JUDGMENT :

K.N. Wanchoo, J.

This is an appeal by special leave from the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Mysore at Bangalore. There was a dispute between the appellant Bank and its employees with respect to C rank officers which was referred by the Central Government to the Tribunal with reference to two matters. in these terms:

(1) Whether the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Limited Udipi is justified in imposing the condition that only such of those workmen would be considered for appointment as officer-trainee and promotion to probationary C rank officers who agree to be governed by the rules of the bank applicable to such officers in respect to scale of pay and other conditions of service? If not, to what relief are such workmen entitled?

(2) Whether the bank is justified in imposing the condition of twelve months training as officer-trainee before appointment as C rank officer in addition to the probation prescribed after the appointment as a C rank officer? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?

It appears that after the award of the All-India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Bombay (popularly known as the Sastry award), the appellant issued a circular on November 29, 1954. This became necessary in order to implement that award. Further in that award it was observed that though accountants in many banks might be officers there would be cases where incumbents of such posts, though going under the dignified designation of accountants were in reality only senior clerks doing higher type of clerical work Involving an element of supervision over other clerks as part of their duties. The award therefore provided that in such cases where accountants could properly be regarded as workmen a minimum allowance as fixed for sub-accountants would equally apply to them. Consequently when the appellant decided to implement the award it wrote letters to its accountants to enquire whether they would like to be considered as clerks or as officers It was also stated in the circular that the appellant considered the accountant to be an officer. It is not clear where exactly the post of C rank officer was created. But it appears that in June 1957 there was a dispute between the appellant and its workmen with respect to one Ranganath Pai, who was a probationary C rank officer and that dispute was settled in conciliation and Pai was reinstated in the bank's service.

2. On February 1, 1958, a circular was issued by the appellant announcing new scales of pay after merger of special pay. In this circular three kinds of officers were mentioned, namely, (i) A rank officers, (ii) B rank officers and (iii) C rank officers. The scale of pay of C rank officers as fixed in this circular was from Rs. 125 to Rs. 341 with a span of twentyfour years and various increments at various stages and an efficiency-bar. Dispute seems to have arisen between the appellant and its workmen on the question whether C rank officers were workmen or not, and an award was made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Central), Ahmedabad with respect to one Rao who was then working as an accountant and drawing the pay of a C rank officer. The question raised was whether an accountant working as C rank officer was a workman or not, and the Labour Court decided on a consideration of the duties of Rao who was working as an accountant that even though Rao might be designated as a C rank officer, his duties showed that he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 14 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Rao was ordered to be restored to his grade as C rank officer and an accountant. This award seems to have become final as apparently no appeal was taken from it.

3. Then in April 1962 another circular was issued revising pay-scales of officers of A, B and C ranks. These scales consisted of consolidated pay including what was formerly basic pay and dearness allowance and for C rank officers the grade was fixed from Rs