Management Of The National And Grindlays Bank LTD. vs Their Workmen

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(SC) 363

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
The Management of National and Grindlays Bank Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Their Workmen, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 553 of 1970, D/- 3-8-1971.
Advocates appeared
M/s. G B. Pai and P. N. Tiwari Advocates and M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi Sr. Advocate, (Mr.Vineet Kumar, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.

Headnote:
Civil Laws – Medical Aid – This is an Appeal by Special Leave against award made by Industrial Tribunal at Jabalpur, declaring that employees of Kanpur Branch of Appellant Bank which is classified as an A Class Bank will be entitled to medical aid and expenses upto a monetary limit of Rupees 250/- per year from January to December, which medical aid shall be available to employees as well as to members of their families as defined in paragraph 15.1.1 of Bipartite settlement. – Tribunal further directed that Appellant Bank will defray hospitalisation charges not only for employees but also for members of their families on condition that hospitalisation is recommended by Bank s Doctor and that any amount utilised out of medical aid ceiling which may be outstanding to credit of employee concerned shall first be utilised to pay hospitalisation bill and any balance remaining thereafter shall be met by Bank. – Award was to take effect front 1-1-70 and was to be in force till such time as modified in accordance with law. – Appellant Bank challenge jurisdiction of Tribunal to make aforesaid Award and further contests it not only on ground that it is discriminatory and shows an unwarranted favour to employees of one of its Branches at Kanpur but that it is against principle of standardisation which was basis of Bipartite agreement. – In order to appreciate these contentions a brief history of previous Awards and Settlements concerning Medical aid granted to All India Bank employees may be useful. – Held, when it was found that one of Branches of Appellant Bank was not able to fall in line that was left to further negotiations, but nonetheless it was made clearly manifest that standardisation should be achieved to bring them in line with other workmen of Bank in regard to Medical aid and expenses. –Court do not find any cogent reasons upon which Tribunal has distinguished case of workmen at Kanpur and singled them out for beneficial treatment. – It may be noticed that under bipartite agreement workmen are having benefit of medical aid extended to members of family which was not applicable to workmen before. – Even though employees of Kanpur Branch had no upper limit their families were not given benefit of medical aid, nor is there any justification for Tribunal to extend hospitalisation facilties to members of families if that was not enjoyed by workrnen in other Branches of Appellant Bank and in other Banks which are similarly situated. – Court is unable to find any principle or justification for giving employees of Kanpur Branch a favoured treatment which other employees of Banks and even of Appellant in other Branches cannot avail under Bipartite agreement. – Court would have placed them in same category as employees of other Branches of Appellant who are similarly situated. – Appellant Bank was agreeable to give a higher limit as indicated in its offer before Conciliation Officer though for a limited period namely till next All India Settlement/Award which offer was also reiterated before court but was not accepted, we think that interests of employees of Kanpur Branch are well served by that offer. – Court allow Appeal partly and direct that a higher limit of Rs. 250/- be fixed towards medical aid and expenses of employee of Kanpur Branch and their families as defined in bipartite agreement. – Apart from this each of workmen is also entitled to hospitalisation in terms of said agreement. – This higher limit will be effective till next All India Settlement/Award. – Order Accordingly

Judgment

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:- This is an Appeal by Special Leave against the award made by the Industrial Tribunal at Jabalpur on 18th November 1969, declaring that the employees of the Kanpur Branch of the Appellant Bank which is classified as an A Class Bank will be entitled to medical aid and expenses upto a monetary limit of Rupees 250/- per year from January to December, which medical aid shall be available to the employees as well as to the members of their families as defined in paragraph 15.1.1 of the Bipartite settlement. The Tribunal further directed that the Appellant Bank will defray the hospitalisation charges not only for the employees but also for members of their families on the condition that the hospitalisation is recommended by the Bank s Doctor and that any amount utilised out of medical aid ceiling which may be outstanding to the credit of the employee concerned shall first be utilised to pay the hospitalisation bill and any balance remaining thereafter shall be met by the Bank. This Award was to take effect front 1-1-70 and was to be in force till such time as modified in accordance with law.

2. The Appellant Bank challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to make the aforesaid Award and further contests it not only on the ground that it is discriminatory and shows an unwarranted favour to the employees of one of its Branches at Kanpur but that it is against the principle of standardisation which was the basis of Bipartite agreement. In order to appreciate these contentions a brief history of the previous Awards and Settlements concerning the Medical aid granted to the All India Bank employees may be useful.

3. In March 1953 an Award known as the Sastry Award was made which while dealing with other terms and conditions of service of the Workmen dealt with the dispute regarding medical aid and expenses on Industrywise basis. This Award classified the Banks into various categories for determination of the terms and conditions of service of Workmen of such Banks which were equally applicable for grant of medical aid and expenses. The word relating to medical aid and expenses was dealt with in Chapter XXII, Para 450 by and under which the then existing facilities regarding medical aid and expenses which were being enjoyed by the Kanpur Branch of the Appellant Bank and which were more favourable than the provisions made under that Award were to continue. It may be stated that the employees of the Kanpur Branch enjoyed medical facilities for themselves alone without a ceiling, Although the Labour Appellate Tribunal in an appeal against that Award modified certain of its provisions, the terms and conditions in para 450, Clause 2, relating to the higher medical benefits which were being enjoyed were to continue as heretofore. The following extract of Para 450 is relevant:-

450 (1) Medical facilities should be availed of only by the workmen. Members of his family are not entitled to the same.

(2) Wherever existing facilities in any Bank or Banks are superior to the provisions hereinafter made, such facilities should be continued.

x x x x x x

(10) The total expenses from January to December of each calendar year on account of medical attendance and treatment payable by a Bank to a Workman shall not exceed the following limits:

Class of Banks Class of Areas.

I II III

Rs. Rs. Rs.

A 90 60 50

B 75 50 40

C 60 40 30

D 30 20 15

4. Then came the Desai Award which replaced the Sastry Award as modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Even though a large number of terms and conditions in Banking Industry were modified by this Award it did not interfere with the provisions of para 450 of the Sastry Award which had preserved the rights of the employees to enjoy the then existing medical facilities. The following extracts from the Award will indicate that the Sastry Award was substantially adopted:-

11.11 The benefits given under the Sastry Award so far as medical aid and expenses are concerned, are reasonable in the present cir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1971 Supreme(SC) 363

Cases Referred (1)