STATF BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR versus SHRI HARI HAR NATH BHARGAVA

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 11-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

110 
STATF BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR 
v. 
SHRI HARi HAR NATH BHARGAVA 
August 11, 1971 
1G. K. MITTER, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN 
REooY, JJ.J 
Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947, s. · 33C(2)-Sastry Award-Power 
·Of Attorney entrusting supervisory work-If entitled to supervisory 
allowance for period when not called upon to discharge supervisory 
functions. 
A 
B 
The respondent, a clerk of the appellant bank, was entrusted with 
C 
·supervisory work and a general power of Attorney was executed. in 
his favour 
to endorse Hundies, cheques, warranty, Railway receipts, 
pension bills and other negotiable and mercantile instruments and to 
prosecute, defend, answer and oppose any suit. etc. on behalf of the 
appellant bank. 
The respondent filed an application before the Labour Court, Rajas-
than under s. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying for com-
putation of special allowance under the Sastri Award, on the ground 
that he was discharging supervisory duties. 
The Labour Court, allowed supervisory allowance of Rs. 40 p.m. 
with consequential benefits. In appeal to this Court the appellant bank 
contended that since the respondent was not called upon to perform the 
functions enumerated in the power of attorney, he is not entitled to 
any special allowance. 
Dismissing the appeal. 
HELD : (i) The payment of a special allowance was called for when 
an employee discharged duties of a supervisory nature or was accorded 
the status of a person competent to discharge functions .of a supervisory 
character. [115d] 
· 
(ii) Since the Management by the power of Attorney, had placed the 
respondent in a category of persons with responsibility and entrusted 
him with functions of a supervisory character and the employee was to 
discharge that responsibility, he was entitled to supervisory allowance 
no matter, whether he was actually called upon to discharge such func-
tions or not for a certain period of time. [115F, 116B] 
State Bank of Hyderabad v. V. A. Bhinde, [1969] 2 L. L. J. 713, 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal No. 1923 of1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated 
February 14, 1966 of the Central Govt. Labour Court, 
Rajasthan, Jaipur in Misc. Application No. CLC-4 of 
1964. 
G. L. Sanghi and P.M. Tiwari for the appellant 
) 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
STATE BANK v. H. N. BHARGAVA (Mitter, I.) 
111 
M. K. Ramamurthi, J. . Ramamurthi and Vineet 
Kumar, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Mitter, J. This appeal by special leave is from an 
order of the Central Government Labour Court, Rajasthan 
passed on February 14, 1966 on an application under 
s. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act filed by the 
respondent, Hari Har Nath Bhargava, holding that the 
latter was entitled to supervisory allowance under paragraph 
c 
164 (b) (9) of the Sastry Award even for the period when 
the latter was not actually performing supervisory duties. 
The facts in this case may be shortlx stated. The 
respondent was appointed a clerk by the State Bank of 
0 
Jaipur in 1949. He was transferred to Kota in the year 
1952. He was entrusted with supervisory work from 6th 
April,· 1954. The bank executed a power-of-attorney in 
his favour on May 31, 1954 in pursuance of a resolution of 
its Board of Directors passed on 20th May, 1954. He was 
transferred from Kota to Jaipur on July 12, 1955. On 
E December 27, 1955 he was posted at Sikar where he had to 
perform supervisory duties. 
On January l, 1956 he was 
promoted to the cadre of junior officers of the bank. 
On March 31, 1964 the respondent filed an application 
before the Central Government Labour Court, Rajasthan 
F under s. 33-C (2) praying for computation of special allow-
ance under what is known as the Sas try Award on the ground 
that he had been discharging supervisory duties from 6th 
April, 1954 to 1st January, 1956. By this time the Bank of 
Jaipur had amalgamated with the Bank of Bikaner and the 
amalgamated bank, the appellant before us, came to be 
G known as. the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The 
execution of the power of attorney dated 29th May, 1954 
was admitted but the appellant denied "that the duties 
entrusted to the respondent constituted performance by 
him of any supervisory nature of work". A point was 
also taken that although no period oflimitation is laid down 
H by any statute with regard to applications under s. 33-C 
of the Act the respondent's claim being a stale one should 
not

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