JUDGMENT : Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant Punjab National Bank, Ltd., and its workmen the respondents. The dispute was in regard to the special allowance granted by the appellant to its employee Mr. M.K. Sood who is working as a Savings Fund Teller in the appellant's branch at Kanpur. The issue which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal was whether the special allowance granted by the appellant to Mr. Sood was adequate having regard to the nature of his duties and responsibilities and the emoluments made to persons discharging similar duties and responsibilities in other banks of similar status, and if not, what amount of special allowance should be granted to him. According to the respondents the appellant was paying Mr. Sood a sum of Rs. 25 per month treating Rs. 15 out of it as cash risk allowance and the balance of Rs. 10 as adding machine allowance. He claimed that he was entitled to a special allowance of Rs. 50 in addition to the present allowance of Rs. 25 with retrospective effect. His case was that the duties performed by him put him in the class of a supervisor for which the Bank Award known as Modified Sastri Award has prescribed a special allowance of Rs. 50 per month. In other words, though the reference was broad in its terms and it raised the issue about the special allowance payable to Mr. Sood, having regard to the nature of his duties and responsibilities and having regard to the emoluments paid to employees discharging corresponding duties in other banks, the respondents put Mr. Sood's case for increased allowance solely and specifically under the relevant provision of the Modified Sastri Award. The claim made by the respondents on behalf of Mr. Sood was disputed by the appellant in its statement of the case. The appellant pleaded that the duties performed by Mr. Sood were not those of a supervisor for which the Modified Sastri Award had prescribed a special allowance of Rs. 50 per month, and it was alleged that the allowance of Rs. 25 which was being paid to Mr. Sood was adequate. 2. The Industrial Tribunal considered the evidence adduced by the parties before it and came to the conclusion that Mr. Sood was entitled to a special allowance of Rs. 50 per month, and it was alleged that the allowance of Rs. 25 which was being paid to Mr. Sood was adequate. 2. The Industrial Tribunal considered the evidence adduced by the parties before it and came to the conclusion that Mr. Sood was entitled to a special allowance of Rs. 50 per month with effect from 16-9-1956, and so it directed the appellant to pay this special allowance in addition to the amount of Rs. 25 which was being paid to Mr. Sood by the appellant as adding machine allowance and cash risk allowance. The tribunal considered the duties performed by Mr. Sood. It took into account the fact that Mr. Sood was authorised to pass and make payments of cheques up to Rs. 1000 after verifying the signatures of the drawers but subject to the confirmation by the Departmental In-charge, that in discharging his duties the Teller has to show higher skill and responsibilities and that in substance he was doing the duties of a supervisor in regard to the matter entrusted to him. That is why the tribunal came to the conclusion that Mr. Sood's case fell under the category of supervisors enumerated as Category 9 in paragraph 164 of the Sastri Award. It is the award pronounced by the tribunal directing the appellant to pay a special allowance of Rs. 50 to Mr. Sood which is challenged before us by the appellant. 3. A similar question has been decided by this Court in Lloyd's Bank, Ltd. v. Panna Lal Gupta, (1961) 1 LLJ 18 . In that case this Court was dealing with the contention raised by the employees of Lloyd's Bank, Ltd., that the three employees who were working in the audit department of the bank were entitled to claim special allowance on the ground that they held a supervisory post as prescribed by paragraph 164 of the Sastri Award. In support of their plea the employees relied upon the several duties discharged by the clerks working in the audit department. It was urged that their duties were of a serious and onerous character and involved the checking of several books. Even so this Court has held that the checking of books on which reliance was placed was purely mechanical and that the functions assigned to the audit clerks did not include any supervisory function at all. It was urged that their duties were of a serious and onerous character and involved the checking of several books. Even so this Court has held that the checking of books on which reliance was placed was purely mechanical and that the functions assigned to the audit clerks did not include any supervisory function at all. One of the tests applied by this Court in dealing with the question was whether there were any clerks working under the employees in question and whether the employees were authorised to supervise the work of such subordinate clerks. "Before a clerk can claim a special allowance," it was observed, "his work must appear to have some element of supervisory character", and applying this test it was held that the clerks in the audit department were not entitled to claim special allowance under paragraph 164. It is in the light of this decision that the present appeal has to be decided. 4. Let us then examine the duties assigned to Mr. Sood. The duties that are admitted by the appellant are as follows: (i) He makes payment of cheques up to Rs. 1000 after verifying the signatures of the drawers subject to confirmation by the Departmental-in-Charge. (ii) Maintenance of specimen signatures cards. (iii) Maintenance of Teller cards. (iv) Posting of all debit and credit vouchers in Teller cards. (v) Maintenance of cash account received from the Head Cashier. (vi) Checking and signing of the current account pass books of Ledgers 1 and 2. (vii) Taking down after 2 p.m. of opening and closing balances of operated accounts on adding machine from the Teller cards and their comparison with the ledger keeper with the one taken down by the latter. Thereafter writing by him of closing and opening balances on reconciliation sheets. (viii) Attending to the enquiries of the customers in relation to his work. (ix) Performing of other clerical duties including drafting of his departmental correspondence etc., that may be entrusted to him." In fact Mr. Sood has stated his duties in a substantially similar manner. Item (vii) in the duties enumerated by Mr. Sood in his petition is checking of daily balance sheets of operated accounts, whereas Item 6 is checking of pass books. Item 6 in the duties admitted by the appellant is checking and signing of current pass books of Ledgers 1 and 2. Item (vii) in the duties enumerated by Mr. Sood in his petition is checking of daily balance sheets of operated accounts, whereas Item 6 is checking of pass books. Item 6 in the duties admitted by the appellant is checking and signing of current pass books of Ledgers 1 and 2. It is contended for the respondent that the process of checking of the daily balance sheets of operated accounts and checking and signing of current pass books of Ledgers 1 and 2 amounts to supervisory work. We do not think that this argument is well founded. Mr. Sood is working in the appellant's branch at Kanpur. In that branch there are three supervisors and 17 clerks in all. Mr. Sood himself is a Savings Fund Teller whereas Mr. Goswami is Savings Fund supervisor. Three clerks work under Mr. Goswami. Mr. Sood has admitted that the supervisors check the ledgers and initial each and every item. He claimed that he himself checked the ledgers though he did not initial any item. According to Mr. Sood clerks of the Savings Fund practically work under him. It would be noticed that since there is a Savings Fund supervisor in the branch there can be no doubt that the three clerks in the Savings Fund section work under the Savings Fund supervisor. This position is expressly admitted by Mr. Sood. He, however, contends that in actual practice and for all practical purposes he is the supervisor of the said three clerks. This claim is patently untenable. Mr. Sood has also admitted that in the Kanpur branch there are six or seven clerks senior to him and it would prima facie be unreasonable to suggest that merely because Mr. Sood is working as a Teller he should get a special allowance though the six or seven other clerks who are senior to him are not entitled to make any such claim. 5. Mr Gupta, the Inspector of Branches, who gave evidence for the appellant, has stated on oath that Mr Sood is not a supervisor, and has added that Tellers do not supervise or check the duties of any clerk. According to Mr Gupta, the duties discharged by Tellers are mainly the same as those discharged by the ledger keepers in branches where there are no Tellers except in the matter of payment of cheques. According to Mr Gupta, the duties discharged by Tellers are mainly the same as those discharged by the ledger keepers in branches where there are no Tellers except in the matter of payment of cheques. In such branches it is the cashiers who make the payment of cheques. Mr Gupta also stated that it is the supervisor or some other officer who checks the balances in the Savings account; the Teller does not supervise the ledgers; usually under a supervisor there are three or five clerks. Therefore, on the evidence the position is quite clear that the Teller has no clerk under him and is not assigned the duty of supervising the work of anybody else in the office. It is true that he does important and responsible work in that he can pass cheques upto Rs. 1000, but the fact that the work done by the Teller is responsible and onerous is not material in determining the question as to whether his work is supervisory in character or not. The Industrial Tribunal took the view that having regard to the skill expected from the Teller and the responsibility attached to his duty the Teller was entitled to claim the status of a supervisor. In our opinion, this conclusion cannot be supported. As we have already pointed out, though the reference was made in wide terms the respondents based Mr. Sood's claim for the special allowance on the narrow and exclusive ground of the provisions contained in paragraph 164 of the Sastri Award. It is on that basis that the tribunal has dealt with the claim and made an award in favour of Mr. Sood and it is on that basis alone that we propose to deal with this appeal. Our decision, therefore, should be read solely in the light of the case made out by the respondents for Mr. Sood. If the Tellers employed by the appellant think that they are entitled to claim additional allowance having regard to the nature of the duties assigned to them and having regard to the salaries paid to officers discharging corresponding functions in other banks it would be open to them to make an appropriate demand in that behalf, and if such a demand is referred for industrial adjudication that no doubt would be tried on the merits unaffected by our decision in the present appeal. The only point which we are deciding in the present appeal is that having regard to the material produced by the parties in the present case Mr. Sood cannot be said to hold a supervisory post so as to take his case under paragraph 164 of the Sastri Award. 6. It is true that the Circular issued by the appellant (M-1) on 9-8-1954, clearly stated that a Teller shall be an officer not below the rank of a supervisor who will be required to attend to the customers at the counter and make payments of cheques up to Rs. 500. This Circular was issued for the purpose of introducing standardisation of routine, and it starts with the statement that "in order to render efficient and quick service to the depositors in the matter of payments, a new Teller system has been introduced". The Circular deals with the several aspects of the duties of the Teller and it gives many directions in that behalf. On behalf of the respondents strong reliance has been placed on the statement of the appellant that when the Teller system was introduced the appellant intended that the Teller should be an officer not below the rank of the supervisor, and it is urged that it is not open to the appellant now to contend that the Teller is not a supervisor. But, we do not see how the statement in the Circular can assist the respondents' case when it is remembered that the Circular in question was modified on 15-9-1954. In this Circular the appellant stated that senior clerks having 7 years of service if matriculates, and five years of service if graduates, shall be eligible to work as Tellers on usual Tellers allowance. In other words, the appellant changed its mind about the status to be assigned to the Teller and it decided that the Teller should be recruited from clerks as indicated in the second Circular. In any case, the question as to whether the Tellers working with the appellant are supervisors under paragraph 164 of the Sastri Award or not must be determined by reference to the duties assigned to them, their functions and their responsibilities; and as we have already pointed out, judged by that test it is difficult to hold that Mr. Sood belongs to the cadre of supervisory officers. 7. Sood belongs to the cadre of supervisory officers. 7. The respondents have also relied on the conduct of the appellant in Industrial Dispute Case No. 54 of 1956 which was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal. In that dispute claims were made against the appellant on behalf of 17 of its employees 10 out of whom were called supervisors by the appellant, 5 were head cashiers and 2 accountants. In regard to the supervisors in particular the appellant urged that they were not workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act. This plea was rejected and the claim made by the said supervisors was entertained by the Industrial Tribunal. It is argued for the respondents that the appellant is changing its stand as it suits its convenience and its interests. It calls its employees supervisors when it wants to deny them the benefits of Industrial Disputes Act and it denies them the status of supervisors when a claim for special allowance is made as in the present case. The criticism made against the conduct of the appellant is no doubt justified to some extent, but that can hardly assist the respondents' present appeal when the only question which we have to decide is whether or not on the facts proved Mr. Sood can claim to hold the position of a supervisor. As we have already stated the answer to this question has to be against the respondents and in favour of the appellant. The Industrial Tribunal made a finding in favour of the respondents mainly because it thought that the duties performed by Mr. Sood were responsible, onerous and important. These considerations alone, in our opinion, cannot confer on Mr. Sood the status of a supervisory officer. 8. In the result the appeal is allowed, the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is set aside and the respondents' claim made on behalf of Mr. Sood under paragraph 164 of the Sastri Award is rejected. There would be no order as to costs throughout.