Gajendragadkar, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between the appellant the Lloyds Bank Ltd., and the respondent, the Union of its workmen, in regard to three of its employees. The three employees are Messrs. Panna Lal Gupta. Phusa Ram Goyal and Paras Ram Garg. The respondent claimed that the said three employees were entitled to a special allowance of Rs. 50 per month as prescribed in paragraph 164 of the Award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes) as modified by S.3 of the Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision Act, 1955. This dispute was referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Delhi. The respondents case was that the three employees who were working in the audit department of the appellant at New Delhi were entitled to claim the said allowance under the said Award, and that the appellant had committed a default in not implementing the said Award in that behalf. The appellant pleaded that the reference made to the Tribunal was invalid as no dispute could arise during the period that the Award in question was in force. It was also urged that the three workmen in question were not supervisors and it was only the supervisors and persons falling under the said category who were entitled to the allowance of list 50 under the Award. On these contentions the Tribunal framed two issues. The first issue was whether the reference was valid, the Tribunal answered this question against the appellant and held that the reference was valid. The second issue was whether the three workmen were entitled to the said allowance; this issue also was answered against the appellant, with the result that an award was made by the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay to the said three workmen the special allowance of Rs. 50 per month from the date of the commencement of the Sastri Award, that is to say, from April 1, 1954, or from any subsequent date on which any of the said three employees was entrusted with the duties and responsibilities in the audit department. The award has further directed that the said allowance shall he continued to be paid to them so long as they were continuing to discharge the said duties and responsibilities in the audit department of the bank. It is against this order that the present appeal by special leave has been flied; and the short question which is raised for our decision is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the three workmen could claim the status of supervisors entitled to the said allowance of Rs. 50 under the Sastri Award.
(2.) It would be relevant to refer briefly to the material provisions of the Award. Paragraph 164 on which the present claim is based occurs in the Sastri Award in the chapter dealing with special allowance. The Award has mentioned the fact that the scales of basic pay fixed by the Award were in the nature of minimum pay, and so it left fit to the discretion of the banks to give more pay, and in the words of the Award "indeed, in some cases, it is but right that they should do so". Similar observation. were made with regard to special allowance which the Award proceeded to fix. The Tribunal observed that "it may be open to the banks to provide for such allowances even in respect of categories which arc not included in our list, wherever owing to previous practice or for other pod reasons they think it right and proper to do so". These observations amount to no more than a recommendation made by the Tribunal to the banks, and however much one may wish that the spirit in which these observations were made should be respected by the banks, it is impossible to entertain any industrial claim on these recommendations.
(3.) Paragraph 164 specifies 10 categories of employees who, in the opinion of the Tribunal, deserved to be specially considered as fit for special allowance. Paragraph 164 (b) deals with 9 of these categories. The special allowances awardable to persons falling in these 9 categories are classified according to the class of the bank in which the employees are employed. It is well known that the Award divided the banks into four classes, A, B. C and D, and the direction as to the payment of special allowances has been made classwise. It is with category 9 specified in the said paragraph with which we are concerned. It may be mentioned incidentally that the lowest category in the list is that of computists who get a special allowance of Rs. 10 and the highest in the list is category 9 which refers to supervisors, superintendents, sub-accountants, departmental incharges, employees in charge of treasury pay offices. The employees falling in this category and serving in banks of "A" Class are entitled to Rs. 50 as special monthly allowance which is the highest allowance directed by the Award. The respondent claims that the three workmen fall under this c lass and ought therefore to be paid the special allowance of Rs. 50 per month.;