Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR KARNIK And D.G.KARNIK, JJ
Karnataka Bank Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Smt.Sunita B. Vatsaraj — Respondent
APPEAL NO. 688 OF 1999 IN WRIT PETITION NO.225 of 1995
Delivered on: 18th June 2007
Considering the various authorities referred to by the counsel for the parties, it is clear that mere designation of an employee or the nomenclature of a post is not determinative of the character of the nature of the duties performed by an employee. An employee would be regarded as performing the supervisory duties only if he is required to supervise the work of one or more of the employees working under him. Supervision means direction and control. The concerned employee must have a power to supervise, direct and control the work of any other employee or employees working under him. The work "checking" has multiple meanings. A clerk in the audit department of a company checks the entries in the books of accounts made by other employees. But that checking is not done in a supervisory capacity but is done merely to bring to the notice of the employer any irregularity happening or committed by any other employee. He has no power to punish or correct errors of other employees. But the function of checking by an officer who day to day supervises work and tasks performed by his subordinates, is different from the checking by an audit clerk. The officer supervises and checks work of his subordinates with a view to direct and control their actions. Such checking, unlike checking of an entry in books of accounts by an audit clerk is a supervisory function.
A managerial function often is distinct from a mere supervisory function. A manager is often employed to take decisions including policy decisions which are managerial in nature. At a given time or place, a manager may be the sole person available on the spot. He may be required to take policy decisions or managerial decisions involving use of his administrative or managerial skill, knowledge and experience. The decisions may involve large financial consequences. The right decision may benefit and a wrong decision may adversely affect financial fortunes of a company.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 3rd March 1999 allowing the Writ Petition no.225 of 1995 filed by the respondent and thereby quashing the award dated 4th July 1994 passed by the Central Industrial Tribunal No.1.
2. Facts stated in brief are that the respondent no.1 (for short "the respondent") joined the appellant bank as a trainee in December 1979 and was promoted as an officer (Grade 3) in May 1978 on basic salary of Rs.2700/-. The respondent accepted the promotion and reported for duty at the Bandra branch of the appellant as the second highest officer after the Branch Manager. On 24th May 1978 a power of attorney was executed by the appellant in favour of the respondent conferring upon her managerial and administrative powers. The respondent functioned as an Officer at the Bandra branch till December 1981, when she proceeded on leave. She resumed duty in February 1982, and on transfer of the then branch manager Mr.Satish Rao, she officiated as the manager of the Bandra branch from March 1982 till new manager took charge. The new manager of the branch, Mr.Udupa, on assuming charge discovered several lapses on the part of the respondent in discharge of her duties. He found that in collusion with the former manager Mr.Satish Rao the respondent had given unauthorised accommodation to four different customers viz. 1) General Trading Agency 2) Bharat Corporation, 3)Pukhraj & Co. and 4) K.M. Corporation. Mr.Udupa,therefore reported the matter to the head office which called her explanation. As the explanation was found unsatisfactory a charge-sheet was issued to her in February 1983. In the domestic enquiry that followed she was found guilty. After a show cause notice and after considering her rely, by an order dated 16th October 1984, services of the respondent were terminated. The dispute raised by the respondent regarding her termination under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was referred by the government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal no.1 (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") for adjudication. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties the tribunal held that the respondent was an officer employed in the managerial and administrative capacity and was also supervising the work of the subordinates and was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act and therefore the reference was not maintainable. The tribunal also considered the respondent’s case on merits and held that the enquiry conducted into the misconduct of the respondent was legal, fair and proper and the finding of culpability reached by the enquiry officer was proper and correct and the termination of the respondent from service was justifiable. In this view of the matter the tribunal dismissed the claim of the respondent for reinstatement. Aggrieved respondent challenged the decision of the tribunal by filing a writ petition in this court. A learned Single Judge of this court by his judgement dated 3rd March 1999 reversed the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal that the respondent was not a workman within the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. The learned Single Judge held that though the respondent was designated as an officer and was entrusted with various managerial powers as per the power of attorney dated 24th May 1978 she in fact was required to carry out the work of clerical nature. The learned Single Judge further held that mere designation of the respondent as an officer was not conclusive whether she was performing managerial or administrative functions and was employed in a supervisory capacity and that the tribunal had misdirected itself in appreciating the evidence in that regard. In this view of the matter the learned Single Judge set aside the award and remanded the matter back to the tribunal for consideration again on merits whether the domestic enqui
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
