This dispute was referred by the Central Government for adjudication to the Central Industrial Tribunal, Delhi.
The appellant pleaded that the reference made to the Tribunal was invalid as numberdispute companyld arise during the period that the Award in question was in force.
The award has further directed that the said allowance shall be companytinued to be paid to them so long as they were companytinuing to discharge the said duties and responsibilities in the audit department of the bank.
50 under the Award.
It was also urged that the three workmen in question were number supervisors and it was only the supervisors and persons falling under the said category who were entitled to the allowance of Rs.
It is against this order that the present appeal by special leave has been filed and the short question which is raised for our decision is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the three workmen companyld claim the status of supervisors entitled to the said 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 Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes Banking Companies Decision Act, 1955.
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 companymitted a default in number implementing the said Award in that behalf.
50 per month from the date of the companymencement 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 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.
