Case: Management Of State Bank Of Hyderabad Vs. Vasudev Anant Bhide Etc

3. In C. M. P. No. 115 of 1963 Bhide has stated that he was working as an employee under the appellant as Head Cashier in charge of the Cash Department, at various branches from 1946 till the date of his filing the application viz., August 31,1963 and, as such he was entitled to receive the special allowance under the Sastry Award as modified and also under the Desai Award. From 1946 to 1953 he was the Head Cashier and as such had to control and supervise the work of seven employees, including, three Cashiers, one Godown-Keeper and one Chowkidar. During 1953-55 he was in charge of the Cash Department at Aurangabad Branch and as such he had to control and supervise the work of six to seven employees, including four to five Cashiers, one Godown-keeper and one Chowkidar. During 1955-58 he was Head Cashier at the Secunderabad Branch and as such he was in charge of the Cash Department and had to control and supervise the work of 28 Cashiers, one Godown-keeper and one Chowkidar working under him. Later on he was the Head Cashier in Mahaboob Nagar Branch till the date of the application and as such he was controlling and supervising the work of 9 Cashiers, 2 Godown-keepers and 3 Chowkidars.4. In paragraph 3 of his application, Bhide sets out the duties discharged by him as Head Cashier asIn charge of Cash Department, which includes the checking, controlling and supervision of the work of Cashiers, Godown Keepers and Chowkidars working under him.2. Issuing receipts to the public for payments made upto Rs.10,000 independently, without the countersigning of the same by any other Officer with signing authority.3. Being the Joint Custodian of the Currency Chest, Coin Depot, Safe Custody of Gold Ornaments and rental documents along with Manager or any other joint custodian and the applicant held responsible for any shortages therein, and for any omissions and commissions in this regard. It may be added here that the other Joint Custodian is allowed a Special Allowance of Rs.50 to Rs.75/- per month as per classification of the Bank in respect of this particular special responsibility, while the applicant is not given any special allowance for the same.4. Verification of vernacular signatures on cheques and drafts of any value.5. Verification, valuation and purchase of Bills from Constituents and to check up and satisfy himself that the same is supported by genuine trade and documentary bills and whether the same covers the bill amount in question. It may be noted here that this special supervisory function is not entrusted to the Head Cashiers of any other Bank.6. Supervision and control of stocks, valuation, rates, deliveries of godown stocks, involving the work of godown-keeper throughout and also to countersign the pledge letters, delivery orders after due verification along with godown-keeper. Till 1 1/2 years ago, the Head Cashier was also checking the physical stocks of goods pledged to the Bank and he was in charge and control of stock taking periodically. But this particular function has been stopped since about 1 1/2 years, while the applicant is responsible and continues to attend to and discharge all other supervisory functions referred to above.7. Countersigning the pay-in-slips for cash deposited for credit of current deposit accounts, Home saving safe accounts, Cash Credit accounts, and also on vouchers of Time Deposits, D. Ds. issued etc.8. Procuring financial reports on parties and signing the same as Head Cashier.9. To verify and sign the statements of Cash transactions operations in respect of currency chest sent to Reserve Bank of India, daily, weekly, monthly and periodically, along with the other joint custodian of the Currency Chest.10. Signing all the other periodical returns, Reserve Bank Statements sent regularly, along with the other signing authority.11. Holding the keys of Cash-in-charge, jointly with another authorised supervising officer or authority namely Manager or Accountant.12. To be responsible for the entire working of the Cash Department and for making good any shortage due to over payment or under receipt.13. To discharge finally all Cash receipt vouchers.14. To arrange dispatch of insured parcels and covers containing valuables or currency notes and then get them sealed under his supervision and in the presence of the Accountant, Manager or Officer-in-charge.15. To scrutinise, check and supervise the work of Cashier and others working in the Cash Department and also the messengers working in the Department.16. To distribute, allot and change duties to the employees working in Cash Department.17. To get currency notes sorted and stitched into bundles under his supervision and check the same at the time of closing cash.18. To nominate persons to be employed under the control of the Head Cashier.19. To appoint a fit person to act for him as Head Cashier in case of his absence due to illness or otherwise with the approval of the Head Office.20. The Head Cashier shall be responsible for the intra omissions of any member of the Staff under his control and for the correctness and genuineness of all hundies, cheques, securities, vouchers, deeds, documents writings and signatures written in any national regional languages or character which the Head Cashier shall at any time during his employment as Head Cashier accept or deal with as correct and genuine and he shall make good to the Bank any loss or damage that may be sustained by the Bank arising from any forged instrument, or signature coming into the hands of the Head Cashier in the course of his employment as Head Cashier and shall be accepted or dealt with by him as correct and genuine.21. Further, the Head Cashier shall enquire into and as far as possible ascertain and if required to do so truly and faithfully report in writing about the identity, credit, solvency and circumstances of all persons being subjects of Republic of India, who shall have dealings of any kind with the Bank through the agency of the Head Cashier and shall make good to the Bank all losses and expenses by reason of any negligence or default or misrepresentation in any such enquiry or report made by the Head Cashier during the course of his employment as Head Cashier.22. The Head Cashier shall be responsible to the Bank for the safe custody of all bullion, cash securities and other property belonging to or deposited with the Bank and for the safe and proper storing, checking and keeping in the place or places appointed for the proper custody thereof of the goods, produce and merchandise of any description whatsoever received by the Godown Keeper or Assistant Godown Keeper from time to time or brought from time to time into the Banks godowns. He shall be liable for any loss caused to the Bank by reason of receipt of bad or base coin or money or any forged or fraudulently altered Government Currency note or notes or by reason of payment of any money or delivery of any securities for money or property, effects, goods, produce or merchandise being made to wrong persons whether owing to forgery, mistake, fraud or33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV ofmanagement Bank challenged this preliminary order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 201 of 1964

Court's reasoning:
16. We accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that the Labour Court had been specified under Section 33C (2) as early as April 15, 1963. It follows that this contention of Mr. Aggarwala has no substance.Gokhale, on behalf of the respondents, urged that Article 137 had no application to proceedings initiated under Sec. 33Cview of this statement by the learned Counsel, it is unnecessary to consider this contention any further.We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that the point arising for consideration is purely one of fact. In exercising its discretion under Article 136, this Court does not normally enter upon pleas on questions of fact and is also generally reluctant to interfere with findings of fact recorded in a judgment on decision under appeal. So in dealing with the question raised by the appellant that the respondents had been wrongfully held entitled to claim supervisory special allowance we will proceed on the basis that the facts found by the Labour Court are correct. The Labour Court has accepted the claim of the respondents regarding the items of work done by them, though it has not differentiated between the various items of work as to which of them is of a supervisory nature.We will also proceed on the basis that according to the Labour Court some items of work done by the respondents as Head Cashiers can be called, supervisory. But will that make them eligible for the supervisory special allowance? The status of the three respondents has to be inferred as a matter of law from the facts found and therefore the question naturally arises as to whether the Labour Court has drawn the correct legal inference from the facts found by it.The claim of the respondents for the special allowance as supervisors is dealt with under Paragraph 164 (b) (9) of the Sastry Award. We may state that this Award was challenged by the Banks before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which substantially confirmed the directions issued in respect of payment of special allowances.Paragraph 5.285 states that special allowances prescribed under the Award would be in supersession of those prescribed under the Sastry Award as modified. In Paragraph 5.286 the Award states that special allowances are payable to employees who are workmen and who will continue to remain as workmen even after inclusion of the amounts of such special allowance as wages. In Paragraph 5.287 it is stated that when an employee falls within more than one category, he will be entitled to receive the special allowance at the highest rate applicable to him. We may state that this paragraph embodies the note appearing after the categories of employees enumerated in Para 164 (b) of the Sastry Award. Pausing here for a minute, we may state that the Note in the Sastry Award and Paragraph 5.287 in the Desai Award do not advance the case of the respondents any further. The effect of the note is only that if an employee has been assigned work the discharge of which will bring him under two categories, one of which carries a higher rate of special allowance, he will be entitled to such higher rate.Having seen the relevant provisions in the two Awards, we have come to the conclusion that the scheme of both the Sastry and Desai Awards for grant of special allowance as Supervisors is that such special allowances can be drawn only when a person falls in the category of a supervisor or is found eligible to be put in that category by whatever nomenclature such person may be designated, in view of the supervisory nature of the duties and functions assigned to him. The mere fact that a person whose duties are essentially and mainly that of a Head Cashier, for whom also a special allowance is payable under the two Awards, performs occasionally or casually or incidental to his work as a Head Cashier, duties which may be characterised as supervisory, will not entitle him to claim the higher rate of special allowance granted to a supervisor under the two Awards.Both the Sastry and the Desai Tribunals had before them various types of persons working in the banks as well as the duties discharged by them. It is on that basis and after a careful consideration of the duites so performed by them and the responsibilities attached to each post that the two Tribunal divided the person into nine categories in the Sastry Award and twenty categories in the Desai Award. We are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Gokhale that merely because certain items of work, which really form part of the regular work of Head Cashiers, can be considered as being supervisory and are being done by the respondents, they will be entitled to claim the higher rate of supervisory special allowance.36. We have already referred to the evidence of the respondents that the work that was being done by them were all items of work forming part of the duties of a Head Cashier, from the inception of the bank and all Head Cashiers do similar work. Therefore it follows that the work done by the respondents, even on their own admission and on the findings of the Labour Court, consisted of only items of work which a Head Cashier was bound to do; and the few items of work claimed by them to be supervisory were really done by them as incidental to their main duties as Head Cashiers.We have already referred to the evidence of the respondents that the work that was being done by them were all items of work forming part of the duties of a Head Cashier, from the inception of the bank and all Head Cashiers do similar work. Therefore it follows that the work done by the respondents, even on their own admission and on the findings of the Labour Court, consisted of only items of work which a Head Cashier was bound to do; and the few items of work claimed by them to be supervisory were really done by them as incidental to their main duties as Head Cashiers.In this connection it is also necessary to note that the appellant bank and its employees were parties to both the Sastry and Desai Awards. We have already referred to the fact that the Sastry Award adverts, in paragraph 338, to the demand made by the Head Cashiers to be treated as supervisors or heads of sections. No doubt this demand was in respect of emoluments being fixed appropriate to position of responsibility of supervisors; but this claim was rejected by that Tribunal. A similar demand, on behalf of Head Cashiers, for giving them supervisory grades was rejected by the Desai Award in paragraph 5.249. These circumstances clearly show that the two Tribunals were not inclined to treat Head Cashiers on a par with Supervisors and that must be due to the reason that the functions discharged by the Head Cashiers and Supervisors materially differ. The view expressed by us earlier that the Sastry and Desai Awards had in view persons falling under the category of supervisors or discharging supervisory functions by whatever nomenclature they may be designated, is also clear from some of the statements made in the Awards, to which we shall refer presently.39. We will first take up the Sastry Award. In para 161 it is stated that the demand for extra payments, designated as special allowances, was made with reference to the nature of clerical and subordinate work now performed by employees under various designations. In paragraph 162, again it is stated that the Tribunal has provided only a minimum special allowance and that it may be proper and desirable that the incumbents of such offices in some of the big banks should be allowed by them more than that awarded by the Tribunal. In paragraph 163 the Tribunal proceeds to enumerate the categories for which special allowances, in our opinion, be given. After specifying the categories of employees for whom special allowance is to be given, in paragraph 165 the Tribunal is faced with the question as to whether the employees in these categories will fall within the definition of workmen. This question is separately dealt with in Chapter XV, but in paragraph 165, regarding this aspect the Tribunalwe are now providing must be understood as the allowances applicable to incumbents of such of these posts where they are workmen".Similarly, in the Desai Award, in dealing with Supervisory Staff, in paragraph 5.218 the Tribunal states that it is left with no alternative except to fix special allowances for workmen employed in a supervisory capacity as was done by the Sastry Tribunal. It is further stated in the same paragraph that in deciding whether a workman is entitled to supervisory allowance, the designation of the workmen would not be decisive and that in order to entitle the workman to such allowance what would be determinative would be the nature of the duties and functions assigned to him. In paragraph 5.221 the Tribunal itself has stated that the Sastry Tribunal provided special allowances for the 9 categories of workmen employed in various classes of banks as mentionedour opinion that decision does not lay down any suchobservations, in our opinion, makes it quite clear that 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 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 employeework done by the Head Cashiers in the instant case may be considered very important, responsible and onerous, but, in our opinion, on the basis of the items of work claimed to be done by them, they are not entitled to the special allowance as supervisors, under category 9 of paragraph 164 (b) of the Sastry Award, or under the Desai Award.