Case: State Bank Of Bikaner &amp; Jaipur Vs. Shri Hari Har Nath Bhargava

either the first or the second method or some times even a combination of both.9. According to the Labour Court the underlying idea behind the said award was that when one general scale for clerical service had been provided in the award, it was thought just and proper that persons with special qualifications or skill required for discharging work carrying with it greater responsibility than the usual work should definitely get higher emoluments than the ordinary workmen. The Labour Court said that "this did not mean that the person of the same qualifications and skill who had been granted the powers of attorney by the bank should be allowed special allowance only for any particular period unless a man was temporarily appointed to do supervisory work." In the result, the Labour Court allowed the respondent supervisory allowance at Rs. 40/- p.m. with effect from 6th April 1954 to 31st December, 1955 with consequential benefits.10. It is to be noted however that although a point had been taken in the written statement of the bank about the delay in the filing of the application under S. 33-C it had not been pressed before the Labour Court.11. Mr. Sanghi appearing for the appellant was prepared to concede that so far as the periods 6th April 1954 to 12th July 1955 and 27th December 1955 to 31st December, 1955 were concerned he was not contesting the claim. But in so far as the period 13th July, 1955 to 27th December, 1955 was concerned, his client was pressing the appeal as a matter of principle as this would constitute a test case by which other similar cases might fall to be decided.12. This Court had to deal with a case where an identical question arose. In State Bank of Hydrabad v. V. A. Bhide, (1968) 2 Lab LJ 713 (Andh Pra), this Court had to consider the claims of the respondents in that appeal for payment of special allowance granted to supervisors under what were known as the Sastry and Desai awards. It was there contended on behalf of the appellant bank that in order to claim the supervisory allowance the parties must establish that the main or essential duties entrusted to them and actually discharged by them were duties and functions of a supervisory nature. This Court considered the Sastry and Desai awards and observed (at p. 727):". . . . 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 (Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Panna Lal Gupta, (1961) 1 Lab LJ 18 (SC) ) 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."In our view the payment of a special allowance is called for when an employee discharges duties of a supervisory nature or is accorded the status of a person competent to discharge functions of a supervisory character. If no power of attorney is executed as in this case but in fact the employee is asked to render services of a supervisory character and the employee does such work at the request of the bank, he becomes entitled to the allowance. Once however a power of attorney giving the wide powers of agency as was done in this case is executed, it should be held that the management had placed him in a category of persons with responsibility and the employee was to discharge the responsibility without any further request in that behalf. It may be that the initial giving of power of attorney was necessitated by the fact that at Kota there was only one officer besides the respondent who could discharges duties like endorsing hundies, drafts etc. and it became necessary for the bank to have a second officer who could carry on this kind of work. But the power of attorney does not show that the bank thought it necessary to clothe the respondent with the said Powers only for discharging his duties when he was at Kota. The power of attorney was operative at any branch of the bank irrespective of the capacity which might be occupied by the respondent at a particular point of time. It may be that at Jaipur there was a number of officers superior to the respondent who were empowered to discharge duties mentioned in the power of attorney but this does not necessarily lead to the inference that the respondent lost his responsibility or was denuded of the powers while he was at Jaipur. If he discharged any of the duties mentioned in the power of attorney the same would be lawful and would be binding on the bank. The fact that he was not actually called upon to discharge such functions did not take away from his responsibility or status of a person competent to discharge functions of a supervisory character and we see no reason why he should be deprived of supervisory allowance unless the bank gave him notice, that he was not to act on the power of attorney while at Jaipur. We therefore hold that the Labour Court had come to the correct conclusion.13. Mr. Sanghi tried to urge the point that the Labour Court should not have entertained the application as being inordinately belated and that even though the Labour Court did not adjudicate on this point it was open to the bank to urge it before us. We made it clear that we were not going to entertain this plea in view of the fact that although the point had been taken in the written statement of the bank, it was not agitated before the Labour Court and further was not taken even in the special leave petition.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]In our view the payment of a special allowance is called for when an employee discharges duties of a supervisory nature or is accorded the status of a person competent to discharge functions of a supervisory character. If no power of attorney is executed as in this case but in fact the employee is asked to render services of a supervisory character and the employee does such work at the request of the bank, he becomes entitled to  the allowance. Once however a power of attorney giving the wide powers of agency as was done in this case is executed, it should be held that the management had placed him in a category of persons with responsibility and the employee was to discharge the responsibility without any further request in that behalf. It may be that the initial giving of power of attorney was necessitated by the fact that at Kota there was only one officer besides the respondent who could discharges duties like endorsing hundies, drafts etc. and it became necessary for the bank to have a second officer who could carry on this kind of work. But the power of attorney does not show that the bank thought it necessary to clothe the respondent with the said Powers only for discharging his duties when he was at Kota. The power of attorney was operative at any branch of the bank irrespective of the capacity which might be occupied by the respondent at a particular point of time. It may be that at Jaipur there was a number of officers superior to the respondent who were empowered to discharge duties mentioned in the power of attorney but this does not necessarily lead to the inference that the respondent lost his responsibility or was denuded of the powers while he was at Jaipur. If he discharged any of the duties mentioned in the power of attorney the same would be lawful and would be binding on the bank. The fact that he was not actually called upon to discharge such functions did not take away from his responsibility or status of a person competent to discharge functions of a supervisory character and we see no reason why he should be deprived of supervisory allowance unless the bank gave him notice, that he was not to act on the power of attorney while at Jaipur. We therefore hold that the Labour Court had come to the correctmade it clear that we were not going to entertain this plea in view of the fact that although the point had been taken in the written statement of the bank, it was not agitated before the Labour Court and further was not taken even in the special leave petition.