Case: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Gopal Sahai Pareek

Bhargava, J. 1. The respondent Gopal Sahai Pareek, was employed by the Bank of Jaipur, Ltd. in the year 1948 as a clerk. In 1953, he was posted at the Nawalgarh branch of the bark. On 20 April, 1953, an award given by the All-India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), Bombay, in a dispute referred by the Central Government between the barking companies and their workmen, was published in the Gazette of India. The Chairman of the tribunal was Sri S. Panchapagesa Sastri and the award is known as the Sastri award. Subsequently, on 22 June, 1953, by a resolution of the board of directors of the bank, the respondent was authorized to carry out duties of supervisory nature. In July 1955, he was transferred to the Jaipur branch of the bank. The case of the appellant which is now the successor to the Bank of Jaipur, Ltd., was that, with effect from 21 July, 1955, on his transfer to the Jaipur branch, the respondent ceased to do work of supervisory nature and was doing the work of an ordinary routine clerk. On the other hand, the case of the respondent was that he continued to do the work of supervisory nature up to 31 December, 1956, even after his posting to the Jaipur branch and that it was with effect from 1 January, 1957 that the bank discontinued to take supervisory work from the respondent, because he made representations for payment of special allowance under the Sastri award. Since no special allowance was paid by the bank, or the appellant, the successor bark, the respondent moved an application under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), before the Central Government Labour Court, Delhi, claiming supervisory allowance with effect from 20 July, 1955 up to 31 May, 1962. The labour court at Jaipur, to which respondents application was subsequently transferred, allowed this claim and, consequently, the appellant has come up to this Court against that order by special leave.As the facts enumerated above show, it is the common case of the parties that up to 19 July, 1955. When the respondent was working in the Nawalgarh branch of the bank of Jaipur, Ltd, he was carrying on supervisory duties. Further, it is the common case of both the parties that with effect from 1 January, 1957, the respondent has not been carrying on any supervisory duties. The respondent in Para. 6 of his application under S 33C (2), in clear terms, admitted that the bark discontinued to take supervisory work from him from the last week of December 1956. The claim of the respondent for supervisory allowance is for the whole of the period from 20 July, 1955 to 31 May, 1962. This period is thus clearly divisible into two parts. The first part is between 20 July, 1955 to 31 December, 1956 and the second from January 1957 to 31 May, 1962. 2. So far as the second period is concerned, as has been noticed earlier, the respondent himself admitted that he was not carrying on any supervisory duties as the bark discontinued to take such work from him. The labour court in this case, as in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. R. L. Khandelwal (vide p. 589 supra) decided by us to today, held that the respondent having been granted the status of a supervisor by a resolution of the board of directors dated 22 June, 1953, could not lose that status by subsequent discontinuation by the bank of taking supervisory work from him and, consequently, allowed the claim of the respondent for special allowance for this period. The facts in the present case are similar to those in the case mentioned above and we have already indicated our reasons in that case for holding that this view of the labour court is incorrect. On the principle laid down in the case, it has to be held, that, since the respondent was, in fact, not doing any supervisory work during this period, he cannot claim supervisory allowance under the Sastri award. The labour court, in allowing this claim in respect of this period, thus committed a clear error.With regard to the first period between 20 July, 1955 and 31 December, 1956, there is a dispute between the parties whether the respondent was or was not carrying on supervisory duties. It is also clear that the right of the respondent to receive special allowance for this period will depend on a finding of fact whether he was carrying on such duties during this period or not, 3. The labour court should, therefore, have recorded a clear finding whether, in fact, the respondent was or was not doing supervisory work during this period. There being no such finding of fact, we had to indicate to counsel for parties that if the parties continued to dispute the claim in respect of this period, it will be necessary to remand this case to the labour court for recording a finding of fact on this issue Counsel appearing the parties have stated before us that, in order to avoid this further proceeding, the appellant is willing to give to the respondent half the amount claimed as supervisory allowance for this period between 20 July, 1955 and 31 December, 1956, as ex gratia payment, without conceding that the respondent was doing supervisory work, and the respondent agrees to accept this amount. Under this agreement between the parties, the respondent is to be given a sum of Rs. 347 by the appellant.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]3. The labour court should, therefore, have recorded a clear finding whether, in fact, the respondent was or was not doing supervisory work during this period. There being no such finding of fact, we had to indicate to counsel for parties that if the parties continued to dispute the claim in respect of this period, it will be necessary to remand this case to the labour court for recording a finding of fact on this issue Counsel appearing the parties have stated before us that, in order to avoid this further proceeding, the appellant is willing to give to the respondent half the amount claimed as supervisory allowance for this period between 20 July, 1955 and 31 December, 1956, as ex gratia payment, without conceding that the respondent was doing supervisory work, and the respondent agrees to accept this amount. Under this agreement between the parties, the respondent is to be given a sum of Rs. 347 by the appellantThe facts in the present case are similar to those in the case mentioned above and we have already indicated our reasons in that case for holding that this view of the labour court is incorrect. On the principle laid down in the case, it has to be held, that, since the respondent was, in fact, not doing any supervisory work during this period, he cannot claim supervisory allowance under the Sastri award. The labour court, in allowing this claim in respect of this period, thus committed a clear error.With regard to the first period between 20 July, 1955 and 31 December, 1956,there is a dispute between the parties whether the respondent was or was not carrying on supervisory duties.It is also clear that the right of the respondent to receive special allowance for this period will depend on a finding of fact whether he was carrying on such duties during this period or not,