1963 (4) TMI 102 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Entitlement of respondents to special allowance under paragraph 164(b)(1) of the Sastry Award.
3. Interpretation of the term "Comptists" and its equivalence to "adding machine operators."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

The principal contention by the appellant was that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in entertaining the applications under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant argued that Section 33C(2) could only be invoked for benefits that are admitted and not disputed. The court, however, held that Section 33C(2) is broad enough to include cases where the right to the benefit is disputed. The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to determine whether the workman has the right to receive the benefit claimed. The court emphasized that the opening clause of Section 33C(2) does not imply that the right must be admitted by the employer. The Labour Court can interpret the award or settlement to decide on the workman's right and then compute the benefit in terms of money.

2. Entitlement of respondents to special allowance under paragraph 164(b)(1) of the Sastry Award:

The respondents claimed a special allowance of Rs. 10 per month for operating adding machines, as provided under paragraph 164(b)(1) of the Sastry Award. The appellant contended that this allowance was meant only for "Comptists" and not for those operating adding machines. The court noted that the Labour Appellate Tribunal had equated adding machine operators with Comptists in the context of the Imperial Bank of India, but this equivalence was not binding on other banks. The court found that the Labour Court's basis for allowing the respondents' claim was erroneous. The court remanded the case to the Labour Court to allow the parties to amend their pleadings and lead evidence to prove whether the respondents' work could be classified as that of Comptists.

3. Interpretation of the term "Comptists" and its equivalence to "adding machine operators":

The court examined the Sastry Award and the Labour Appellate Tribunal's decision, noting that the term "Comptists" was used for employees requiring special qualifications or skill. The Imperial Bank of India had equated Comptists with adding machine operators and addressographers, but this was not universally applicable. The court emphasized that the nature of the duties and responsibilities should determine whether an employee could be classified as a Comptist. The court directed the Labour Court to ascertain if the respondents' duties and responsibilities were akin to those of Comptists and, if so, to determine their entitlement to the special allowance accordingly.

Conclusion:

The appeals were allowed, the orders of the Labour Court were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Labour Court for disposal in accordance with the law. The Labour Court was directed to allow amendments to pleadings and to take evidence to determine if the respondents' work could be classified as that of Comptists, thereby entitling them to the special allowance. No order as to costs was made.