Case: All India Reserve Bank Employees Association Vs. Reserve Bank Of India


Decision:
0[ds]14. Before we consider the case of the appellants an event which happened later may be mentioned. The Reserve Bank by a Resolution (No. 8) passed at their 1456th weekly meeting held on April 24, 1963, in creased the scale of pay, dearness allowances, house rent allowances, etc., for Class II staff with effect from January 1, 1962, that is to say, the date from which the impugned award came into force. Under the Resolution scales of pay, which were acknowledged by Mr. Chari, to be as generous as the present circumstances of our country permit, have been awarded. But more than this the minimum total emoluments as envisaged by the definition of wages, even at the commencement of service of each and every member of Class II staff on January 1, 1962 now exceed Rs. 500 per month. This, of course, was done with a view to withdrawing the whole class from the ambit of the Reference, because, it is supposed, no member of the class can now come within the definition of "workman". We, shall, of course, decide the question whether the Resolution has that effect. If it does, it certainly relieves us of the task of considering scales of pay for these employees for no remit is now possible as no National Tribunal is sitting. The scales having been accepted as generous, the dispute regarding scales of pay for Class II employees under the Reference, really ceases to be a live issue.This ruling, of course, cannot be used in this context though as we shall presently see it probably furnishes the historical background for the amendment in the United States and leads to the next limb of Mr. Charis argument.this state of affairs it is futile to refer to this ruling any further for to derive assistance from any of the two opinions savours of a priori deduction.The argument is extremely ingenious and the simile interesting but it misses the realities of the amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act in 1956.word "supervise" and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often be construed in the light of the context, for unless controlled, they cover an easily simple oversight and direction as manual work coupled with a power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work of others. It is, therefore, necessary to see the full context in which the words occur and the words of our own Act are the surest guide. Viewed in this manner we cannot overlook the import of the word "such" which expressly links the exception to the main part. Unless this was done it would have been possible to argue that Cl. (iv) indicated something, which, though not included in the main part, ought not by construction to be so included. By keeping the link it is clear to see that what is excluded is something which is already a part of the main provision.It follows, therefore, that the National Tribunal was in error in not considering the claims of Class II employees whether at the instance of members drawing less than Rs. 500 as wages or at the instance of those lower down in the scale of employment. The National Tribunal was also in error in thinking that scales of wages in excess of Rs. 500 per month at any stage were not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or that Government could not make a reference in such a contingency. We would have been required to consider the scales applicable to those in Class II but for the fact that the Reserve Bank has fixed scales which are admitted to be quite generous.We agree that we cannot use analogies to find out whether Class II workers here were supervisors or doing mere clerical work. No doubt, as Mr. Chari stated the work in a Bank involves layer upon layer of checkers and checking is hardly supervision but where there is a power of assigning duties and distribution of work there is supervision.supervision.26. The Reserve Bank has placed on record extracts from the manuals, orders, etc. relative to all Class II employees and on looking closely into these duties we cannot say that they are not of a supervisory character and are merely clerical or checking. These employees distribute work, detect faults, report for penalty, make arrangements for filling vacancies, to mention only a few of the duties which are supervisory and not merely clerical. Without discussing the matter too elaborately we may say that we are satisfied that employees in Class II except the Personal Assistants, were rightly classed by the National Tribunal as employed on supervisory and not on clerical or checking duties. In view of the fact that all of them now receive even at the start "wages" in excess of Rs. 500 per month, there is really no issue left concerning them, once we have held that they are working in a supervisoryNational Tribunal, however, could not accept the Resolution because the Resolution standardised norms applicable to all industrial workers whatever their age or the number of years of service or the nature of their employment. It felt that there was difficulty in accepting the basis of three consumption units at all stages of service or the net intake of 2,700 calories at all ages pointing out that this much food was what Dr. Aykroyd thought as proper to be consumed. The National Tribunal did not see the need for changing theof 80 per cent. The National Tribunal held that in the economy of our country theminimum suggested by the Resolution was merely an ideal to be achieved by slow stages but was impossible of achievement instantly.34. We have been addressed able and very moving arguments on behalf of the employees by Mr. Chari. There can be no doubt that in our march towards a truly fair wage in the first instance and ultimately the living wage we must first achieve theminimum. There is no doubt also that 3 consumption units formula is, if anything, on the low side. In determining family budgets so as to discover the workers normal needs which the minimum wage regulations ought to satisfy, the size of the standard family is very necessary toplain averages laid down in the Resolution may have to be weighed in different regions and in different industries and reduced in others. It is from this point of view that the Reserve Bank has pointed out that though the consumption units are taken to be 2.25, the earning capacity after 8 years service is sufficient to provide for 3 consumption units required by the need base formula.In our judgment, the Tribunal was not wrong in accepting 2.25 consumption units. But it seems to us that if at the start the family is assumed to be 2.25, it is somewhat difficult to appreciate that the family would take 8 years to grow to 3 consumption units. We are aware that the Sastry Tribunal thought of 3 consumption units at the 10th year and the Sen Tribunal at the 8th year but we think these miss the realities of our national life. In our country it would not be wrong to assume that on an average 3 consumption units must be provided for by the end of 5 years service. The consumption units in the first five years should be graduated. As things stand today, it is reasonable to think that 3 consumption units must be provided for by the end of five years service, if not earlier.36. The difficulty in this case in accepting theis very real. The Reserve Bank is quite right in pointing out that the minimum wage so fixed would be above per capita income in our country and that it is not possible to arrive at a constant figure in terms of money. According to the Association and the Union, the working class family wage works out to Rs. 165.9 (though the demand is reduced to Rs. 145 by the Association and Rs. 140 by the Union) while according to the Reserve Bank to Rs. 107.75. The middle class wage, according to the Association, will be Rs. 332.75 while, according to the Bank, Rs. 202. This is because emphasis is placed on different dietary components in the first case and the increased differential in the second case. Further the food requirement of 2,700 calories was considered by the Pay Commission to be too high and by the Planning Commission (Third Plan) to be a matter forIt will have to be examined what type of food should make up the necessary calories and how many calories are the minimum. Further the amount of minimum wage calculated on theformula was said by the Pay Commission to be extraordinarily high. This was also the view of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in East Asiatic Co. v. Workmen,Lab LJ 610 (sic). Both these documents contain valuable calculations and they show the enormous increase per saltum which would certainly cause enormous unrest among workmen in general in the country. It is also to be noticed that the Reserve Bank, which Mr. Chari claims is the best employer, to apply the formula, is not really the right place for the experiment. If the experiment has to be performed it must have a beginning in a commercial concern after thorough examination and a very careful appraisal of the effect on the resources of the employer and on production. The Reserve Bank is not a profit making commercial undertaking. Its surplus income is handed over to Government and becomes national income. Its main sources of income are discounting Treasury Bills and interest on sterling securities and rupee securities held against the note issue. Income from exchange on remittances, commission on the management of Public Debt and interest on loans and advances to Banks and Governments is small. It would, therefore, appear that the Reserve Bank is not a proper place to determine what theminimum wage should be and for initiating it. It cannot also be overlooked that even without the formula it pays better wages than elsewhere.37. There is, however, much justification for the argument of Mr. Chari. The Tripartite Conference was a very representative body and the Resolution was passed in the presence of representatives of Government and employers. There must be attached proper value to the Resolution. The Resolution itself is not difficult to appreciate. It was passed as indicating the first step towards achieving the living wage. Unfortunately we are constantly finding that basic wage instead of moving to subsistence plus level tends to sag to poverty level when there is a rise in prices. To overcome this tendency our wage structure has for a long time been composed of two items (a) the basic wage and (b) a dearness allowance which is altered to neutralise, if not entirely, at least the greater part of the increased cost of living. This does not solve the problem of real wage. At the same time, we have to beware that too sharp an upward movement of basic wage is likely to affect the cost of production and lead to fall in our exports and to the raising of prices all round. There is a vicious circle which can be broken by increased production and not by increasing wages. What we need is the introduction of production bonus, increased fringe benefits, free medical, educational and insurance facilities. As a counterpart to this capital must also be prepared to forgo a part of its return. There is much to be said for considering theformula in all its implications for it is bound to be our first step towards living wage. As in many other matters relating to industrial disputes the problem may, perhaps, be best tackled by agreement between Capital and Labour in an establishment where a beginning can be safely made in thisCourt is in no better position than the National Tribunal to say what othershould be adopted. When fresh and comprehensive enquiries are conducted, the results would show whether theshould go up or down. With the rise of wages to higher levels among the working class the differential is bound to be lower and this is a matter for inquiry. Till then there is no alternative but to adhere to thety and merit should ordinarily both have a part in promotion to higher ranks and seniority and merit should temper each other. We do not think that seniority is likely to be completely lost sight of under the Regulations and Mr. Palkhivala assured us that this is not the case.40. Mr. Hathi next raised the question of seniority between clerks and typists but we did not allow him to argue this point as no question of principle of a general nature was involved. The duties of clerks and typists have been considered by the National Tribunal and its decision must be taken as final.41. The next point urged was about gratuity. In the statement of the case the Association and the Union had made numerous demands in regard to gratuity but it appears from paragraph 7.10 of the Award that the dispute was confined to the power to withhold payment of gratuity on dismissal.The ground urged before us is that the National Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction in respect of this demand and indirectly declined jurisdiction by rejecting the demand itself. The National Tribunal came to the conclusion that two retirement benefits were sufficient and it is difficult for us to consider this withoutthe question on merits of the demand andnt of the Reserve Bank. We stated, therefore, at the hearing that we were not inclined to enter into such a large question not of principle but of facts.It is easy to see from the rival schedules that probationary periods are both short and long. As no question of principle is involved we decline to interfere and we think that the National Tribunal was also justified in not giving an Award of a general nature of this point.44. The next point is about the extra payment which the graduates were receiving and the fitment of persons in receipt of such extra amounts in the new scale provided. In the year 1946 the Bank accepted the principle of giving an allowance to employees who acquired degrees while in employment. At the time of the present dispute graduates were in receipt of Rs. 10/as special pay.The question was whether in making fitment in the new time scales these amounts should have been treated as advanceincrements. It appears that the National Tribunal reached different conclusions in the two awards arising from Reference No. 1 and the present Reference. In the case of Commercial Banks the fitment was on a different principle and Mr. Palkhivala agreed to make fitment in the new scale taking into account this special ad hoc pay as advance increment.45. The next demand made by both the Association and the Union was that they should be allowed to participate and represent workers in disputes between an individual workman and the Reserve Bank. The Tribunal did not accept this contention for the very good reason that if Unions intervene in every industrial dispute between an individual workman and the establishment the internal administration would become impossible. In our judgment, the demand cannot beNothing was shown to us why the award should be made to commence earlier. Both sides were to blame in regard to the time taken up and the Tribunal perhaps found it difficult to reach a conclusion earlier in view of the number of the references before it. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the selection of January 1, 1962, when the inquiry in the present reference was completed, except the preparation of the Award, was bad. In any event, this was a matter of discretion and it cannot be said that the discretion has not been exercised on judicial principles. We decline to interfere.