ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 25; 1965 INSC 120

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR , K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI

Judgment date: 1965-04-23

Case summary

1965 INSC 120. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1965-04-23. ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. Read the judgment...

Judgment text

26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ALL INDIA RESERVE BAl'llX EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION • v. RESERVE HANK OF INDIA April 23, 1965 (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J. , K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ. ] lndustriul Disputes Act, 1947, s. 2(s)-Definition of 'workn1an'-'Supervisory capacity' ·whether different fro1n 'supervisory work'-Disputes about non-workn1en when can he raised by .. ,vorknien-Central Govern1nent whe- 1! ier can refer such disputes to Trihunal-Need-hased n1inimu1n "tt-'age- For1nula to be adopted for connunption units per fa1nily-Proper coefficient for lVhite-col! ar lvorkers, lvhat is-Enforcen1ent of a1vard : discretion of Tribunal in the 111atter of. The Class ll and Class Ill staff of the Reserve Bank of India through their Association, and Class lV staff through their Union raised an industrial dispute 1,vith the Bank \vhich was referred by the Central Government on March 21, 1960, to the National Tribunal.

The items referred bore upon scales of pay, allowances, and sundry matters connected with the conditions of service of the three classes, the most important ones being the den1and of Class 11 staff for a scale commencing with Rs. 500, and the <le1nand of other workmen for a need-based minimum wage as recommend·:::d by the Tripartite Conference. of 1957. In its award the 1'ribunal pointed out that Class II staff worked in a supervisory capacity and its demand for a minimum salary of Rs. 500, if conceded, \Vould E take the said staff out of the category of 'workman' as defined in s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such an award, and any award carrying \vages OCyond Rs. 500 at any stage, the Tribunal said, 1,vas beyond its· jurisdiction to make. It went on to ho1d that other workmen could not raise a dispute which woukl involve consideration of matters.

in relation to non-\vorkmen and that it would be even beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Government to refer such a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal ther-efore made no a\vard in regard to the F supervisory staff in Class II. As for the demand for a need-based minimum wage, the Tribunal held tha,t the Tripartite rewlution had not been accepted by the Government and was not binding; that a need-based minimum wage was an ideal incapable of present achievement; that as against the demand of a formula of 3 consumption units per family it was possible to allow only 2. 25 units; and that thei coefficient for white-collar \vorkers wouJd not be changed from 80 to 120 as demanded, The Tribunal's award was given on September 8, 1962 but made operative from January I, 1962. G Dissatisfied with the award, the workmen appealed by special leave, to this Court.

Subsequently by resolution dated April 24, 1963 the Resen-e • Bank raised the minimum total emoluments, as envisaged by the definition of wages, of each and every m-ember of the Class II staff, above Rs. 500 with effect from the date of operation of the a\vard. In their appeal before this Court it was urged on behalf of the appellants • that there was a difference between 'spervisory capacity' mentioned in H cl. (iv) of s. 2(s) and 'supervisoiy work' mentioned in the main part of the section. and as Class II officers did not work in a 'sup·~rvisorv capacity' they were 'workmen' under the definition. 'Supervisory Capacity' it -was urged, arose only \vben the employee was an agent of the employer. [1966] l S. C. R. --.... It '\. Vas aiso urged that Class' n \VOrkmen only had clerical and checking duties which were not supervisory in character.

Alternatively it \Vas • contended that as Class lI was filled by promotion from Class III the question as to the emoluments of the former could and should have been gone into by the Tribunal in view of the 'Principle enunciaited in the Dimakuchi Tea Estate case. \" HELD : (i) (a) Tue amendment to s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act in 1956 introduced among the categories of persons already mentioned as 'workmen' persons employed to do supervisory and technical \York. So far the language of the earlier enactment was used. \Vhen, however, exceptions were engraftotl, that language was departed from in cl. (iv) partly J because the draftsmen followed the language of cJ. (iii) and partly because from persons employed on supervision work some are to be excluded he. cause they dra\v \vage. s exceeding Rs. 500 per month and some because they function mainly in a managerial capacity or have duties of the same i:haracter. But the unity bet\veen the opening part of the definition and cl.

(iv) was expressly preserved by using the word 'such' twice in the ()pening part. The \. Vords, which bind the two parts, are not-"but does not include any person". They are--"but does not include any such person" showing clearly that what is being excluded is a person \. vho answers the description "employed to do supervisory work" and he is to be excluded because being~ employed in a 'supervisory capacity' he drav. ·s \Vages exceeding Rs. 590 per month or exercises functions of a particular charac- - ~~ Like the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States the Amending Act of 1956 in our country was passed to equalise bargaining power and also to give the power of bargaining and invoking the Industrial Disputes Act to supervisory workmen, but it gave it only to some of the workmen employed on supervisory work. 'Workman' here includes an employee employed as supervisor. There are only two circumstances in which such a person ceases to be a workman.

Such a person is not a workman if he draws wages in excess of Rs. 500 per month or if he performs 1nana-gerial functions by reason of a po\ver vested in him or by the nature of duties 2ttachcd to his office. The person \vho ceases to be· a ·\vorkman is not a person who does not answer . the. description "employed to do supervisory work" but one who does answer that description. He goes out of the category of "workmen" on proof of the circumstances excluding him from ! ho category. [42 F-H] Packard· Motor Co. v~ T. Jze National Labour Relatloi1~ Board, 9l L. ed. 1040, referred to. (b) The National Tribunal was not justified in holding that if at a future time an incumbent would draw wage in the time scale in ex. cess of Rs. 500, the matter must be taken to be withdfawn from the jurisdiction of the Central Government to make a reference in resvcct of him and the National Tribunal to be ousted of the jurisdiction to decide the dispute if referred. Sup! 'f"isory stajf drawing less than Rs.

500 per month cannot be debarred from claiming that they should draw more than Rs. 500 preseD. tly or at some future stage in their service. They can only be deprived of the benefits if they are non-workmen at the time they seek the protection of Industrial Disputes Act. [43 C-D] (c) The word 'supervise' and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often be construed in the light of the context, for unless controlled they cover simple oversight and direction of manual work of H others. It is, therefore necessary to see the full context in which the words occur and the words of our own Act are the surest guide. Viewed in thi& manner one should nOt overlook the import of the word "such" EMPLOYEES V. RESERVE BANK 27 which expressly links the exception to the main part. Unless this was done it would have been possible to argue that cl. (iV) indicated something, which, though not included in the main part, ought not by construction ·to be so included.

By keeping the link it is clear that what is excluded is something which is already a part of the main provision. [43 F-G] (d) Ins. 2(k) the word 'person' bas not been limited to 'workmen' "' such and must, therefore, receive a more general meaning. But it does not mean any person unconnected with the disputants in relation to v. -hom the dispute is not of the kind described, It could not have been intended that although the dispute does not concern them in the least, workmen are entitled to fight it out on behalf of non-workmen. [44 D-E] Dimakuchi Tea Estate's case, [1958]2 L. LJ. 500 referred to. If the dispute is regarding employment, non-<:mployment, terms of employment or conditions of labour of non-workmen in which workmen are themselves vitally interested, the workmen may be able to raise an industrial dispute. Workmen can, for example, raise a dispute that a class of employees not within the definition of "workmen' should be recruited by promotion from workmen.

When they do so the workmen raise a dispute about the terms of their own enzploymen. t though incidentally the '&erms of employment of those who are not workmen is involved. But workmen cannot take up a dispute in re-spect of a class of employees who arc not workmen and in whose terms of employment those workmen have no direct interest of thrir own. What direct interest suffices is a question of fact but it must be a real and positive interest and not fanciful or remote. [44H] In the present case the National Tribunal was in error in not considering the claims of Class TI employees whether at the instance of merribcra drawing less than Rs. 500 as wages or at the instance of those lower do\vn in the scale of employment. The National Tribunal was also in error in thinking that scales of wages in excess of Rs. 500 per month at any stage were not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or that Government could not make a reference in such a contingency.

r45 C-D] ( e) Duties such as distribution of work, deteotion of faults reporting for penalty, making arrangements for filling vacancies are supervisory. Class II staff performing such duties could nC>t be said to perform only clerical or checking duties. [46 D-E] Ford Motor Company of India v. Ford Motors Staff Union, [1953]2 L. L. J. 444 and Llyods Bank Ltd. v. Panna! al Gupta, [1961]1 L. L. J. 18, referred to. (ii) (a) Minimum wage is the lowes1 wage in the scale below which tho efficiency of the worker is likely to be impaired. It allows for living at a •tandard con&idered socially, medically, and ethically to be the acceptable minimum. [47 C-D] Fair wage by comparison is more generous and involves a rate suffi- • ciently high to pr<YYide a standard family with food, shelter, clothing, medical care and education of children appropriate to the worker's station in life but not at a rate exceeding the wage earning capacity of the class of establishment concerned.

[47F] ; The living wage concept is one or more steps higher then fair wage. It has now been generally accepted that living wage means that every male earner should be able to provide f(}r his family not only the essentials but a fair measur-e of frugal comfort and an ability to provide for old age. or evil days. [48AJ LlSup. Cl/65-3 .. [1966] l S. C·R. It may be taken that our political aim is 'living wage' though in actual practice living wage has been an ideal which has eluded our efforts like an ever-receding horizon and will so remain for sometime to come. Our general wage structure has at best reached the lower levels of fair wage. [48DJ Standard Vaccum Refining Co. v. Its Workmen, [1961]1 L. L. J. 227, . referred to. (b) There can be no doubt that in our march towards a truly fair .. wage in the first instance and ultimately the living wage we must first achieve the need~based minimum.

In detennining family budgets so as to discover the \Yorker's normal needs \vhich the minimum wage regulations ought to satisfy the size of the standard family is very necessary to fix. One method is to take Simple statistical average of the family size and another is to take into account some other factors such as the frequency of variations in frunily sizes in certain region and employments, the number of \Vage earners available at different &tages, and the increase or decrease in consumption at diJT erent stages in employment, that is, the age structure and i~ bearing on consmnption. The plain averages Jaid down in the Resolution may have to be weighted in different regions and in different industries and reduc-od in others. [52 F-H] Crotvn Alu1ninht11z Works v. Workn1e11, [1958]1 L. L. J. 1, referred to. (c) Although the 3 consumption units formula is if anything on the low· side the National Tribunal could not be said to be wrong, in the present circumstances, in accepting 2.

25 consumption units. But by graduated increase the consumption units. must be raised to 3 v. •ithin five years of service. [52F; 53Cl • (d) The Tripartite Conference of 1957 was a very representative body. There must be attached proper value to its Resolution on wage policy. The Resolution was passed on to indicate a first step towards achieving the living wage. Unfortunately, we are constantly finding that basic \\'age, instead of moving to subsistence plus level, tends to sag to poverty level when there is a rise in prices. To overcome this tendency our wage structure has for a long time been composed of two items (a) the basic wage, and (b) a dearness. allowance which is altered to neutralise, if not entirely, at least the greater part of the increased C09t of living. This docs not solve the problem cf real wage.

At the same time, we haYe to beware that too sharp an upward movement of basic wage is likely to affect the cost of production and lead to fall in our exports and to the raising of prices all-round. There is a vicious circle which can be broken by increased production and not by increasing wages. What we need is the introduction of production bonus, increased fringe benefits free medical, educational and insurance facilities. As a counterpart t~ this capital must also be prepared to forego a part of its re'lum. There i~ much to be ~aid for considering the need-base formula in all its implica-llons for 1t IS bound to be our first step toward• living wage As in many other matters relating to industrial disputes the problem may,' perhaps, be best tackled by. agreement between Capital and Labour in an establishment where a begmnmg can be safely made in this direction. [54 E-Hl East Asiatic Co. v. Workmen, [1962]2 L. L. J. 610 referred to.

(e) Without further data it is difficult to determine what coefficient should be applied to the working class wage for the purpose of deter-mming the need-ba<. ed minimum wage of clerieal staff. When fresh anol wmprehen. sive enquiries are conducted, tl~e results would show whether the coefficient should go up or down. With the rise of wages to higher EMPLOYEES v. RESERVE BANK ( Hidayatullah, ]. ) 29 - le'Yels among the working class the differential is bound to be lower and • thi• is a matter for inquiry. Till then there is no alternative but to adliere to the coefficient already established. [56 F-G] (iii) Seniority and merit should ordinarily both have a part in prom<>-tio;, to higher ranks and should temper each other. The National Tribtmal was right in thinking that there was little scope for giving directions to the Bank in this regard. [57 F-G] (iv) Gratuity is not a gift but is earned and for feiture eornept to recoup a loss occasioned to the establishment is not justified.

[58F) Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India, [1961) 1 LL. I. 339, Garment Cleaning Works v. Its Workmen, [1962)1 S. C. R. 711, Greaves Cotton Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Their Workmen, [1964)1 L. L. J. 342 and Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd. v. Burhanpur Taptl Mills Mazdoor Sangh, A. LR. 1965 S. C.. 839, referred to. (v) The Tribunal rightly declined to accept the demand that the Association and the Union should be allowed 'lo participate and represent workers in disputes between individual workmen and the Reserve Bank. This would make internal administration impossible. [60B] (vi) In making its award operate from January 1, 1962 and rejecting the appellants' demand that it should come into force from November 1,. 1957 or at leai;t from March 21, 1960, the National Tribunal did not act unreasonably. Ordinarily an award comes into operation from the time stated in sub-3. (1 ) of s. 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act.. 1. e. on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its pnblication.

The Tribunal however is given power to make it applicable from another date, and it could' not be said that in the present case the discretion had not been exercised' on judicial principles. [63 A-Bl Upton>'s case, [1959)1 L. L. J 431, Remington Rand's [1962)1 L. L. J. 287, Rajkamal Kalamnndir (P) Ltd. v. Indian Motion Picture Employees' Union & Or», [1963]1 L. L. J. 318, Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [196212 L. L. J. 459, Wenger & Co. and Ors. v. Their Workmen, [1963)2 L. L. J. 403 and Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Their Workmen, [1964]1 S. C. R. 234, referred to. Appeal by special leave from the award dated September 8, I 962 of the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) at Bombay in Reference No. 2 of 1960. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1965. A. S. R. Chari, D. S. Nargolkar, K. Rajendra Cha11dh11ry and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellants. N. A. Palkhivala. N. V. Phadke and R. H. Dhebar, for res- • pondent No. 1. A tiqur Rehman and K. L.

Hat hi, for respondent No. 2 . • The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes)° Bombay, in a dispute between the Reserve Bank of India and its 30 SUPREMB COURT REPORTS [1966] l S. C. R. workmc:1. Jdi vcred on September 8, 1962 and published in the • Gazette of lt;tiia (Extraordinary) of September 29, 1962. Th·~ appellants are the AH India Reserve Bank Employees' A~socia tion, Bombay (s:iortly the Association) representing CIJss JI and Class Ill staff and the All India R~"Scrvc Bank "D'' Cla\s Employees' Union, Kanpur (i,hortly the Union) representing Cia's IV »ta! I, of the Reserve Bank. By notification No. S. 0. 704 dated the 21st March 1960, the untral Government, in exercise of its powers under s. 7B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, constituted a J',;ational lndu'-trial Tribunal with Mr. Justice K. T.

Desai (later Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court) as the Presiding Officer. By an order notified under No. S. O. 707 of the same date, Central Government. in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (IA) of s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, referred an industrial dis~·Ute, which, in its opinion, existed between the Re,erve Bm1k and its workmen of the three classes above-mentioned. The Order of Rcfeoencc specified the beads of dispute in two schedules, the first in respect of Class II and Class Ill stall and the second in rcsricct of Cla~s IV staff. 111e first Schedule consisted of 22 items and the second of 23 items. These items (a considerable number of whkh are common to the two schedules) hear upon the scales of pay nnd dearness and other allow~nces am! sundry mat· ters connected with the conditions of service of th,: three cbsses. The reference was registered as Reference No. 2 of 1960.

During the trial of the Reference the Association and the Union severally made applications for intcr:m relief a'king for 25 % of the total emoluments to Class IV employees with a minimum of Rs. 25 and for 25% of the basic pay to the employees of the two higher classes, with effect from July 1959, but this was refused by an interim Award dated December 29, 1960. The final Award was delivered on September 8, 1962 bec:mse in the meantime the Tribunal dealt with another reference re[! istered as Reference No. I of 1960 in a dispute involving 84 banking cOJ11-p~nies and Corporations and their workmen in respect of creation of categorie9 of banks and areas for purposes of adjudication and of scales of pay, diverse allowances and other conditions of service. • The Award in that Reference was delivered on June 7, 1962. The Tribunal was next occupied with the resolution of yet ano:hcr dispute over bonus between 73 banking companies and their workmen which was registered as Reference No.

3 of 1960 and which ' was concluded by an award on July 21. 1962. We shall have oeca-sion to refer to these awards later. We may now give the facts of Ike dispute in the Reference from which this appeal arises. \ EMPLOYEES v. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, /. ) 31 ' - The Reserve Banlc was established on April l, 1935 as a shareholders' Banlc with a capital of Rs. 5 crores which was mainly • subscribed by the public. It was taken over in 1948 by the Government of India, when, under the Reserve Banlc (Transfer to Public Ownership) Act, 1948, the shares were compulsorily acquired by Government at a premium of Rs. 18. 62 over and above the face value of the share of Rs. 100. Thereafter the Reserve Bank is administered by a Central Board of Directors nominated by the Central Government from the civil services and public men. There are four local Boards to advise the Central Board and to function as its delegates.

The Head Office of the Reserve Bank is situated at Bombay with branches at Calcutta, New Delhi, Kanpur, Madras, Bangalore, Nagpur, Lucknow, Hyderabad, Gauhati, Trivandrum, Patna, Ahmedabad, Ludhiana, Jaipur and Indore. The Reserve Bank acts as Banlc to the Central and State Governments and Commercial Banks and controls the issue and circulation of currency. It has special duties to perform under the Banking Companies Act 1949 and supervises and controls the banking industry in India. It regulates and controls foreign exchange and exchange of currency and remittances to and from India. It is hardly necessary to refer to its multifarious duties and functions as the Central Bank and as the bankers' bank. The Reserve Bank employs four classes of employees of which the three lower classes are before this Court, the first class being of officers.

At the material time the total number of employees of all description was about 9,500 of which 3,300 were in the Head Office, 1,800, 1,100 and 1,100 respectively at Calcutta, New Delhi and Madras and the rest were distributed in varying numbers among the remaining twelve branches. The present dispute has a long history into the details of which it is hardly necessary to go but as both sides have made reference to it, some of the leading events connected with bank disputes in general, and the present dispute respecting the Reserve Banlc, in particular, may be mentioned. As is well-known there has been a rise in the price of commo-dities since 1939 and workmen earning wages and persons in the fixed income groups are specially affected. Between the years 1946 and 1949 there were set up numerous Commissions and Tri-l>unals to deal with disputes between the commercial banks and their employees. In 1946 strike notices were served on many banks in Bombay, Bengal and the United Provinces.

Jn Bombay Mr. H. V. Divatia dealt with a dispute between the Banlc of India and its employees, happily settled by consent (August 15, 1946) and again with a dispute between 30 named Banks in Bombay and [1966] I S. C. R. 32 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS I -their employees. The Award was given on April 9, 1947. That award was extended to Ahmedabad Bank employees by another • award published on April 22, 1948. Conciliation procccdmgs were conducted by Mr. R. Gupta between the Imperial Bank of India and its employees in Bengal which concluded on August 4. 1947. Other awards and adjudications were made by Mr. S. C. ti Chakravarti and Mr. S. K. Sen. In the United Provinces first Mr. B. B. Singh, Labour Commissioner, began arbitration in dL,. putes between as many as 40 banks and their employees, which later wen& before Conciliation Boards headed first by Mr. Nimbkar. and on his death, by Mr. Bind Basni Prasad and the rccommcudatiom were made effective by a Government order.

On the representation of the Banks an Ordinance was promulgated (followed by an Act) and the Central Government took over the resolution oi disp•1te' between banks and their employees in all cases where the hanks had offices in more than one province. On June 13, 1949 the Central Government appointed an All India Industrial Tribunal <Bank Disputes) with Mr. K. C. Sen and 2 members to codify the terms and conditions of service of bank employees. The Sen Award (as it is known) was published on August 12, 1950 hut on appeal this Court on April 9, 1951 declared it to be void a~ therl' was a flaw in the composition of the Tribunal. As a re. •ult of thi' contingency a stand-still Act was pass~d and another Tribunal with Mr. H. V. Divatia and 2 members was erected. This Tribunal did not conclude the work and resigned and in 1952 another Tribunal presided over by Mr. S. Panchapagesa Sastry was appointed which published its award in April 1953.

That Award was subjected to an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal and it was much modified. Some banks represented to Government their in-ability to implement the modified award and the Central Govern· ment intervened and modified the award of the Labour Appellate Tribunal by an order dated August 24, 1954. We mav leave this general narration at thLs stage to view the di,putes b~tween the Reserve Bank of India and its employees during the same period In 1946 the Association delivered a charter of demand<; for revision of pay scales and allowances of the employees of the c; Reserve Bank from April I, 1946 and after negotiations some revision in wages and dearness allowances was effected. During the • interval between this revision and the appointment of th·~ s7istry Tribunal other revisions took place. When the Sastry Tribunal gave its award in March 1953, the Association in May of tt.

c same II year delivered a revised charter of demands to the Reserve Bank but owing to the pendency of the Appeal before the Labour Appel· late Tribunal, the demand could not be considered. The Reservl' EMPLOYEES \'. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, !. ) 33 A Bank, however, assured its employees that after the decision of th. e Labour Appellate Tribunal was known, the entire question would be reviewed. When the Labour Appellate Tribunal gave its decision in April 1954, the Association served a fresh charter of demands on May l 8, 1954 but the decision of the Appellate Tribunal was modified by Government and on September 17, 1954 B a commission presided over by Mr. Justice Rajadhykshya and late1 by Mr.

Justice Gajendragadkar (as he then was) was constituted to consider whether the Appellate Tribunal's decision should be restored or continued with modifications and to suggest further modifications having due regard to the overall condition of banks in general and individual banks in particular. In October 1954 the Associa-c tion, realising tl1at delay was inevitable, agreed to accept the scalel• cf pay on the basis of the modified Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision though the employees obtained by the agreement something more than their counterparts in the higher class commercial banks under the order of Govermnent which modified the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The advantage to the Reserve D Bapk employees was neutralized when the Bank Award Cornmis-sion restored the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in respect of the Commercial Banks. The agreement lasted till October 31, 1957 and the Reserve Bank employees honoured it.

On July 11, 1959, the Association submitted a fresh charter E of demands asking for a complete revision of the pay structure and invoked the norms settled at the Fifteenth Indian Labour Conference and asked for iml'. )rovement generally in the conditions of service. As the Reserve Bank was not agreeable to negotiate, the Association called upon the Reserve Bank to ratify the Code of Conduct evolved at the Sixteenth Indian Labour Conference anc! F to proceed to arbitration but the Reserve Bank declin~<l. The Association called upon the Reserve Bank to ratify the Code of work from March 25, 1960. Before this happened the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation had given a notice and there was a strike from March 4, 1960 and on March I 9 all bank employees struck work in support and the several references to G which we have referred followed. .. The Reserve Bank during the years between 1946 and 1960 undertook from time to time revision of salaries and allowances.

In 1947 and 1948 dearness allowances were revised and in 1948 there was a general revision of scales of pay as from Aprill, 1948 . • These revisions were made at the demand of the Association. In H 1951 ad hoc increases in dearness allowances were made and com-pensatory allowances were introduced and from 1951 local allowances were paid to certain classes of employees serving at some of [1966] I S. C. R. 34 SUPRB:ME COURT REPORTS the important offices of the Reserve Bank and subs~quently the A scheme of local allowances was extended 10 a kw other branches. • In 1954 local allowances were converted into local pay and 25% of the dearness allowances was treated as pay for calculation of retiring benefits etc. In 1957 family allowances to class IV employees were raised and in 1958 aJOd 1959 d~arness allowanc~ B were again slightly raise<l. These increa. ses, though welcome to them, hardly satisfied the demands of the employees.

There were many conciliation confcreilces but none w:1< succc"ful. The cost of living index with b:t"c year I 949c-c I 00 had increased by 26 points in February 1960 and the principl:s of minimum and fair wages were deliberated upon and advcrt,·d to in ti~c Report of the 15th Indian Labour Conference. Th:;e princirk>. hl which detail- C cd reference will be made presen! ly, were desired by the employees of the Reserve Bank to be put into o~rn:ion. 1\s a result the gap between the demands of the employees and the olTers of the Reserve Bank, which was wide already. became wid~r still and conciliation which had always succoeded in the pa>! , was not po>sible. The D Associa1ion suggested arbitration but lhc Rcserv~ Bank by its letter daled February I I. 1960. did not agree. Ti1e Reserve Bank >talcd that it did not wbll 10 gel ·'seriously out of step"' with Government or the Commercial Banks.

The Reserve Bank referred to the Pay Commission Report and pointed out that the demand~ of the employees took no notice of the slate of Indian ewnomv. The E Association, through iis Secrntary. in ! c~1ly ( F~b. 22. 1960) observed : "'Your criticism. that the Association's Charter of Demand has been pitched so high as to exclude all scope for satisfactory solution through negotiations we may point out, is baseless and incorrect, as the Charter has been based on the norms set up by the l Slh Tripartite Labour Conference at Nainital where the need-based wa~e formula for Indian worker was evolved, and the coefficient for conversion to arrive at the minimum wage for a middle class salaried employee has been accepted G from the Rajadhyaksha Report ...... ". • The Association also pointed out that it had been conceded hy the Governors of the Reserve Bank in the past that the emoluments of the Reserve Bank employcc.

s ought to be higher than those of other Bank employees and, therefore, the recommenda- II tions of the Pay Commission were irrelevant. In this appeal one of the fundamental points argued is whether the National Tribunal was right in rejecting the demand for the inauguration of the need- EMPLOYEES v. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, !. ) 35 base formula. It was, however, in this background that the National Industrial Tribunal was constituted and the whole of the dispute was referred to it. This Reference embraced as many as 22 items in respect of ' Class II and Class III employees and 23 items in respect of Class IV employees. Some of these were decided in favour and some against the employees. Not much purpose would be served if we mentioned the many points of controversy or the decision on them, for in this appeal, the employees have stated their case with commendable restraint and Mr.

Chari, though he argued it with his customary earnestness and ability, did so appreciating the realities of our national economy. He paid (it may be noted) sincere tributes to the Reserve Bank for its helpful attitude at all times, and expressed regret that there was no conciliation as on previous occa-sions. Mr. Palkhivala too, on behalf of the Reserve Bank, showed an awareness of the point of view of the employees and on some of the less important points, as we shall show later, agreed to consider the matter favourably. The dispute now centres round two fundamental or major points and a few others not so fundan1ental. We shall deal with the main points first and then deal w! th the others. The first major point concerns employees of Class IL This class of employees was in the scales of pay which were settled by the agreement of November 2, 1954. These were : 1. Research Superintendents Rs. 301l--25-401l--E. B. -25-6SO. 2. Superintendents and Sub- Rs. 275-25-375-E. B.

-25-500- Accountants 25- 650. 3. Deputy Treasurers (Bombay and Calcutta) Rs. 450-25-650. 4. Deputy Treasurer (Gauhati) Rs. 375-25-550. S. Assistant Treasurers Rs. 330-25-450. 6. Personal Assistant to the Governor Rs. 321'~30-650. 7. Personal Assistant Rs. 325-25-550. 8. Caretakers. Grade I (Bom- Rs. 275-10-325-E. B. -12l:-bay and Calcutta) 400. ' 9. Staff A. ssistant5 Rs. 250-25-450-E. B. -25- 650. 10. Supervisor, Premises Section Rs. 250-15-310-E. B. -20- 650. 11. Deputy Treasurer (Hyderabad) Rs. 350-25-500. 36 SUPllEME COURT REPORIS tl966J I S. C. R There was in addition local pay for these employees equal to 10% A of pay, at Bombay, Calcutta, Ahmedabad, New Delhi, Madras and Kanpur. There was also a family allowance of Rs. I 0 per child ' subject to a maximum of Rs. 30 for employees drawing le<s than Rs. 550 per month with ~ completed service of 5 years.

The National Tribunal in considering the dem:m<ls of Class 11 JI staff of the Re;erve Bank came to the conclusion that it could not give any award regarding these employees who were employed in a superviwry capacity. In this connection the Re,et vc Bank had pleaded :hat the Reference concerned only those employees who came within the definition of "workman" in the Industrial Disputes (' Act, 1947, as amended by the amending Act of 1956, and the Reserve Bank had contended that it was futile to fix a time scale for Class II staff because every incumbent in it w:h cm~! ,1ycd in a supervisory capacity and under the existing scales of pay every incumbent at a local pa,)' centre would draw wages in excess of Rs. 500 after three years' service and every other incumbent at the end of 5 years' service and that most of the employees in that class had entered it by promotion and even at their entry were drawing wages in exce~s of Rs. 500.

The Rese1•·c Rank had funher contended that a dispute could only be rahed before the National Tribunal provided a workman continued to be a workman as defined .. If the National Tribunal was asked to provide a scale of payment which would make the workman cease to be workman by reason of the award, the Reserve Bank e<'ntended, the National Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make such an award anti the Reference itself would become incompetent. The relation. ship of employer and workman, so it was contended, must exist (a) at the time of dispute, (b) at the time of the award, and (c) during the F currency of the award, otherwise the Reference and the consequent award would he without jurisdiction. The Associ:uion had contended in reply (a; it docs in t11i. s appeal) that the duties performed by these employees were not of a supervisory nature and further that they were doing . 111pervi- (; sory work and were not employed in a supervisory capaci1y. In Reference No. 1 of 1960, Mr.

Sule, on behalf of the employees, had contended (a) that workmen could raise an industrial dispute for themselves and for a section of them at any level, (b) that per. ;ons who were workmen could raise an industrial dhpute regarding their conditions of service not only at sta~cs '·'·hen they would be ll workmen but also at stages when they would cease to be workmen under the same employe•, and ( c) that workmen could raise a -dispute on behalf of non-workmen in the . same estahlishmo:lt pro- EMPLOYEES \', RESERVE BANK (8idayatullah, /. ) 37 A vided they had a direct and substantial interest in the dispute and bad a community of interest with such non'workmen. The National Tribunal in the present award adopted its discus-sion of the question in paragraphs 5. 206 to 5. 219 of the award in Reference No. 1 of 1960. It pointed out that the demand by Class II Supervisory Staff envisaged a scale commencing at Rs.

500 B and that if the demand were considered favourably everyone in tliat class would cease to be a workman and such an award was beyond its jurisdiction to make. The National Tribunal held that even though by reason of community of interest other workmen might be entitled, having regard to the definition of "industrial dispute", to raise a dispute on behalf of others, they could not raise a dispute either for themselves or on behalf of others, when the dispute would involve consideration of matters in relation to non-workmen. The National Tribunal also held that it would even be beyond the jurisdiction of Central Government to refer such a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The National Tribunal, therefore. held that the expression "scales of pay and methods of adjustment in the scales of pay" in Schedule I of the present Reference conld not cover non-workmen such as supervisory staff in Class II. Those employed in supervisory capacity and drawing more than Rs. 500 p. m.

were treated as not present before the National Tribunal and ll. i they could not be heard the National Tribunal found it inexpe- E dient to fix scales of salary affecting them. As regards those employed in the same capacity but drawing less than Rs. 500 per month but on scales carrying them beyond that mark, the National Tribunal thought that if all that it could do was to fix a scale up to Rs. 500, it would be unfair to lower the scale already fixed. The National Tribunal thus made no award in regard to supervisory staff F in Class II. Before we consider the case of the appellant' an event which happened later may be mentioned. The Reserve Bank by a Resolution (No. 8) passed at their 1456th weekly ineeting held on April 24, 1963, increased the scale of pay, dearness allowances, house rent allowances etc. for Class II staff with effe. ct from January 1, 1962, that is to say, the date from which the impugned award • came into force. Under.

the Resolution scales of pay, which were acknowledged by Mr. Chari, to be as generous as the present circumstances of our country permit, have been awarded. But more than this the minimum total emoluments as envisaged by the definition of wages, even at the commencement of service of each and every member of Class II staff on January I, 1962 now exceed Rs. 500 per month. This, of course, was done with a view to with- [ 1966) l S. C. R. drawing the whole class from the ambit of the Reference, because, A it is supposed, no member of the class can now come within the definition of "workman". We shall, of course, decide the question whether the Resolution has that effect. If it does, it certainly relieves us of the task of considering scales of pay for these employee& for no remit is now possible as no National Tribunal is ' B . ,i1ting.

The scales having been accepted as generous, the dispute regarding scales of pay for Class II employees under the Reference, really ceases to be a live issue. However, in view of the impo11ance of the subject and the rossibility of a recurrence of such question in other spheres, and the remarks of the National Tribunal as to jurisdiction of the c Central Government and itself we have considered it necessary to go into some of the points mooted bcforo us. Before we deal with them we shall read some of the pertinent definitions from tho Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : "2. In thi, Ac! , unless there is ;1nything repugnant in D the subject or context,- (k) ··industrial dispute"' means any dispute or difference between employers and employers, or between em- E ployers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected witti the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the condition of labour, of any person; ...

( rr) ··wage·," means all remuneration capable of being c~prcsscd in tenns of money, which would, if tho terms of employment, expressed or implied, wero fulfill-ed, be payable to a workman in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes- G ( i) such allowances (including dearness allow- • ance) as the workman is for the time being entitled to; (ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of H supply of light, water, medical attendanco or other amenity or of any service or of any conces-sional supply of foodgrains or other articles; EMPLOYEES v. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, J. ) 39 A (iii) any travelling concession; • but does not include- ( a) any bonus; (b) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension fund or provident fund or for the B benefit of the workman under any Jaw for the time being in force; ( c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service.

C (s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an indus- D trial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has Jed to that dispute, but does not include any such person- E (i) who is subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934, or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or F (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding five hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the dttties attached to the office or by reason of the G powers vested in him, functions ma.

inly of a managerial nature. " Mr. Chari contends that the exclusion of Class II staff is based on a wrong construction of the above definitions particularly the definition of 'workman' and a misunderstanding of the duties of ,. H Class II employees who have been wrongly classed as supervisors. He contends alternatively that as Class II is filled by promotion from Class III, the que~tion could end should have been gone into SUPllBMI! COURT REPORTS (1966) I S. C. R in view of the principle enunciated in the Dimakuclri Tea Estate(') • case. Mr. Chari in support of his first argument points to the opening part of s. 2(s) where it speaks of "any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work" and contrasts it with the words of clau~e (iv) "being employed in a supervisory capacity" and submits that the difference in language is deliberate 8 and is intended to distinguish spervisory work from plain super-i-mon.

According to him 'supervisory work' denotes that the person works and supervises at the same time, whereas 'supervisory capacity' denotes supervision but not work. Mr. Chari divides supervision into two kind, : (a) supervision which i~ a part of labour and (b) supervision which is akin to managerial functions though it is not aatually so. He submits that this division is dearly brought out in the definition of 'workman' by the use of different expressions such as "work" and "capacity" for that a supcrvi,or doing work enjoys the status nf labour and a supervisor acting only in supervisory capacity enjoys the status of employer's agent at the lowest level. In support of his contention Mr. Chari has referred to the amendment of the National Labour Relations Act of the United States of America [commonly known as the Wagner Act(')] by the Labour Management Relations Act 1947 [commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act(')] and the case of the Packard Motor Co. v.

The National Labo11r Relations Hoard(') which preceded the amendment. The Packard Motor Cu. case arose under the Wagner Act and the question was whether foremen were entitled as a class to the rights of self-org;misation and collective bargaining under it. The benefits of the Wagner Act were conferred on employee1; which bys. 2(3) included 'any employee'. The Company, however, sought to limit this wide definition which made foremen employees both at common law and in common acceptance, with the aid of the detinition of 'employer' ins. 2(2) which said that the word included "any person acting in the interest of an employer direccly or indirectly .... ".

The Supreme Court of the United States in holding that foremen were entitled to the protection of the Wagner Act held by majority that even those who acted for the employer in some mailers including standing between the management and manual labour could have interests of their own when it came to iixation of wages, hours, seniority rights or working conditions. Mr. Chari sug!! e'1s that th~ <lcfinition in the Industrial II (I) (1958! t Ll.. J. 500. <2' (1935) 49 Stal 449 (3) \1947) 6t Stat 136. (4) 91 1-. ,d_ 1040. EMPLOYEES v. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, J. ) 41 A Disputes Act serves the same purpose when it makes a distinction • between 'work' and 'capacity' . This ruling, of course, cannot be used in this context though as we shall presently see it probably furnishes the historical background for the amendment in the United States and leads to the • next limb of Mr. Chari's argument. The minority speakin~ n through Mr.

Justice Douglas, made the following observation which puts the Packard Motor Co. case(') out of consideration- "Indeed, the problems of those in the supervisory categories of management did not seem to have been in the consciousness of the Congress. . . . . . . . There is no phrase in the entire Act which is description of those doing supervisory work". In this state of affairs it is futile to refer to this ruling any further for to derive assistance from any of the two opinions savours of a priori deduction. D The Packard Motor Co. case was decided in March 1947 and in the same year the Taft-Hartley Act was passed. Section 2 of the latter Act defined employer to include "any person acting as agent of an employer, directly or indirectly ...... " and the term 'employee' was defined to exclude any individual employed as a supervisor.

The term 'supervisor' was defined to mean an indi- E vidual "having authority, in the interest of the employer to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees or responsible to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of F independent judgment". Mr. Chari suggests that the Industrial Disputes Act recognising the same difficulty, may be said to have adopted the same tests by making a distinction between 'work' and 'capacity'. According to him, these tests provide for that twilight area where the operatives (to use a neutral term) seem to enjoy a dual capacity. G The argument is extremely ingenious and the simile interesting • but it misses the realities of the amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act in 1956.

The definition of 'workman' as it originally ~tood before the amendment in 1956 was as follows :- • .. ''2. (s) 'workman' means any person employed (in- H cluding an apprentice) in any industry to do any skilled (1) 91 L. ed. 1040. [1966] 1 S. CR. or unskilled manual or clerical work for hire or reward and includes, for the purposes of any proceedings under • this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a workman discharged during that dispute, but docs not include any person employed in naval, military or air service of the Government. " 8 The amending Act of J 956 introduced among the categories of persons already mentioned persons employed to do supervisory and technical work. So far the language of the earl;er enactment was used. When, however, exceptions were engrafted, that language was departed from in cl. (iv) partly because the draftsman followed the language of cl.

(iii) and partly because from persons employed on supervision work some are to be excluded because they draw wages exceeding Rs. 500 per month and some becau~ they function mainly in a managerial capacity or have duties of the same character. But the unity between the opening part of the definition and cl. (iv) was expressly preserved by using the word 'such' twice in the opening part. The words, which bind the two parts, are not-"but does not include any person''. They are -"but does not include any such person" showing clearly that what is being excludo:l is a person who answers the description "employed to do supervisory work" and he i~ to be excluded because being employed in a 'supervisory capacity' he draws wages exceeding Rs. 500 per month or exercis~s functions of a particular character. The scheme of our Act is much simpler than that of the American statutes.

No doubt like the Taft-Hartley Act the amending Act of 1956 in our country was passed to equalise bargaining power and also to give the power of bargaining and invoking the Industrial Disputes Act to supervisory workmen, but it gave it only to some of the workmen employed on supervisory work. 'Workman' here includes an employee employed as supervisor. There are only two circumstances in which such a person eeases to be a workman. Such a person is not a workman if he draws wages in excess of Rs. 500 per month or if he performs managerial functions by reason of a power vested in him or by the nature of duties attached to his office. The person who ceases to be a workman is not a rer<on who does not answer the description "employed to do supervisory work" but one who doe• answn that description. He goes out of the category of "workmen" on • proof of the circumstances excluding him from the category.

By the revision of salaries in such a way that the minimum emoluments equal to wages (as defined 'P the Act) of Class II EMPLOYEES v. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, !. ) 43 staff now exceed Rs. 500 per month, the Reserve Bank intends .. to exclude them from the category of workmen and to render the Industrial Disputes Act inapplicable to them. Mr. Palkhivala frankly admitted that this step was taken so that this group might be taken away from the vortex of industrial disputes. But this position obviously did not exist when the scale was such that some at least of Class II employees would have drawn wages below the mark. The Reference in those circumstances was a valid reference and the National Tribunal was not right in ignoring that class altogether. Further, the National Tribunal was not justified in holding that if at a future time an incumbent would draw wage in the time scale in excess of Rs.

500, the matter must be taken to be withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Central Government to make a reference in respect of rum and the National Tribunal to be ousted of the jurisdiction to decide the dispute jf referred. Supervisory staff drawing less than Rs. 500 per month cannot be debarred from claiming that they should draw more than Rs. 500 presently or at some future stage in their service. They can only be deprived of the benefits if they are non-workmen at the time they seek the protection of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Chari next contends that considering the duties of Class; II employees, it cannot be said that they are employed in a supervisory capacity at all and in elucidation of the meaning to be given to the words 'supervisory' and 'capacity' he has cited numerous dictionaries, Corpus Juris etc. as to the meaning of the words. "supervise", "supervisor", "supervising", "supervision" etc. etc ..

The word "supervise" and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often be construed in the light of the context, for unless controlled, they cover an easily simple oversight and direction as manual work coupled with a power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work of others. It is, therefore, necessarv to see the full context in which the words occur and the words of our own Act are the surest guide. Viewed in this manner we cannot overlook the import of the word "such" which expressly links the exception to the main part. Unless this was done it would' have been possible to argue that cl. (iv) indicated something, whlch, though not included in the main part, ought not by construction to be so included. By keeping the link it is clear to see that what it excluded is something which is already a part of the main provision.

In view of what we have held above it is hardly 'necessary to advert to the next argument that under the principle of the L5Sop, CI/65-4 SUPR. l! MB COUR. T lll! POR. TS [1966] I S. C. R Dimakuchi Tea Estate Case(') workmen proper belonging to A .. Clas!! II and Ill in this Reference are entitled to raise a dispute in respect of employees in Class II who by reason of cl. (iv) teit have ceased to be workmen. The ruling of this Court in the above case lays down that when the workmen raise an induitrial dispute against an employer, the person regarding whom the dis- B pute is raised need not strictly be a 'workman' but may be one in whose temis of employment or conditions of labour the workmen raising the dispute have a direct and substantial interest. The definition of 'industrial dispute' in s.

2(k), which we have set out before, contemplates a dispute between (a) employers and employers; or c (b) employers and workmen; or (c) workmen and workmen; but it must be a dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the condi- [) tions of labour of any person. The word 'person' has not been limited to 'workman' as such and must, therefore, receive a more general meaning. But it does not mean any person unconnected with the disputants in relation to whom the dispute is not of the kind described. It could not have been intended that though the dispute does not concern them in the least, workmen are en- E titled to fight it out on behalf of non-workmen.

The National Tribunal extended this principle to the supervisors as a class rely-ing on the following observations from the case of this Court : "Can it be said that workmen as a class are directly or substantially inte:rested in the employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of Jabour of F persons who belong to the supervisory staff and are, under provisions of the Act, non-workmen on whom the Act has conferred no benefit, who cannot by themselves be parties to an industrial dispute and for whose representation the Act makes no particular provision? G We venture to think that the answer must be in the nega-tive. " It may however, be said that if the dispute is regarding employment, 'non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour of non-workmen in which workmen arc themselves vitally interested, the workmen may be able to raise an industrial dispute. H Workmen can, for example, raise a dispute that a class of em- (I) {1958) I L. L. J. 500. EMPLOYEES v.

RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, J. ) 45 ployees not within the definition of workman should be recruited .. by promotion from workmen. When they do so the workmen raise a dispute about the terms of their own employment though incidentally the terms of employment of those who are not workmen is involved. But workmen cannot take up a dispute in res- • pect of a class of employees who are not workmen and in whose terms of employment those workmen have no direct interest of their own. What direct interest suffices is a question of fact but it must be a real and positive interest and not fanciful or remote. It follows, therefore, that the National Tribunal was in error in not considering the claims of Class II employees whether at the instance of members drawing less than Rs. 500 as wages or at the instance of those lower down in the scale of employment. The National Tribunal was also in error in thinking that scales of wages in excess of Rs.

500 per month at any stage were not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or that Government could not make a reference in such a contingency. We would have been required to consider the scales applicable to those in Class II but for the fact that the Reserve Bank has fixed scales which are admitted to be quite generous. It may be mentioned here that Mr. Chari attempted to save the employees in Class II from the operation of the exceptions in cl. (iv) by referring to their duties which he said were in no sense 'supervisory' but only clerical or of checkers. He also cited 11 nUD1. ber of cases, illustrative of this point of view. Those are cases dealing with foremen, technologists, engineers, chemists, shift engineers, Asst!. Superintendents, Depot Superintendents, godown-keepers etc. We have looked into all of them but do not find it necessary to refer to any except one. In Ford Motor Com- 1 pany of India v.

Ford Motors Staff Union, ( ) the Labour Appellate Tribunal correctly pointed out that the question whether a particular workman is a supervisor within or without the definition of 'workman' is "ultimately a question of fact, at best one of mixed fact and Jaw .... " and "will really depend upon the nature of the industry, the type of work in which he is engaged, the organisational set-ttp of the particular unit of industry and like factor". The Labour Appellate Tribunal pertinently gave the example that "the nature of the work in the banking industry is in many respects obviously different from the nature and type of work in a workshop department of an engineering or automobile concern. " We agree that we cannot use analogies to find out whether Class II workers here were supervisors or doing mere (l) [1953] 2 L. L. 1. 444. [1966] l S. C. R. clerical work. No doubt, as Mr. Chari stated, the work in a Bank A in?

Olves layer upon layer of checkers and checking is hardly • supervision but where there is a power of assigning duties and distribution of work there is supervision. In Llyods Bank Ltd. v. 1 Pannalal Gupta ( ), the finding of the Labour Appellate Tribunal • was reversed because the legal inference from proved facts was wrongly drawn. It is pointed out there that before a clerk can B claim a special allowance under para 164(b) of the Sastry Award open to Supervisors, he must prove that he supervises the work of oome others who are in a sense below him. It is pointed out that mere checking of the work of others is not enough because trus checking is a part of accounting and not of supervision and c lhc work done in the audit department of a bank is not supervision. The Reserve Bank has placed on record extracts from the manuals, orders, etc.

relative to all Class II employees and on looking closely into these duties we cannot say that they are not of a supervisory character and are merely clerical or checking. These employees distribute work, detect faults, report for penalty, D make arrangements for filling vacancies, to mention only a few of the duties which are supervisory and not merely clerical. Without discussing the matter too elaborately we may say that we are satisfied that employees in Class II except the Personal Assistants, were rightly classed by the National Tribunal as employed on E supervisory and not on clerical or checking duties. In view of the fact that all of them now receive even at the start "wakes" in excess of Rs. 500 per month, there is really no issue left concern-ing them, once we have held that they are working in a supervisory capacity. F The next fundamental point requires narration of a little history before it can be stated.

In December 1947 there was an Industries Conference with representatives of the Government of India and the Governments of the States, bminessmen, industrialists and labour leaders. An Industrial Truce Resolution was passed unanimously which stated inter alia that increase in production G was not possible unless there was just remuneration to capital (fair return), just remuneration to labour (fair wages) and fair prices for the consumer. The Resolution was accepted by the Central Government. In 1947 a Central Advisory Council was appointed which in it$ turn set up a Committee to deliberate and • report on fair wages for workmen. The Report of that Committee H ha~ been cited over and over again. In the Standard Vacurnn (I) (1961] I L. L. J. 18. EMPLGYEES v. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, l. ) 47 Refg. Co. v. Its Workmen('), this Court elaborately analysed the concept of wages as stated by the Committee.

The Committee divided wages into three kinds: Living wage, fair wage and minimum wage. Minimum wage, as the name itself implies re- • presents the level below which wage cannot be allowed to drop . Jtwas universally recognised that a minimum wage must be pres· cribed to prevent the evil of sweating and for the benefit of workmen who were not in a position to bargain with their employers. This received immediate attention in India, though there was an International Convention as far back as 1928 and the demand for fixation of minimum wages extended even to non-sweated industries. The result was the Minimum Wages Act of 1948. The Fair Wages Committee understood the term minimum wage as the lowest wage in the scale below which the efficiency of the worker was likely to be impaired. It was described as the "wage floor" allowing living at a standard considered socially, medically and ethically to be the acceptable minimum.

Fair wages by comparison were more generous and represented a wage which 'lay between the minimum wage and the living wage. The United Provinces Labour Enquiry Committee classified the levels of living as : (i) Poverty level; (ii) minimum subsistence level; (iii) subsistence plus level, and (iv) comfort level. The concept of fair wages involves a rate sufficiently high to en-able the worker to provide "a standard family with food, shelter, clothing, medical care and family education of children appropriate to his status in life but not at a rate exceeding the wage earning capacity of the class of establishment concerned. " A fair wage thus is related to a fair workload and the earning capacity. The living wage concept is one or more steps higher than fair wage. It is customary to quote Mr. Justice Higgins of Australia who defined it as one appropriate for "the normal needs of average employee, regarded as a human being living in a civi-lized community.

" He explained himself by saying that the living wage must provide not merely for absolute essentials such as food, shelter and clothing but for "a condition of frugal comfort estimated by current human standards" including "provision for evil days etc. with due regard for the special skill of the workman". It has now been generally accepted that Jiving wage means (I) [1961] l L. L. J. 227. 48 SUPiEMI! COURT REPORTS [1966] l S. C. R. that every male earner should be able to provide for his family A. not only the essentials but a fair measure of frugal comfort and an ability 10 provide for old age or evil days. Fair wage lies between the concept of minimum wage and the concept of Jiving wage. • During the years wage determination has been done on industry-cum-region-basis and by comparing, where possible, the wage scales prevailing in other comparable concerns. The Constitution by Art.

43 laid down a directive principle : - "The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a iiving wage, conditions of work ensuring a de-cent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunity. _ . __ . "- It may thus be taken that our political aim is 'living wage' though in actual practice living wage has been an ideal which has • eluded our efforts like an ever-receding horizon and will so remain for sometime to come. Our general wage structure has at best reached the lower levels of fair wage though some employers are paying much higher wages than the general average.

In July 1957 the Fifteenth Indian Labour Conference met as a Tripartite Conference and one of the Resolutions adopted was : 'E "The recommendations of the Committee as adopted with certain modifications, are given below :- ( 1) ( 2) With regard to the minimum wage fixation it was agreed that the minimum wage was 'need-based' and should ensure the minimum human needs of the industrial worker. irrespective of any other considerations. To calculate the minimum wage, the Committee accepted the following norms and recommended that they should guide all wage fixing authorities, including minimum wage committees, wage boards, adjudicators, etc; ( i) In calculating the minimum wage, the standard working class family should be taken to consist of 3 consumption units for one earner, the earn-ings of women. children and adolescents should be disregarded. If (ii) Minimum food requirements should be calculated on the basis of a net intake of 2700 calories, EMPLOYEES v.

RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, /. ) 49 as recommended by Dr. Aykryod for an average Indian adult of moderate activity. (iii) Clothing requirements should be estimated at a per capita consumption of 18 yards per annum • which would give for the average worker's family of four a total of 72 yards. (iv) In respect of housing the norm should be the minimum rent charged by Government in any area for houses provided under the Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme for low income groups. ( v) Fuel, lighting and other 'miscellaneous' items of expenditure should constitute 20 per cent of the total minimum wage. ( 3) While agreeing to these guide lines for fixation of the minimum wage for industrial workers throughout the country, the Committee recognised the existence of instances where difficulties might be experienced" in im-plementing these recommendations.

Wherever the minimum wage fixed went below the recommendations, it would be incumbent on the authorities concerned to justify the circumstances which prevented them from the adherence to the norms laid down . .. The Association and the Union desire that the wage-floor should be the need-based minimum determined at the Tripartite Conference in the above Resolution and that the emoluments of the middle class staff should be determined with a proper co-efficient. They suggest a co-efficient of 120% in place of the 80% applied by the National Tribunal, to determine the wages of the middle class staff in relation to the wages of the working classes.

In support of their case the employees first point to the Directive Principle above-quoted and add that the First Five Year • Plan envisaged the restoration of "pre-war real wage as a first-step towards the living wage" through rationalisation and modernisa-tion and recommended that "the claims of labour should be dealt • with liberally in proportion to the distance which the wages of ! I dilferent categories of workers have to cover before attaining the living wage standard. " The employees next refer to the Second Five Year Plan where it is stated : [1966] l S. C. R. 50 SUPdMB COUAT llBPOllTS "21. Wages A wage policy which aims at a structure with rising • real wages requires to be evolved. Workers' right to a fair Wage has been recognised but in practice it has been found difficult to quantity it In spite of their best • efforts, industrial tribunals have been unable to evolve a consistent formula ...... ". (p. 578 para 21).

The establishment of Wage Bnards, the taking of a wage census and the improvement of marginal industries which operate as a 'drag' on better industries was suggested in that Plan. Finally, it is submitted that the Third Five Year Plan has swnmed up the position thus; in paras 20 and 21 at p. 256: "20. "The Government has assumed responsibility for securing a minimum wage for certain sections of -workers, in industry and agriculture, who are commer-cially weak and stand in need of protection. Towards this I) end the Minimum Wages Act provides for the fixation • and revision of wage rates in these occupations. These measures have not proved effective in many cases. For better implementation of the law, the machinery for inspection has to be strengthened ........ ". "21. Some broad principles of wage determination have been laid down in the Report of the Fair Wages Committee.

On the basis of agreement between the parties, the Indian Labour Conference had indicated the content of the need-based minimum wage for guidance in the settlement of wage disputes. This has been reviewed and it has been agreed that the nutritional requirements F of a working family may be re-examined in the light of the most authoritative scientific data on the subject . ....... ". The Association and the Union contend that the National Tribunal ought to have accepted the Tripartite Resolution and G determined the basic wage in accordance therewith. The National Tribunal in adjudicating on this part of the case referred to the Crown Aluminium Works v. Workmen(') where at page 6 this Court observes : "Though social and economic justice is the ultimate • II ideal of industrial adjudication, its immediate objcc- (t) [l 958) I L. L. J. I. EMPLOYEES v. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, /.

) 51 A tive in an industrial dispute as to the wage structure • is to settle the dispute by constituting such a wage structure as would do justice to the interests of both labour and capital, would establish harmony between them and lead to their genuine and whole-hearted co-operation in the task of production ..... . In achieving this immediate objective, industrial adjudication takes into account several principles such as, for instance, the principle of comparable - wages, productivity of the trade or industry, cost of living and ability of the industry to pay. . . . . . . . . . . . In deciding industrial disputes in regard to wage structure, c one of the primary objectives is and has to be the restoration of peace and goodwill in the industry itself on a fair and just basis to be detenn ined in the light of all rele-vant considerations ...... ".

Tke National Tribunal pointed out that the Planning Commission had set up an official group for study and as a result of the deli-berations, the group decided to prepare notes on different aspects of wage so that they could be sent to wage fixing bodies. Four such notes were drawn up and were circulated to the 15th Indian Labour Conference and the 15tl1 Indian Labour Conference deli- E berated on them and the Resolution on which reliance iS placed by the employees was the result. The National Tribunal, while appreciating the importance of the Resolution, was not prepared to act on it pointing out that it was not binding but recommenda-klry, that Government did not accept it and that the Reserve Bank not being a party was not bound by it. There is no doubt F that Government in answer to a query from the Pay Commission answered: " ......

The Government desire me to make it clear that the recommendations of the Labour Conference should not be regarded as decisions of Government and have not been fonnally ratified by the Central Government. They should be regarded as what they are, namely, the recommendations of the Indian Labour Conference which is tripartite in character. Government have, at no time, committed themselves to taking executive action to enforce the recommendations". The National Tribunal, therefore, did not consider itself bound in any way by what the Resolution said. 52 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1966] I S. C. R. The National Tribunal then considered the Resolution on A merits as applicable to the. case in hand observing : • "For the first time in India, norms have been crysta· lised for the purpose of fixation of a need based minimum wage in a Conference where the participants were drawn from the ranks of Government, industry and labour.

B Thc'c recommendations represent a landmark in the struggle of labour for fixation of a minimum wage in accordance with the needs for the workmen. The resolution bys down what a minimum wage should be. It recognises that the n1inimum wage was "need-based". The National Tribunal, however, could not accept the Resolution c hccause the Re-5olution standardised norms applicable to all indtLs· trial workers whatever their age or the number of years of ser· vice or the nature of thcir employment. It felt that there was t! iniculty in accepting the basis of three consumption units at all • stages of service or the net intake of 2700 calories at all ages D pointing out that this much food was what Dr. Aykroyd thought • as proper to be consumed. The National Tribunal did not see the need for changing the co-efficient of 80%. The National Tribunal held that in the economy of our country the need-based minimum suggested by th.

e Resolution was merely an ideal to be achieved by slow stages but was impossible of achievement ins· tantly. We ha"c been nddresjC(j able and \'Cry moving arguments on behalf of the employees by Mr. Chari. There can be no doubt that in our march towards a truly fair wage in the first instance and ultimately the living wage we must first achieve the need-based minimum. There is no doubt also that 3 consumption units for· F mula is, if anything, on the low side. In determining family budgets so as to discover the workers' normal needs which the minimum wage regulations ought to satisfy, the size of the standard family is very necessary to fix.

One method is to take simplc ,tatistical average of the family size and nnother is to take int(l account son1c other factors, such as, c; (i) the frequency of variations in family sizes in cer· tain regions and employments; (ii) the number of wage earners available at different stages; • II (iii) the increa'e or decrease in consumption at diffe· rent stages in employment, that is the age struc· ture and its bearing on consumption. EMPLOYEES I'. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, J. ) 53 A The plain averages laid down in the Resolution may have to be' • weighted in different regions and in different industries and reduced in others. It is from this point of view that the Reserve Bank has pointed out that though the consumption units are taken to be 2. 25, the earning capacity after 8 years' service is sufficient to provide for 3 consumption units as required by the need-n base formula. The question thus is whether the National Tribunal is in error in accepting 2.

25 consumption units instead of 3 as suggested in the Resolution. Jn our judgment, the Tribunal was not wrong in accepting· 2. 25 consumption units. But it seems to us that if at the start c the family is assumed to be 2. 25, it is somewhat difficult to appreciate that the family would take 8 years to grow to 3 consumption units. We are aware that the Sastry Tribunal thought of 3 consumption units at the 10th year and the Sen Tribunal at the 8th year but we think these miss the realities of our national life. In our country it would not be wrong to assume that on an average- • D 3 consumption units must be provided for by the end of 5 years' service. The consumption units in the first five years should be: graduated. As things stand today, it is reasonable to think that 3 consumption units must be provided for by the end of five years' service, if not earlier. The difficulty in this case in accepting the need-base formula is very real.

The Reserve Bank is quite right in pointing out that. tbc minimum wage so fixed would be above per capita income· in our country and that it is not possible to arrive at a constant figure in terms of money. According to the Association and\ F the Union, the working class family wage works out to Rs. 165. 9 (though the demand is reduced to Rs. 145 by the Association and RJ;. 140 by the Union) while according to the Reserve Bank to· Rs. 107. 7 5. The middle class wage, according to the Association, will be Rs. 332. 75 while, according to the Bank, Rs. 202. This is because emphasis is placed on different dietary components in G the first case and the increased differential in the second case: Further the food requirement of 2700 calories was considered by • the Pay Commission to be too high and by the Planning Commisc 'ion (Third Plan) to be a matter for re-examination.

It will have to be examined what type of food should make up the necessary • calories and how many calories are the minimum. Further the H amount of minimum wage calculated on the need-base formula was said by the Pay Commission to be extraordinarily high. This was also the view of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in East· Asiatic Co. v. Workmen(1 ). Both the'c documents contain valuable calculations and they show the enormous increase pq • sa/tum which would certainly cause enormous unrest among work- A men in general in the country. It is also to be noticed that the Reserve Bank, which Mr. Chari claims is the best employer, lo apply the formula, is not really the right place for the experiment. D If the experiment has to be performed it must have a beginning in a commercial concern after thorough examination and a very . careful appraisal of the effect on the resources of the employer and on production. The Reserve Bank is not a profit-making commercial undertaking.

Its surplus income is handed over to ·Government and becomes national income. 1ts main sources of c income are discounting Treasury Bills and interests on sterling securities and rupee sccurilies held against the note is. ,ue. Income from exchange on remittances, commission on the management of Public Debt and interest on loans and advances to Banks and Governments is small. It would, therefore, appear that the Reserv" Bank is not a proper place to determine what the need-based mini- D • mum wage should be and for initiating it. It cannot also be ovei-looked that even without the formula it pays better wages than ·elsewhere. There is, howe. -cr, n1ucb justification for the argument of Mr. Chari. The Tripartite Conference was a very representative ·body and the Resolution was passed in the presence of representatives of Government and employers. There must be attached proper value to the Resolution. The Resolution itself is Jl(ll!. difficult to appreciate.

It was passed as indicating the first step towards achieving the living wage. Unfortunately, we are coo. > ·tantly finding that ba>ic wage, instead of moving to subsistence •• plus level, tends to sag to poverty level when there is a rise in prices. To overcome this tendency our wage strncture has for a long time been composed of two items, (a) the basic wage, and ( b J a dearness allowance which is altered to neutralise, if not entirely, at least the greater part of the increased cost of Jiving. This docs not solve the problem of real wage. At the same time G we have to beware that too sharp an upward movement of basic • wage is likely to affect the cost of production and lead to fall in our exports and to the rai>ing of prices all-round. There is " vicious circle which can be broken by increased production and not by increasing wages. What we need is the introduction Of production bonus, increasd fringe benefits, free medical, educa- H tional aad insurance facilities.

As a counterpart to this capital -· - (I) [1962] l L. L. l. 610. EMPLOYEES v. RESERVE BANK (Hidayatullah, J. ) 55· must also be prepared to forego a part of its return. There is. much to be said for considering the need-base formula in a1I its· • implications for it is bound to be our first step towards living wage. As in many other matters relating to industrial disputes the problem may, perhaps, be best tackled by agreement between Capital and Labour in an estab

Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.