CENTRA BANK OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. P S RAJAGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of several appeals has been placed together for final disposal, because the appeals included in the group raise a common question of law in regard to the construction of S. 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (No. 14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). We propose to deal with this point in Civil Appeals Nos. 823 to 826 of 1962 which have been preferred by the appellant, the Central Bank of India Ltd., against the respondents, it employees; and in accordance with our decision on the said point the other appeals included in this group would be dealt with on the merits.

(2.) Civil Appeals 823 to 826 of 1962 arise out of applications made by four respondents under S. 33C(2) of the Act. The case for each one of the respondents was that besides attending to his routine duties as clerk, he had been operating the adding machine provided for use in the clearing department of the Branch during the period mentioned in the list annexed to the petition and it was alleged that as such. he was entitled to the payment of Rs. 10/- per month as special allowance for operating the adding machine as provided for under paragraph 164(b) (1) of the Sastry Award. On this basis. each one of the respondents made his respective claim for the amount covered, by the said allowance payable to him during the period specified in the calculations.

(3.) The appellant disputed the respondents' claims. It urged three preliminary objections against the competence of the applications. According to it, the respondents could claim only non-monetary benefits under the Award that were capable of computation and so, S. 33C(2) was inapplicable to their claim. It was also contended that without a reference made by the Central Government, the applications were not maintainable, and it was pleaded that since the applications involved a question of the interpretation of the Sastry Award, they were outside the purview of S. 33C(2). On the merits, the appellant's case was that the special allowance claimed by the respondents way payable only to the Comptists and could not be claimed by the respondents on the ground that they were operating adding machine. In support of this contention the appellant alleged that a certain amount of manipulative skill is required for the handling of a Comptometer since the operator has to execute a series of somewhat complex operations in quick succession before he can arrive at a result. The art of operating a comptometer has to be learnt over several months, but the work of operating the adding machine needs no special training and does not require even the skill which a typist has to show. That is why, according to the appellant, no special allowance could be claimed by the respondents under paragraph 164(b) (1) of the Sastry Award.