Case: Management Of State Bank Of Hyderabad Vs. Vasudev Anant Bhide Etc

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 operation for a long time and as a result of decisions given by Tribunals the categories of persons entitled to special allowances can be regarded as fairly settled. In paragraph 5.288 the Tribunal states that the special allowances which have been awarded are monthly special allowances intended to compensate a workman for the performance of certain duties and the discharge of certain functions which constitute the normal part of the duties performed and the functions discharged by such person and that they are not intended to be paid for casual or occasional performance of such duties or the casual or occasional discharge of such functions. It is further mentioned in paragraph 5.289 that a person is entitled to special allowance so long as he is in charge of such work or the performance of such duties which attract such allowance and that a person asked to work temporarily in a post carrying a special allowance would be entitled to such a special allowance for such period during which he occupies that post.42. Mr. Gokhale, learned Counsel for the respondent, referred us to the decision of this Court in Lloyds Bank v. Panna Lal Gupta, 1961-1 Lab LJ 18 = (AIR 1967 SC 428 ) and urged that the said decision is an authority for the proposition that if a person does work which appears to have some element of a supervisory character, he will be entitled to claim the supervisory allowance under paragraph 164(b)(9) of the Sastry Award. In our opinion that decision does not lay down any such proposition. In that decision this Court had to deal with a claim made by certain clerks working in the audit department for payment of the supervisory allowance under paragraph 164 (b) (9) of the Sastry Award. It must be stated at the outset that these clerks do not come under any of the nine categories mentioned in the Sastry Award, eligible for the special allowance. The Tribunal had held that the clerks in the audit department supervised the work of almost all the persons in the establishment with a view to ensure the correctness and 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 treated as supervisors under category (9) of the Sastry Award. This Court set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal and in so setting aside the award observed that before a clerk could claim a special allowance his work should appear to have some element of a supervisory character. Even this prima facie test was enough to non-suit the three clerks therein. We do not understand this decision as laying 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 nevertheless 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 falling in that category. These observations, in our opinion, makes 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 similar 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 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.43. A similar claim for supervisory allowance, made by tellers in a bank, was rejected by this Court in Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1961-2 Lab LJ 162 (SC) on the ground that a teller 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 question as to whether his work is supervisory in character or not.44. Again, in Eastern Bank v. Shivdas Vishnu Naik, 1963-2 Lab LJ 365 (SC) this Court negatived the claim of certain routine-clerks for the special allowance payable to comptists, coming under category 1, on the ground that in the course of discharging their duties as routine clerks they had to opeate the adding machines for the purpose of making additions mechanically. This Court further observed that obviously it was not the intention of the Sastry Award to make such persons eligible under category 1 of paragraph 164 (b) as :-"They are not described as such, and the nature of the work, the responsibility attending to the work and the skill required of them for discharging the said work do not justify their claim to be comptists for the purpose of special allowance".45.The work done by the Head Cashiers in the instant case may be considered very important, responsible and onerous, but, in our opinion, on the basis of the items of work claimed to be done by them, they 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.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]16. We accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that the Labour Court had been specified under Section 33C (2) as early as April 15, 1963. It follows that this contention of Mr. Aggarwala has no substance.Gokhale, on behalf of the respondents, urged that Article 137 had no application to proceedings initiated under Sec. 33Cview of this statement by the learned Counsel, it is unnecessary to consider this contention any further.We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that the point arising for consideration is purely one of fact. In exercising its discretion under Article 136, this Court does not normally enter upon pleas on questions of fact and is also generally reluctant to interfere with findings of fact recorded in a judgment on decision under appeal. So in dealing with the question raised by the appellant that the respondents had been wrongfully held entitled to claim supervisory special allowance we will proceed on the basis that the facts found by the Labour Court are correct. The Labour Court has accepted the claim of the respondents regarding the items of work done by them, though it has not differentiated between the various items of work as to which of them is of a supervisory nature.We will also proceed on the basis that according to the Labour Court some items of work done by the respondents as Head Cashiers can be called, supervisory. But will that make them eligible for the supervisory special allowance? The status of the three respondents has to be inferred as a matter of law from the facts found and therefore the question naturally arises as to whether the Labour Court has drawn the correct legal inference from the facts found by it.The claim of the respondents for the special allowance as supervisors is dealt with under Paragraph 164 (b) (9) of the Sastry Award. We may state that this Award was challenged by the Banks before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which substantially confirmed the directions issued in respect of payment of special allowances.Paragraph 5.285 states that special allowances prescribed under the Award would be in supersession of those prescribed under the Sastry Award as modified. In Paragraph 5.286 the Award states that special allowances are payable to employees who are workmen and who will continue to remain as workmen even after inclusion of the amounts of such special allowance as wages. In Paragraph 5.287 it is stated that when an employee falls within more than one category, he will be entitled to receive the special allowance at the highest rate applicable to him. We may state that this paragraph embodies the note appearing after the categories of employees enumerated in Para 164 (b) of the Sastry Award. Pausing here for a minute, we may state that the Note in the Sastry Award and Paragraph 5.287 in the Desai Award do not advance the case of the respondents any further. The effect of the note is only that if an employee has been assigned work the discharge of which will bring him under two categories, one of which carries a higher rate of special allowance, he will be entitled to such higher rate.Having seen the relevant provisions in the two Awards, we have come to the conclusion that the scheme of both the Sastry and Desai Awards for grant of special allowance as Supervisors is that such special allowances can be drawn only when a person falls in the category of a supervisor or is found eligible to be put in that category by whatever nomenclature such person may be designated, in view of the supervisory nature of the duties and functions assigned to him. The mere fact that a person whose duties are essentially and mainly that of a Head Cashier, for whom also a special allowance is payable under the two Awards, performs occasionally or casually or incidental to his work as a Head Cashier, duties which may be characterised as supervisory, will not entitle him to claim the higher rate of special allowance granted to a supervisor under the two Awards.Both the Sastry and the Desai Tribunals had before them various types of persons working in the banks as well as the duties discharged by them. It is on that basis and after a careful consideration of the duites so performed by them and the responsibilities attached to each post that the two Tribunal divided the person into nine categories in the Sastry Award and twenty categories in the Desai Award. We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that merely because certain items of work, which really form part of the regular work of Head Cashiers, can be considered as being supervisory and are being done by the respondents, they will be entitled to claim the higher rate of supervisory special allowance.36. We have already referred to the evidence of the respondents that the work that was being done by them were all items of work forming part of the duties of a Head Cashier, from the inception of the bank and all Head Cashiers do similar work. Therefore it follows that the work done by the respondents, even on their own admission and on the findings of the Labour Court, consisted of only items of work which a Head Cashier was bound to do; and the few items of work claimed by them to be supervisory were really done by them as incidental to their main duties as Head Cashiers.We have already referred to the evidence of the respondents that the work that was being done by them were all items of work forming part of the duties of a Head Cashier, from the inception of the bank and all Head Cashiers do similar work. Therefore it follows that the work done by the respondents, even on their own admission and on the findings of the Labour Court, consisted of only items of work which a Head Cashier was bound to do; and the few items of work claimed by them to be supervisory were really done by them as incidental to their main duties as Head Cashiers.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 the Head Cashiers to be treated as supervisors or heads of sections. No doubt this demand was in respect of emoluments being fixed appropriate 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 supervisory functions by whatever nomenclature they may be designated, is also clear from some of the statements made in the Awards, to which we shall refer presently.39. 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 is stated that the Tribunal has provided only a minimum special allowance and that it may be proper and desirable that the incumbents of such offices in some of the big banks should be allowed by them more than that awarded by the Tribunal. In paragraph 163 the Tribunal proceeds to enumerate the categories for which special allowances, in our opinion, be given. After specifying the categories of employees for whom special allowance is to be given, in paragraph 165 the Tribunal is 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 Tribunalwe are now providing must be understood as the allowances applicable to incumbents of such of these posts where they are workmen".Similarly, in the Desai Award, in dealing with Supervisory Staff, in paragraph 5.218 the Tribunal states that it is left with no alternative except to fix special allowances for workmen employed in a supervisory capacity as was done by the Sastry Tribunal. It is further stated in the same paragraph that in deciding whether a workman is entitled to supervisory allowance, the designation of the workmen would not be decisive and that in order to entitle the workman to such allowance what would be determinative would be the nature of the duties and functions assigned to him. In paragraph 5.221 the Tribunal itself has stated that the Sastry Tribunal provided special allowances for the 9 categories of workmen employed in various classes of banks as mentionedour opinion that decision does not lay down any suchobservations, in our opinion, makes 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 similar 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 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 employeework done by the Head Cashiers in the instant case may be considered very important, responsible and onerous, but, in our opinion, on the basis of the items of work claimed to be done by them, they 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.