Supreme Court of India
BANK OF. INDIAversusSECRETARY, BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNION AND ANR .
- Citation
- 2001 INSC 195
- Decided
- 9 April 2001
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S RAJENDRA BABU
Holding
The Tribunal’s award granting the special assistant allowance is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
Summary
Workmen employed by Bank of India at various collection centres and clearing houses claimed entitlement to a special assistant allowance under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal held that the workmen were entitled to the allowance for the days they worked at the centres and ordered payment. The Bank appealed, contending that the duties performed were merely clerical and did not meet the skill and responsibility required for a special assistant, and that the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant bi‑partite settlements and awards. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal had not examined the factual dispute over the nature of the duties and had proceeded without reference to the Sastry, Desai or the bi‑partite settlements. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s award and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the workmen posted at collection centres and clearing houses are entitled to the special assistant allowance under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the bi‑partite settlement, Sastry Award and Desai Award in determining the entitlement.
- Whether the duties performed by the workmen qualify as ‘special assistant’ duties requiring greater skill and responsibility.
Legislation cited
Subjects
industrial disputespecial assistant allowancebi‑partite settlementtribunalclearing housebank stafflabour law
Judgment
BANK OF. INDIA A
v.
SECRETARY, BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNION AND ANR .
.
' APRIL 9, 2001
[S. RAJENDRABABU AND SlllVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B
Labour Laws :
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Industrial Dispute-Workmen working in
Collection Centres and Clearing Houses on behalf ofAppellant-Bank-Entitle-
ment to Special Assistant Allowance-Held, no findings relating to duties
c
discharged by workmen determined by Tribunal-Matter remitted back to
Tribunal.
Workmen represented by Union work at various centres including
Collection Centres situated in different cities. There was a dispute regard- D
ing special assistant allowance in the category of Special Assistant and it
was referred to Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the workmen
arc entitled to the allowance for the number of days they have worked at
various collection centres and the same is payable "ith effect from the
date of reference.
E
The appellant-Bank contended that the duties performed by the
- workmen does not require great skill and responsibility for entitlement of
special allowance; that the duties of workmen are clerical duties which are
different from that of Special Assistant, which are Iiad down in Bi-partite
Settlement, modified from time to time; that the Special Assistant "111 be
F
accountable and responsible for running of the department under them;
and that the workmen deputed to clearing house are not in charge to
Bank's clearing department.
- The workmen contended that they performed duties as authorised
representatives of the appellant at clearing houses of Reserve Bank and
State Bank of India; and that they perform all regular bank duties relating
G
to the appellant-Bank.
~
I Allomng the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1. The duties discharged by the workmen, who are clear- H
1029
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A ing house representatives of the appellant-Bank are in serious dispute.
Unless the same are adjudicated by appropriate examination of the facts of
the case with reference to the contentions advanced by either party and the
evidence adduced, it cannot be concluded in the manner done by the
Tribunal. There is no finding that the workmen discharge certain duties
and, therefore, are entitled to special allowance in the category of Special
B
Assistant. (1035-C]
1.2. The Tribunal has proceeded as if it was dealing with a fresh
matter before it without reference either to the Bi-partite Settlel)lent or to
the Sastry or the Desai Award. Necessarily, the Tribunal had to examine
c whether the workmen in question fall in any one of the categories to which
special allowance is to be given or refused by the two Awards or in the
Bi-partite Settlement that part has been modified or a new clause has been
introduced thereto inconsistent with the Sastry/Desai Award. Unless such
an exercise is undertaken and the details of the duties assigned to each of
the workmen are considered, it will not be possible for the Tribunal to
D
decide a matter of this nature. [1035-D-E]
1.3. The award made by the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and
remitted back for fresh consideration in the light of the above observatiC1ns
and in accordance with the law. (1035-F] .
E -I
Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Sisir Kuamr Shaw, (1976] 2 SCC 859,
referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8569 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.97 of the Central Government
F
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Pandu Nagar, Kanpur in Industrial
Dispute No. 232 of 1989.
G
G.B. Pai and Ms. Meera Mathur for Mis. JBD & Co. for the Appellant.
P.N. Gupta for the Respondents. -
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
~
RAJENDRA BABU, J. This appeal is filed against au award made by ~
the Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur on a reference made to it on the following
H question:
BANK OF INDIA v. SECY. BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNION [RA!ENDRA BABU,!.) 103 J
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in not A
paying special allowance to the staff posted at clearing house of
Lucknow, Agra, Unnao, Varanasi and Kanpur as per list enclosed is
justified? If not to what relief were the workmen entitled?"
The Tribunal held that the concerned workmen are entitled for special
assistant allowance for the number of days they have worked at various B
collection centres and the same shall be payable for the number of days they
have actually worked with effect from the date of reference. The workmen
in question worked at various centres including Collection Centre, Kanpur,
Lucknow and Varanasi and Main Branches, Agra and Unnao of their Banks
as detailed in Annexure thereof. They claimed that they pedonned the duties c
as authorised representatives of the B.ank of clearing house at the Reserve
' Bank of India, Kanpur and State Bank in clearing house at the Reserve Bank
of India, Kanpur and State Bank of India, Lucknow, Agra, Unnao and
Varanasi which fall under the duties of Special Assistant. The •workmen
claimed that they are checking or scrutinizing all the schedules and/or
vouchers received along with the cheques and other instruments as per para D
XIX(III) of Appendix 'B' of !st Bi-partite Settlement dated 19.10.1966. The
workmen claimed that they are entering each cheque, demand draft, pay slips,
etc., with their respective credit voucher i.e., Branch Debit Note drawn on
Regional Collection Centres and Main Branch in clearing house register and
• balancing as per paragraph 45.5 of Manual of Instruction, Volume 1, Chapter E
127 to the following effect:
"Particulars of all cheques drawn on other local clearing banks
received by the Branches for collection should thereafter be sorted
and listed bankwise. The total of cheques entered in the clearing
cheques register should agree with the total amount of cheques listed F
on all the clearing schedules and also with the total amount of the
relatives paying-in-slips."
The workmen further claimed that the cheques/instruments are sorted
bankwise and posted the cheques etc., in totalling and numbering as per
G
paragraph 45.5 of Manual of Instruction; that the workmen are to check
crossing and clearing stamp on each cheques and other instruments on front
face of these instruments and endorsement stamps of the bank on
each instrument; that the checking of total in 'List of Cheqnes' with the
books of the Bank i.e., clearing cheques register, mentioned in each sheet
for the different bank; that checking each list of cheques in clearing schedule /H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A of the bankwise with cheque numbers in the column "Delivered" in left baud
side drawn on other banks aud totalling all the amounts of the cheques
mentioned in the different list of cheques register; that the workmen receive
various cheques, demaud draft, pay slip and other ins!!1lments in the clearing
house from different banks aud also make the entry in the column 'Received'
bankwise with cheque numbers in the right side aud totalling all the amount
B
aud cheques mentioned in their different sheets of the bank; that the checking
is for the correctness of endorsement crossing stamp, clearing stamps,
date of the returning of the cheques, date of the cheques, comparison
of cheques aud totalling the amount delivered by the different banks as
per para III(I)(xi) and (iii) of Appendix B of Bi-partite Settlement; that
c the workmen prepare debit and credit vouchers according to cheques aud
the instruments after checking the clearing schedule on account of
cheques received from other banks daily; that the workmen also sign
the difference of the entries snch as to pay or receive in the independent
capacity of authorised representative of clearing house as 'Clearing in-charge'
at the Reserve Bank of India aud State Bank of India on behalf of the Bank
D
in the clearing house after delivering aud receiving the different ins!!1lments
in sheet for snbmissions and .receiving the different instruments in sheet for
submission to the Reserve Bank of Iudia aud State Bank of India; that the
workmen are holding bank's valuable cheques, drafts and other ius!!1lments
signally and are accountable for them and are responsible for the clearing
E department of the bank and prepare, sign independently clearing and trausfer -)
vouchers such as to pay or receive on account of the cheques delivered or
received from different banks through the sheet in the bank account men-
tioned by the Reserve Bank of India aud the State Bank of India which
constitute !lie additional duties and fucntions requiring the greater skill and
p responsibility over and above the routine duties of the workmen in terms of
Para Ill(l)(xi)(ii).
The appellant-Bank filed a written statement contending that though the
workmen have performed the duties of attending the clearing house on behalf
of the Bank, they have not discharged any of the duties so as to attract
G payment of special allowauce by way of Special Assistant as none of the
duties are being performed by them to attract such allowance and denied the
various claims made by the workmen. They submitted that they are simply
delivering cheques of the Bank drawn on other banks and receiving cheques
drawn by other banks on ·their Bank at the clearing house after counting the
.H number of cheqnes/ins!!1lments as per schedule listing it bankwise in the
BANK OF INDIA v. SECY. BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNION [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 1033
sheets, arriving at the clearing different and preparation of the different A
vouchers, segregation of the instruments categorywise and preparation of
debit in nature and in no way reqnire any greater skill and responsibility
warranting payment of any special allownace. It was also contended that the
duties of Special Assistant as laid down in Bi-paitite Settlement dated
19.10.1966 have been modified in the subsequent Bi-partite Settlement dated
B
17.9.1984 and tl1e duties of special assistant as laid down in the said Bi-partite
Settlement 1984 are as listed in the Annexure A thereto. It was contended
that para 5.267 of the Desai Award has not been modified by any subsequent
Bi-partite Settlement and is still in existence and that the clerks deputed to
the clearing house are not in charge of the Bank's clearing department but
are sinlply clerks posted in that department and the overall incharge of the c
department is an officer under whom these clerks are functioning. It was
specifically claimed by the appellant that the Special Assistant will be
accountable and responsible for running of the department/section under them
and their duties will involve looking after and checking the work of other
clerk or clerks and sub-staff and will include several other duties set out in
D
Anneuxre A to the Bi-partite Settlement of 1984.
An affidavit was filed by Jai Bahadur Singh .on behalf of the appellant
and it was stated therein as follows :
"That the clerk attached to my department ainongst the other clerical E
duties are on rotation basis sent to the Banker's clearing house for
delivering the cheques/drafts etc., of our bank drawn on other Bank
and receiving cheques/drafts etc., drawn by other banks on our bank
as per the schedule which he carries with him in duplicate. Specinien
of which is marked as Annexure A to the affidavit. Under the colunm
F
delivered of the said schedule the cheques/drafts etc., drawn on other
banks and delivered by him at the clearing house are entered
bankwise and total is arrived at this represents the ainount of cheques
delivered by the Bank is clearing. The cheques delivered by other
banks are entered in the colunm 'received' of the schedule bank wise
and the total is arrived at, this represents the ainount of 'cheques G
received'. Thereafter the difference between the ainount delivered and
received is arrived at which is known as clearing difference. 1bere-
after a copy of clearing schedule is delivered to the officer in charge
of the clearing house. As snch the duties being performed by the
clerks attending the clearing house is purely clerical in nature." H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R.
A The Tribunal, after setting out the case of the parties and the evidence
put forth before it iri the shape of the affidavits, stated that though affidavits .,..,
have been filed by several persons, only two wi1nesses, namely, VK. Srivastava
and Baikunth Lal, were produced for cross-examination on behalf of the
workmen and Jai Bahadur Singh on behalf of the management and, therefore,
their affidavits ·alone are admissible. However, the Tribunal chose not to
B
examine that evidence on the following basis:
" ....... the concerned workmen have been sent to the Regional Collec-
tion Centres of the Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India
at other places for verification of cheques issued by their Banks. It
c is also not disputed that when these persons went to these centre> none
of the officer of the bank had accompanied. I am of the view that
when a member of award staff handles and deals with cheques and
other instruments within the bank premises and during the office
hours there is no element of risk and there cannot be said to be doing
~
any work involving extra responsibility. However, the moment such
D workman is asked to carry cheques and the instruments outside the
bank as is being done by the concerned workmen. I am of the view
officer accompanied them at such occasion there would be no
responsibility of these workmen. Hence since in the instant case the
concemed·workmen had been carrying cheques independently, and
E checking the same at the Regional Collection Centres and without any '
officer accompanying them, I come to the conclusion that had been -I
performing the job involving greater responsibility as well."
Proceeding thus, the Tribunal made the award without any further
examination of the matter.
F
In this background, it becomes necessary to consider whether the award
made by the Tribunal can be sustained or not. It is the contention of the
respondents that the decision of this Court in Central Bank of India ud. v.
Sisir Kumar Shaw, [1976] 2 SCC 859, fully covers the case of the workmen
in question. In that decision, it was stated that it was not necessary to refer :
G to the details of the Sastry Award of 1953 or the Desai Award which ceased
to apply in the year 1966, when the Bi-partite Settlement came into force.
The preamble to the Bi-partite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 states that the
parties have agreed that the provisions of the award known as 'the Sastry ,,._
...
Award' as modified by the "Desai Award" shall govern the service conditions
H therein covered except to the extent that the same have been modified by the
••
BANK OF INDIX '· SECY. BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNION [RAJENDRA BABU, J.) 1035
Bi-partite Settlement of 1966. If that is so, it will not be accurate to state that A
"-.( the Sastry Award or the Desai Award has ceased to apply and this position
is clarified by this Court in C.A.No.7752 of 1996 - Bank of India v.
Presiding Officer and Ors., disposed of on 28.11.2000. However, that aspect
will not settle the problem arising in the present case. The question for
consideration is whether the principles set out by this Court in Sisir Kumar
B
Shaw's case [supra] would be applicable to the facts of the·present case. In
that case, there was a specific finding by the Labour Court as to the nature
of the duties of the clerk working as the clearing house representative on
behalf of the bank. While in the present case, the duties discharged by the
clearing house representative are in serious dispute. Unless the same are
adjudicated by appropriate examination of the facts of the case with reference c
to the contentiop~ advanced by either party and the evidence adduced, it
cannot be concluded in the manner done by the Tribunal. The.re is no finding
that the workmen discharge certain duties and, therefore, are entitled to
special allowance in the category of Special Assistant. The Tribunal has
proceeded as if it was dealing with a fresh matter before it without reference
D
either to the Bi-partite Settlement or to the Sastry or the Desai Award.
Necessarily, the Tribunal -had to examine whether the workmen in question
fall in any one of the categories to which special allowance is to be given
or refused by the two Awards [Sastry/Desai Awards] or in the Bi-partite
Settlement that part has been modified or a new clause has been introduced
thereto inconsistent with the Sastry/Desai Award so as to entitle to such E
allowance. Unless such an exercise is undertaken and tl1e details of the duties
assigned to each of the workman are considered it will not be possible for
the Tiibunal to decide a matter of this nature. Therefore, we are constrained
lo set aside the award made by the Tribunal and remit the matter to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made by us p
above and in accordance with the law.
The appeal shall stand allowed accordingly. No costs.
B.S. Appel allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "industrial dispute"Sign in to search