Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.J. Pandya, J.
Smt. Sunita B. Vatsaraj Petitioner.
Versus
Karnataka Bank Ltd. another..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 225 of 1995, decided on 3-3-1999.
Advocates appeared :
N.M. Ganguli, for the petitioner.
Ms. Chandes Singh along with Umesh Shetty, for the respondents.
Section 2(5)- "Workman" Petitioner assigned work of clerical nature-Though designated as officer and sanctions powers entrusted through power of attorney and was incharge of manager in absence of manager-Her main work being watch of clerks working in her section and check their works-It cannot be equated with work of managerial or administrative nature or in supervisory capacity Thus petitioner is workman under. Section 2(5) of Act.
Section 2(s)-Workman Meaning-When the petitioner, incharge of savings section in Bank, checking work done by clerks while doing own whole then petitioner is a workman under Section 2(s) of Act. In this case the petitioner, a lady employee in a Bank though designated as an officer and entrusted with various powers as per the Power of Attorney, was infact left to the situation of carrying out the work of clerical nature, no doubt, including the checking up of work done by the other workers in her own section. She was all throughout as officer or an incharge manager whether she was supervising the work of the others and keeping which on the clerks working under her in her section or otherwise, her substantial work as was enumerated in the duty sheet of the compilation was nothing else but checking the work done by the clerks. This being a mechanical or clerical work, obviously, it could not be equated with the work of the managerial or administrative nature nor can it be said that she was employed in a supervisory capacity.
Sections 2(s) and 10(1)(d) read with Section 2-A-Petitioner who was appointed as Probationer Clerk in Bank was promoted after about 6 years as Officer Grade III- Termination of services of petitioner bank employee--Petitioner designated as officer but was carrying out clerical work-Petitioner held to be a workman-Tribunal can hear reference and inquire into legality of action as taken by the bank.- The petitioner was working in Bank as incharge of savings section in the branch with one clerk or at the most with two clerks and as a part of her duty she was keeping an eye over their work while doing her own work. In absence of any material on record however, as to exactly what work she had done in the absence of incumbent-the Manager when she was holding charge of the Manager, the case has gone on assumption that she was an officer, who was holding the charge of the Managers post and during the temporary period, she acted as a Manager of the branch. However, all throughout as officer or as an incharge Manager whether she was supervising the work of the others and keeping watch on the clerks working under her, in her section or otherwise, her substantial work as was enumerated in the duty sheet was nothing else but checking the work done by the clerks. This being mechanical or clerical work, obviously, it could not be equated with the work of the managerial or administrative nature nor could it be said that she was employed in a supervisory capacity. It was quite clear that the petitioner though designated as an officer and entrusted with various powers as per the power of attorney, was in fact left to the situation of carrying out the work of clerical nature, no doubt, including the checking up of work done by the other workers in her section. On the basis of material on record both, oral and documentary, the Tribunal had totally misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence and hence the award answering the reference against the petitioner holding that she was not a workman could not be sustained. The petitioner was a workman. The Industrial Tribunal, therefore, had to hear the reference and proceed with it in accordance with law.
2.The petitioner was employed in the said bank as Clerk Trainee on 3rd December, 1971 and on completion of the trainee period, she was taken up as probationary clerk on 16th May, 1972. She worked on that basis almost for six years. She was promoted on 10th May, 1978 to the rank of Officer Grade III. Her salary was more than Rs. 2,700/- being payable to clerical staff. By her letter dated 12th May, 1978, the petitioner accepted the promotion and reported to Bandra Branch where she was transferred. She started working in that Branch from 17th May, 1978. On 24th May, 1978, the respondent-Bank executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner. During that time, when she was working in the Bandra Branch, one Mr. Satish Rao was working as Branch Manager. He was transferred from Bandra Branch in the month of April, 1982, and from 9th April, 1982 to 8th May, 1982, the petitioner was holding charge of the Bandra Branch of the respondent-Bank. She was, therefore, working as Manager of the Bandra Branch of the respondent-Bank. On 8th May, 1982, the new Manager Mr. Satish Udupa took over and during the intervening period, the petitioner was holding the charge of the branch as Manager. The petitioner proceeded on leave on medical grounds as also on maternity leave from 11th May, 1982.
3.In the month of June, 1982, what is alleged to be the misconduct of the petitioner came to be noticed and, therefore, she was contacted by the management of the respondent -Bank. According to the respondent-Bank, she had given a letter dated 14th June, 1982 admitting the lacks on her part. This led to the initiation of the departmental proceedings eventually relating to her termination. A reference was answered against the petitioner on the ground that she is not a workman.
4.The impugned Award is at Exhibit "M'" page 138. Reference was specifically on the question as to whether the action of the management of Karnataka Bank Limited in terminating the services of Smt. Sulabha Moreshwar Purandare from Bandra Branch of the Bank with effect from 31st October, 1984 is legal and justified? if not, to what relief she is entitled? In its reply, the Bank raised a question whether the petitioner can be considered to be a workman as per section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. While holding in favour of the Bank, the tribunal also went into the question of fairness and propriety of the inquiry and not only held that the inquiry was fair and proper but also held that the action of the management in terminating the petitioner was just and proper. This has categorically been observed in para 21 of the Award.
5.It is admitted on both the sides that if the petitioner is not a workman, as held by the tribunal, obviously, it was not open to the tribunal to enter into a question of fairness and propriety of the inquiry and justness, and legality of the orders of dismissal. It is ultimately to be noted that the tribunal will get jurisdiction to inquire into the aspect of the action of the management on proceeding with the reference that the petitioner is a workman. If the person, who is affected by the action of the management is not a workman, obviously, the tribunal shall not get this jurisdiction. The matter is, therefore, heard on the basis that if, at all, the petitioner is accepted to be a workman, the aforesaid finding will have to be set aside and the trial Court will have to be directed to consider the inquiry part and the punishment part afre
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
