Case: Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen Of Syndicate Bank

and, therefore, the Tribunal had given the direction, as set out hereinabove, as and by way of a package. He submitted that earlier commission was being paid at a rate of 3.5 per cent by most of the Banks. He pointed out that now, over and above the sum of Rs. 7,500/-, the commission had been reduced to 2 per cent. He submitted that to that extent Deposit Collectors were losing, but as this was part of the package as given by the Tribunal it was being accepted by the Deposit Collectors. He submitted that the directions given by the Tribunal were fair and just and absolutely right. He submitted that the Order of the High Court was correct and this Court should not interfere. 23. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, who appeared for the appellants in C.A. No. 3356 of 1998, supported Mr. Sharma in all his submissions. He, however, submitted that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the directions regarding regularisation of service. He submitted that the concession which had been made before the High Court had not been made on behalf of his clients and his clients could not be held to be bound by such concession. He submitted that in any case the Deposit Collectors should get the pay scales, allowance and other service conditions of the other employees of the banks. He submitted that even though the Deposit Collectors may not have been absorbed as regular employees of the Banks, yet they should have been granted the pay scales, allowance and other service conditions of the employees of the Banks. He submitted that most of these Deposit Collectors had been working for 20 to 25 years and that there was nothing wrong if they were either absorbed in the Banks or given the pay scales, allowances and other service conditions of the other employees of the Banks. 24. We have considered the rival submissions. In our view, Mr. Sharma was right when he submitted that on the basis of evidence before it the Tribunal has given findings of fact that the Deposit Collectors were workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (develop) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the evidence on record it could not be said that this finding was unsustainable. Having been shown the relevant evidence we are also of the opinion that the Tribunal correctly arrived at a conclusion that these Deposit Collectors were workmen.25. Further, as seen from Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the commission received by Deposit Collectors is nothing else but wage, which is dependent on the productivity. This commission is paid for promoting the business of the various banks.26. We also cannot accept the submission that the Banks have no control over the Deposit Collectors. Undoubtedly, the Deposit Collectors are free to regulate their own hours of work but that is because of the nature for the work itself. It would be impossible to fix working hours for such Deposit Collectors because they have to go to various depositors. This would have to be done at the convenience of the deposits and at such times as required by the depositors. If this is so, then no time can be fixed for such work. However, there is control inasmuch as the Deposit Collectors have to bring the collections and deposit the same in the banks by the very next day. They have to then fill in various forms, accounts, registers and pass books. They also have to do such other clerical work as the bank may direct. They are, therefore, accountable to the Bank and under the control of the Bank.27. We also see no force in the contention that Section 10 of the Banking Regulations Act prevents employment of persons on commission basis. The proviso to Section 10 makes it clear that commission can be paid to persons who are not in regular employment. Undoubtedly the Deposit Collectors are not regular employees of the Bank. But they nevertheless are workers within the meaning of the term as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. There is clearly a relationship of master and servant between the Deposit Collectors and the concerned Bank.28. Mr. Nageshwar Rao is right in his submission that the concession was not binding on his clients. However, what has been conceded has been correctly conceded. No question arose of directing absorption of the Deposit Collectors as regular workmen. No such demand had been made and, therefore, there could have been no such direction. Such directions were beyond the reference. Even otherwise, the question of absorption would be fully covered by an authority of this Court in the case of Union of India and other v. K.V. Baby and another, reported in 1999(1) LLJ 1290 : 1999(1) SCT 115 (SC). In this case it has been held that persons who are engaged on the basis of individual contracts to work on commission basis cannot be equated with regular employees doing similar work. It has been held that the mode of selection and qualifications are not comparable with those of the employees, even though the employees may be doing similar works. In the present case, not only are the modes of selection and qualifications not comparable, but even the work is not comparable. The work which the Deposit Collectors do is completely different from the work which the regular employees do. There was thus no question of absorption and there was also no question of the Deposit Collectors being paid the same pay scales, allowances and other services conditions of the regular employees of the Banks.29. We also see no substance in the contention that these Schemes are un-remunerative. The Banks have introduced these Schemes because they want to encourage the common man to make small and regular deposits. As a result of such Schemes, the number of depositors have become much larger. We have no doubt that such Schemes are continued because the Banks find them remunerative. The Banks have large collections through such Schemes. 30.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our view, Mr. Sharma was right when he submitted that on the basis of evidence before it the Tribunal has given findings of fact that the Deposit Collectors were workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (develop) of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the evidence on record it could not be said that this finding was unsustainable. Having been shown the relevant evidence we are also of the opinion that the Tribunal correctly arrived at a conclusion that these Deposit Collectors were workmen.25. Further, as seen from Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the commission received by Deposit Collectors is nothing else but wage, which is dependent on the productivity. This commission is paid for promoting the business of the various banks.26. We also cannot accept the submission that the Banks have no control over the Deposit Collectors. Undoubtedly, the Deposit Collectors are free to regulate their own hours of work but that is because of the nature for the work itself. It would be impossible to fix working hours for such Deposit Collectors because they have to go to various depositors. This would have to be done at the convenience of the deposits and at such times as required by the depositors. If this is so, then no time can be fixed for such work. However, there is control inasmuch as the Deposit Collectors have to bring the collections and deposit the same in the banks by the very next day. They have to then fill in various forms, accounts, registers and pass books. They also have to do such other clerical work as the bank may direct. They are, therefore, accountable to the Bank and under the control of the Bank.27. We also see no force in the contention that Section 10 of the Banking Regulations Act prevents employment of persons on commission basis. The proviso to Section 10 makes it clear that commission can be paid to persons who are not in regular employment. Undoubtedly the Deposit Collectors are not regular employees of the Bank. But they nevertheless are workers within the meaning of the term as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. There is clearly a relationship of master and servant between the Deposit Collectors and the concerned Bank.28. Mr. Nageshwar Rao is right in his submission that the concession was not binding on his clients. However, what has been conceded has been correctly conceded. No question arose of directing absorption of the Deposit Collectors as regular workmen. No such demand had been made and, therefore, there could have been no such direction. Such directions were beyond the reference. Even otherwise, the question of absorption would be fully covered by an authority of this Court in the case of Union of India and other v. K.V. Baby and another, reported in 1999(1) LLJ 1290 : 1999(1) SCT 115 (SC). In this case it has been held that persons who are engaged on the basis of individual contracts to work on commission basis cannot be equated with regular employees doing similar work. It has been held that the mode of selection and qualifications are not comparable with those of the employees, even though the employees may be doing similar works. In the present case, not only are the modes of selection and qualifications not comparable, but even the work is not comparable. The work which the Deposit Collectors do is completely different from the work which the regular employees do. There was thus no question of absorption and there was also no question of the Deposit Collectors being paid the same pay scales, allowances and other services conditions of the regular employees of the Banks.29. We also see no substance in the contention that these Schemes areThe Banks have introduced these Schemes because they want to encourage the common man to make small and regular deposits. As a result of such Schemes, the number of depositors have become much larger. We have no doubt that such Schemes are continued because the Banks find them remunerative. The Banks have large collections through such Schemes.