Case: Syndicate Bank, Limited Vs. Its Workmen

service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem, or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." 7. We are concerned in the present dispute with exemptions (iii) and (iv) of this definition. Under exemption (iii), a person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity is not a workman. Under exemption (iv) a person who is employed in a supervisory capacity, is not a workman provided he draws wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. It is well-settled that the mere designation by which a person is designated is not conclusive of his status as an officer; the industrial court assigned to the person concerned to decide whether he is a workman or not.In the present case most of the C rank officers are not drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem, even assuming that they were doing supervisory work. Therefore, most of them would not be exempt from the category of workmen under exemption (iv), but they would be exempt under exemption (iii) if they are employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity. Unfortunately this aspect of the matter was not considered by the tribunal. There is no oral evidence at all relevant to the question whether C rank officers are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. Reliance is however placed on behalf of the workmen on three documents in this connexion. The first is the settlement of June 1957 between the appellant and its workmen before the conciliation officer by which Ranganath Pai who was a probationary C rank officer was reinstated by the Bank. The second is the award of the labour court (central), Ahmedabad, by which Rao, a C rank officer, was ordered to be restored to his grade as C rank officer and an accountant and it was held that an accountant in this bank if he was drawing less than Rs. 500 per mensem was a workman. The third document is the manual of instructions which give the duties and responsibilities of accountants. It is urged on behalf of the respondents it is view of these three documents it is clear that so far at any rate as accountants are concerned it is settled between the parties that they are workmen, even though they may be holding the grade of C rank officer. 8. It seems to us clear from this documentary evidence that accountants in this bank are merely supervisory staff and this bank workmen so long as they are drawing wages up to Rs. 500 per mensem. But it is urged on behalf of the appellant that all C rank officers are not accountants and many of them hold other posts in the bank. Unfortunately again there is no evidence as to what other posts are held by C rank officers, for the attention of the parties was not directed to this aspect of the matter. It is also not clear whether C rank officers holding posts other than accountants are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. In this connexion our attention is drawn to the circular of April 1962 where it was stated that all officers including C rank officers would have managerial and administrative powers and functions to the extent necessary for the proper discharge of their duties. This general statement, in our opinion, is not enough to clothe all C rank officers with mainly managerial or administrative duties. Before a C rank officer can be taken out of the category of workmen, it must be shown that he is employed in fact and in substance mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity and for that there is no evidence on the record.Further the question becomes complicated because of another circular issued by the appellant on 19 April 1964, shortly before the reference was made. In this circular three classes of officers were created, namely :(i) junior officers who were said to be equal to the existing C rank officers, (ii) assistant senior officers who were said to be equal to the existing B rank officers, and (iii) senior officers who were said to be equal to the existing A rank officers. 9. The circular also stated that there would be no category of accountants in future. The circular further mentioned sub-accountants who would not be officers and would be treated as workmen covered by the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) award of June, 1962 (popularly known as the Desai award). In this state of evidence we at one time thought that the case might be remanded to the tribunal for the purposes of determining whether C rank officers are mainly employed in a managerial or administrative capacity in this bank. But we eventually decided not to take this course, because there was no doubt that there are C rank officers who are working as accountants in the appellant-bank; and so far as these are concerned, there can be no doubt that they are workmen in view of the documentary evidence to which we have referred so long as they are drawing wages up to Rs. 500 per mensem. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the tribunal was right in holding that C rank officers whose duties are the same as of accountants and who are drawing wages up to Rs. 500 per mensem are workmen, and in their case the appellant was not justified in imposing the condition to the effect that on promotion as a probationary C rank officer they must agree to be governed by the rules of the bank.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We are of opinion that the first term of reference had implicit in it the question whether C rank officers were workmen or not. If that were not so, there would be no sense in the reference, for if C rank officers were assumed to be, the bank would be justified in prescribing conditions of service with respect to its officers and there could be no reference under the Act with respect to conditions imposed by the bank on its officers who were notworkmen.We are therefore of opinion that the first term of reference when it posed the question whether the appellant was justified in imposing the condition that the workmen promoted as C rank officers would be governed by the rules of the bank as applicable to such officers had impliedly raised the question whether C rank officers were workmen or not, for only on that basis could the reference be made7. We are concerned in the present dispute with exemptions (iii) and (iv) of this definition. Under exemption (iii), a person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity is not a workman. Under exemption (iv) a person who is employed in a supervisory capacity, is not a workman provided he draws wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature. It isd that the mere designation by which a person is designated is not conclusive of his status as an officer; the industrial court assigned to the person concerned to decide whether he is a workman or not.In the present case most of the C rank officers are not drawing wages exceeding Rs. 500 per mensem, even assuming that they were doing supervisory work. Therefore, most of them would not be exempt from the category of workmen under exemption (iv), but they would be exempt under exemption (iii) if they are employed mainly in managerial or administrative capacity. Unfortunately this aspect of the matter was not considered by the tribunal. There is no oral evidence at all relevant to the question whether C rank officers are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. Reliance is however placed on behalf of the workmen on three documents in this connexion. The first is the settlement of June 1957 between the appellant and its workmen before the conciliation officer by which Ranganath Pai who was a probationary C rank officer was reinstated by the Bank. The second is the award of the labour court (central), Ahmedabad, by which Rao, a C rank officer, was ordered to be restored to his grade as C rank officer and an accountant and it was held that an accountant in this bank if he was drawing less than Rs. 500 per mensem was a workman. The third document is the manual of instructions which give the duties and responsibilities of accountants. It is urged on behalf of the respondents it is view of these three documents it is clear that so far at any rate as accountants are concerned it is settled between the parties that they are workmen, even though they may be holding the grade of C rank officer8. It seems to us clear from this documentary evidence that accountants in this bank are merely supervisory staff and this bank workmen so long as they are drawing wages up to Rs. 500 per mensem.But it is urged on behalf of the appellant that all C rank officers are not accountants and many of them hold other posts in the bank. Unfortunately again there is no evidence as to what other posts are held by C rank officers, for the attention of the parties was not directed to this aspect of the matter.It is also not clear whether C rank officers holding posts other than accountants are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity. In this connexion our attention is drawn to the circular of April 1962 where it was stated that all officers including C rank officers would have managerial and administrative powers and functions to the extent necessary for the proper discharge of their duties. This general statement, in our opinion, is not enough to clothe all C rank officers with mainly managerial or administrative duties. Before a C rank officer can be taken out of the category of workmen, it must be shown that he is employed in fact and in substance mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity and for that there is no evidence on the record9. The circular also stated that there would be no category of accountants in future. The circular further mentioneds who would not be officers and would be treated as workmen covered by the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) award of June, 1962 (popularly known as the Desai award). In this state of evidence we at one time thought that the case might be remanded to the tribunal for the purposes of determining whether C rank officers are mainly employed in a managerial or administrative capacity in this bank. But we eventually decided not to take this course, because there was no doubt that there are C rank officers who are working as accountants in the; and so far as these are concerned, there can be no doubt that they are workmen in view of the documentary evidence to which we have referred so long as they are drawing wages up to Rs. 500 per mensem. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the tribunal was right in holding that C rank officers whose duties are the same as of accountants and who are drawing wages up to Rs. 500 per mensem are workmen, and in their case the appellant was not justified in imposing the condition to the effect that on promotion as a probationary C rank officer they must agree to be governed by the rules of the bank11.This brings us to the second term of reference. It appears that in addition to the probationary period the bank has imposed on workmen promoted as C rank officers, even though as C rank officers they continue to be workmen, a period of twelve months training during which they are called. We are of opinion that in the case of promotion from a workman to a C rank officer where such an officer is a workman, there is no justification for a further period of training in addition to the probationary period as C rank officer. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondents that even in the case of promotion of a workman as C rank officer where such officer continues to remain as workman, the bank would be justified in imposing a period of probation. We agree with the tribunal that there is no justification for the further imposition of a period of training of twelve months. But we do not agree with the tribunal that there should be no period of probation for members of supervisory staff who are promoted as C rank officers. A period of probation on such promotion for all staff appears to us to be not unjustified, and in view of the respondents concession before us that a period of probation is justified, this part of the award of the tribunal will have to be set aside.