Judgment

MITTER, J.: This appeal by special leave is from an order of the Central Government Labour Court Rajasthan passed on February 14, 1966 on an application under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the respondent, Hari Har Nath Bhargava, holding that the latter was entitled to supervisory allowance under paragraph 164 (b) (9) of the Sastry Award even for the period when the latter was not actually performing supervisory duties.

2. The facts in this case may be shortly stated. The respondent was appointed a clerk by the State Bank of Jaipur in 1949. He was transferred to Kota in the year 1952. He was entrusted with supervisory work from 6th April, 1964. The bank executed a power-of-attorney in his favour on May 31, 1954 in pursuance of a resolution of its Board of Directors passed on 20th May, 1954. He was transferred from Kota to Jaipur on July 12, 1955. On December 27, 1955 he was posted at Sikar where he had to perform supervisory duties. On January 1, 1956 he was promoted to the cadre of junior officers of the bank.

3. On March 31, 1964 the respondent filed an application before the Central Government Labour Court, Rajasthan under S. 33-C (2) praying for computation of special allowance under what is known as the Sastry Award on the ground that he had been discharging supervisory duties from 6th April 1954 to 1st January, 1956, By this time the Bank of Jaipur had amalgamated with the Bank of Bikaner and the amalgamated bank, the appellant before us, came to be known as the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The execution of the power of attorney dated 29th May, 1954 was admitted but the appellant denied "that the duties entrusted to the respondent constituted performance by him of any supervisory nature of work". A point was also taken that although no period of limitation is laid down by any statute with regard to applications under S. 33-C of the Act the respondent s claim being a stale one should not be entertained.

4. The appellant amended its written statement in 1965 wherein it was stated that the respondent was only required to perform the functions enumerated in the power of attorney as and when so directed by the bank. As a matter of fact, he had been entrusted with supervisory duties from 6th April 1954 to 12th July 1955 and thereafter from 27th December 1955 to 6th January, 1956.

5. The respondent was examined before the Labour Court where he said that he was "the second signatory at Kota during the period, April 1954 to middle of July 1955." At the Jaipur branch where he was transferred. there were many signatories above him, while at Sikar there was only another such signatory and he was the second officer. Obviously what he meant by the word "signatory" was a person authorised by the bank to discharge the functions covered by the power of attorney.

For Citation : AIR 1971 SC 2200