Case: South Indian Bank Limited Vs. A.R. Chacko

to govern the relations between the parties till it is displaced by another contract. The objection that no such benefit as claimed could accrue to the respondent after March 31, 1959 must therefore be rejected.9. This brings us to the last objection that on appointment as accountant, the respondent Chacko ceased to be a workman. Admittedly, the mere fact that he was designated as accountant would not take him out of the category of workman. This was recognised in Para. 332 of the Sastry Award when it was said -"The categories of workmen known as Head Clerks, Accountants, Head Cashiers should prima facie be taken as workmen wherever they desire to be so treated but with this important proviso that the banks are at liberty to raise an industrial dispute about such classification wherever they feel that with reference to a particular branch and a particular office a person so designated is really entrusted with work of a directional and controlling nature and perhaps even supervision of a higher type over ordinary supervisory agencies."10. In Para. 167, where the case of accountants was specially dealt with it was against said:-"In several cases they will indisputably be officers. It is difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule in respect of them. An Accountant often times is the second officer in-charge of branches, particularly where the branches are comparatively small. In big banks where there is a hierarchy of officers there may be a chief accountant, accountants, and sub-accountants. In most of those cases the “accountants" will probably be officers. There will however be incumbents of such posts, though going under the dignified designation of accountants who are in reality only senior clerks doing higher type of clerical work involving an element of supervision over other clerks as part of their duties. In such cases where they can properly be regarded as workman the minimum allowances which we have fixed for sub-accountant would equally apply to them."11. The Labour Court appears to have taken proper note of this distinction between accountants who are really officers and accountant who are merely senior clerks with supervisory duties and on a consideration of the evidence on the record as regards the duties actually performed by the respondent Chacko has come to the conclusion that he was merely a senior clerk, doing mainly clerical duties, and going by the designation accountant and was in reality a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act and doing an element of supervisory work.12. We can find no mistake in the approach of the Labour Court to the question nor can we see any justification for interfering with its conclusion on the evidence in the case. All the relevant documents produced have been duly considered by the Labour Court in light of the oral evidence given; and on such consideration it has come to the conclusion that though on paper certain rights and powers were assigned to him and occasionally he acted in the place of the Agent when the Agent was absent such duties did not form part of his principal and main duties.13. Mr. Setalvad drew our attention to a copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors under which the respondent as Accountant was authorised " to make draw, sign, endorse, purchase, sell discount and negotiate Bills of Exchange, Hundies, Drafts, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other Negotiable instruments in the name of and on behalf of the Bank and also to operate upon all banking account maintained by this Bank with banks, bankers, and others in India for and on behalf of the South Indian Bank Limited." This resolution was dated July 18, 1959 and on the same date a circular-letter was issued to all branches sending a binder containing specimen signatures of all the officers of the Bank and the respondents name was also included in this list. In spite of this however, as pointed out by the Labour Court, it does not appear from the evidence that generally Mr. Chacko had occasion to exercise the several powers said to have been granted to him. A truer picture of his actual functions appears from a document dated August 28, 1961 signed by the Agent which was put in evidence as Ex. W 1 and the correctness of which does not appear to have been challenged on behalf of the Bank authorities. The list of duties mentioned in this document clearly shows that these are almost wholly clerical - the only exception being Item 14, viz., “and other work entrusted to him by the Agent from time to time." The Labour Court has also pointed out that no power of attorney was granted to Mr. Chacko. When on a consideration of all the relevant evidence the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the duties performed by the respondent consisted of clerical work with supervisory functions and were certainly not managerial or administrative as contended for by the Bank, we find no reason to interfere with that conclusion.14. It is pertinent to notice that on the Banks case a workman in the position of Chacko would on promotion to the rank of an officer from that of a workman be financially a loser by being deprived of the special allowance which he would have got as a workman with supervisory duties without obtaining sufficient recompense for the same because of the performance of the so-called managerial and administrative duties. It is not unreasonable to think that this so-called promotion to officers grade was really intended to undo the effect of the recommendations of the Sastry Award for this supervisory allowance. It is difficult to understand otherwise that person with higher responsibilities and managerial duties to perform would in fact be getting less in rupees and annas than what they would be getting as workman. In the circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent was a workman entitled to the benefits of the Sastry Award cannot be successfully challenged.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]The contention is clearly misconceived. The schedule refers specifically to S. 7 of the Act.That section lays down that the appropriate government may, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under this Act. Section 33C(2) in terms assigns the determination of the amount of benefit to which the workman is entitled to receive from the employer and which is capable of being computed in terms of money to such Labour Court as may be specified in this behalf by the appropriate Government. Clearly, therefore, the Labour Court as specified by the Government and not the Industrial Tribunal, has jurisdiction to deal with thistruer picture of his actual functions appears from a document dated August 28, 1961 signed by the Agent which was put in evidence as Ex. W 1 and the correctness of which does not appear to have been challenged on behalf of the Bank authorities. The list of duties mentioned in this document clearly shows that these are almost wholly clerical - the only exception being Item 14, viz.,other work entrusted to him by the Agent from time to time." The Labour Court has also pointed out that no power of attorney was granted to Mr. Chacko. When on a consideration of all the relevant evidence the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the duties performed by the respondent consisted of clerical work with supervisory functions and were certainly not managerial or administrative as contended for by the Bank, we find no reason to interfere with that conclusion.14. It is pertinent to notice that on the Banks case a workman in the position of Chacko would on promotion to the rank of an officer from that of a workman be financially a loser by being deprived of the special allowance which he would have got as a workman with supervisory duties without obtaining sufficient recompense for the same because of the performance of the so-called managerial and administrative duties. It is not unreasonable to think that this so-called promotion to officers grade was really intended to undo the effect of the recommendations of the Sastry Award for this supervisory allowance. It is difficult to understand otherwise that person with higher responsibilities and managerial duties to perform would in fact be getting less in rupees and annas than what they would be getting as workman. In the circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent was a workman entitled to the benefits of the Sastry Award cannot be successfully challenged.