LexMANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL & GRINDLAYS versus THEIR WORKMEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
7 A MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL & GRINDLAYS B c D E F G H BANK LTD. v. THEIR WORKMEN August 3, 1971 [G. K. MITTER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] Industrial Dispute-Bank Employees-" Medical aid and expenses" -Bipartite Agreement-Need for standardisation. The employees of the Kanpur branch of the appellant bank en- joyed medical facilities without a monetary ceiling. Under the Sastry Award, and under the Desai Award which substantially adopted the Sastry Award in this respect, the higher medical benefits enjoyed by the employees of the branch, were to continue. In pursuance of the Bipartite Settlement in 1966 an attempt was made to standardise "medi- cal aid and expenses" by bringing the employees of the branch in line with the other branches of the bank, but without success. During the conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commis- sioner the appellant was agreeable, until the next All India Settlement/ Award in the banking industry when the workmen of the appellant- bank at Kanpur would fall in line with that settlement/award, to a higher limit of Rs. 250/- for medical aid and expe~ses for the emp- loyees of the branch as compared to the ceiling fixed under the Bipar- tite Settlement' for employees of other banks. This limit was to be applicable to the employees as well as to their families. The appel- lant bank was also agreeable to pay the hospitalisation expenses but only of the workmen. A dispute as to what should be the monetary limit up to which medical aid and expenses should be admissible to the workmen of the Kanpur branch was referred to the Industrial Tribunal an'd the Tribunal gave an award declaring that the employees of the branch and their families would be entitled to medical aid and expenses up to a monetary limit of Rs. 250 - per year. The Tribunal further directed that the appellant-bank would defray the hospitali- sation charges not only for the employees but also for the members of their families. In appeal to · this Court, against the award, it was contended that the Tribunal, having recognised the need for standardising bene- fits in respect of medical aid and expenses, ought not to have fixed them at a rate higher than those fixed for the employees of the bank in other branches, particularly, when nothing had been shown as to why the Kanpur branch employees should be given favoured treat- ment. It was also contended that the award relating to hospitalisat- ion was made applicable to the members of the family of the emp- loyees at Kanpur while no such facility was available to the other workers. The respondents took the stand that the benefits enjoyed by the employees of the branch of having unlimited medical aid faci- lities could not be curtailed. · · · 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 1 S.C.R. J:[ELD : (1) The object of the Bipartite Settlement was to stan- dardise the facility in respect of medical aid and expenses; but when it was found that one of the branches of the appellant bank was not able to fall in line that was left to further negotiations, but nonetheless, it was made manifest that standardisation should be achieved to bring them in line with other workmen of the bank. When once there has been a general revision in respect of pay scales and other amenities and facilities which are more advantageous than under the previous award there seems to be no reason why the employees of the Kanpur branch should be treated as favoured employees, particularly, when nothing has been stated nor any material relied upon to show why they should be so treated. It is not a case of protecting the wage of an individual workman who was getting higher than what is envisaged in the standardisation scheme at the time when such a scheme is brou- ght into force. [l 4D; I SB] . (2) Further, there is no justification for the tribunal to extend the hospitalisation facilities to the members of the families if that was not enjoyed by the workmen in the other branches of the appellant Bank and in other Banks which are similarly situated. [l SllJ A B c (3) However, in view of the fact that the. appellant Bank was D, agreeable to give a higher limit as indicated in its offer before the Conciliation Qfficer, though for a limited period, namely, till the next All India Settelment Award, which was also reiterated before this Court, th~ interest of the employees of the Kanpur branch are well served by that offer. [ISG] .ffhe Court according
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.