Case: State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Verma (C. S.)

The facts are as follows2. Verma was originally in the employment of the Bank of Jaipur, Ltd., from 1 November, 1943. This bank is now known as the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. He was working as a clerk but on 1 April, 1944 he was posted as an agent of the Nawalgarh branch. Subsequently he worked from January 1951 to May 1956 as agent of Surajgarh office. On 1 May, 1956 his designation was assistant accountant. The Sastri award was published on 20 April, 1953 and the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal on that award was given exactly a year later. On 24 August, 1954, Government of India made its order modifying the appellate decision and on 21 October, 1955 the Industrial Dispute (Banking companies Decisions) Act, 1955, was promulgated. These events, which are well known may be borne in mind in following the thread of the narration of the events in this case:On 1 January, 1956 the bank introduced a revised scale of pay and allowances for its officers including the respondent. This was a curious scale of Rs.0 2, 500. It provided for a service of 68 years between the minimum and maximum salaries. It was apparently introduced to get over certain recommendations of the Sastri tribunal and accepted by Government in relation to special allowances as will appear later. It is also to be recalled that on 29 August, 1956 the definition of "workman" in the Industrial Disputes Act was amended. Then came the award by the national tribunal presided over by Justice Sri K. T. Desai and his award operated from 1 January, 1962. To determine the applicability of Sri Desais his award C. S. Varma was treated as workman for purposes of his special allowance from 1 January, 1962 It may be stated here that to the date of the Sastri award and thereafter he was not treated as a workman either under the old definition of "workman" or under new definition. The petition of under S. 33C(2) raised the question that he was entitled to the special supervisory allowance under the Sastri award and later by virtue of the definition from 29 August, 1956. He was not in receipt of this allowance which, if it was admissible to him, would have been at Rs. 40 per month from 1 April, 1954 to 31 December, 1956 when the bank was C class bank and from 1 January, 1957 onwards at Rs. 45 per month after the bank was upgraded to B class. Verma accordingly claimed by his application a sum of Rs. 8, 458 as arrears of the special supervisory allowance.Numerous objections were raised to his petition mainly on the ground of jurisdiction but with them we are no longer concerned because the learnedl waived those objections. The tribunal by its award upheld the claim of Verma and awarded him a sum of Rs. 7, 572.08 as arrears of special allowance from the commencement of the new definition to 3 December, 1961. It may be stated again that from 1 January, 1962 he was treated as a workman under the definition applicable at the time of the award of Justice Sri Desai. No contention has been raised that he was not so entitled to the special allowance from 1 January, 1962.

Court's reasoning:
This excluded supervisors and even certain categories of accountants. The position of Verma therefore, was that during the period between January 1951 and May 1956 when he was working as an agent doing managerial and supervisory work, he could not be classed as a workman. This the labour court also found in his case. After 1 June, 1956 his designation was assistant accountant and the question is moot whether he could be regarded as a workman or held entitled to the allowance admissible to. That question we need not decide because no claim for the period between 1 June, and 28 August, 1956 is raised. Vermas claim to the special allowance has been upheld by the labour court after 29 August, 1956 on two grounds. They are that the new definition of workman covered his case and he was treated as a workman by the bank under the Desai award from 1 January, 1962. The new definition undoubtedly applied to him.This is a wrong approach. The award and the decision regulated the emoluments of services in the banks and created categories. Anyone opting for the created categories. Anyone opting for the conditions of service under the award and the decision, stood to gain if by legislation his status was charged to his advantage. This is what has happened in Vermas case. He was a supervisor but not entitled to an allowance. After the charge in the definition of "workman, " he was entitled to take advantage of the award by reason of the legal change in his status as supervisors became workmen. 8] it is held that it is competent for the labour court to interpret an award or settlement on which the workmens right rests although the claim be disputed. The dispute here was not whether Verma was a workman because that followed from the change in the law. The dispute was whether being a workman he was entitled to the benefit of an award for which he had opted. Had the matter rested with the applicability of the award to Verma because Verma claimed to be a workman without a clear support of a law, the matter might have been different. Here Vermas status as a workman is beyond question because of the charge of definition from 29 August, 1956. As a workman he was entitled to the benefits of an award for which he had opted and which the Desai award and even the bank recognizes albeit after 1 January, 1962. There is nothing to show that there was any difference in his status earlier from 29 August, 1956. His right to the allowance began from that date. The matter, therefore, fell within the power of the labour court under S 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.