- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur v. Verma (C. S.)
Factual and Procedural Background
C.S. Verma joined the Bank of Jaipur Ltd. (now State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur) on 1 November 1943 as a clerk and later served in various supervisory capacities, including Agent and Assistant Accountant. After the Sastri Award (1953), its modification by the Labour Appellate Tribunal (1954) and subsequent statutory changes, the bank introduced a revised pay-scale on 1 January 1956. On 29 August 1956 the statutory definition of “workman” in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was amended to include employees performing supervisory duties below a prescribed wage ceiling. Verma, contending that the amendment brought him within the “workman” category, filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Rajasthan, Jaipur, claiming arrears of the special supervisory allowance fixed by the Sastri Award.
By order dated 6 November 1964 the Labour Court allowed his claim for Rs 7,572.08. The employer bank appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after the 29 August 1956 amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act, C.S. Verma qualified as a “workman” for the purpose of receiving the special supervisory allowance under the Sastri Award.
- Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) to compute and award the claimed allowance when the employer disputed Verma’s status and entitlement.
- Whether the claim was barred by laches or undue delay.
Arguments of the Parties
Employer Bank’s Arguments
- Because Verma was not a “workman” when the Sastri Award and Labour Appellate Tribunal decision were rendered, the award never applied to him and could not be invoked merely by a later change in statutory definition.
- By failing to opt out within the time stipulated in para 393 of the Labour Appellate Tribunal’s decision, Verma must be deemed to have accepted the existing (non-workman) conditions, which remained in force until superseded by the Desai Award (operative 1 January 1962).
- The application under Section 33C(2) was unduly delayed and therefore barred by laches.
- A disputed question as to whether Verma was a “workman” ousted the Labour Court’s jurisdiction under Section 33C(2).
Verma’s Arguments
- Once the statutory definition was expanded on 29 August 1956, his clerical and supervisory duties (and salary below Rs 500) automatically placed him within the “workman” category.
- No change occurred in his duties between 29 August 1956 and 1 January 1962; if the bank accepted his workman status for the Desai Award period, it must equally accept it for the earlier period.
- As a qualifying “workman,” he was entitled to the special supervisory allowance fixed by the Sastri Award for Class C banks (Rs 40 p.m. up to 31 December 1956) and for Class B banks thereafter (Rs 45 p.m.).
- The plea of limitation had no statutory basis, and Section 33C(2) empowered the Labour Court to compute the monetary benefit notwithstanding the employer’s opposition.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bombay Gas Company Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva, 1963 II LLJ 608 | Absence of statutory limitation period prevents dismissal of monetary claims under S. 33C(2) on grounds of delay alone. | The Court relied on this case to reject the bank’s plea that Verma’s claim was barred by laches. |
| Chief Mining Engineer, East India Coal Co. Ltd. v. Rameshwar & Ors., 1968 LLJ 8 | Labour Court’s competence under S. 33C(2) to interpret an award or settlement when computing a workman’s monetary entitlements. | Cited to affirm that the Labour Court could determine Verma’s entitlement to the supervisory allowance despite the employer’s dispute. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Statutory Definition: The amended Section 2(s) expressly covered employees doing supervisory work earning less than Rs 500 per month. Verma’s duties between 29 August 1956 and 31 December 1961 were clerical and supervisory and his salary was below the ceiling; hence he fell squarely within the definition of “workman.”
2. Continuity of Duties: The Court observed no material change in Verma’s duties before and after 1 January 1962, the date from which even the bank accepted his workman status under the Desai Award. Consequently, there was no basis to deny him the allowance for the earlier period.
3. Effect of Sastri Award and Appellate Decision: The award created categories and monetary benefits for supervisors who qualified as workmen. An employee validly within the “workman” category after a legislative change is entitled to invoke those benefits; the earlier inapplicability of the award does not bar later application once the statutory condition changes.
4. Laches: Following Bombay Gas Co. v. Gopal Bhiva, the Court held that, in the absence of a statutory limitation period, mere delay could not defeat a Section 33C(2) application.
5. Jurisdiction under Section 33C(2): Relying on Chief Mining Engineer v. Rameshwar, the Court concluded that interpreting an award to compute money due is within the Labour Court’s jurisdiction, even if entitlement is contested. Verma’s status as workman was a question of law settled by the statutory definition; thus the Labour Court properly exercised its powers.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed with Costs. The Supreme Court affirmed the Labour Court’s award of Rs 7,572.08 to C.S. Verma as arrears of special supervisory allowance for the period 29 August 1956 – 31 December 1961.
Implications: The judgment confirms that employees who become “workmen” by virtue of statutory amendments may retrospectively claim monetary benefits conferred by earlier industrial awards, and that Section 33C(2) provides an appropriate forum for such computation even where entitlement is disputed. No new legal test was formulated, but the decision reinforces the broad remedial scope of Section 33C(2) and affirms that delay alone is not a bar in the absence of statutory limitation.
Hidayatullah, J.
This is an appeal by special leave against the order, dated 6 November, 1964, of the labour court, Rajasthan Jaipur. The matter arose out of an application made by the respondent, C. S.Verma under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appellant is that State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, the employer. The facts are as follows.
Verma was originally in the employment of the Bank of Jaipur, Ltd., from 1 November, 1943. This bank is now known as the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. He was working as a clerk but on 1 April, 1944 he was posted as an agent of the Nawalgarh branch. Subsequently he worked from January 1951 to May 1956 as agent of Surajgarh office. On 1 May, 1956 his designation was assistant accountant.
The Sastri award was published on 20 April, 1953 and the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal on that award was given exactly a year later. On 24 August, 1954, Government of India made its order modifying the appellate decision and on 21 October, 1955 the Industrial Dispute (Banking companies Decisions) Act, 1955, was promulgated. These events, which are well known may be borne in mind in following the thread of the narration of the events in this case.
On 1 January, 1956 the bank introduced a revised scale of pay and allowances for its officers including the respondent. This was a curious scale of Rs. 100-10-200-10-250-15-400-20-600-30-900-50-1, 400-75-2, 000-100 2, 500. It provided for a service of 68 years between the minimum and maximum salaries. It was apparently introduced to get over certain recommendations of the Sastri tribunal and accepted by Government in relation to special allowances as will appear later. It is also to be recalled that on 29 August, 1956 the definition of "workman" in the Industrial Disputes Act was amended. Then came the award by the national tribunal presided over by Justice Sri K. T. Desai and his award operated from 1 January, 1962. To determine the applicability of Sri Desai's his award C. S. Varma was treated as workman for purposes of his special allowance from 1 January, 1962 It may be stated here that to the date of the Sastri award and thereafter he was not treated as a workman either under the old definition of "workman" or under new definition. The petition of under S. 33C(2) raised the question that he was entitled to the special supervisory allowance under the Sastri award and later by virtue of the definition from 29 August, 1956. He was not in receipt of this allowance which, if it was admissible to him, would have been at Rs. 40 per month from 1 April, 1954 to 31 December, 1956 when the bank was C class bank and from 1 January, 1957 onwards at Rs. 45 per month after the bank was upgraded to B class. Verma accordingly claimed by his application a sum of Rs. 8, 458 as arrears of the special supervisory allowance.Numerous objections were raised to his petition mainly on the ground of jurisdiction but with them we are no longer concerned because the learned Solicitor-General waived those objections. The tribunal by its award upheld the claim of Verma and awarded him a sum of Rs. 7, 572.08 as arrears of special allowance from the commencement of the new definition to 3 December, 1961. It may be stated again that from 1 January, 1962 he was treated as a workman under the definition applicable at the time of the award of Justice Sri Desai. No contention has been raised that he was not so entitled to the special allowance from 1 January, 1962.
The question which arises in this appeal, therefore, is whether Verma can be regarded as a workman under the new definition of "workman" for the purposes of the special supervisory allowance which he claims. The Solicitor-General in placing the case on behalf of the bank contends that if Verma was not a workman under the Sastri award he could not be treated as a workman till the award of Sri Desai came because Verma must be made deemed to have opted for the benefits under the Sastri award which would continue uncharged till that award was altered by the award of Justice Sri Desai. On the other side, it is contended that after change in the definition. Verma automatically became a workman by reason of his duties which were clearly and supervisory. It is also contended that there was no change in his duties and therefore no change in his status under the new definition when the Desai award was given and if he was a workman for the purpose of the Desai award he must be treated as a workman for the period following the introduction of the new definition. This is the main controversy before us. The bank raises one more, on the ground of long delay in presenting the application under S. 33C(2).Now Justice Sri Sastri fixed the scale of basis pay and dearness allowance for the clerical and subordinate staffs doing ordinary duties as such, but recognized the need for extra remuneration where the work required special qualifications or skill and prepared a set of special allowances as lump-sum payment in addition to other emoluments. Among the categories of employees considered deserving of a special allowance were supervisors, sub-accountants, clerk-in-charge departmental in-charges and head clerks. The award provided for supervisors and sub-accountants in B and C class banks an allowance of Rs. 45 and Rs. 40 respectively. The award then goes on to states
"165. With regard to some of these categories it has been a matter of acute controversy before us whether they fall within the class of person coming under the definition of the term 'workman'. In some banks, and particularly, in major officers they will be officers and not workmen. What we are now providing must be understood as the allowances applicable to incumbents of such of such these posts where they are 'workmen.' In cases where they should properly be regarded as officers, these direction will not of course apply. We believe such employees will not really suffer for the reason that ordinarily we expect the banks to give them ordinarily we officers (and certainly not less) than what we have provide as minimum in the case of incumbents deemed to be only workmen.
166. * *
167. The case of accountants should be referred to specially. In several cases they will indisputably be officers. It is difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule in respect of them. An accountant often-times is the second officer in charge of branches, particularly where the branches are comparatively small. In big banks where there is a hierarchy of officers, there may be a chief accountant, accountants, and sub-accountants. In most of those the 'accountants' will probably be officers. There will however be incumbents of such posts, though going under the dignified designation of accountants who are in really only senior clerks doing higher type of clerical work involving an elements of supervision over other clerks as a part of their duties. In such cases where they can properly be regarded as workmen the minimum alliances which we have fixed for sub-accountants would equally apply to them.168. We must also make mention of certain categories described by such terms as junior assistants and senior assistants and classified by some banks as officers. The terms do not by themselves indicate the nature of the work entrusted to them. Irrespective of their designation, in so far as their work falls under clerical work, though of higher type, as explained by us in our discussion relating to categories of workmen in our award in a letter chapter, they must also be entitled to the scales of pay, minimum special allowance, etc., which we have prescribed for the appropriate kind of work during such periods as they in charge of that kind of work. It is not possible to give a more precise or detailed direction in this matter. We trust that the banks will act in the true spirit of these directions."
In Para. 332 of the award of Sastri tribunal emphasized that the test to determine whether a particular person was workman or not, was to see what were his duties and responsibilities. It was stated that it was not possible to lay down a general rule that merely supervisory work would automatically make a man cease to be a workman. It was only where such person were really doing part of managerial work in the sense that they could legitimately be classified and treated as workmen. Before the Sastri tribunal it was conceded generally that managing directors, general managers, managers, agents and chief accountants were persons who might be excluded from the category of workmen but with regard to persons usually designated as accountants, cashiers, junior and senior assistants, etc., there was a great difference of opinion. In this situation the Sastri award preferred "to provide by giving lump alliances (minimum) in addition to the basic pay" to supervisors. They ordered an allowance of Rs. 50, Rs. 45, Rs. 40 and Rs. 30 in the case of A, B, C and D class banks respectively.When the Sastri award was modified by the Labour Appellate Tribunal an option was given by Para. 393 of the Labour Appellate Court's decision. That paragraph said that each individual employee had an option to continue on his existing conditions of service or to change to the new conditions of service and that if any employee failed to so declare his option within the time fixed, he would be deemed to have opted for the new conditions.
When the award of the Sastri tribunal and the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal were given, the definition of "workman" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read :
"'Workman' means any person employed (including an apprentice) in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward and includes, for the purpose of any proceedings under this Act in relation to an industrial disputes, a workman discharged during that dispute, but does not include any person employed in the naval, military or air service of the Government."
This excluded supervisors and even certain categories of accountants. The position of Verma therefore, was that during the period between January 1951 and May 1956 when he was working as an agent doing managerial and supervisory work, he could not be classed as a workman. This the labour court also found in his case. After 1 June, 1956 his designation was assistant accountant and the question is moot whether he could be regarded as a workman or held entitled to the allowance admissible to sub-accountants. That question we need not decide because no claim for the period between 1 June, and 28 August, 1956 is raised. Verma's claim to the special allowance has been upheld by the labour court after 29 August, 1956 on two grounds. They are that the new definition of workman covered his case and he was treated as a workman by the bank under the Desai award from 1 January, 1962. The new definition undoubtedly applied to him. It read :"2(s) 'workman' means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purpose of any proceedings under this Act, in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connexion with, or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person. -
(i) * *
(ii) * *
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." The duties of Verma were clerical and supervisory during the period 29 August, 1956 to 31 December, 1961. By reason of his duties and because his pay was below Rs. 500 he was a workman under the definition and the recommendations of the Sastri tribunal as accepted by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. He was so held to be after 1 January, 1962 even by the bank. There was no change in his status or duties as between the disputed period and as after January 1962. Thus there is considerable force in the argument that he was a workman-supervisor all throughout from 29 August, 1956.
The case of the bank is that as Verma was not a workman immediately after Sastri award and the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision were given, the award and the decision did not apply to him and the change in the definition could not make them applicable to him. This is a wrong approach. The award and the decision regulated the emoluments of services in the banks and created categories. Anyone opting for the created categories. Anyone opting for the conditions of service under the award and the decision, stood to gain if by legislation his status was charged to his advantage. This is what has happened in Verma's case. He was a supervisor but not entitled to an allowance. After the charge in the definition of "workman, " he was entitled to take advantage of the award by reason of the legal change in his status as supervisors became workmen.To counter this the learned Solicitor General raised two questions. The first of laches does not really touch the matter because of the decision of this court in Bombay Gas Company Ltd. v Gopal Bhiva [1963 - II L.L.J. 608] where such a plea was negatived. In the absence of any provision of law specifically applicable, a period of limitation cannot obviously be provided by judicial legislation. The second points is that the claim of Verma that he was a supervisor workman being disputed, S. 330(2) does not apply to him. This argument cannot be accepted. In Chief Mining Engineer East India Coal Company Ltd. v. Rameshwar and others [1968-L.L.J. 8] it is held that it is competent for the labour court to interpret an award or settlement on which the workmen's right rests although the claim be disputed. The dispute here was not whether Verma was a workman because that followed from the change in the law. The dispute was whether being a workman he was entitled to the benefit of an award for which he had opted. Had the matter rested with the applicability of the award to Verma because Verma claimed to be a workman without a clear support of a law, the matter might have been different. Here Verma's status as a workman is beyond question because of the charge of definition from 29 August, 1956. As a workman he was entitled to the benefits of an award for which he had opted and which the Desai award and even the bank recognizes albeit after 1 January, 1962. There is nothing to show that there was any difference in his status earlier from 29 August, 1956. His right to the allowance began from that date. The matter, therefore, fell within the power of the labour court under S 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The labour court was right in holding that Verma was entitled to the special allowance.The result is that the appeal fails. It will be dismissed with costs.
Alert