http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LIMITED

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K. L. KHARBANDA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/02/1962

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SARKAR, A.K.

CITATION:  1963 AIR  487            1962 SCR  Supl. (2) 977  CITATOR INFO :  R          1964 SC 743  (8,19)  R          1965 SC1488  (5)  F          1968 SC 218  (3)  RF         1969 SC 590  (6)  RF         1970 SC 237  (13)  RF         1972 SC2189  (7)  D          1978 SC 275  (6)

ACT:      Industrial Dispute-Provisions  for  computing benefit  in   terms  of   money-If  applciable  to monetary benefit-Bank  Clerk made supervisor-Basic wages,   computation   of-All   India   Industrial Tribunal (Bank  Disputes)  Award,  para  292  (7)- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947) s. 33C (2).

HEADNOTE:      The Sastri  Award provided one scale of wages for clerks in all banks. It further provided for a special allowances  to clerks  who  were  assigned special posts  requiring special  skill. Paragraph 297 (7) of the Award provided for fixing the basic wages of  employees of  a bank  who  joined  after January 31,1951  in the new scales prescribed. The respondent, who was a clerk in the appellant bank, was appointed  a supervisor in 1951. The appellant fixed his  basic  wages  according  to  the  scale payable  to  graduate  clerks  and  gave  him  the special allowance  prescribed by the Sastri Award. The respondent  made an  application under  s. 33C (2) of  the Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947,  for computing in  terms of  money the benefit to which he was  entitled under  the Sastri  Award claiming that his  basic wages should be fixed according to the scale  prescribed by the Bank for supervisors. The appellant  contended that  s. 33C  (2) was not applicable  to  monetary  benefits  and  that  the respondent being  a clerk  his wages  were rightly fixed. ^

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

    Held,  that   s.  33C  (2)  of  the  Act  was applicable to  computation  of  monetary  benefits also to  which a  workman  was  entitled  and  the application was  maintainable. The  word "benefit" included both  ’monetary benefit’  as well as ’non monetary benefit’  and  there  was  no  reason  to exclude ’monetary  benefit’  therefrom.  The  word used  in   s.  33C  (2)  was  "computed"  and  not "converted" and  compute means  to calculate.  The provision of  s. 33C (2) was concerned purely with execution and  there was no reason to hold that it applied to non-monetary benefits alone.      Glaxo Laboratories (India) Limited, Bombay v. Shri A. Y. Manjrekar, (1955) L. A. C. 505.      South Arcot  Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Elumalai, (1959) I.L.L.J. 624 and 978           M.S. N.S.  Transports, Tiruchirapalli v.      Rajaram (K) (1960) I.L.L.J. 316, referred to.      Held,  further   that  the   respondent   was entitled to  basic salary  according to  the scale fixed supervisors.  The grades of supervisors were also grades for workmen prevalent in the appellant bank. The  Sastri Award provided one grade for all clerical workmen  by whatever name they were known in the  bank. In view of para 292 (7) of the Award basic wages of the respondent could not be reduced below what  they would  be under  a point-to-point adjustment on the corresponding scale which he was drawing before  the Sen  Award, in  this bank as a workman.      Punjab National  Bank Ltd.  v. Their Workmen, C.A. 450  of 1959,  Decided  on  December  6,1960, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION :  Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1961.      Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order  dated   August  2,1960,   of  the   Central Government Labour  Court at  Delhi in L. C. A. No. 80 of 1960.      A. V.  Viswanatha Sastri  and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.      S. T.  Desai and  Janardan  Sharma,  for  the respondent.      1962. February  2. The  Judgment of the Court was delivered by      WANCHOO, J.-This  is  an  appeal  by  special leave in  an  industrial  matter.  The  respondent Kharbanda is  a supervisor  in the Punjab National Bank Limited which is the appellant before us. The dispute relates  to the  fixation of his salary in accordance with  the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes)  Award (hereinafter referred to as the  Sastry   award).  The   respondent  made   an application to  the Central  Labour Court,  Delhi, under s.  33-C(2) of  the Industrial Disputes Act, No. XIV of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act), and his case  was that  he  was  entitled  to  certain benefits capable  of being  computed in  terms  of money under  the Sastry  Award, but  the appellant had made a wrong

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

979 calculation in fixing his basic salary. Therefore, the respondent prayed that the benefit to which he was entitled  by  fixation  of  his  basic  salary correctly should be computed in terms of money and determined by  the Labour  Court. His case further was that  when his  basic salary was rightly fixed under Sastry  Award he  would be entitled to a sum of Rs.  6,428.28 nP.  as arrears  upto the date of his application.      The application  was opposed on behalf of the appellant and  two contentions were raised to meet the case  put forward  by the  respondent. In  the first place  it was urged that the application was not maintainable  under s.  33-C(2) of the Act and the Labour  Court had no jurisdiction to decide it Secondly, it  was urged  that the  manner in which the appellant  had  fixed  the  basic  salary  was correct and  there was  therefore no  force in the contention of  the respondent that he was entitled to certain  benefits of which he had been deprived and which  should  be  calculated  by  the  labour court.      Before we  deal with  the  two  points  which arise in  the present  appeal we  may refer to the provisions of  the Sastry  Award out  of which the present   dispute   arises.   Originally   another tribunal known  as the  Sen Tribunal was appointed in June  1949 to  go  into  the  disputes  between various banks  all  over  the  country  and  their employees. The Sen Tribunal made an award after an exhaustive inquiry but on appeal to this Court the said award  was set  aside in 1951. Thereafter Act II of  1951 was  passed as a temporary measure for freezing certain  provisions of  the said award in order to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  prevalent unrest amongst the bank employees in question. The said dispute  was then  referred  by  the  Central Government to the Sastry tribunal in January 1952. This tribunal  held an  elaborate inquiry and made its award which was published on April 20, 1953. 980 Appeals were  preferred by  the  banks  and  their employees against the said award before the Labour Appellate Tribunal,  and on  April 28,  1954,  the Appellate  Tribunal  substantially  confirmed  the recommendations  and   directions  of  the  Sastry tribunal  with   certain  modifications.   In  the present appeal,  we are  not  concerned  with  the further history of the dispute, for it is admitted that the  provisions  of  the  Sastry  award  with respect to  the matter  in controversy  before  us have remained  unmodified when finally the dispute was  set   at  rest  by  the  Industrial  Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Act, (XLI of 1955).      The Sastry tribunal decided after considering the matter  from all  aspects to  provide only one scale  for  clerks  in  all  banks,  though  banks themselves were  divided into four classes and the places where  the banks  were situate were divided into three  areas. In  the present  appeal we  are concerned with  Class A,  area I,  for  which  the grade provided  was from  Rs. 85  to Rs.  280 with varying increments  (see para 119 of the award) to which it  is unnecessary  to refer.  After  having

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

provided one  cadre of clerks, the Sastry tribunal then considered  the question  of certain  special posts where  the incumbent  required special skill for the  efficient discharge of his duties and the problem before  it was  whether there  should be a separate scale  for such  special posts or whether the incumbents of such posts should be in the same scale as  clerks with  certain advantages  in  the shape either  of additional increments in the same scale or  additional allowance  over and above the scale  or   a  combination  of  both.  The  Sastry Tribunal rejected  the formulation  of a  separate scale for these special posts and decided to grant a special  allowance over and above the pay of the clerical scale.  One such  class of  special posts with which  the Sastry award was concerned was the class  of  supervisors  to  which  the  respondent belongs and it 981 provided a  special allowance  of Rs.  50/- in the case of A class banks in area I for supervisors by para. 164 thereof.      Then arose  the question of fixing the pay of the employees  of the  banks into  the  new  scale provided in  the award  and that  matter was dealt with in  para. 292.  The Sastry  award divided the employees into  categories, namely,  (i) those who entered the  service of  the banks  before January 31, 1950,  and (ii)  those who entered the service of the  banks  after  January  31,  1950.  In  the present case  we  are  concerned  with  those  who joined the  service of  the bank after January 31, 1950. The  relevant provision with respect to such employees is  cl. (7)  of para  292 which reads as follows :-           "(7). The  workman shall  be fitted into      the new  scale of  pay  on  a  point-to-point      basis as though it had been in force since he      joined the service of the bank, provided that      his adjusted  basic pay is not less than what      it would be under a point to-point adjustment      on the corresponding ‘pre-Sen’ scale."      It may  be mentioned  that the respondent was appointed as a superiors by the appellant on April 22, 1951  on the  basic salary  of Rs.  120/-  per mensem.  At   that  time   the  basic   scale  for supervisors  was   Rs.  120-8-200-EB-10-300  while there was  a basic  scale for graduate clerks etc. of  Rs.   75-5-120-8-200.   The   respondent   was appointed on the initial basic salary of Rs. 120/- per mensem.  The dispute  between the  parties  is that the  respondent claims  that his basic salary should be fixed under para 292(7) according to the supervisor’s scale for the purposes of the proviso while the  appellant claims  that it  can only  be fixed at  the highest  on the  scale for  graduate clerks, and  the appellant  fixed the respondent’s pay  on   that  basis,   and  that   led  to   the respondent’s making  the present application under s. 33-C(2)  of the  Act. The tribunal has found in favour of the 982 respondent. The  appellant therefore  applied  for special leave  which was granted ; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    The first  question therefore  that falls for decision is  whether such  an application  can  be made under  s. 33-  C(2) of  the Act, Section 33-C (2) reads as follows :-           "(2) Where  any workman  is entitled  to      receive from  the employer  any benefit which      is capable  of being  computed  in  terms  of      money,  the  amount  at  which  such  benefit      should be  computed may, subject to any rules      that may,  made under this Act, be determined      by such  Labour Court  as may be specified in      this behalf  by the  appropriate  Government,      and the amount so determined may be recovered      as provided for in sub-section (1)." It is contended on behalf of the appellant that s. 33-C(2) deals  only  with  such  cases  where  the workman is  entitled to  receive from the employer any benefit  which is non-monetary but which could be computed  in terms of money. It is said that it is only  in such a case where the workman claims a non-monetary benefit from his employer that he can apply to the labour court for converting the value of  this   non-monetary  benefit  into  money  and computing the amount due in terms of money. On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that the benefit to which a workman may be entitled  need not  necessarily be non-monetary and that any benefit to which he is entitled under an award  if it  requires computation  can be  the subject-matter of  an application  under  s.  33-C (2). Reliance  has been  placed on  behalf of  the respondent in  this  connection  on  a  course  of decisions by the industrial tribunals and the High Courts where  the meaning of the word "benefit" in sub-s.(2) has  not been  confined to  non-monetary benefits only. 983      The crucial  words which we have to interpret are  "any   benefit  which  is  capable  of  being computed in terms of money". The word "benefit" is of wide import, and the dictionary meaning thereof is  "advantage,   profit".  This  would  naturally include monetary  advantage  or  monetary  profit. There  is   no  reason   therefore  for  excluding ‘monetary benefits,  from the  word "benefit" used in this  sub-section, unless  it is clear from the words  used   that  monetary   benefits  were  not intended to be included in the wide word "benefit" used  therein.  It  is  urged  on  behalf  of  the appellant that we should exclude monetary benefits from the  meaning of  this word  in the context of this sub-section  because the word is qualified by the words  "which is  capable of being computed in terms of  money". This, it is urged, suggests that the meaning  of the  word "benefit"  here excludes monetary   benefits,   for,   according   to   the appellant, there  would be  no sense  in computing monetary benefits  in terms  on  money.  But  this contention overlooks  the fact  that the word used in the  qualifying clause  is "computed"  and  not "converted". If  the word had been "converted" and the clause  had read  "which is  capable of  being converted in terms of money" there would have been a clear  indication that  the benefit which was to be converted  in terms  of money  was  other  than

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

monetary benefit.  The dictionary  meaning of  the word "convert"  is "to  change by  substituting an equivalent"; and  if the  word "convert"  had been used in  the qualifying  words, the  argument that the word "benefit" only means non-monetary benefit might be  incontrovertible. But  the word  in  the qualifying clause is "computed" and the dictionary meaning  of  the  word  "compute"  is  merely  "to calculate". Therefore,  where the benefit to which a workman  may be  entitled has  not already  been calculated, for example, in an award which confers on him  the benefit, it stands to reason that sub- s.(2) would  apply for computation of such benefit if 984 there is  dispute about it. Further, if we compare sub-s.(1) with  sub-s(2) of  this section, it will appear that  sub-s.(1) applies  to cases where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or  an award or under the provisions of Chap. VA  and that contemplated that the amount is already computed  or calculated  or  at  any  rate there can  be no  dispute about the computation or calculation;  while  sub-s.(2)  applies  to  cases where  though   the  monetary   benefit  has  been conferred on  a workman under an award, it has not been calculated  or computed  in the award itself, and, there  is dispute  as to  its calculation  or computation. It  cannot therefore  be said looking to the  words  used  in  sub-s.(2)  that  it  only applies to cases of non-monetary benefit which has to be  converted in  terms of money. It appears to us that  it can also apply to monetary benefits to which a  workman may  be entitled  which have  not been calculated  or computed, say, for example, in an  award   and   about   their   calculation   or computation there  is dispute  between the workman and the employer. It may be added that s. 33-C was put in  the Act  for the  purposes of execution in 1956  after  the  Industrial  Disputes  (Appellate Tribunal) Act,  (48 of  1950) was repealed in that year. The  Appellate Tribunal  Act contained s. 20 which provided  for execution of awards and was in terms  almost   similar  to  s.  33  C.  When  the Appellate Tribunal  Act was  repealed  in  1956  a provision similar  to that  contained in s. 20 was brought into the Act at the same time. It is clear therefore that  s. 33-C  is  a  provision  in  the nature of  executing and  where the  amount to  be executed is  worked out  (for example in an award) or where it may be worked out without any dispute, s. 33-C(1) will apply. But where the amount due to workman is  not stated  in the  award  itself  and there is  a dispute  as to  its calculation,  sub- s.(2) will apply and the workman would be entitled to apply  thereunder to  have the  amount computed provided he is 985 entitled  to   a  benefit,   whether  monetary  or nonmonetary, which is capable of being computed in terms of money.      This matter  had  come  up  before  Appellate Tribunal in  1955 in  Glaxo  Laboratories  (India) Limited Bombay  v. Shri  A. Y. Manjrekar. (1). The appellate tribunal took the view that s. 20 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

appellate Tribunal  Act was  concerned purely with execution and  there was  no reason  to hold  that sub-s. (2)  only applied to non-monetary benefits. The same  view was  taken by the Madras High Court in South  Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Elumalal  (2) by  a learned  Single  Judge  and again  by   the  same   High  court   in  M.S.N.S. Transports’ Tiruchirapalli  v. Rajaram (K)(3) by a Division Bench.  Looking therefore to the words of the sub-section  and the  provious decisions  with respect to  them we  are of  opinion that the word ’benefit’ used in sub-s.(2) is not confined merely to non-monetary  benefit which  could be converted in terms  of money but is concerned with all kinds of benefits,  whether monetary or non-monetary, to which a workman may be entitled, say, for example, under an award and that the sub-section comes into play when  the benefits  have to  be  computed  or calculated and  there  is  a  dispute  as  to  the calculation or  computation.  After  the  benefits have been so computed, the workman can apply under sub-s. (1)  for recovery of the amount in the same manner as  arrears of  land-revenue.  As  in  this case, the  Sastry award had conferred a benefit on the respondent and those like him by providing for fixation of pay in the new scale, even though that benefit may  be monetary  and there  was a dispute between the  parties as  to  the  amount  of  that benefit, it was open to the respondent to apply to the labour  court for  computation of that benefit in terms of money, and the labour court would have 986 jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  application  and compute the amount due on the basis of the benefit conferred by the award.      This brings  us to the next question, namely, as to  how the  basic salary  should be fixed. The main emphasis  on behalf  of the appellant in this connection  is   on   the   word   "corresponding" appearing in  cl. (7)  of para.  292. It  is urged that the  Sastry tribunal  fixed one scale for all clerks  and   as  supervisors   are   clerks   the respondent could  only be  considered as belonging to the  corresponding  scale  for  clerks  in  the appellant-bank for  the application of the proviso and thereafter he would be entitled to the special allowance of  Rs. 50/-  per mensem.  On the  other hand, the respondent contends that supervisors are workmen, as  has been  held in  a dispute  between this very bank and its supervisors, referred to an industrial tribunal  which gave  an award on April 4, 1957,  (see the  observations of  this Court in the Punjab  National Bank  Ltd. v.  Their Workmen) (1), and  therefore all that was necessary to find out the  corresponding scale  was to  see in  what scale  of   workmen  the  respondent  was  at  the relevant  time.   In  this   connection,  we   may incidentally add  that it  is not  disputed by the appellant that  its supervisors,  accountants  and accounts in-charge are generally workmen under the Act, though some may not be so. The difficulty, so far  as  the  appellant  is  concerned,  arose  on account of  the fact  that the  appellant had nine scales which  applied  to  workmen  of  all  kinds beginning with  peons and  chaukidars  and  ending

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

with accountants  and accounts in-charge. Three of these  scales   were  for   what  may   be  called subordinate staff under the Sastry award while six were for  what is  clerical staff under the Sastry award.   These   six   included   the   grade   of supervisors. The  appellant however  contends that only 987 four grades,  namely (i)  Assistant Cashiers  (ii) Head Cashiers, (iii) Undergraduate clerks, typists and Godown  keepers, and (iv) Graduate clerks, all stenographers in  sanctioned stenographer’s posts, should  be  treated  as  clerks  for  purposes  of correspondence with  the scale for clerks fixed by the Sastry  award and  the remaining  two  grades, namely, (i)  Supervisors, and (ii) Accountants and Accounts  in-charge,  should  not  be  treated  as clerks for the purpose of correspondence. In view, however,  of   the  decision   of  the  industrial tribunal in  the dispute between the appellant and some of  its supervisors  and accountants  already referred to,  it is  obvious that these two grades for supervisors  and accountants  and accounts in- charge were  also grades  for workmen prevalent in the appellantbank.  What the  Sastry award did was to make  one grade  for all  clerical workmen  and when cl.  (7) speaks  of correspondence it relates in our  opinion to  the  corresponding  grades  of workmen by  whatever name they may have been known in  particular   banks.  The   fact  that  certain clerical workmen  in this  bank were called clerks while  certain  others  were  called  supervisors, accountants and  accounts in-charge  would not  in our opinion make any difference to the question of correspondence,  para   292  deals   with  workmen generally and  not separately  with clerical staff and subordinate staff. Further cl. (7) itself lays down that the workmen shall be fitted into the new scale  of   pay  on  a  point-to-point  basis  and therefore when  we have  to find the corresponding scale for the purpose of the proviso in cl. (7) we have to  look at  the  corresponding  scale  which relates to  a workman  at a  time before  the  Sen award. Now if the supervisor’s scale was the scale of a  workman previous  to the  Sen award  then it must be  held to  be a corresponding scale for the purpose of  fixation so  far as  the respondent is concerned, irrespective  of the name by which this class of workmen was designated in this particular bank. The proviso 988 says that after adjustment the basic pay shall not be less  than what  it would  be under a point-to- point  adjustment  on  the  corresponding  pre-Sen scale. If  therefore the  supervisor’s scale  is a workman’s scale  it must be the corresponding pre- Sen scale  so far  as the respondent is concerned; consequently his  basic pay cannot be fixed in the new scale  prescribed by  the Sastry  award  below what it  would be  on  the  corresponding  pre-Sen scale. We  have already  pointed out  that it  has been already  held between  this very bank and its workmen  that   supervisor’s   are   workmen   and therefore the  supervisor’s scale in this bank was a workmen’s  scale; therefore when the fixation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

pay has  to be  made under cl. (7) we have to find out the  corresponding workmen’s scale in the case of the  respondent at  a time before the Sen award was made  and that  in our opinion can only be the supervisor’s scale,  for supervious have been held to be  workmen between  the parties to the present dispute. The  fact that  the Sastry award provided for a  social pay  for certain employees including supervisors has  no relevance  on the  question of correspondence which  has to  be worked  out under cl. (7)  in order  to find  out the  basic pay for purposes of  fixation. In  view of  what  we  have said, the  supervisor’s scale  being a  scale  for workmen in  this bank,  the respondent is right in his claim  that his  basic pay  cannot be  reduced below what  it would  be  under  a  point-to-point adjustment on the corresponding scale which he was drawing before  the Sen  award, in  this bank as a workman. In this view of the matter the view taken by the labour court is correct. Once the principle is fixed, there is no dispute as the amount due to the respondent.      The appeal  therefore  fails  and  is  hereby dismissed with costs.                                  Appeal dismissed. 989