Case: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Khandelwal (R. L.)

special qualification or skill for the efficient discharge of duties were laid down in Para. 164 of the award. In Para. 168, mention was made of certain categories described in various banks by such terms as junior assistants and senior assistants and classified by some banks as officers, It was held that the terms do not, by themselves, indicate the nature of the work entrusted to them. Irrespective of their designation, in so far as their work falls under clerical work, though of a higher type, as explained by the tribunal in the discussion relating to categories of workmen, they must also be entitled to the scales of pay, minimum special allowance, etc., which were prescribed for the appropriate kind of work during such periods as they were in charge of that kind of work. It was further noted that it was not possible to give a more precise or detailed direction in this matter; and the tribunal ended this paragraph by standing that they trusted, that the banks will act in the true spirit of these directions. It appears that it was in the light of these directions that the respondent was given supervisory allowance after 14 March, 1955 when, as we have mentioned earlier he was authorized to pass cheques or debit vouchers. The case of the appellant was that, with effect from 3 February, 1956, the respondent ceased to be entrusted with this work and was doing the work of an ordinary routine clerk, so that he was no longer entitled thereafter to the special allowance as laid down by the Sastri award in the paragraphs mentioned above. It appears to us that this plea put forward on behalf of the appellant must be accepted.The scope of the function and powers of a labour court, when dealing with an application under S.33C(2) of the Act, has been laid down by this Court in several cases, amongst which mention may be made of Punjab National Bank, Ltd. v. K. L. Kharbanda [1962 - I L.L.J. 234] Central Bank of India, Ltd. v. P. S. Rajgopalan and others [1963 - II L.L.J. 8] and Bombay Gas Company, Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva and others [1963 - II L.L.J. 608]. The effect of these decisions was recently summarized in the judgment delivered on 8 August, 1967, in East India Coal Company, Ltd. (by Chief Mining Engineer) v. Rameshwar and others [1968 - I L.L.J. 6]. These decisions make it clear that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application under S. 33C(2) in respect of a matter which is not based on an existing right and which can be appropriately the subject-matter of an industrial dispute only requiring reference under S.10 of the Act. In the present case, the respondent himself in Para. 2 of his application under S. 33C(2) admitted that he continued to do the work in the supervisory capacity until on 3 February, 1956, he was wrongfully reverted to do clerical work because he demanded benefit of the supervisory allowance prescribed under the Sastri award. The question whether his reversion was wrongful or rightful, or whether it should be set aside, is not a matter within the jurisdiction of a labour court dealing with an application under S. 33C(2). The vacation of such an order can only be sought by raising an industrial dispute and having it decided in accordance with the other provisions of the Act. A labour court, acting under S. 33C(2) has to decide the application on the basis that, in fact, the respondent was, during the relevant period, doing routine clerical work and was not employed on supervisory duties. Sri Ramamurthi appearing on behalf of the respondent, urged that this admission by the respondent should not be held to bind him in this appeal and, on the facts of this case, it should be held that the labour court was right in holding that the respondent did continue on a post involving supervisory duties. He did not contest the proposition that, if it be held that, during the relevant period, the respondent was not in fact, doing supervisory duties, he would not be entitled to the supervisory allowance claimed by him. We think that the labour court committed an error in holding that, simply because the respondent was, at one time, entrusted with supervisory duties under the order dated 14 March, 1955, his status as a supervisor must be held to continue, even though, in fact, he was reverted to do routine clerical work on 3 February, 1956. The justification or validity of the order of reversion dated 3 February, 1956 could not be gone into by the labour court in this proceeding under S. 33C(2). The labour court had to proceed on the basis that the order of 3 February, 1956, was effective and did result in the respondent ceasing to work in the supervisory capacity and being employed on routine clerical work. We see no reason to accept Sri Ramamurthis submission that, after 3 February, 1956, the respondent did carry out any supervisory duties. In fact, no evidence or material has been brought to our notice on the basis of which such a finding could have been recorded. The mere fact that the respondent was entrusted with some supervisory duties earlier cannot lead to the conclusion that he continued to be a supervisor even after he was reverted to do routine clerical work. The entrustment of supervisory duties to him by the order dated 14 March, 1955 did not make him a permanent or confirmed incumbent of a post involving supervisory duties. On the face of it, that order only authorized him to carry out those duties as long as the order was not rescinded by a subsequent order.The respondent having himself admitted that he was reverted to do clerical work from 3 February, 1956, he, in fact, ceased to hold any post or to do any work which could entitle him to the supervisory allowance under the Sastri award.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]In Para. 168, mention was made of certain categories described in various banks by such terms as junior assistants and senior assistants and classified by some banks as officers, It was held that the terms do not, by themselves, indicate the nature of the work entrusted to them. Irrespective of their designation, in so far as their work falls under clerical work, though of a higher type, as explained by the tribunal in the discussion relating to categories of workmen, they must also be entitled to the scales of pay, minimum special allowance, etc., which were prescribed for the appropriate kind of work during such periods as they were in charge of that kind of work. It was further noted that it was not possible to give a more precise or detailed direction in this matter; and the tribunal ended this paragraph by standing that they trusted, that the banks will act in the true spirit of these directions. It appears that it was in the light of these directions that the respondent was given supervisory allowance after 14 March, 1955 when, as we have mentioned earlier he was authorized to pass cheques or debit vouchers. The case of the appellant was that, with effect from 3 February, 1956, the respondent ceased to be entrusted with this work and was doing the work of an ordinary routine clerk, so that he was no longer entitled thereafter to the special allowance as laid down by the Sastri award in the paragraphs mentioned above. It appears to us that this plea put forward on behalf of the appellant must bedecisions make it clear that a workman cannot put forward a claim in an application under S. 33C(2) in respect of a matter which is not based on an existing right and which can be appropriately theof an industrial dispute only requiring reference under S.10 of the Act. In the present case, the respondent himself in Para. 2 of his application under S. 33C(2) admitted that he continued to do the work in the supervisory capacity until on 3 February, 1956, he was wrongfully reverted to do clerical work because he demanded benefit of the supervisory allowance prescribed under the Sastri award. The question whether his reversion was wrongful or rightful, or whether it should be set aside, is not a matter within the jurisdiction of a labour court dealing with an application under S. 33C(2). The vacation of such an order can only be sought by raising an industrial dispute and having it decided in accordance with the other provisions of the Act. A labour court, acting under S. 33C(2) has to decide the application on the basis that, in fact, the respondent was, during the relevant period, doing routine clerical work and was not employed on supervisorythink that the labour court committed an error in holding that, simply because the respondent was, at one time, entrusted with supervisory duties under the order dated 14 March, 1955, his status as a supervisor must be held to continue, even though, in fact, he was reverted to do routine clerical work on 3 February, 1956. The justification or validity of the order of reversion dated 3 February, 1956 could not be gone into by the labour court in this proceeding under S. 33C(2). The labour court had to proceed on the basis that the order of 3 February, 1956, was effective and did result in the respondent ceasing to work in the supervisory capacity and being employed on routine clerical work. We see no reason to accept Sri Ramamurthis submission that, after 3 February, 1956, the respondent did carry out any supervisory duties. In fact, no evidence or material has been brought to our notice on the basis of which such a finding could have been recorded. The mere fact that the respondent was entrusted with some supervisory duties earlier cannot lead to the conclusion that he continued to be a supervisor even after he was reverted to do routine clerical work. The entrustment of supervisory duties to him by the order dated 14 March, 1955 did not make him a permanent or confirmed incumbent of a post involving supervisory duties. On the face of it, that order only authorized him to carry out those duties as long as the order was not rescinded by a subsequent order.The respondent having himself admitted that he was reverted to do clerical work from 3 February, 1956, he, in fact, ceased to hold any post or to do any work which could entitle him to the supervisory allowance under the Sastri award.