LexTHE CANARA BANK LTD. versus ANANT NARAYAN SURKUND AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL.
1963
THE CAN ARA BANK LTD.
April 22.
11.
•
ANANT NARAYAN SURKUND AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO,
and K. C. DAS GUPTA JJ.)
Industrial Dispute-Special allowance-Cashiers in charge
of cash-Single lock-box-Sastri Award, para. 164 (b) (7)-
Whether applicable to branches-Application under s. 330 (2),
Whether maintainable-lnd1otrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of
1947), s. 330 (2).
Applications were filed by respondents, employees of
the appellant, under s. 330 (2) of the Industrial Disputes
Act 1947, claiming special allowance admi8'ible to cashiers in
charge of cash in accordance with para 164 (b) { 7) of the
Sastry A ward on the ground that they were cashiers in charge
of cash in the branches in which they worked. Their claims
were allowed by the Central
Government Labour Court,
Delhi. The appellant came to this C..:ourt by special leave.
The contentions raised by the appellant were
that
applications under s. 330 (2) were not maintainable and the
Lahour Court had n.1 jurisdiction to deal with them, that the
respondents were working at a .Branch and not at a pay office
and therefore were not entitled to any special allowance under
para. 164 (b} (7) of the Sastry Award and that the respondents
could not be said to be Cashiers in chacge of cash at the
Branch .where they were working and therefore were not entit·
led to special allowance. None of the respondents was solely
or singly incharge of ca•h at the Branch and was mertly a
routine clerk even though he w~s ha,ndling cash
Held that applications under s. 330 (2) were· maintain-
able and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to decide them.
The respondents were entitled to the special allowance
as they were ca•hiers in char~e of cash at the Branch where
they worked. Para 164 (b) (7) of the Sa•try Award applied
not only to pay offices but also to branches of the banks.
The respondents were not mere routine clerks. They were
cashiers in charge of cash in the branches in which they worked.
•
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
257
Their duties and responsibilitks were of a 11.igher nature than
those of mere routine clerks. They were solely incharge of
the cash department of the Bank in which they worked. They
did both receiving and paying work and took charge of the
cash in the single lock box first thing in the morning and made
over charge of the single lock box last thing in the evening.
Routine clerks in the cash department may be paying
clerks, receiving clerks or even paying-cum-receiving clerko,
but they would not be entitled to any allowance unless it was
shown that they were in sole charge of the cash in the single
lock in the particular branch. That can only happen where
there is a single clerk doing the work of both receiving and
paying in the ca•h department of a branch. When the cash
department consist. of more
~han one person, it is only one
person, whether he is calied the Head Cashier or Assistant
Cashier, who would be in charge and would get an allowance
and not the other clerks working in the ca•h department who
may be doing either receiving work or paying work or even
both paying and receiving work.
Otmral Bank of India v. P. 8. Rajagopalan, C. A.
No. 823-826 of 62, dated 19,4.63.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals
Nos. 787 and 731-752of1962.
Appeals by special leave from the cutler dated
March 16, 1962, and February 14, 1962 •f the
Central Government Labour Ceurt at Delhi in
L. C. As. Nos. 212 of 1962 and 869-ii and 937·9~6 ef
1961 respectively.
N. V. Phadke, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath
and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant (in C. A.
L No. 787 of 62).
S. N. Andley, for
the appellant (in C. As.
Nos. 731-752 of 62).
V. K. Krishna Menon, M. K. Ramamurthi,
R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh and S. 0. Agarwal, for the
respondent {in C. A. No. 787 of 62).
196J
C111•ra Btrnk Lt~
v.
Antud Nara.Jan
Surku.t
. -
l!IU
c....It..ALU.
v.
baJI/ N•41aa
Sur"-l
W .... J.
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1964]\'0t.
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri,. V. K.
Krishna
Menon, M. K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, D. P. Singh
and S. 0. Agarwal, for respondents, (in G. As.
Nos. 731-752 of 1962).
1963. April 22. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
WANOHoo J.- These appeals by special leave
arise from the orders of the Central Government .
Labour Court, Delhi, and will be dealt with together
as they raise the sam~ point. Appeals Nos. 731 to
752 are · by the CaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.