Case: Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen Of Syndicate Bank

Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 9000/1998.2. All these appeals are against a common judgment dated 30th March, 1997. A common question arises in all these appeals.3. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by an order dated 3rd October, 1980 referred the following dispute under Sections 7A and 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the Management of 11 Banks and the Deposit Collectors to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad for adjudicationthe demands of the Commission Agents or as the case may be Deposit Collectors Employed in the Banks listed in the Annexure that they are entitled to pay scales, allowances and other service conditions available to regular clerical employees of those banks is justified ? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled and from which dateBefore the Tribunal parties lead evidence both oral and documentary. After hearing the parties the Tribunal by its award dated 22nd December, 1998 held that the Deposit Collectors were workmen of the concerned Bank. The Tribunal then directed as followsthose Deposit Collectors and Agents who are below the age of 45 years on 3.10.1980 (the date of the first reference of this industrial dispute) shall be considered for regular absorption for the post of Clerks and cashiers if they are matriculates and above including qualified Graduates andThey may be taken to Bank service as regular employees if they pass the qualifying examinations conducted by the Banks. Those who are absorbed shall be treated on par with regular clerical employees of the bank. Those who are qualified with 8th class and below Matriculations shall be considered for absorption asby conducting qualifications examination.As regards the Deposit Collectors and Agents who are above 45 years of age on the date 3.10.1980 and also those who areto be absorbed in Regular Banks service they shall be paid the fall back wage of Rs. 750.00 per month linked with minimum deposit of Rs. 7,500.00 per month and they should be paid incentive remuneration at 2% for collection of over and above 7,500.00 per month and they should also pay uniform conveyance of Rs. 50 per month for deposit of less than Rs. 10,000.00 and Rs. 100.00 per month for deposits of more than Rs. 10,000.00 upto or above Rs. 30,000.00 per month they should be paid Gratuity of 15 days commission for each year of service rendered.Various Writ Petitions were filed by various Banks and the Indian Banks Association. All were disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 20th March, 1997.6. Before the High Court it has been conceded that relief of being absorbed as regular staff of the Banks in clerical cadre was not available to be granted. On this concession the High Court set aside the directions of the Tribunal to absorb the Deposit Collectors as regular staff. The High Court however upheld the other directions of the Tribunal regarding payment of fall back wages, conveyance allowance, gratuity etc.7. Except for C.A. No. 3356 of 1998, all these appeals have been filed by the various Banks and/or the Indian Banks Association. C.A. No. 3356 of 1998 has been filed by the National Confederation of Bank Employees. This appeal is against that portion of the impugned judgment, whereunder the relief of absorption as a regular employee has been set aside.

Reasoning: 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.