Case: Management Of National &amp; Grindlaysbank Ltd Vs. Their Workmen

be admissible to the workmen of National and Grindlays Bank Ltd., Kanpur Branch and from which date".The Tribunal called for information in respect of the number of employees in the category of workmen, as well as of officers or staff on special rates and pay working at the Kanpur Branch. It also required the Bank to give the monetary ceilings which have been fixed by the Bank for its officers. After receiving the information in respect of the aforesaid matter the Tribunal made the impugned Award.7. It was sought to be contended before the Tribunal that the Sastry and Desai Awards which preserved the benefits enjoyed by the employees of the Kanpur Branch of the Appellant Bank could not be curtailed to their disadvantage and that the matter is concluded by resjudicata. This argument was rejected as being misconceived. It was pointed out that the bipartite settlement clearly stated that the medical aid and expenses have to be standardised for the workmen of the Kanpur Branch for bringing them in line with the employees of the other Branches. In order to achieve this aim a direction was given to the parties to hold discussions in an endeavour to come to a settlement The Tribunal further pointed out that the terms of reference of the dispute itself envisaged the determination of the question of fixation of the monetary limit and hence it was not precluded from going into that question.8. The Award is assailed on the ground that the Tribunal having recognised the need for standardising the benefits in respect of Medical aid and expenses it ought not to have fixed them at a rate higher than those fixed for the employees of the Bank in other Branches particularly when nothing has been shown as to why the Kanpur Branch employees should be given a favoured treatment. It is also contended that the Award relating to hospitalisation has been made applicable to the members of the family of the employees at Kanpur while no such facility is available to the other workers. On the other hand the Respondents adopt the stand taken up before the Tribunal namely that benefits enjoyed by the employees of the Kanpur Branch of having unlimited medical aid facilities cannot be curtailed.9. It appears to us that the object of the bipartite agreement was to standardise the facility in respect of medical aid and expenses, but when it was found that one of the Branches of the Appellant Bank was not able to fall in line that was left to further negotiations, but nonetheless it was made clearly manifest that standardisation should be achieved to bring them in line with the other workmen of the Bank in regard to Medical aid and expenses.10. There can be no doubt as to the validity of the principle of standardisation and particularly when nothing has been stated nor any material placed before us as to why the Kanpur employees of the Appellant Bank should be given a favoured treatment. When we consider the workmen in cities bigger than Kanpur like Calcutta, Bombay and Madras being given the same facility as that which was agreed to, there appears no justification for giving the Kanpur employees who fall in the same category i.e Class A, Area I, a different and more advantageous treatment. Even when the Kanpur employees enjoyed unlimited medical benefits, those benefits were not available to the members of their family nor was the hospitalisation extended to them. It was pointed out that under the unlimited scheme the expenditure incurred on the employees on an average was Rs 250/- and above, but this as has already been pointed out is only limited to the employees and not to their families When once there has been a general revision in respect of the pay scales and other amenities and facilities which are more advantageous than under the previous Award there seems to be no reason why the employees of the Kanpur Branch should be treated as favoured employees it is not a case of protecting the wage of an individual workman who was getting higher than what is envisaged in the standardisation scheme at the time when such a scheme is brought into force. If that were so we would have kept in view the three conditions laid down in Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills v Workmen, (1963) 2 SCR 716 at pp. 730--731 = (AIR 1966 SC 1158 at p 1162- 1163). We do not find any cogent reasons upon which the Tribunal has distinguished the case of the workmen at Kanpur and singled them out for beneficial treatment. It may be noticed that under the bipartite agreement the workmen are having the benefit of medical aid extended to the members of the family which was not applicable to the workmen before. Even though the employees of the Kanpur Branch had no upper limit their families were not given the benefit of medical aid, nor is there any justification for the Tribunal to extend the hospitalisation facilties to the members of the families if that was not enjoyed by the workmen in the other Branches of the Appellant Bank and in other Banks which are similarly situated. We are unable to find any principle or justification for giving the employees of the Kanpur Branch a favoured treatment which other employees of the Banks and even of the Appellant in other Branches cannot avail under the Bipartite agreement. In this view we would have placed them in the same category as the employees of other Branches of the Appellant who are similarly situated. However, in view of the fact that the Appellant Bank was agreeable to give a higher limit as indicated in its offer before the Conciliation Officer though for a limited period namely till the next All India Settlement/Award which offer was also reiterated before us but was not accepted, we think that the interests of the employees of the Kanpur Branch are well served by that offer.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]9. It appears to us that the object of the bipartite agreement was to standardise the facility in respect of medical aid and expenses, but when it was found that one of the Branches of the Appellant Bank was not able to fall in line that was left to further negotiations, but nonetheless it was made clearly manifest that standardisation should be achieved to bring them in line with the other workmen of the Bank in regard to Medical aid and expenses.10. There can be no doubt as to the validity of the principle of standardisation and particularly when nothing has been stated nor any material placed before us as to why the Kanpur employees of the Appellant Bank should be given a favoured treatment. When we consider the workmen in cities bigger than Kanpur like Calcutta, Bombay and Madras being given the same facility as that which was agreed to, there appears no justification for giving the Kanpur employees who fall in the same category i.e Class A, Area I, a different and more advantageous treatment. Even when the Kanpur employees enjoyed unlimited medical benefits, those benefits were not available to the members of their family nor was the hospitalisation extended to them. It was pointed out that under the unlimited scheme the expenditure incurred on the employees on an average was Rs 250/- and above, but this as has already been pointed out is only limited to the employees and not to their families When once there has been a general revision in respect of the pay scales and other amenities and facilities which are more advantageous than under the previous Award there seems to be no reason why the employees of the Kanpur Branch should be treated as favoured employees it is not a case of protecting the wage of an individual workman who was getting higher than what is envisaged in the standardisation scheme at the time when such a scheme is brought into force. If that were so we would have kept in view the three conditions laid down in Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills v Workmen, (1963) 2 SCR 716   at pp. 730--731 = (AIR 1966 SC 1158  at p 1162- 1163). We do not find any cogent reasons upon which the Tribunal has distinguished the case of the workmen at Kanpur and singled them out for beneficial treatment. It may be noticed that under the bipartite agreement the workmen are having the benefit of medical aid extended to the members of the family which was not applicable to the workmen before. Even though the employees of the Kanpur Branch had no upper limit their families were not given the benefit of medical aid, nor is there any justification for the Tribunal to extend the hospitalisation facilties to the members of the families if that was not enjoyed by the workmen in the other Branches of the Appellant Bank and in other Banks which are similarly situated. We are unable to find any principle or justification for giving the employees of the Kanpur Branch a favoured treatment which other employees of the Banks and even of the Appellant in other Branches cannot avail under the Bipartite agreement. In this view we would have placed them in the same category as the employees of other Branches of the Appellant who are similarly situated. However, in view of the fact that the Appellant Bank was agreeable to give a higher limit as indicated in its offer before the Conciliation Officer though for a limited period namely till the next All India Settlement/Award which offer was also reiterated before us but was not accepted, we think that the interests of the employees of the Kanpur Branch are well served by that offer.