MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD versus VASUDEV ANANT BHIDE ETC.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 365 · Decided: 24-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
365 
MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD 
v. 
V ASUDEV ANANT BHIDE ETC. 
! 
April 24, 1969 
[J. M. SHELAT, V.1 BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAID!ALINGAM, JJ.] 
Industrial Dlspute-rSastry and Desai Awards-Head Cashiers-Claim 
to special allowance a$ supervisors-When permissible. 
The appellan\-Banli! and its employees were parties to the Sastry and 
Desai Awards published on March 26, 1953 and June 13, 1962 respec-
tively. The two awa~ds provided for the· grant of 
allowance 
to head 
cashi<1<s and a special !allowance to supervisors when a person falls in the 
category of a supervi'l"f, or is found eligible to be put in \hat category, 
by whatever nomeru:l~ such person may be designated, in view di the 
supervisory nature of the duties and functions assigned to him. 
But in 
paragraph 338, the Sllstry Award· rejected the demand 
made by head 
cashiers to be treated! as supervisors while fixing emoluments appropriate 
to the position of supervisors, and the Desai Award, in paragraph 5.249, 
rejected a timilar de'1and by head <:ashiers for giving them supervisory. 
grades. 
The resP<>ndents in the present case were headcashiers elf the appellant-
Bank and were receiving the special allowance due to them as head 
cashiers. The duties I and functions of head cashiers were set out in .the 
agreements entered ihlo between the Bank and the head cashiers. Tue 
items of work done pyl· the respondents were those usually done by head 
cashiers. They were also doing some items of work which could be call· 
ed supervisory. They filed applications before the Labour Court under 
s. 33C(2) of the Inaustrial Disputes Act, 1947, and claimed payment of 
the special allowance granted lo supervisors. The Labour Court found· 
that the respondents
1 were discharging some supervisory functions wit»put 
specifying which paiit of their work was of a supervisory nature, and 
ollowed the clai!", , 
In appeal to thisl Court, 
HELD : ( 1) ~ 
Labour Court had been specified 
and conferred 
jurisdiction to entertain the applications. [374F] 
(2) The status ~ an emeloyee. as to whether he is a head cashie,nir. 
supervisor is not a Pure queslt<?n of fact and has to be in'ferred as a matter 
of law from the faqts found by the Labour Court. The !))ere fact that a· 
person whose dutie( are essentially and mainly that of a headcashier, for 
whom also a s~ial allowanee was payable under the two awards, :per-
forms occasionally pr casually or as incidental to his work as a head,-· 
cashier, duties which may be characterised as supervisory, will not entitle 
him to claim the special allowance granted to ~ supervisor under the two 
awards. The two lawards dealt with headcashiers 
and 
supervisors 
as 
entirely different° categories. -Only persons falling under the category of 
supervisors or disc'f!._~gi"ng functlons which were mainly or essenrially of a. · 
supervisory nature, ·Were treated as supervisors; and headcashiers were not 
treated on a par 'fith supervisors, because, the functions discharged 
by 
headcashiers and sijpervisors materially differ. If headcashiers were treat· 
ed as supervisora merely because they did some work of a supervisory. 
nature there shoUicl be no distinction between the two cate&0ries. [3778.C,. · 
0-H; 378B-C; 3820'H; 383A.C; 384B-E] 
. _ . 
. : . 
366 
SuPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] I s.c.R. 
In the present case, the work. done by the respondents, on thtir own 
admission and on tbe findings of the Labour 
Court, 
consisted of Ollly 
items of work which a beadcashier was bound to do. They never claim-
ed that they fell within the category 
of supervisors or discharging any 
work essentially of a supervisory nature. The work might have been im-
portant, responsible and onerous but on thal basis they were not entitled 
to the special allowance as supervisors. 
Even the 
few items 
of work 
claimed by them to be supervisory were really done by them as incidental 
to their main duties as headcasbiers. 
It was not necessa!¥ to remand the 
matter to the Labour Coun for 
investigation as to which parts of the 
item! of work claimed to have been done by the 
respondenlll could be 
dlaracterised as supervisory functions, because, 
the respondents only 
claimed that in the diocharge <1f their work as headcashiers, they were do-
ina certain items of work which were of a supervisory nature, and not that 
they have been doing any wort which was essentially of a supervisory 
natnre. [3830-H; 3860-E; 387C-DJ 
Lloyds .• Bank

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