Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th April, 1963
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
The Central Bank of India Ltd. (In all the Appeals), Appellant
Versus
P. S. Rajagopalan etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 823 to 826 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Senior Advocate (M/s. N. V. Phadke and J. P. Thacker, Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., with him), for Appellant (in all the Appeals); MR. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. C. Agarwal, Advocates of M/s. Ramamurthi and Co., with him), for Respondents (In all the Appeals):
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 33C(2) - SCOPE - INTERPRETATION - BENEFIT CAPABLE OF BEING COMPUTED IN TERMS OF MONEY - DISPUTE AS TO WORKMAN'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE BENEFIT - JURISDICTION OF LABOUR COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the Central Bank of India Ltd., challenged the orders passed by the Labour Court allowing the applications filed by the respondents, its employees, under S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act), for the payment of special allowance for operating the adding machine as provided under paragraph 164(b) (1) of the Sastry Award.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that S. 33C(2) of the Act takes within its purview cases of workmen who claimed that the benefit to which they are entitled should be computed in terms of money, even though the right to the benefit on which their claim is based is disputed by their employers. The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether the workman has a right to receive the benefit as alleged by him, and it is only if the Labour Court answers this point in favor of the workman that the next question of making the necessary computation can arise.
Issues: 1. Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain applications under S. 33C(2) of the Act where the workman's right to receive the benefit is disputed by the employer? 2. Whether the special allowance claimed by the respondents under paragraph 164(b) (1) of the Sastry Award is payable only to Comptists and not to adding machine operators?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The opening clause of S. 33C(2) of the Act does not admit of the construction that the workman's right to receive the benefit must be admitted or not disputed by the employer. The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to determine the question as to whether the workman has a right to receive the benefit as alleged by him, and it is only if the Labour Court answers this point in favor of the workman that the next question of making the necessary computation can arise. 2. The special allowance claimed by the respondents under paragraph 164(b) (1) of the Sastry Award is payable only to Comptists and not to adding machine operators. The nomenclature adopted by the Imperial Bank of India, which described its Comptists as adding machine operators, is not binding on other banks. The nature of the duties and responsibilities of the post held by the workman is the determining factor in deciding whether the special allowance is payable.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the orders passed by the Labour Court were set aside, and the matters were sent back to the Labour Court for disposal in accordance with law.
Key Points: - The opening clause of S. 33C(2) covers cases where a workman claims a monetary value for a benefit, even if the right to the benefit is disputed by the employer. (!) - The Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the workman has a right to receive the benefit as alleged, and only then proceed to compute the monetary value. (!) - S. 33C(2) is broader than S. 33C(1) and may encompass claims not strictly under a settled award, though certain limitations apply (e.g., not to supersede disputes under S. 10(1)); the Labour Court may interpret the underlying award/settlement where necessary. (!) (!) - The special allowance under paragraph 164(b)(1) of the Sastry Award is not automatically payable to Comptists; the determination depends on the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the post, not merely on nomenclature (e.g., adding machine operators). (!) (!) - The matter is remanded to the Labour Court to allow evidence and determine whether respondents’ work corresponds to Comptists, after which the Labour Court should compute and decide. (!) (!)
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: This group of several appeals has been placed together for final disposal, because the appeals included in the group raise a common question of law in regard to the construction of S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). We propose to deal with this point in Civil Appeals Nos. 823 to 826 of 1962 which have been preferred by the appellant, the Central Bank of India Ltd., against the respondents, it employees; and in accordance with our decision on the said point the other appeals included in this group would be dealt with on the merits.
2. Civil Appeals 823 to 826 of 1962 arise out of applications made by four respondents under S. 33C(2) of the Act. The case for each one of the respondents was that besides attending to his routine duties as clerk, he had been operating the adding machine provided for use in the clearing department of the Branch during the period mentioned in the list annexed to the petition and it was alleged that as such. he was entitled to the payment of Rs. 10/- per month as special allowance for operating the adding machine as provided for under paragraph 164(b) (1) of the Sastry Award. On this basis. each one of the respondents made his respective claim for the amount covered, by the said allowance payable to him during the period specified in the calculations.
3. The appellant disputed the respondents claims. It urged three preliminary objections against the competence of the applications. According to it, the respondents could claim only non-monetary benefits under the Award that were capable of computation and so, S. 33C(2) was inapplicable to their claim. It was also contended that without a reference made by the Central Government, the applications were not maintainable, and it was pleaded that since the applications involved a question of the interpretation of the Sastry Award, they were outside the purview of S. 33C(2). On the merits, the appellant s case was that the special allowance claimed by the respondents way payable only to the Comptists and could not be claimed by the respondents on the ground that they were operating adding machine. In support of this contention the appellant alleged that a certain amount of manipulative skill is required for the handling of a Comptometer since the operator has to execute a series of somewhat complex operations in quick succession before he can arrive at a result. The art of operating a comptometer has to be learnt over several months, but the work of operating the adding machine needs no special training and does not require even the skill which a typist has to show. That is why, according to the appellant, no special allowance could be claimed by the respondents under paragraph 164(b) (1) of the Sastry Award.
4. The Central Government Labour Court before which these applications were made by the respondents over-ruled the preliminary objections raised by the appellant and on the merits, found that the respondents were entitled to claim the special allowance under the relevant clause of the Sastry Award. That is how the applications made by the respondents were allowed and the respective amounts claimed by them were ordered to be paid by the appellant. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.
5. The principal contention which has been urged before us by the appellant is one of jurisdiction. It is argued that the Labour Court has execeeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the applications made by the respondents because the claims made by respondents in their respective applications are outside the scope of S. 33C(2) of the Act. In dealing with this point, it is necessary to read S. 33C:
"(1) Where any money is due to a workman from an employer under a settlement or an award or under the provisions of Chapter VA, the workman may without prejudice to any other mode of recovery make an application to the appropriate Government for the rec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
