CANARA BANK LIMITED Vs. ANANT NARAYAN SURKUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 same point. Appeals Nos. 731 to 752 are by the Canara Industrial and Banking Syndicate Limited while Appeal No. 787 is by the Canara Bank Limited. In all these appeals there were applications by the employees of the two banks under s. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which have been allowed by the tribunal.

(2.) We shall give the facts in appeal No. 787 in detail. The respondent in that appeal is a clerk employed by the bank at its Bandra branch and has been working there since his appointment in October 1953. The respondent claimed that he was entitled to a special allowance of Rs. 15/- per month admissible to cashiers in-charge of cash in pay offices in accordance with para 164(b)(7) of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) Award, (popularly known as the Sastry award). He further claimed that he worked as cashier in-charge of cash at Worli and Bandra branches of the bank and was entrusted with the sole charge of handling cash as there was nobody else to assist him. He was doing the work both of receiving and paying and was solely responsible in respect thereof to the bank. As such he was entitled to the special allowance of Rs. 15/- per month under the Sastry award, but the bank did not pay him the amount. The respondent therefore prayed that the benefit due to him may be computed in terms of money and necessary order passed thereon.

(3.) The bank resisted the claim of the respondent and its case was (firstly) that such an application was not entertainable under s. 33-C(2) of the Act and the labour court had no jurisdiction to decide it, (secondly) that the respondent was working at a branch and not at a pay office and therefore was not entitled to any special allowance under para 164(b)(7) of the Sastry award, and (thirdly) that in any case the respondent cannot be said to be a cashier in-charge of cash at the branch where he was working and therefore was not entitled to any allowance. The banks contention in this connection was that none of its employees was solely or singly in-charge of cash at any of its branches and therefore the respondent could not claim any special allowance, particularly as he was merely a routine clerk even though he was handling cash.