Bank of
India Vs. Secretary, Bank of India Staff Union & Anr [2001] Insc
198 (9 April 2001)
S. Rajendra
Babu & Shivaraj V. Patil Rajendra Babu, J. :
L.I.T.J
This
appeal is filed against an award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur on a reference made to it on the
following question:
Whether
the action of the management of Bank of India in not paying special allowance
to the staff posted at clearing house of Lucknow, Agra, Unnao, Varanasi and Kanpur
as per list enclosed is justified? If not to what relief were the workmen
entitled? The Tribunal held that the concerned workmen are entitled for special
assistant allowance for the number of days they have worked at various
collection centres and the same shall be payable for the number of days they
have actually worked with effect from the date of reference. The workmen in
question worked at various centres including Collection Centre, Kanpur, Lucknow and Varanasi and Main Branches, Agra and Unnao of their Banks as detailed in Annexure
thereof. They claimed that they performed the duties as authorised
representatives of the Bank of clearing house at the Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur
and State Bank in clearing house at the Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur and State
Bank of India, Lucknow, Agra, Unnao and Varanasi which fall under the duties of
Special Assistant. The workmen claimed that they are checking or scrutinizing
all the schedules and/or vouchers received along with the cheques and other
instruments as per para XIX(III) of Appendix B of 1st Bi-partite Settlement
dated 19.10.1966. The workmen claimed that they are entering each cheque,
demand draft, pay slips, etc. with their respective credit voucher i.e., Branch
Debit Note drawn on Regional Collection Centres and Main Branch in clearing
house register and balancing as per paragraph 45.5 of Manual of Instruction,
Volume I, Chapter 127 to the following effect:
Particulars
of all cheques drawn on other local clearing banks received by the Branches for
collection should thereafter be sorted and listed bankwise. The total of cheques
entered in the clearing cheques register should agree with the total amount of cheques
listed on all the clearing schedules and also with the total amount of the relatives
paying-in-slips.
The
workmen further claimed that the cheques/instruments are sorted bankwise and
posted the cheques etc. in totalling and numbering as per paragraph 45.5 of
Manual of Instruction; that the workmen are to check crossing and clearing
stamp on each cheques and other instruments on front face of these instruments
and endorsement stamps of the bank on each instrument; that the checking of
total in List of Cheques with the books of the Bank i.e. clearing cheques
register, mentioned in each sheet for the different bank; that checking each
list of cheques in clearing schedule of the bankwise with cheque numbers in the
column Delivered in left hand side drawn on other banks and totalling all the
amounts of the cheques mentioned in the different list of cheques mentioned in
the different list of cheques register; that the workmen receive various cheques,
demand draft, pay slip and other instruments in the clearing house from
different banks and also make the entry in the column Received bankwise with cheque
numbers in the right side and totalling all the amount and cheques mentioned in
their different sheets of the bank; that the checking is for the correctness of
endorsement crossing stamp, clearing stamps, date of the returning of the cheques,
date of the cheques, comparison of cheques and totalling the amount delivered
by the different banks as per para III(I)(xi) and (iii) of Appendix B of
Bi-partite Settlement; that the workmen prepare debit and credit vouchers
according to cheques and the instruments after checking the clearing schedule
on account of cheques received from other banks daily; that the workmen also
sign the difference of the entries such as to pay or receive in the independent
capacity of authorised representative of clearing house as Clearing in-charge
at the Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India on behalf of the Bank in
the clearing house after delivering and receiving the different instruments in
sheet for submissions and receiving the different instruments in sheet for
submission to the Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India; that the
workmen are holding banks valuable cheques, drafts and other instruments
signally and are accountable for them and are responsible for the clearing
department of the bank and prepare, sign independently clearing and transfer
vouchers such as to pay or receive on account of the cheques delivered or
received from different banks through the sheet in the bank account mentioned
by the Reserve Bank of India and the State Bank of India which constitute the
additional duties and fucntions requiring the greater skill and responsibility
over and above the routine duties of the workmen in terms of Para
III(I)(xi)(ii).
The
appellant-Bank filed a written statement contending that though the workmen
have performed the duties of attending the clearing house on behalf of the
Bank, they have not discharged any of the duties so as to attract payment of
special allowance by way of Special Assistant as none of the duties are being
performed by them to attract such allowance and denied the various claims made
by the workmen. They submitted that they are simply delivering cheques of the
Bank drawn on other banks and receiving cheques drawn by other banks on their
Bank at the clearing house after counting the number of cheques/instruments as
per schedule listing it bankwise in the sheets, arriving at the clearing
different and preparation of the different vouchers, segregation of the
instruments categorywise and preparation of debit in nature and in no way
require any greater skill and responsibility warranting payment of any special allownace.
It was also contended that the duties of Special Assistant as laid down in
Bi-partite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 have been modified in the subsequent
Bi-partite Settlement dated 17.9.1984 and the duties of special assistant as
laid down in the said Bi-partite Settlement 1984 are as listed in the Annexure
A thereto. It was contended that para 5.267 of the Desai Award has not been
modified by any subsequent Bi-partite Settlement and is still in existence and
that the clerks deputed to the clearing house are not in charge of the Banks
clearing department but are simply clerks posted in that department and the
overall incharge of the department is an officer under whom these clerks are functioning.
It was specifically claimed by the appellant that the Special Assistant will be
accountable and responsible for running of the department/section under them
and their duties will involve looking after and checking the work of other
clerk or clerks and sub-staff and will include several other duties set out in Anneuxre
A to the Bi-partite Settlement of 1984.
An
affidavit was filed by Jai Bahadur Singh on behalf of the appellant and it was
stated therein as follows :
That
the clerk attached to my department amongst the other clerical duties are on
rotation basis sent to the Bankers clearing house for delivering the cheques/drafts
etc of our bank drawn on other Bank and receiving cheques/drafts etc drawn by
other banks on our bank as per the schedule which he carries with him in
duplicate.
Specimen
of which is marked as Annexure A to the affidavit.
Under
the column delivered of the said schedule the cheques/drafts etc. drawn on
other banks and delivered by him at the clearing house are entered bankwise and
total is arrived at this represents the amount of cheques delivered by the Bank
is clearing. The cheques delivered by other banks are entered in the column
received of the schedule bank wise and the total is arrived at, this represents
the amount of cheques received. Thereafter the difference between the amount
delivered and received is arrived at which is known as clearing difference.
Thereafter a copy of clearing schedule is delivered to the officer in charge of
the clearing house. As such the duties being performed by the clerks attending
the clearing house is purely clerical in nature.
The
Tribunal, after setting out the case of the parties and the evidence put forth
before it in the shape of the affidavits, stated that though affidavits have
been filed by several persons, only two witnesses, namely, V.K.Srivastava and Baikunth
Lal, were produced for cross-examination on behalf of the workmen and Jai Bahadur
Singh on behalf of the management and, therefore, their affidavits alone are
admissible. However, the Tribunal chose not to examine that evidence on the
following basis:
.the
concerned workmen have been sent to the Regional Collection Centres of the
Reserve Bank of India and State Bank of India at other places for verification
of cheques issued by their Banks. It is also not disputed that when these
persons went to these centres none of the officer of the bank had accompanied.
I am of the view that when a member of award staff handles and deals with cheques
and other instruments within the bank premises and during the office hours
there is no element of risk and there cannot be said to be doing any work
involving extra responsibility.
However,
the moment such workman is asked to carry cheques and the instruments outside
the bank as is being done by the concerned workmen. I am of the view officer
accompanied them at such occasion there would be no responsibility of these
workmen. Hence since in the instance case the concerned workmen had been
carrying cheques independently, and checking the same at the Regional
Collection Centres and without any officer accompanying them, I come to the
conclusion that had been performing the job involving greater responsibility as
well.
Proceeding
thus, the Tribunal made the award without any further examination of the
matter.
In
this background, it becomes necessary to consider whether the award made by the
Tribunal can be sustained or not. It is the contention of the respondents that
the decision of this Court in Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Sisir Kumar Shaw,
1976 (2) SCC 859, fully covers the case of the workmen in question. In that
decision, it was stated that it was not necessary to refer to the details of
the Sastry Award of 1953 or the Desai Award which ceased to apply in the year
1966, when the Bi-partite Settlement came into force. The preamble to the
Bi-partite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 states that the parties have agreed that
the provisions of the award known as the Sastry Award as modified by the Desai
Award shall govern the service conditions therein covered except to the extent
that the same have been modified by the Bi-partite Settlement of 1966. If that
is so, it will not be accurate to state that the Sastry Award or the Desai
Award has ceased to apply and this position is clarified by this Court in C.A.No.7752
of 1996 Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer and Ors., disposed of on
28.11.2000. However, that aspect will not settle the problem arising in the
present case. The question for consideration is whether the principles set out
by this Court in Sisir Kumar Shaws case [supra] would be applicable to the
facts of the present case. In that case, there was a specific finding by the Labour Court as to the nature of the duties of
the clerk working as the clearing house representative on behalf of the bank. While
in the present case, the duties discharged by the clearing house representative
are in serious dispute. Unless the same are adjudicated by appropriate
examination of the facts of the case with reference to the contentions advanced
by either party and the evidence adduced, it cannot be concluded in the manner
done by the Tribunal. There is no finding that the workmen discharge certain
duties and, therefore, are entitled to special allowance in the category of
Special Assistant. The Tribunal has proceeded as if it was dealing with a fresh
matter before it without reference either to the Bi-partite Settlement or to
the Sastry or the Desai Award. Necessarily, the Tribunal had to examine whether
the workmen in question fall in any one of the categories to which special
allowance is to be given or refused by the two Awards [Sastry/Desai Awards] or
in the Bi-partite Settlement that part has been modified or a new clause has
been introduced thereto inconsistent with the Sastry/Desai Award so as to
entitle to such allowance. Unless such an exercise is undertaken and the
details of the duties assigned to each of the workman are considered it will
not be possible for the Tribunal to decide a matter of this nature. Therefore,
we are constrained to set aside the award made by the Tribunal and remit the
matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the observations
made by us above and in accordance with the law.
The
appeal shall stand allowed accordingly. No costs.
Back