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

1. This appeal arises out of an application under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial disputes Act. The respondent A. R. Chacko was working as a clerk in the Coimbatore Branch of the appellant Bank when by an order dated June 19, 1959 he was promoted as accountant and was transferred to the Alleppy Branch of the Bank. The appellants pay in the new post was fixed by an order on July 16, 1960. By this order he was allowed Rs. 120/- as basic pay in the new grade of Rs. 120-10-160 from January 1, 1960. From August 1, 1960 and thereafter he was allowed to drawn Rs. 10/-per month as CAIIB allowance. The petitioners case in the application under S. 33C(2) is based on the contention that after his promotion to the post of accountant with additional supervisory duties he was entitled to the special allowance of Rs. 40/- under Para 164 of the Sastry Award. His case is that he was entitled from the date of his joining as accountant i.e., from July 13, 1959 - (a) to a basic pay of Rs. 95/- of his old grade with annual increments due on December 1, every year i. e., at the rate of Rs. 95/- in the months of August, September. October and November 1959 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 100/- from December 1959 to November 1960, and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 106/- from December 1960; (b) special allowance of Rs. 40/- per month for the additional supervisory duties and (c) dearness allowance in terms of the award. The total amount to which he would be entitled thus would be Rs. 4,495.22. The amount actually paid to him for the period July 13, 1959 to the end of March 1961 for which the application was brought was Rs. 3637.73. He claimed to be entitled to the additional amount of Rs. 855.49 and prayed that the Labour Court be pleased to issue a certificate for this amount to the Collector authorising the Collector to recover, the amount in accordance with law.2. In resisting this application the Bank contended (1) that such an application under S. 33c(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was incompetent, (2) that in any case the matter would be one within the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal and not the Labour Court. (3) that the Sastry Award had ceased to be operative from March 31, 1959 long before the date of the respondents appointment as an accountant and so no benefits accrued to him under that award and (4) by his appointment as accountant the respondent had ceased to be a workman and was therefore not entitled to he benefits of the Sastry Award. The Labour Court rejected all these objections and allowing the application, computed the amount due to the respondent from the Bank to be Rs. 855.49. Against this decision the present appeal has been filed by special leave.

Reasoning: 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.