http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VASUDEV ANANT BHIDE ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/04/1969

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. SHELAT, J.M. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA

CITATION:  1970 AIR  196            1970 SCR  (1) 365  1969 SCC  (2) 491  CITATOR INFO :  D          1987 SC2179  (15)

ACT: Industrial  Dispute-Sastry and Desai  Awards-Head  Cashiers- Claim to special allowance as supervisors-When permissible.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant-Bank  and its employees were parties  to  the Sastry and Desai Awards published on March 26, 1953 and June 13,  1962  respectively.  The two awards  provided  for  the grant of allowance to head cashiers and a special  allowance to  supervisors  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.  But in paragraph 338, the  Sastry  Award rejected  the demand made by head cashiers to be treated  as supervisors  while  fixing  emoluments  appropriate  to  the position  of supervisors, and the Desai Award, in  paragraph 5.249, rejected a similar demand by head cashiers for giving them supervisory grades. The  respondents in the present case were head  cashiers  of the appellant Bank and were receiving the special  allowance due  to them as head cashiers.  The duties and functions  of head  cashiers were set out in the agreements  entered  into between  the Bank and the head cashiers.  The items of  work done  by  the respondents were those usually  done  by  head cashiers.   They  were also doing some items of  work  which could be called supervisory- They filed applications  before the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) of the Industrial  Disputes Act,  1947,  and claimed payment of  the  special  allowance granted  to supervisor&.  The Labour Court found’  that  the respondents  were  discharging  some  supervisory  functions without  specifying  which  part  of their  work  was  of  a supervisory nature, and allowed the claim. In appeal to this Court, HELD:     (1)  The  Labour  Court  had  been  specified  and conferred jurisdiction to entertain the applications. [374F] (2)  The  status of an employee as to whether he is  a  head cashier or supervisor is not a pure question of fact and has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

to  be inferred as a matter of law from the facts  found  by the Labour Court.  The mere fact that a person whose  duties are  essentially and mainly that of a headcashier, for  whom also  a special allowance was payable under the two  awards, performs  occasionally or casually or as incidental  to  his work as a headcashier, duties which may be characterised  as supervisory,  will  not  entitle him to  claim  the  special allowance granted to a supervisor under the two awards.  The two  awards  dealt  with  headcashiers  and  supervisors  as entirely  different categories.  Only persons falling  under the  category of supervisors or discharging functions  which were  mainly  or essentially of a supervisory  nature,  were treated as supervisors; and headcashiers were not treated on a par with supervisors, because, the functions discharged by headcashiers   and   supervisors  materially   differ.    If headcashiers were treated as supervisors merely because they did  some  work of a supervisory nature there should  be  no distinction between the two categories. [377B-C, G-H;  378B- C; 382G-H; 383A-C; 384B-E] 366 in  the present case, the work done by the  respondents,  on their  own  .admission  and on the findings  of  the  Labour Court,  consisted of only items of work which a  headcashier was  bound to do.  They never claimed that they fell  within the  category  of  supervisors  or  discharging  any   ’work essentially  of a supervisory nature.  The work  might  have been  important, responsible and onerous but on  that  basis they   were  not  entitled  to  the  special  allowance   as supervisors.  Even the few items of work ,claimed by them to be  supervisory  were really done by them as  incidental  to their main duties as headcashiers.  It was not necessary  to remand  the matter to the Labour Court for investigation  as to  which  parts of the items of work claimed to  have  been done   by   the  respondents  could  be   characterised   as supervisory functions, because, the respondents only claimed that  in the discharge of their work as  headcashiers,  they were doing certain items of work-which were of a supervisory nature, and not that they have been doing any work which was essentially of a supervisory nature. [383D-H; 386D-E;  387C- D] Lloyds. Bank v. Panna Lal Gupta, [1961] 1 L.L.J. 18  (S.C.); Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1961] 11 L.L.J. 162 (S.C.) and Eastern Bank v. Shivdas Vishnu Naik [1963] 11 L.L.J. 365 (S.C.) referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  1916  to 1918 of 1968. Appeals  by special leave from the order dated May 13,  1968 of  the  Labour Court (Central), Hyderabad  in  Civil  Misc. Petitions Nos. 115 of 1963 and 4 and 5 of 1965. C.   B. Agarwala, K. Srinivasamurthi, B. P. Singh and Naunit Lal, for the appellant (in all the appeals). H.   R. Gokhale, M. K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for  the respondent (in C.A. No. 1916 of 1968). M.   K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu, J. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, for the respondent (in C.A. Nos. 1917 and 1918 of   1968). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. These three appeals, by special leave, by the  management  of  State Bank of  Hyderabad  are  directed against the common order, dated May 13, 1968, passed by  the Labour  Court  (Central), Hyderabad,  allowing  applications filed  by each of the respondents herein under S. 33C(2)  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  1947  (Act  XIV  of   1947) (hereinafter called the Act).  The claim of the  respondents in  each  of these -appeals was for payment of  the  special allowance granted to Supercalc under what are commonly known as  the  Sastry  and Desai Awards.   The  Labour  Court  has accepted  their claims in full and the management have  come up  in appeal to this Court.  The short question  -which  is raised  for  our decisions is whether the Labour  Court  was right in holding that the three respondents could claim  the status 367 of  Supervisors entitled to the supervisory allowance  under the Sastry and Desai Awards. Three applications, Central Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 115 of  1963  and 4 and 5 of 1965 were filed by  the  respective respondents  before the Labour Court under s. 33C(2) of  the Act.    As  the  averments  contained  in  each   of   these applications  were more or less common and the basis of  the claim for special allowance was also the same, we will refer to  the averments made in Application No. 115 of 1963  filed by   Vasudev  Anant  Bhide.   The  defence  raised  by   the management was also the same in all the three applications. 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  Ca-shier 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. In paragraph 3 of his application, Bhide sets out the duties discharged by him as Head Cashier as follows               "1.  In  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 counter signing 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 368  custodian  and  the  applicant  held  responsible  for  any shortages  therein, and for any omissions or 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

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. 369               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 despatch of insured  parcels               and               covers  containing valuable 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 messenger,, 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

             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,  docu-               ments  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               370               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,  mis-               take, fraud or otherwise." In  paragraph  4 he states that apart from  ’the  heavy  and important  responsibilities  entailing  the  work  of   Head Cashier,  he was regularly supervising and  controlling  the work done by the employees working under him -and as such he was entitled to receive the Special Allowance of Rs. 45  per month  under paragraph 164 (6) (9) of the Sastry  Award  and Rs.  60  per month under paragraph 5.282(18)  of  the  Desai Award,   which   is  the  special   allowance   payable   to supervisors. It is further stated by Bhide that he was  paid only  Rs.  25 per month as and by way of  allowance  and  he claims the balance sum of Rs. 3577.57 as due to him from the appellant which is a B-class Bank under the Bank Award. The management contested the claim on the following grounds.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

The  application filed under s. 33C(2) was not  maintainable and  the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to  entertain  the same.   The  Labour Court had not been  ’specified  in  this behalf  by  the  appropriate  Government’  for  entertaining applications under s. 33C(2) of the Act and therefore it had no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the application.  The applicant  was  a  Head Cashier and he was  being  paid  the special allowance due to him under the two Awards and he was not entitled to claim the special allow- 371 ance  payable to a Supervisor as he was not discharging  any supervisory   functions.    The  applicant  had   not   been controlling. and supervising the work of other employees and any  such incidental work that he might have been doing  was only  restricted  to  his  position and  duties  as  a  Head Cashier.   AR  the duties and functions referred to  in  his application were the normal functions and duties attached to the post of a Head Cashier and were within the terms of  the agreement  between the management and the employees such  as Bhide  functioning as Head Cashier.  None of the duties  and functions  enumerated  in the application bore  the  charac- teristics  of being of a supervisory nature and such  duties and  functions  were not beyond the legitimate sphere  of  a Head  Cashier.   Bhide had been doing the duties of  a  Head Cashier  and  discharging  the  functions  also  of  a  Head Cashier.   Bhide never used to appoint nor had he  appointed any  person working under him; but in view of  the  personal responsibility  and liabilities of the Head Cashier  it  was the  practice  to allow him to suggest names of  persons  in whom  he could have trust and confidence to work under  him. He  neither  nominated nor appointed  but  merely  suggested names  for acceptance and appointment.  The appointment  was actually  made  by other superior officers.  Bhide  being  a Head  Cashier  was paid the  legitimate  special  allowances payable to him under the two Awards and he was not  entitled to claim the special allowances which were payable only to a supervisor. The Labour Court, in the first instance, decided the  preli- minary  objection  raised  by the  management  that  in  the circumstances  mentioned by the petitioner in C.M.P. 115  of 1963  an application under s. 33C(2) was  not  maintainable. This  objection  was over-ruled by the Labour Court  and  it held that the application under s. 33C(2) was maintainable. The management Bank challenged this preliminary order before the  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.  201  of 1964.   The High Court, by its order dated August  25,  1964 upheld  the  order of the Labour Court on  the  question  of jurisdiction;  but  it directed the Labour  Court  that  the claim for supervisory allowance would have to be  considered having due regard to the nature of the duties and  functions discharged by Bhide and the relevant provisions contained in the Sastry and Desai Awards. It  was after the disposal of the Writ Petition by the  High Court that the two other applications C.M.Ps. No. 4 and 5 of 1965  were  filed  before  the Labour  Court  by  Pyati  and Deshpande respectively who were also Head Cashiers  claiming the supervisory allowance under the Sastry and Desai Awards. There was a slight change made in these two applications  in that the applicants stat- 372 ed that they were discharging as Head Cashiers  multifarious supervisory duties enumerated by them in their applications. The  duties  and  functions  mentioned  by  each  of   these applicants  substantially tally with the averments  made  in C.M.P. 115 of 1963.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

Pyati  in  his application averred that he was  entitled  to receive,  -under  para.  164(b)(9) of  the  Sastry  Award  a Special  Allowance  of Rs. 45 per month from April  1,  1954 till  December  31, 1961 but he was paid  special  allowance during that period only at the rate of Rs. 25 per month.  He further  claimed  that  for the period January  1,  1962  to December  31,  1963 he was entitled to receive  the  special allowance  at the rate of Rs. 60 per month under para  5.282 of the Desai Award and he was paid only a special  allowance at the rate of Rs. 25 per month.  Since January 1, 1964  the Bank  had been upgraded from B-class to A-class and in  con- sequence he claimed that he as entitled to receive a special allowance of Rs. 65 per month under the Desai Award  whereas he  was paid a special allowance only at the rate of Rs.  27 per  -month.  From November 1, 1964 he had been receiving  a special  allowance  of Rs. 35 per month instead of  Rs.  65: Accordingly,  Pyati claimed a sum of Rs. 4696.16 as  due  to him as Supervisory ,Special Allowance. Similarly,  Deshpande,  in his application C.M.P. No.  5  of 1965,  claimed a sum of Rs. 2028.95 as  Supervisory  Special Allowance  under the two awards, after giving credit to  the amounts of special allowance already paid to him. Both  these applications were also contested by the  manage- ment  on the ground that the applicants were not  doing  any supervisory  work  and that they had  been  discharging  the duties  and functions which appertained to each of  them  as Head  Cashier of the Bank.  The other objections  raised  by the Management in C.M.P. No. 115 of 1963 were also raised in respect of these .two applications. The  three  applicants  gave evidence in  support  of  their respective  claims to the effect that as Head Cashiers  they were discharging supervisory duties and functions also.  The management  also  ’let in evidence to the  effect  that  the duties  and functions discharged by these  three  applicants were the duties and functions attached to the office of Head Cashier and that none of the applicants were discharging any supervisory functions. The  Labour  Court over-ruled all the objections  raised  on behalf of the management and allowed the applications  filed by  -the  Head Cashiers.  Issues No. 2 to 5 related  to  the question  .as  to  whether  the  three  Head  Cashiers  were entitled to claim the 37 3 Supervisory  Special  Allowance under the Sastry  and  Desai Awards,  the  nature  of  the  functions  which  they   were discharging and whet her such work done by them involved any work  of a supervisory nature.  The Labour Court  held  that the  various  Exhibits  placed before it  showed  heavy  and onerous responsibilities on the Head Cashiers and also  work involving supervision.  It further found that the  evidence, oral  and  documentary,  showed that the work  of  the  Head Cashiers  was partly of a highly responsible nature,  partly clerical  and  partly of a supervisory nature.   The  Labour Court   further   held  that  the  three   applicants   were discharging  supervisory  functions and  their  claims  fell within the ambit of the Sastry and Desai Awards.  Ultimately it found that the applicant had been doing the work  alleged by  them  in their applications and that such work  done  by them  involved  work ’supervisory in  nature’.   The  Labour Court therefore allowed the claims in full, as asked for  in the three applications. Dr. C. B. Aggarwala, learned counsel for the appellant  Bank has  raised the following four contentions : (1) The  Labour Court  has  no jurisdiction to  entertain  the  applications under s. 33C(2) of the Act as it was not ’such Labour  Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

as  may  be  specified in this  behalf  by  the  appropriate Government’. (2) The applications filed under s. 33C(2)  are barred  under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.  (3)  If the  claim of the Head Cashiers for the Supervisory  Special Allowance  at  the  rate  mentioned in  the  two  awards  is allowed,  the respondents will be drawing more than Rs.  500 per month and, as such, they will not be ’workmen’  eligible to  file an application under s. 33C(2) of the Act. (4)  The three respondents have been discharging only the duties  and function that appertain to the post of a Head Cashier  which they  were  occupying  and they  were  not  discharging  any supervisory  functions  and  in  consequence  none  of   the respondents is entitled to the supervisory special allowance under the Sastry and Desai Awards.The finding of the  Labour Court  that  the respondents  were  discharging  supervisory functions is not sustainable in law. Mr.  H.  R. Gokhale learned counsel for the  respondent  in, C.A.  No. 1916 of 1968, whose contentions have been  adopted by Mr. M. K. Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the respondents in  C.As. 1917 and 1918 of 1968, has supported the order  of the Labour Court in its entirety. Regarding the first contention that the Labour Court is  not the  one  specified  by  the  appropriate  Government,   Dr. Aggarwala has pointed out that in this case the applications were filed in 1963 and 1965 and the evidence was closed  and arguments were completed by November 25, 1967 on which  date the  case was reserved for orders.  It was only on  December 19, 1967 that the Sup.C.I./69-10 374 Central Government issued the notification under sub-s.  (2) of  S. 33C of the Act specifying each of the  Labour  Courts mentioned in Column 11 as the- Labour Court to determine the amount at which any benefit referred to in that  sub-section shall be computed in ,terms of money in relation to  workmen employed  in any industry in the areas specified  in  Column III,  in  relation to which the Central  Government  is  the appropriate Government.  Item 12 in this Notification is the Labour.   Court,  Hyderabad, which dealt  with  the  present applications.  Therefore Dr. Aggarwala contends that at  the relevant time, that is in 1963, when C.M.P. No. 115 ,of 1963 was filed and in 1965 when C.P.Ms. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1965 were filed,  the  Labour Court had no jurisdiction  to  entertain those  applications.  As against this, Mr.  Gokhale  pointed out  :that the Central Government had issued a  Notification on  April  15, 1963 S.O. No. 1188, Ministry of  Labour-  and Employment, ,and published in the Gazette of India on  April 27,  1963.   Item  5 relates to the  present  Labour  Court, Hyderabad,  and that Court had been specified as the  Labour Court  for  the  State of Andhra Pradesh  to  determine  the amount at which any benefit referred to in sub-s. (2) of  S. 33C  shall be computed in terms of money, in -relation to  a workman  employed in any industry in relation to ,which  the Central Government is the appropriate Government.   ’Counsel further  pointed  out that this Notification  would  clearly establish  that as early as April 15, 1963 the Labour  Court had  been specified and conferred jurisdiction to  entertain applications  under  S.  33C(2) of  the  Act.  the  earliest application, C.M.P. No. 115 of 1963 was filed on August  31, 1963  on  which date the Labour Court  had  been  specified. Counsel  also points out that the Notification  of  December 19,  1967  relied  on by the appellant  was  one  issued  in supersession of all earlier notifications in that regard. We  accept the content of Mr. Gokhale that the Labour  Court had  been- specified under S. 33C(2) as early as  April  15,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

1963.  It follows that this contention of Mr. Aggarwala  has no -substance. The second contention of Mr. Aggarwala relates to the claims being  barred  under Art. 137 of the Limitation  Act,  1963. This ground of limitation has not been raised either  before the  Labour Court or even in the special leave  applications filed  in  this Court.  The appellant has filed  C.M.P.  No. 1259  of 1969 for permitting him to raise this  question  of limitation  based  upon Art. 137 of the  Limitation  Act  of 1963.   As  no fresh facts had to be  investigated  and  the matter  could  be dealt with as a pure question of  law,  we permitted  the appellant to raise this plea  of  limitation. As the averments in C.M.P. 1259 of 1969 will show, this plea of  limitation has been raised on the strength of  the  Full Bench judg- 375 ment  of the Bombay High Court in P. K. Porwal (Manager)  v. Labour  Court, Nagpur(1).  In this decision no doubt it  has been  held  that Art. 137 applies to applications  under  s. 33C(2)   of  the  Act.   Mr.  Gokhale,  on  behalf  of   the respondents,  urged  that  Art. 137 had  no  application  to proceedings  initiated  under  s.  33C(2).   It  has  become unnecessary  to go into, in great detail, and deal with  the contention  of  the  appellant as  this  contention  is  now concluded  by  a  recent  decision of  this  Court  in  Town Municipal  Council, Athani v. The Presiding Officer,  Labour Court  Hubli  (2  ) which has  disapproved  the  Full  Bench decision  of the Bombay High Court.  After a very  elaborate reference  to  the corresponding provision  in  the  earlier Limitation  Act  and the decisions bearing on the  same  and after having due regard to the scheme of the Limitation Act, 1963,  this  Court  has  held that  Art.  137  of  the  1963 Limitation  Act  does  not apply to  applications  under  s. 33C(2)  of the Act and that no limitation is prescribed  for such  applications.   Therefore the second  contention  also fails. So  far as the third contention is concerned  Dr.  Aggarwala ultimately stated that he did not press the contention, that the   respondents  were  not  entitled  to  maintain   their applications as they had ceased to be ’workmen’ on the  date of  their applications under s. 33C(2) of the Act.  In  view of this statement by the learned counsel, it is  unnecessary to consider this contention any further. Coming  to the last contention which is the most  important, it now becomes necessary to consider the relevant scheme  of the Sastry and Desai Awards with particular reference to the directions  given  therein regarding the  grant  of  special allowance  to Supervisors.  Before we do so it is  necessary to   clear  the  ground  by  stating  that  all  the   three respondents  were Head Cashiers and that they were paid  the special  allowances due to Head Cashiers as per  the  Sastry and  Desai Awards.  The claim for supervisory  allowance  is made on the basis of the nature of work stated to have  been done  by  the respondents in their  respective  applications which have been adverted to by us earlier.  While Bhide  has stated  in  para  3 of his application  the  various  duties discharged  by a Head Cashier which, according to  him,  are heavy and important, and that over and above these items  of work he has been regularly doing supervisory and controlling duties  in respect of the employees working under  him-Pyati and Deshpande have stated that even the items of work  which are  done  by a Head Cashier and which  they  were  actually doing  are themselves duties which partake of a  supervisory nature.   The  appellant  Bank and its  employees  were  all parties to the  Sastry and Desai Awards.  The appellant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

(2)  [1970] 1 S.C.R. 51 (1) [1968] 11.  L.L.J. 505. 376 has  filed a copy of the agreement that is  usually  entered into between the Bank and the Head Cashiers.  The duties and functions  of a Head Cashier -are set out therein  and  they are  more  or less similar to the items of work  claimed  to have  been  done  by the respondents.   Bhide,  who  is  the applicant  in  C.M.P. 115 of 1963, as Witness No.7  for  the workmen,  after referring to the various items of work  done by him, states               "I  was doing such work from 1946 when  I  was               first  appointed as a head cashier.  All  head               cashiers under the respondent do work  similar               to mine."               Similarly Deshpande, the applicant in C.M.P. 5               of  1965,  as Witness No. 1 for  the  workmen,               stated -               "As   I  am  doing  the   supervisory   duties               mentioned  in  my petition I state that  I  am               doing supervisory work in addition to being  a               head-cashier   and   hence   I   am   claiming               supervisory  allowance.  What all I have  been               doing  is  the  duty of  a  head  cashier  and               because  it  involves work  of  a  supervisory               nature  I am claiming  supervisory  allowance.               , . . The work specified by me as  supervisory               work  done by me, was being done by  the  head               cashiers  from the time of even the  inception               of the Bank." Dr.  Aggarwala severely criticised the findings recorded  by the Labour Court on the ground that it has not stated  which part  of  the  work, if any, done  by  the  respondents,  is supervisory  work.  On the other hand, the Labour Court  has accepted in full the plea of the respondents that even minor items of supervisory work that may have been done by them as Head-Cashiers  will  entitle them to claim  the  supervisory special  allowance.  According to the appellant  the  entire work  done by the respondents was only as Head Cashiers  and no part of that work can be called supervisory so as to make them  eligible to claim the special  supervisory  allowance. Dr. Aggarwala urged that at the time of the Sastry Award the Tribunal had an overall picture of the staff working in  the various  Banks as well as the duties discharged by them  and it is on that basis that the Tribunal has given the  various categories  of persons in paragraph 164(b) of the Award  and who  will  be  eligible  for  the  special  allowance.   The category of headcashiers dealt with in the Award is entirely different from the category of supervisors for whom a higher special allowance has been recognised under both the Awards. Counsel also pointed out that the mere fact that the respon- dents,  who  were  Cashiers,  also  incidentally  did   some supervisory  work now and then will not make  them  eligible for getting the                             377 supervisory  allowance.  In order to claim  the  supervisory allowance,  counsel  urged that the parties  must  establish that  the  main or essential duties entrusted  to  them  and actually  discharged by them were duties and functions of  a supervisory  nature, Which has not been established  in  the present  case, by any of the respondents.  If all  the  Head Cashiers  who  are  already getting  the  special  allowance provided  for  them  under  the two  Awards  are  also  made eligible for the special supervisory allowance, division  of the  various  persons into different categories in  the  two

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

Awards becomes meaningless and serves no purpose, and  there will   be   no  distinction  between   Head   Cashiers   and Supervisors.  Dr. Aggarwala further pointed out that at  the relevant  time a claim was made by the Head Cashiers  to  be treated  as Supervisors and this claim was rejected both  by the  Sastry  Award  and the  Desai  Award.   These  aspects, counsel urged, have been totally missed and lost sight of by the  Labour  Court  when  it  accepted  the  claims  of  the respondents.   According to Dr. Aggarwala, unless  a  person comes  under  the  category of a  Supervisor  or  discharges mainly  supervisory  functions, he will not be  entitled  to claim the supervisory special allowance. Mr.  Gokhale,  on the other hand, equally  vehemently  urged that  the question posed for consideration under  contention no. 4, by the appellant, as to whether the respondents  were carrying out supervisory functions to make them eligible for claiming  the  supervisory  special  allowance,  is  a  pure question  of fact on which the Labour Court had  recorded  a finding in their favour.  He also contended that this  Court should  not interfere with a finding recorded by the  Labour Court  on such a question of fact.  Mr. Gokhale also  argued that  even if the respondents have done some items  of  work which appear to have some element of supervisory  character, they  will  be  eligible to claim  the  special  supervisory allowance.   In this connection Mr. Gokhale referred  us  to certain  statements contained in the applications  filed  by the respondents wherein they had stated that in  discharging their duties as Head Cashiers they had to do certain work of a  supervisory nature.  Such discharge, of functions by  the respondents and accepted by the Labour Court, would  entitle them to claim the supervisory special allowance. 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 or  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 378 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  Sastry Award was published in the Gazette on March  26, 1953.    Chapter  X  of  this  Award  deals   with   Special Allowances.  In paragraphs 161 and 162, the Award refers  to the  fixation  of scales of pay and dearness  allowance  for clerical  and subordinate staffs doing ordinary  duties  as- such.   It  also refers to the fact that there  are  certain posts   even   in  those  grades   which   require   special qualifications or skill from its incumbent and an extra pay- ment in such cases is necessary by way of recognition of the special skill and responsibility.  Reference is then made to the  demand  for such extra payment designated  as  ’special

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

allowances’  and  that it was with reference  to  work  ’now performed  by employees under various designations’.   After referring  to the various methods that could be adopted  for giving  a benefit to persons with special qualifications  or skill  for  discharging  work carrying  with  it  a  greater responsibility,   the  Tribunal  ultimately  comes  to   the conclusion that it has found it simpler to solve the problem by  providing  for  a lump  sum  allowance  called  ’special allowance’  in  each,  of  such  cases  where  the  Tribunal considered  it  necessary.  The Tribunal proceeds  to  state that it has provided only a minimum and ’in the case of  big banks and particularly in their important offices it may  be proper  and  desirable that the incumbents of  such  offices should  be allowed more than what we have  prescribed’.   In the concluding part of paragraph 162, the Tribunal               "It  may be that what we have prescribed as  a               minimum  is less than what some big banks  are               at  present giving and have thought it  proper               to  give for such incumbents in some of  their               more important offices; but it is not feasible               to provide for diverse conditions obtaining in               various branches of banks where the volume  of               work differs to a considerable extent." In  paragraph  163 the Tribunal states that it  proposes  to enumerate the categories for which special allowance should, in its 379 opinion,  be  given.   In paragraph 164  the  categories  of employees who deserve to be specially considered as fit  for special  allowance  are  given and  they  are  :  Graduates; Holders  of banking diplomas like C.A.I.I.B.  and  C.A.I.B.; Comptists;  Stenographers;  Cashiers  (other  than   routine clerks);  Supervisors;  Sub-Accountants;   Clerks-in-charge; Departmental-in-charges; and Head Clerks.  In clause (a)  of this  paragraph  a special provision is made  regarding  the giving of two additional increments to graduates and holders of  banking diplomas like C.A.I.I.B. and C.A.I.B. In  clause (b)  of this paragraph the rate of special allowances to  be given  for the other categories of employees is  stated  and the nine categories of employees are also enumerated.   They are to  the special allowance depending upon the bank coming under  class A, B, C or D. The nine categories of  employees enumerated in this sub-paragraph are as follows "1.   Comptists. 2.   Head Clerks and Stenographers. 3     Head Cashiers Units of 5 clerks and above. 4.   Head Cashiers Units of 4 clerks and below. 5.   Assistant Cashiers (above the level of routine clerks). Units of 5 clerks and above. 6.   Assistant   Cashiers  (,above  the  level  of   routine clerks).  Units of 4 clerks and below. 7.   Cashiers in charge of cash in pay offices. 8.   Cashiers  in  charge of cash in Treasury  pay  offices, employees in charge of pay offices or sub-offices. 9.   Supervisors,     Superintendents,      sub-accountants, departmental-in-charges, employees in charge of treasury pay offices". There is a note to the effect that in case where an employee comes  within more than one category, he should be  entitled to  the’  highest  rate applicable to  him.   Paragraph  165 refers  to  a controversy that appears to have  been  raised before  the  Tribunal as to whether some of  the  categories mentioned  above  come  under the  definition  of  the  term ’workman.   This  question,  we find, has  been  dealt  with separately in Chapter XV.  But it is emphasised in paragraph

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

165  what  we are now providing must be  understood  as  the allowances  applicable to incumbents of such of these  posts where they are "workmen". In  Chapter XVI the Tribunal deals with the question  as  to whether  Head Cashiers and certain other persons are  to  be treated  as  department-in-charges.  In this  connection  in paragraph  338 it is mentioned by the Tribunal that some  of the employees’ 380 unions   demanded   that  head  cashiers   and   treasurer’s representatives should be treated as supervisors or heads of sections  and  should  get emoluments  appropriate  to  such positions  of responsibility.  The Tribunal does not  appear to  have  recognised  this  demand  and  has  wound  up  the discussion  on this point by stating that it has to  provide for an appropriate scale of emoluments for head cashiers  or treasurer’s representatives and those who do similar work. 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. The  Desai  Award was published in the Gazette on  June  13, 1962.   In Chapter V, under sub-heading (xxiii),  the  Award deals with supervisory staff.  In paragraph 5.196 it  refers to  the Sastry Tribunal having provided  special  allowances for  supervisors, at the rates mentioned therein,  depending upon the class of Bank in which he is working.  In paragraph 5.218 the ’tribunal states that it is               "left  with no alternative except only to  fix               special  allowances for workmen employed in  a               supervisory capacity" as  was done by the Sastry Tribunal, after applying to  them the scales of pay provided for the clerical staff.  On  this basis the Tribunal further states that it has fixed suitable allowances for -supervisors in banks which come under  Class A,  B  and  C, including banks in the  Excepted  List.   The Tribunal further states               "In deciding whether a workman is entitled  to               supervisory allowance, the designation of  the               workman  would not be decisive.  In  order  to               entitle  a  workman to  such  allowances  what               would be determinative would be the nature  of               the duties and functions assigned to him." Under  sub-heading (xxiv) the Award deals with  Special  Al- lowances.   In  paragraph  5.220 the  Award  refers  to  the decision  of  the  Sastry  Tribunal  to  provide  a  lumpsum allowance  called special allowance to persons with  special qualification   or  skill  required  for  discharging   work carrying  with it greater responsibility. it also refers  to the  further statement of the Sastry Tribunal that  what  it was providing was only a minimum and that in the case of big banks it may be proper and desirable that the ’incumbents of such  offices’  should be allowed more than  what  had  been pres-                             381 cribed.   In  paragraph  5.221  the  categories  of  workmen employed  in  the various classes of banks to  whom  special allowances were granted by the Sastry Tribunal are set  out. They are the nine categories enumerated in paragraph  164(b) of the Sastry Award. In  paragraph 5.231 it is stated that the Sastry  Award  has been  in  operation  for a long time and,  as  a  result  of decisions given by Tribunals or otherwise, the categories of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

persons  entitled  to special allowances  under  the  Sastry Award as modified can now be regarded as fairly settled.  In paragraph  5.249  the Award deals with  Head  Cashiers.   It refers  to the demand made for giving supervisory grades  to head cashiers, but this is not accepted by the Tribunal.  On the  other  hand,  an  increase  is  made  in  the   special allowances  payable  to head cashiers.   The  Tribunal  then deals in paragraph 5.273 with Supervisors,  Superintendents, Sub-Accountants  and Departmental-in-charges.  Here  -again, the  Award  granted  an  increase in  the  rate  of  special allowances  for these categories of workmen  depending  upon their working in Banks characterised as A-class, B-class  or C-class  banks,  including banks in the Excepted  List.   In paragraph 5.282 the Tribunal gives the categories of workmen and  the amount of special allowances per month  which  such categories  of workmen will get in A, B and  C-class  banks. There  are twenty categories of workmen  mentioned  therein. Items 7 and 8 deal with Head Cashiers, of units of 5  clerks and above and Head Cashiers of units of 4 clerks and  below, respectively.   Item  18 deals  with  Supervisors,  superin- tendents,  sub-accountants and departmental-in-charges.   It may  be mentioned that items 7 and 8 correspond to  items  3 and  4 in the Sastry Award and item 18 corresponds  to  item no.  9  in paragraph 164(b) of the Sastry  Award  with  this slight difference that employees in charge of treasury  pay- office  are not dealt with under this clause.  The  rate  of special  allowance is also higher than that given under  the Sastry Award. 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(e) 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 382 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. In paragraph 5.288 it is noted that the Banks urged that the special allowance granted under the Award should be paid  to the  employees only when they were required to  perform  and when  they  in  fact performed the special  duties  for  the performance  of which the allowances were  prescribed.   The banks  also appear to have urged that such allowance  should not become payable when a person is occasionally or casually asked  to  do some duty of the ,type  attracting  a  special allowance.   These contentions urged on behalf of the  banks is  dealt  with  by the Tribunal in the  same  paragraph  as follows               "The   special  allowances  which  have   been               awarded are monthly special allowances.   They               are  intended to compensate a workman for  the               performance   of   certain  duties   and   the               discharge  of  certain  functions  which  con-               stitute   the  normal  part  of   the   duties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

             performed and the functions discharged by such               person.  They are not intended to be paid  for               casual  or  occasional  performance  of   such               duties  or the casual or occasional  discharge               of such functions." In  paragraph 5.289 the Award states that a person  will  be entitled  to a special allowance so long as he is in  charge of such work or the performance of such duties which attract such allowance, and that a person asked to work  temporarily in a post carrying a special allowance would be entitled  to such  special  allowance  for such period  during  which  he occupies that post. In  paragraph  5.290 special allowances are directed  to  be continued  to  be drawn by a permanent  incumbent  while  on leave.  In paragraph 5.291 the Award states that whenever. a bank  requires  an  employee to work in a  post  carrying  a special  allowance it should be done by an order in  writing to avoid any future controversy. 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, 383  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 duties   so  performed  by  them-and  the   responsibilities attached  to  each post that the two Tribunals  divided  the persons 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 c1aim the higher rate of supervisory  special allowance. 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 view, we are not remanding the matter  for  further consideration  by  the Labour Court, for a  clearer  finding regarding  the supervisory nature of the work. done  by  the respondents,  because  none  of  the  respondents  has  ever claimed  that-  any  of  them  is  in  the  category  of   a supervisor,  or  that  he  has  been  doing  work  which  is essentially  work  of a supervisory nature.   On  the  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

hand,  their specific claim is that they are doing the  work of  Head Cashiers and, in the discharge of such  work,  they have also been doing certain items which, according to them, are supervisory in nature.  The Labour Court appears to have been  impressed  by  the  fact  that  the  respondents   are discharging duties which are highly responsible, onerous and important.   It has no doubt found that the respondents  are discharging  supervisory  functions and hence  their  claims come  within the ambit of the Sastry and Desai Awards.   But the  Labour Court, as rightly pointed out by Dr.  Aggarwala, has not cared to investigate which part of the items of work claimed  to  have  been  done  by  the  respondents  can  be characterised as supervisory functions.  Further  investiga- tion on this aspect has become unnecessary in the view  that we 384 have expressed earlier about the circumstances under which a person can claim the special supervisory allowance under the two  Awards  and  in  view of the  fact  that  none  of  the respondents has claimed that he has been doing work which is essentially work of a supervisory nature. 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 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. 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 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 Tribunal states               "What we are now providing must be  Understood               as the allowances applicable to incumbents  of               such of these posts where they are workmen’.                             385 Similarly,   in  the  Desai  Award,  in  dealing   with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

SupervisoryStaff, in paragraph 5.218 the Tribunal states that it is left with noalternative  except to fix  special allowances for Workmen ’employedin     a      supervisory capacity’ as was done by the Sastry Tribunal. Itis further stated  in  the same paragraph that in  deciding  whether  a workman   is   entitled  to   supervisory   allowance,   the designation of the  workman  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 mentioned therein. In  dealing  with  a complaint made on  behalf  of  the workmen that the Sastry Award had not specified the nature of the work to be done and the duties which were required to be performed by the various persons who were entitled to receive special allowances, the Desai Tribunal states  in para 5.231 that the SastryAward  has been  in  operation for a long time and as a result ofdecisions    given     by Tribunals the categories of persons entitled tospecial allowances  can be regarded as fairly settled. In  paragraph 5,288 the Tribunal states-that the special allowances  which have been awarded are monthly special allowances intended to compensate  a workman for the performance of certain  duties and the discharge of certain functions which constitute  the normal part of  the  duties performed and  the  functions discharged by such person and that they are not intended  to be paid for casual oroccasional   performance  of   such duties as the casual or occasionaldischarge     of     such functions. It is further mentioned in paragraph5.289 that a  person is entitled to special allowance so long as he  is in  charge  of such work or the performance of  such  duties which attract such allowance and that a person asked to work temporarily in a post carrying a special allowance would  be entitled tosuch  a  special allowance  for  such  period during which he occupies that post. Mr.  Gokhale,  learned  counsel  for  the   respondent, referred usto the decision of this Court in Lloyds  Bank v. Panna Lal Gupta(1) and urged that the said decision is an authority  for  the proposition that if a person  does  work which  appears  to  have  some  element  of  a   supervisory character, he will be entitled to   claim thesupervisory allowance under paragraph 164(b)(9) of the SastryAward.  In our  opinion  that  decision  does not  lay  down  any  such proposition. In that decision this Court had to deal with  a claim made by certain clerks working in the audit department for  payment  of the supervisory allowance  under  paragraph 164(b)(9)  of  the Sastry Award, It must be  stated  at  the outset that these 386 clerks  do  not  come  under  any  of  the  nine  categories mentioned  in  the Sastry Award, eligible  for  the  special allowance.   The  Tribunal had held that the clerks  in  the audit  department  supervised  the work of  almost  all  the persons  in  the  establishment with a view  to  ensure  the correctness and authenticity of the accounts and it  further held  that  having regard to the nature of  the  duties  and functions  performed  by  them they  should  be  treated  as ’supervisors’ under category (9) of the Sastry Award.   This Court set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal and  in so  setting  aside the award observed that  before  a  clerk could  claim a special allowance his work should  appear  to have  some element of a supervisory .character.   Even  this prima  facie test, was enough to non-suit the  three  clerks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

therein.  We do not understand this decision as laying  down that  when  any person, coming under one or  other  of  ’the categories mentioned as items 1 to 8 of paragraph 164(b) can claim  the higher rate of allowance granted  to  supervisors coming  under category 9, merely by establishing that  while discharging  the  work which appertains to  that  particular category, he did some items of work which have an element of supervisory character.  In fact, in the earlier part of  the judgment it is stated that even if the three workmen  before them do not by name or designation fall in category 9, ’they would   nevertheless  be  entitled  to  claim  the   special allowance  if it appears that the duties performed  by  them and the functions discharged by them are similar to, or  the same as, the duties or functions assigned to persons falling in that category’.  These observations, in our opinion, make 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 employee concerned.  A similar claim for supervisory allowance, made by  tellers in  a  bank, was rejected by this Court in  Punjab  National Bank  Ltd. v. Their Workmen(1) on the ground that  a  teller does not perform supervisory functions and he does not  have the  status of a supervisor and that the mere fact that  the work  done  by a teller is responsible and  onerous  is  not material in determining the question as to whether his  work is supervisory in character or not. Again, in Eastern Bank v. Shivdas Vishnu Naik(2) this  Court negatived  the  claim  of  certain  routine-clerks  for  the special allow- (1) [1961] II L.L.J. 162. (2) [1963] II L.L.J. 365.                             387 ance  payable to comptists, coming under category 1, on  the ground  that  in the course of discharging their  duties  as routine-clerks  they had to operate the adding machines  for the  purpose of making additions mechanically.   This  Court further observed that obviously it was not the intention  of the  Sastry  Award  to  make  such  persons  eligible  under category 1 of paragraph 164(b) as :-               "They  are  not  described as  such,  and  the               nature   of  the  work,   the   responsibility               attending  to the work and the skill  required               of  them for discharging the said work do  not               justify  their claim to be comptists  for  the               purpose of special allowance." The  work 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. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the order of  the Labour Court set aside.  The three applications filed by the respondents  before the Labour Court will  stand  dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. V.P.S.                                               Appeals allowed. 388

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19