STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1971-9-14
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 14,1971

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE, GUNFOUNDRY, HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The, short question involved in this writ petition is whether, after the omission of section 65 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) "by section 16 of the Amending Act II of 1969, the Chief Inspector of Establishments has jurisdiction to issue any directions or instructions to any establishment or any employee of such establishment and ask them to implement the directions or instructions so issued.
(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of the question involved are these : The State Bank of Hyderabad is the petitioner. It employs two categories of employees: (1) workmen as defined in section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, generally described as award staff ; and (2) known as non-award staff consisting of officers mainly Junior Officers, Trainee Officers, Probationary Officers, ' C' 'B' and ''A', Grade Officers apart from Assistant General Managers, the Deputy General Manager and the General Manager. The non-award staff who are known as officers of the Bank, supervise the work of the award staff working under them. The service conditions of the officers of the Bank are governed by the rules framed by the Bank from time to time. It is claimed that the service conditions of the non-award staff as determined by the service rules are definitely better than what is provided for in the labour laws, especially the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act. The labour laws, in general are not applicable to 'officers class' except for certain enactments like the Payment of Bonus Act etc.that too for some of them only. The Bank received the impugned letter dated 28th April, 1970 from the Chief Inspector of Establishments intimating the Bank that the Government has decided that the provisions of the Act are applicable to all the officers of the staff working in the Bank, except seven posts mentioned therein and was directed to enforce the provisions of the Act and the rules in so far as the nonaward staff are concerned. As the Bank could not find any provision in the Act which empowers the second respondent (the Chief Inspector of Establishments) to issue the impugned memo, or letter or the Government to take any such decision, it addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent asking him to inform under which provision of law he had exercised that power and directed them to implement the provisions of the Act. There was no reply to the clarification sought and, as it was apprehended that the respondents may take coercive steps to see that the Bank implemented the provisions of the Act in the case of the officers also, the petitioner was compelled to file this writ petition.
(3.) Section 65, which has been omitted by the Amending Act II of 1969 reads: " If any question arises whether all or any of the provisions of this Act apply to an establishment or to an employee therein or whether section 63 applies to any case or not, it shall be decided by the Commissioner of Labour whose decision thereon shall be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law. ";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.