Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the Management of State Bank of Hyderabad and its head cashiers, who were respondents, regarding their claim to a special allowance payable to supervisors under the Sastry Award (1953) and Desai Award (1962). The respondents, head cashiers of the bank, were receiving a special allowance due to head cashiers under the awards. They filed applications before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, asserting that they performed supervisory functions and were thus entitled to the supervisory allowance. The Labour Court, without specifying which part of their work was supervisory, held that the respondents discharged some supervisory functions and allowed their claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered two key issues: whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under Section 33C(2), and whether the head cashiers were eligible for supervisory allowance. The Court held that the Labour Court had been specified and conferred jurisdiction to entertain the applications. However, on the merits, it ruled that the question of whether an employee is a head cashier or supervisor is a mixed question of law and fact, to be inferred from the facts found. It clarified that an employee whose main duties are essentially those of a head cashier, for whom a special allowance is already provided under the awards, cannot claim the supervisory allowance merely because he occasionally or casually performs supervisory work incidental to his main duties. The Court thus set aside the Labour Court's order, concluding that the head cashiers were not entitled to the supervisory allowance as supervisors.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) - The Labour Court was specified and had jurisdiction to entertain the applications filed by the head cashiers under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Held that the Labour Court was properly conferred jurisdiction to decide the claim. (Paras 374F) B) Labour Law - Supervisory Allowance - Entitlement Under Awards - Sastry and Desai Awards - The status of an employee as head cashier or supervisor is a mixed question of law and fact; mere occasional or incidental performance of supervisory duties by a head cashier does not entitle him to the special allowance for supervisors under the Sastry and Desai Awards. Held that an employee whose duties are essentially and mainly that of a head cashier cannot be classified as a supervisor merely because he performs some supervisory functions incidentally. (Paras 1-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether head cashiers performing some supervisory functions are entitled to special allowance as supervisors under the Sastry and Desai Awards, and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to entertain the claim
Final Decision
Supreme Court set aside the Labour Court's order, holding that the Labour Court had jurisdiction but the claim was not sustainable as the head cashiers were essentially performing head cashier duties and mere incidental supervisory duties did not make them supervisors entitled to special allowance.
Law Points
- Employee's status as supervisor is a mixed question of law and fact
- incidental supervisory duties do not entitle a head cashier to supervisory allowance
- Labour Court had jurisdiction under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 to entertain the claim
