http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL & GRINDLAYSBANK LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THEIR WORKMEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/08/1971

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 2454            1972 SCR  (1)   7  1971 SCC  (2) 595

ACT: Industrial Dispute-Bank Employees-"Medical aid and expenses" Bipar tite Agreement-Need for standardisation.

HEADNOTE: The employees of the Kanpur branch of the appellant  batik.. enjoyed  medical  facilities  without  a  monetary  ceiling. Under  the  Sastry Award, and under the  Desai  Award  which substantially adopted the Sastry Award in this respect,  the higher  medical  benefits enjoyed by the  employees  of  the branch,  were  to continue.  In pursuance of  the  Bipartite Settlement in 1966 an attempt was made to standardise "Medi- cal  aid  and  expenses" by bringing the  employees  of  the branch  in  line with the other branches of  the  bank,  but without success.  During the conciliation proceedings before the   Regional   Labour  Commissioner  the   appellant   was agreeable, until the next All India Settlement/ Award in the banking  industry when the workmen of the appellnt  bank  at Kanpur  would fall in line with that settlement/award  to  a higher  limit of Rs. 250/- for medical aid and expenses  for the,  employees  of the branch as compared  to  the  ceiling fixed under the Bipartite Settlement for employees of  other banks.  This limit was ’to be applicable to the employees as well  as  to their families.  The appellant  bank  was  also agreeable  to pay the hospitalisation expenses but  only  of the  workmen.  A dispute as to what should be  the  monetary limit  up  to  which  medical aid  and  expenses  should  be admissible,to the workmen of the Kanpur branch was  referred to  the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal  gave-an  award declaring  that  the  employees  of  the  branch  and  their families  would be entitled to medical aid and ,expenses  up to  a  monetary limit of Rs. 250  per year.   The  Tribunal further  directed that the appellant-bank would  defray  the hospitalisation charges not only for the employees but  also for the members of their families. In appeal to this Court, against the award, it was contended that   the   Tribunal,  having  rerognised  the   need   for standardising  benefits  in  respect  of  medical  aid   and expenses, ought not to have fixed them at a rate higher than those fixed for the employees of the bank in other branches, particularly,  when  nothing had been shown As to  why  the Kanpur branch employees should be given favoured  treatment.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

It   was   also  contended  that  the  award   relating   to hospitalisation  was made applicable to the members  of  the family  of the employees at Kanpur’ while no  such  facility was  available to the other workers.  The respondents  took the stand that the benefits enjoyed by the employees of  the branch of having unlimited medical aid facilities could  not be curtailed. 2-M1245Sup.  Cl/71 8  HELD  : (1) The object of the Bipartite Settlement  was  to standardise  the  facility  in respect of  medical  aid  and expenses; but when it was found that one of the branches  of the  appellant  bank was not able to fall in line  that  was left  to further negotiations, but nonetheless, it was  made manifest  that standardisation should be achieved  to  bring them  in  line With other workmen of the  bank.   When  once there  has been a general revision in respect of pay  scales and   other   amenities  and  facilities  which   are   more advantageous than under the previous award there seems to be no  reason why the employees of the Kanpur branch should  be treated  as favoured employees, particularly,  when  nothing has  been  stated nor any material relied upon to  show  why they  should be so treated.  It is not a case of  protecting the  wage  of an individual workman who was  getting  higher than what is envisaged in the standardisation scheme at. the time when such a scheme is brought into force. [14D 15B] (2)Further,  there is no justification for the  tribunal  to extend the hospitalisation facilities to the members of  the families if that was not enjoyed by the workmen in the other branches of the appellant Back and in other Banks which  are similarly situated. [15E] (3)  However,  in view of the fact that the  appellant  Bank was  agreeable  to give a higher limit as indicated  in  its offer before the Conciliation Officer, though for a  limited period, namely, till the next All  India  Settlement  Award, which was also reiterated before this Court, the interest of the  employees of the Kanpur branch are well served by  that offer. [15G] [The  Court accordingly,directed that a higher limit or  Rs. 250/be  fixed ,towards medical aid and expenses of  each  of the employees of, the  Kanpur branch and their families  as defined  in the Bipartite Agreement, the higher limit to  be effective  till the next All India Settlement/Award. It  was further  directed  that each of the workmen  would  also  be entitled to hospitalisation in terms of the said agreement.]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.:CIVIL Appeal No. 553, of 1970. Appeal  by special leave from the Award dated  November  19, 1969 of the C.G.I.T.-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur in Case  No. CGIT/LC(R) 1 of 1969. G.   B. Pai and P. N. Tiwari, for the appellant. M.   K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by p  Jagnmohan  Reddy, J. This is an Appeal by  Special  Leave against  the  Award  made  by  the  Industrial  Tribunal  at Jabalpur on 18th November 1969, declaring  9 that  the  employees of the Kanpur Branch of  the  Appellant Bank  which  is  classified as an ’A’  Class  Bank  will  be entitled  to medical aid and expenses upto a monetary  limit of  Rs.  250/-  per year from  January  to  December,  which medical  aid shall be available to the employees as well  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

to the members of their families as defined in paragraph 15. 1.1  of  the  Bipartite settlement.   The  Tribunal  further directed   that   the  Appellant  Bank   will   defray   the hospitalisation charges not only for the employees but  also for  members  of their families on the  condition  that  the hospitalisation is recommended by the Bank’s Doctor and that any amount utilised out of medical aid ceiling which. may be outstanding  to the credit of the employee  concerned  shall first  be utilised to pay the hospitalisation bill  and  any balance remaining thereafter shall be met by the Bank.  This Award  was  to take’ effect from 1 -1-70 and was  to  be  in force till such time as modified in accordance with law. The  Appellant  Bank,  challenges the  jurisdiction  of  the Tribunal to make the aforesaid Award and further contests it not  only on the ground that it is discriminatory and  shows an  unwarranted  favour  to  the employees  of  one  of  its Branches at Kanpur but that it is. against the principle  of standardisation  which  was  the  basis  of  the   Bipartite agreement.  In order to appreciate these contentions a brief history  of the previous Awards and  Settlements  concerning the  medical aid granted to the, All India,  Bank  Employees may be useful. In  March 1953 an Award known as the Sastry Award was   made which  while  dealing  with other terms  and  conditions  of service  of  the Workmen dealt with  the  dispute  regarding medical  aid  and’ expenses on industry  wise  basis.   This Award  ’classified  the-Banks into  various  categories  for determination  of  the terms and conditions of,  service  of Workmen  of such Banks which @ Were equally  applicable  for grant  of  medical aid and expenses The  Award  relating  to medical aid and expenses Was dealt with in Chapter XXII para 450  by  and  under  which  the  then  existing   facilities regarding medical aid and expenses which were being  enjoyed by  the Kanpur Branch of the Appellant Bank and  which  were more favourable than the provisions made under that 10 Award were to continue.  It may be stated that the employees of  the,  Kanpur  Branch  enjoyed  medical facilities  for themselves  alone  without a ceiling.  Although  the  Labour Appellate Tribunal in an Appeal against that Award  modified certain  of  its  provisions, against  that  Award  modified certain of its provisions  the terms and conditions in  para 450 Clause 2, relating to the higher medical benefits  which were  being  enjoyed were to continue  as  heretofore.   The following extract of para 450 is relevant               450(1) Medical facilities should be availed of               only  by the workman.  Members of  his  family               are not entitled to the same.               (2)   Wherever existing facilities in any Bank               or  Banks  are  superior  to  the   provisions               hereinafter  made, such facilities  should  be               continued.               (10)  The  total  expenses  from  January   to               December of each calendar year on account  of               medical attendance and treatment payable by  a               Bank  to  a  Workman  shall  not  exceed   the               following limits Class of Banks                        Class of Areas.                                 I      II      III                                 Rs.    Rs.     RS.      A                          90     60      50      B                          75     50      40      C                          60     40      30      D                          30     20      15 Then came the Desai Award which replaced the Sastry Award as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

modified  by the Labour Appellate Tribunal.  Even  though  a large  number  of terms and conditions in  Banking  industry were  modified by this Award it did not interfere  with  the provisions  of  para  450  of the  Sastry  Award  which  had preserved  the  rights of the employees to  enjoy  the  then existing  medical facilities.  The following  extracts  from the   Award  will  indicate  that  the  Sastry   Award   was substantially adopted:-               11.11.  The  benefits  given  under   the               Sastry  Award  so  far  as  medical  aid   and               expenses are concerned, are reasonable in  the               present circums-               11               tances.   Workmen  have claimed  that  medical               facilities  should be extended to the  members               of Workmen s family.  Both the Sastry Tribunal               and  the Labour Appellate Tribunal  considered               this  matter and could not see their,  way  to               grant this demand.  It was considered that the               health of the family was primarily a charge on               the pay and emoluments of an employee and  not               on   the   Bank.   No  such  change   in   the               circumstances  has  taken  place  which  would               warrant  the  grant of  this  facility.   This               demand may be covered when the employees State               Insurance  Scheme  is made applicable  to  the               Workmen in the Banking Industry.               11-16.   I accordingly direct that so  far  as               the   Workmen  in  A  &  B  Class  Banks   are               concerned,   the  amount  of  total   expenses               provided on account of medical attendance  and               treatment  from  January to December  of  each               calendar ,year should be allowed to accumulate               so  as not to exceed at any time three,  times               the maximum amount provided under this Award. On  19th  October  1966  a  settlement  in  respect  of  the Industrial  dispute between the Management of the  Banks  as represented  by the Indian Banks Association and the  Bombay Exchange Banks Association and their Workmen as  represented by  the All India Banks Employees Association and All  India Banks Employees Federation was arrived at, which is commonly referred to as the Bipartite settlement.  Some of the  terms and conditions which were in operation under the Desai Award were  revised.   Chapter XV of this agreement  modified  the Award  relating to ’Medical aid and expenses’  as  specified therein.   The  modifications relevant for the  purposes  of this Appeal are as follows:-               (a)In   supersession  of  sub-clause  (1)   of               paragraph  450  of the Sastry  Award,  medical               facilities  as provided in this Chapter  shall               be  available to workmen and members of  their               family  consisting  of wife,  children  wholly               dependent  upon  the  workman,  and  dependent               widowed mother.               12                PROVIDED   always   that  nothing   in   this               settlement   as  regards  "medical   Aid   and               Expenses" shall apply to those workmen of  the               National  & Grindlays Bank Ltd.,  Kanpur,  who               are  enjoying  "Medical Aid  &  Expenses"  for               themselves  Without monetary ceiling,.  it  is               agreed  that  the  parties  hereto  will  hold               discussions  in  an endeavour  to  standardise               "Medical Aid and Expenses" for such workmen by               bringing  them in line with the other  workmen

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             of  the  Bank in regard to  "Medical  Aid  and               Expenses".               (b). . . . . .               (c)in   supersession  of  sub-clause  (1)   of               paragraph  450 of the Sastry Award  the  total               expenses  from  January to  December  of  each               calendar year on account of medical attendance               and  treatment payable by a Bank to a  workman               shall not exceed the following limits:-                                Area I  Area IIArea III                                  Rs.     Rs.          Rs. ’A’ Class Banks                  135     90           75 ’B’ Class Banks                  113     75           60 ’C’ Class Banks                   80     54           40 Such  facilities  should  not include  supply  of  dentures, spectacles, hearing and other aids". After  this  Bipartite  settlement an attempt  was  made  to standardise  medical  aid by bringing the employees  of  the Kanpur  Branch in line with "other Branches of the Bank  but without success.  During the conciliation proceedings before the  Regional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur the Appellant  was agreeable, until the next All India Settlement/Award in  the Banking Industry when the Workmen of the Appellant at Kanpur will  fall in line with that Settlement /Award, to a  higher limit  of  Rs. 250/- for medical aid and  expenses  for  the ,employees  of the Kanpur Branch as compared to the  ceiling fixed under the Bipartite settlement for employees of  other Banks.  This limit was to be applicable to the employees  as well as to their families.  13 The   Appellant  Bank  was  also  agreeable,  to   pay   the hospitalisation expenses but only of the workmen subject  to the condition that any amount unutilised as per the limit of medical aid and expenses to which the employee was  entitled was  to  be utilised first to pay the hospital  bills.   The Respondents wanted the limit to be raised to Rs. 400/-, that hospitalisation  should also be permissible for  family  and that  they  do not agree to the automatic  linking  of  this benefit in Kanpur Branch to other Bank employees at the time of  the  next  Settlement/Award.   After  the   conciliation proceedings  failed, the following dispute was  referred  to the Tribunal namely :               "What should be the monetary limit upto  which               medical aid and expenses should be  admissible               to  the workmen of National &  Grindlays  Bank               Ltd., Kanpur Branch and front which date". The Tribunal called for information in respect of the number of  employees  in  the category of workmen, as  well  as  of officers  or staff on special rates and pay working  at  the Kanpur  Branch.   It  also required the  Bank  to  give  the monetary ceilings which have been fixed by the bank for  its officers.  After receiving the information in respect of the aforesaid matter the Tribunal made the impugned Award. It was sought ’to be contended before the Tribunal that  the Sastry and Desai Awards which preserved the benefits enjoyed by the employees of the Kanpur Branch of the Appellant  Bank could  not be curtailed to their disadvantage and  that  the matter  is  concluded by res-judicata.   This  argument  was rejected as being misconceived.  It was pointed out that the bipartite settlement clearly stated that the medical aid and expenses  have  to be standardised for the  workmen  of  the Kanpur  Branch for bringing them in line with the  employees of  the  other Branches.  In order to achieve this aim  a  a direction was given to the parties to hold discussions in an endeavour  to  come to a settlement.  The  Tribunal  further

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

Pointed  that the terms of reference of the  dispute  itself envisaged the determination of the question of fixation  of the  monetary  limit and hence it was  not  Precluded  from, going into that question. 14 The AWard is assailed on the ground that the Tribunal having recognised  the  need  for  standardising  the  benefits  in respect  of  Medical aid and expenses it ought not  to  have fixed  them  at  a  rate higher than  those  fixed  for  the employees  of the Bank in other Branches  particularly  when nothing has been shown as to why the Kanpur Branch employees should be given a favoured treatment.  It is also  contended that  the Award relating to hospitalisation" has  been  made applicable to the members of the family of the employees  at Kanpur  while  no such facility is available  to  the  other workers.  On the other hand the Respondents adopt the  stand taken up before the Tribunal namely that benefits enjoyed by the  employees  of  the Kanpur Branch  of  having  unlimited medical aid facilities cannot be curtailed. It appears to us that the object of the bipartite  agreement was  to standardise the facility in respect of  medical  and and expenses, but when it was found that one of the Branches of the Appellant Bank was not able to fall in line that  was left  to further negotiations, but nonetheless it  was  made clearly manifest that standardisation should be achieved  to bring  them in line with the other workmen of the  Batik  in regard to Medical aid and expenses. There can be no doubt as to the validity of the principle of standardization  and  particularly  when  nothing  has  been stated  nor  any  material placed before us as  to  why  the Kanpur  employees of the,, Appellant Bank should be given  a favoured  treatment. When we consider the workmen in  cities bigger  than Kanpur like Calcutta, Bombay and  Madras  being given  the same facility as that which was agreed to,  there appears no justification for giving the Kanpur employees who fall in the same category i.e. Class A, Area 1, a  different and  more  advantageous  treatment.  Even  when  the  Kanpur employees enjoyed unlimited medical benefits, those benefits were  not available to the members of their family  nor  was the  hospitalisation extended to them.  It was  pointed  out that under the unlimited scheme the expenditure incurred  on the  employees  on an average was Rs. 250/- and  above,  but this as has already been pointed out is only limited to  the employees and not to  15 their families.  When once there has been a general revision in  respect  of  the pay scales  and  other  amenities,  and facilities  which  are  more  advantageous  than  under  the previous Award there seems to be no reason why the employees of   the  Kanpur  Branch  should  be  treated  as   favourdd employees.   It is not a case of protecting the wage  of  an individual  workman  who  was getting higher  than  what  is envisaged  in  the standardisation scheme at the  time  when such  a scheme is brought into. force.  If that were  so  we would  have kept in view the three conditions laid  down  in Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills v. Workmen &  Ors.(1). We  do not find any cogent reasons upon which  the  Tribunal has  distinguished  the case of the workmen  at  Kanpur  and singled  them  out  for beneficial  treatment.   It  may  be noticed  that under the bipartite agreement the workmen  are having the benefit of medical aid extended to the members of the  family which was not applicable to the workmen  before. Even though the employees of the Kanpur Branch had no  upper limit  their families were not given the benefit of  medical aid,  nor  is there any justification for  the  Tribunal  to

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

extend the hospitalisation facilities to the members of  the families if that was not enjoyed by the workmen in the other Branches of the Appellant Bank and in other Banks which  are similarly situated.  We are unable to find any principle  or justification for giving the employees of the KanpurBranch a favoured  treatment which other ’employees of the Banks  and even of the Appellant in other Branches cannot avail,  under the Bipartite agreement.  In this view we would have  placed them in the same category as the employees of other Branches of  the appellant who are similarly situated.   However,  in view  of the fact that the appellant Bank was  agreeable  to give  a  higher limit as indicated in its offer  before  the Conciliation Officer though for a limited period namely till the  next  All India Settlement/Award which offer  was  also reiterated before us but was not accepted, we think that the interests  of  the employees of the Kanpur Branch  are  well served  by  that  offer.  Accordingly we  allow  the  appeal partly And direct that a higher limit of Rs. 250/- be  fixed towards medical aid and expenses of each (1)  [1963]2 S.C.R. 716 @ 730-731. 16 of  the employee of the Kanpur Branch and their families  as defined in the bipartite agreement.  Apart from this each of the workman is also entitled to hospitalisation in terms  of the  said  agreement.  This higher limit will  be  effective till  the next All India Settlement/Award.  Each party  will pay his own costs. K.B.N.                             Appeal partly allowed. 17