ORDER Indian Bank, one of the Nationalised Banks, files this writ petition to set aside the award in I.D.No.25/77 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Madras on 3.12.1979. A reference was made to it under section 10(a)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act by the Government of India in its order dated 21.4.77, in respect of two issues mentioned therein. The issue which is involved in this writ petition is as follows: “Whether the action of the management of the Indian Bank, Madras in denying to Appraisers, wages and other conditions of service applicable to regular clerical” Award Staff “of the Rank is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?” 2. Petitioner-Bank (hereinafter referred to as Bank) engaged the services of Appraisers for the purpose of weighing and assessing the value and to verify the quality of the gold jewels or ornaments at its various branches for granting jewel loans to its customers. According to the Bank, they are only independent contractors and styled as professionals, who were engaged for a very limited purpose, and their services were utilised based 6n contracts of service, and that the terms contained therein alone are binding between the parties. 3. First respondent contended that the nature of duties discharged by Appraisers and the relationship between the Bank and the concerned Appraisers was that of employer and workmen, and hence, they are entitled to the same benefits as any other workmen in the Bank. 4. The Tribunal came to the conclusion on an assessment of oral and documentary evidence that the Appraisers are entitled to wages and other conditions of service applicable to regular clerical “Award Staff” as part-time employees of the Bank, and would be entitled to such proportionate viz., (half of) wages and benefits of clerical staff with effect from 1.4.1977. 5. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the workmen and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management. 43 Exhibits were filed by Workmen, whereas Management filed 44 exhibits. 6. Mr. 5. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the workmen and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management. 43 Exhibits were filed by Workmen, whereas Management filed 44 exhibits. 6. Mr. Venkataraman, learned Counsel appearing for Bank, submits that, there had been a complete misconception entertained by the Tribunal about the relationship between the Appraisers and the Bank, and therefore, he would not only refer to various exhibits, but also the depositions tendered by all the seven witnesses for the purpose of a re-appraisal to be made by this Court of the nature of evidence existing on record, so that he could show that the Tribunal could not have arrived at the perverse findings as it had done. Even though it was pointed out to him that this Court would not reappreciate the evidence, he would call upon this Court to look into the nature of evidence tendered in which event only it would be possible for him to show that the finding was totally perverse. Hence, the evidence on record was looked into. 7. Mr.Ganapathy, learned Counsel for the Appraisers, submits that, as to whether there is a relationship of employer and workmen as contemplated under I.D. Act exists or not, it being a question of fact, and the Tribunal having already considered it by referring to all the materials placed before it, in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this court would not substitute its finding on these questions of fact as held in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra 1957 S.C.J. 208=1957 S.C.R. 152=A.I.R.1957 S.C.264. Once relevant evidence is on record, and five of the witnesses examined by the Management having spoken regarding the terms and conditions under which Appraisers have been discharging their work, and the nature of evidence so tendered having been understood and appreciated by the Tribunal this is not a fit case for this Court to analyse the evidence on record. 8. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, what could be done is only to find out whether some relevant evidence is available, for the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 9. The first point to be considered is, whether the Appraisers could be ‘workmen’ as defined in section 2(s) of LD. Act. 8. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, what could be done is only to find out whether some relevant evidence is available, for the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 9. The first point to be considered is, whether the Appraisers could be ‘workmen’ as defined in section 2(s) of LD. Act. As for the tests to be applied, in S.J.T.House v. C.I.Shops and Establishments S.J.T.House v. C.I.Shops and Establishments (1974)1 MLJ. (S.C.) 95= (1974) Lab.I.C.133= (1974)1 An.W.R. (S.C.) 95= 1974 S.C.J.295= (1974)3 S.C.C.498= A.I.R. 1974 S.C.37, it was held that the right to control the manner of work is not the exclusive test for determining the relationship of employer and employee, but facts like tools or machines being provided by Management, the right of rejection of the end-produce if it does not conform to the instructions, the element of control and supervision, would also be relevant factors. The fact that concerned employee takes a work elsewhere and that he is not obliged to work for the whole day do not militate against himself being treated as a workman in the place where he attends for work. 10. In Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra 1957 S.C.J. 208=A.I.R.1957 S.C.264= 1957 S.C.R.152 wherein the nature of work discharged by agarias, who were paid for work done by them per maund of salt realised by their efforts, and having right to engage extra labour on their own account, and not governed by number of hours of work, nor any muster roll being maintained, and no rules framed for leave or holidays, and they having the right to go out of the factory after making arrangements for manufacture of salt and the work itself being seasonal in nature; it was held that they were ‘workmen’ as defined in section 2(s) of the Act. 11. In Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Tozhilali Union Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Tozhilali Union (1978) Lab.I.C.1264= (1978) 2 Lab.L.J.397= (1978)2 S.C.J.550= (1978)4 S.C.C.257= A.I.R.1978 S.C.1410 the fact that an economical control was being exercised over worker's subsistence, skill and continued employment was held as relevant factors, and that, in spite of the contractual terms formulated in a document yet by lifting the veil of looking at the conspectus of factors governing the nature of employment discharged by them, the relationship has to be made out. M/s. Shining Tailors v. Industrial Tribunal, E U.P. M/s. Shining Tailors v. Industrial Tribunal, E U.P. (1983) Lab.I.C.1509= (1983)4 S.C.C.464= A.I.R.1984 S.C.23 dealt with a case of piece rated workmen, and held that payment correlated to production, is a well-recognised mode of payment to industrial workmen, and return of end-product is an element of control and supervision. So also the right of rejection coupled with the right to refuse work would certainly establish master-servant relationship. In S.K.Verma v. Mahesh Chandra S.K.Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983) Lab.I.C.1483= (1983)4 S.C.C.214= A.I.R.1984 S.C.1462 dealing with the nature of employment of Development Officers in Life Insurance Corporation of India, it was held that they are workmen, because the definition is designed to cover all manner of persons employed in skilled work or unskilled work, manual work, supervisory work, technical work or clerical work. Taking into account the nature of duties discharged, and holding that the designation was mere glorified designation, it was held that they were not engaged in any administrative or managerial work, but they are only workmen. 12. On these principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, not only the nature of work discharged by the Appraisers, but the terms and conditions under which they were engaged by the Bank, will have to be looked into. M.W.I, an Officer in Agriculture Department in the Head Office of the Bank, would state that agreements were entered into between Rank and concerned goldsmiths, and Exhibit M-4 is one such agreement of 1976. Business hours of Appraisers was the business hours of the Bank. They give a certificate after appraising the jewels given to them, and they have to vouchsafe the correctness regarding the value, quality and quantity, and if any loss occurs to the Bank due to wrong assessment, they will have to indemnify for which an indemnity bond (Exhibit M-1) was also taken. They furnish a cash security of Rs.500. They are paid with reference to only professional charges by way of commission at the end of the month, and amounts collected for them are kept in “Appraisers fee Collected Account” and paid under “Appraisers fee Account.” Their duration of service shall be for one year and renewable from time to time. They were paid at the rate of 10 paise per hundred with a minimum of one rupee alone, and also paid a monthly minimum commission of Rs. 150. They were paid at the rate of 10 paise per hundred with a minimum of one rupee alone, and also paid a monthly minimum commission of Rs. 150. Their names are not found in the Muster Roll and they are not subject to disciplinary action. Out of 757 branches of Rank in India, about 350 branches advance loans on jewels and this was started in 1971, and nearly 17 crores of rupees were disbursed in 1976 by way of jewel loan, and it is one of the major business of the Bank. Without Appraiser's Certificate, Bank cannot advance loan, and therefore, their services, are indispensable, and they are expected to work for 4 hours. Their place of work is Rank's premises and they are not allowed to take jewels to their houses for appraising them, and they cannot do business privately within the business hours of the Bank or in client's premises. Instruments like weighing machines and weights are supplied by Bank. If there is any doubt about their appraisal, a re-appraisal is done by some other Appraiser of the Bank. 12. (a) M.W.2, a Manager in one of the branches, corroborated these claims and further added that Appraisers are expected to be present during working hours and they are bound to be present throughout. They remain between 10 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. Appraisers fee collected from customers/borrowers are paid to them at the end of the month. M.W.3 was an Appraiser, who stated that for seven years he had been functioning as an Appraiser, and in Exhibit M-30, he had filled up the weight, quality and the value of the jewel, and he has given his certificate therein and entries have been entered only by a Bank Staff. If they are not reporting to duty, orally they must ask for leave, and they are paid a monthly sum of Rs.150. 12.(b) M.W.4, an Accountant in one of the branches, spoke about maintenance of Ledgers, issue of vouchers and how payments were made to borrowers. The Appraiser attached to that Branch had been working since 1972, and he attends office and scales and weights are supplied by Bank, and he is being paid Rs. 150 per month. 12.(b) M.W.4, an Accountant in one of the branches, spoke about maintenance of Ledgers, issue of vouchers and how payments were made to borrowers. The Appraiser attached to that Branch had been working since 1972, and he attends office and scales and weights are supplied by Bank, and he is being paid Rs. 150 per month. In 1972, an appointment order was given, but later on it was not done, and without his certificate, no advance could be made, and fee is collected from the borrowers, and if it is not paid, then Bank pays it out of their resources. 12. (c) M.W.5, a Manager of another Branch, would state that in all the three branches in which he had worked, Appraisers were engaged on contract basis, and they never did any clerical work nor they wrote any ledgers or other registers. The Appraiser attends Bank between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. and he was being allotted a particular place in the branch office. Scales and acids are supplied by Bank. If he does not come on a particular day, no part of his wages will be cut, if prior permission is accorded. He should obtain permission from the Manager. Otherwise, proportionate wages will be cut. They are paid a minimum of Rs. 150/- per month. Charges are collected from borrowers. On value given by Appraisers, 25% is deducted, and fixed as Bank's valuation. 13. On behalf of Appraisers, two witnesses have been examined, and they have asserted that even ledger entries have been filled up by them, and they have done certain clerical work and leave letter will have to be given and the like. Exhibit M-4 one of the copies of agreement produced shows that Appraisers shall come to the Bank's premises during office hours, and a cash security of Rs.500 is to be given, and while coming for work, he should bring his own touchstone and other instruments except weighing scale and weights, Bank provides facilities for weighing jewels and he will be allotted a place at Bank premises, and professional charges/commission of 10 paise per 100 of the loan advanced subject to a minimum of Re. 1 per loan would be paid. By giving one month's notice on either side, the contract could be terminated. 14. 1 per loan would be paid. By giving one month's notice on either side, the contract could be terminated. 14. Clause III of the agreement stated that the duration of service of the Appraisers shall be for one year and for breach committed he could be terminated. It could be renewed, if it is desired by Bank, on such evidence placed before Tribunal, it held that Appraisers are part-time workmen of the Bank. It is not as if on “no evidence”, such a finding had been arrived at. Equally, it cannot be that irrelevant materials have been placed before it, because five of the Bank's witnesses have spoken, as stated above, of the nature of duties discharged by Appraisers. The contention of Mr. Venkatararnan, learned Counsel for the Bank, is that, the relationship being one of contract of service, it is only the terms and conditions of the agreement (Exhibit M-4) that could be looked into, and it will then be apparent that they only extend professional service and they are independent contractors, and that the relationship is one of master and servant. Except for the four hours, they are to spend in the Bank premises, during the rest of the hours, they have got their own private business and in no manner they are prevented from carrying on any other trade or business. They have not been issued with any appointment order, but only contracts were entered into, agreeing to render particular type of service, for which they are paid only omission, and that too only by the borrowers, and not by the Bank. No Muster Roll or Attendance Register was maintained. They furnish indemnity bonds and they would be liable to make good the loss, which is an important ingredient to show that they are only professional men. They are not covered by any disciplinary rules, and the payment of Rs.150 per month is a retainer charge, and not by way of any salary or wages. 15. As already stated, this court is not to reappraise the evidence and arrive at its own finding; and what could be done is to find out whether on the evidence above extracted, the Tribunal had rendered a perverse finding or not. 15. As already stated, this court is not to reappraise the evidence and arrive at its own finding; and what could be done is to find out whether on the evidence above extracted, the Tribunal had rendered a perverse finding or not. In the decisions of the Supreme Court above referred to, the tests like control, supervision, supply of tools, assigning him a place of work, payment on turn out of product, remuneration based on skill, payment on piece rate basis, right to refuse to give work, etc., have all been treated as relevant factors to find out, whether he would be a workman under section 2(s) of I.D. Act. If he is engaged in any other avocation beyond hours fixed for him or employed elsewhere during the free hours it would not disentitle him to claim that he is a workman. Even if it is seasonal, still his rights will not be anything different. Therefore, in cases where written agreements or contracts are relied upon, the veil must be lifted to find out the reality, and the conspectus of some or all of these factors must be taken into account. As far as Appraisers are concerned, they are paid monthly minimum of Rs.150. A place of work is allotted for them. They are bound to be present in Bank premises during the fore-noon for 4 hours i.e. during entirety of business hours. Without prior permission they cannot absent themselves, and if so done, proportionately there will be a deduction out of the monthly payment made. Part of the tools required for their job is supplied by the Bank. Commission collected from customers is paid at the end of the month, depending upon the quantum of work done by them. The duration of their service is fixed at one year at a time. All these satisfy the vital tests laid down by the Supreme Court, and hence, the Tribunal had taken into account relevant materials, and this is not a case wherein hardly few materials are found to sustain its finding. Rather considerable material flowed only from the witnesses of the Bank, and which strengthens the finding of the Tribunal. 16. One other contention put forth by Mr. Rather considerable material flowed only from the witnesses of the Bank, and which strengthens the finding of the Tribunal. 16. One other contention put forth by Mr. Venkataraman, learned Counsel for the Bank, is that, under proviso to section 10(l)(b)(ii) of Act 10 of 1949 no Bank shall employ any person whose remuneration takes the form of commission, or of a share in the profits of the Company, provided, it shall not apply to the payment by a Banking Company of any commission to a broker or any other person employed by it under contract, otherwise than as a regular member of the staff of the Company. The nature of payment to Appraisers is not a commission paid by the Banking Company. It pays a fixed monthly minimum of Rs.150 and enables these part-time workmen to get paid on the quantum of work done by collecting it from the customers. Hence, this contention fails. 17. In order to sustain the claim that Exhibit M-4 is a contract of service, and therefore, it was only a relationship of master and servant, Mr. Venkataraman, relied upon the following decisions. Argent v. Minister of Social Security Argent v. Minister of Social Security (1968)1 W.L.R.1749 dealt with a case of a part-time teacher, who was paid on an hourly basis, and by fixed fees. It was held that a decision about the relationship could be based only on facts found and no single test was decisive; and by taking into account the totality of the evidence adduced therein, it was held that the teacher was not employed under a contract of service but was at all times a self-employed person. Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd. v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd. v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968)2 W.L.R.775 dealt with a case of owner-driver, who was paid on mileage basis on the vehicle utilised exclusively for company's deliveries to be made. It was held that the nature of rights conferred and the duty imposed by the contract in question were not such as to make it a contract of service, and the driver had sufficient freedom in the performance of the obligations to qualify him as an independent contractor. 18. Lastly, he relied upon the decision in Emplrs, in Reltn. To P.N.B. v. G.Dasta-gir Emplrs, in Reltn. 18. Lastly, he relied upon the decision in Emplrs, in Reltn. To P.N.B. v. G.Dasta-gir Emplrs, in Reltn. To P.N.B. v. G.Dasta-gir (1978)1 L.L.J.312- (1978) Lab.I.C.519- A.I.R.1978 S.C. 481(1978)1 S.C.J.377(2) which also dealt with the case of a driver employed in a Nationalised Bank. It was held therein that there was no nexus at all between the driver and the Bank. These decisions do not assist him to show that the finding of Tribunal, is not based on proper or relevant evidence. 19. One other contention is that, there is no scope to have a part-time employee in the Bank. But in dealing with the classification of employees in Banks in Sastry Award, clause 508(d) defines “part-time employee” as an employee who does not or is not required to work for the full period for which an employee is ordinarily required to work and who is paid on the basis that he is or may be engaged in doing work elsewhere. In the Bi. partiee settlements also, under clause 20-4 to 20-6 the concept of part-time employee exists. Hence, the Tribunal was in order in holding that these Appraisers are part-time workmen in the Bank. 20. M.W.1 has stated that out of 757 branches then existing, in about 350 branches, loans were given on jewels and each branch had an Appraiser from 1971 onwards. In 1976 nearly Rupees 17 crores had been disbursed as jewel loan. According to him, “it is one of the major business of the Bank.” Hence, the Bank had to depend on these Appraisers, and as spoken to by M.W.1, an Appraiser is indispensable. Hence, their being treated as part-time employees, is in order. 21. For all these reasons stated above, the order of the Tribunal is upheld, and the writ petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.