ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 23-04-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
• -
A ALL INDIA RESERVE BAl'llX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. 
RESERVE HANK OF INDIA 
April 23, 1965 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
lndustriul Disputes Act, 1947, s. 2(s)-Definition of 'workn1an'-'Super-
visory capacity' ·whether different fro1n 'supervisory work'-Disputes about 
non-workn1en when can he raised by ..,vorknien-Central Govern1nent whe-
1!ier can refer such disputes to Trihunal-Need-hased n1inimu1n "tt-'age-
For1nula to be adopted for connunption units per fa1nily-Proper coeffi-
cient for lVhite-col!ar lvorkers, lvhat is-Enforcen1ent of a1vard : discre-
tion of Tribunal in the 111atter of. 
The Class ll and Class Ill staff of the Reserve Bank of India through 
their Association, 
and Class lV staff through their Union raised an 
industrial dispute 1,vith the Bank \vhich was referred by the Central Gov-
ernment on March 21, 1960, to the National Tribunal. The items refer-
red bore upon scales of pay, allowances, and sundry matters connected 
with the conditions of service of the three classes, the most important ones 
being the den1and of Class 11 staff for a scale commencing with Rs. 500, 
and the <le1nand of other workmen for a need-based minimum wage as 
recommend·:::d by the Tripartite Conference. of 1957. 
In its award the 
1'ribunal pointed out that Class II staff worked in a supervisory capacity 
and its demand for a minimum salary of Rs. 500, if conceded, \Vould 
take the said staff out of the category of 'workman' as defined in s. 2(s) 
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Such an award, and any award 
carrying \vages OCyond Rs. 500 at any stage, the Tribunal said, 1,vas 
beyond its· jurisdiction to make. 
It went on to ho1d that other workmen 
could not raise a dispute which woukl involve consideration of matters. 
in relation to non-\vorkmen and that it would be even beyond the jurisdic-
tion of the Central Government to refer such a dispute under the Industrial 
Disputes Act. The Tribunal ther-efore made no a\vard in regard to the 
supervisory staff in Class II. As for the demand for a need-based minimum 
wage, the Tribunal held tha,t the Tripartite rewlution had not been accepted 
by the Government and was not binding; that a need-based minimum wage 
was an ideal incapable of present achievement; that as against the demand 
of a formula of 3 consumption units per family it was possible to allow 
only 2.25 units; and that thei coefficient for white-collar \vorkers wouJd 
not be changed from 80 to 120 as demanded, The Tribunal's award was 
given on September 8, 1962 but made operative from January I, 1962. 
Dissatisfied with the award, the workmen appealed by special leave, to this 
Court. 
Subsequently by resolution dated April 24, 1963 the Resen-e 
Bank raised the minimum total emoluments, as envisaged by the definition 
of wages, of each and every m-ember of the Class II staff, above Rs. 500 
with effect from the date of operation of the a\vard. 
In their appeal before this Court it was urged on behalf of the appellants 
that there was a difference between 'spervisory capacity' mentioned in 
cl. (iv) of s. 2(s) and 'supervisoiy work' mentioned in the main part of 
the section. and as Class II officers did not work in a 'sup·~rvisorv capa-
city' they were 'workmen' under the definition. 
'Supervisory Capacity' it 
was urged, arose only \vben the employee was an agent of the employer. 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
--.... 
[1966] l S.C.R. 
It '\.Vas aiso urged that Class' n \VOrkmen only had clerical and checking 
A 
duties which were not supervisory in character. 
Alternatively it \Vas 
contended that as Class lI was filled by promotion from Class III the 
question as to the emoluments of the former could and should have been 
gone into by the Tribunal in view of the 'Principle 
enunciaited 
in 
the 
Dimakuchi Tea Estate case. 
HELD : (i) (a) Tue amendment to s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes 
Act in 1956 introduced among the categories of persons already mentioned 
B 
as 'workmen' persons employed to do supervisory and technical \York. 
So 
far the language of the earlier enactment was used. \Vhen, however, excep-
tions were engraftotl, that language was departed from in cl. (iv) partly 
because the draftsmen followed the language of cJ. (iii) and partly because 
from persons employed on supervision work some are to be excluded 
he.cause they dra\v \vage.s exceeding Rs. 500 per month and some because 
they functio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.