for the special allowll t6~. 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:- .

pp. 386–387, margin H

. I

p. 387, margin B

"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."

p. 387, margin B

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.

p. 387, margin C

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.

p. 387, margin D