Honble SHARMA, J.–The industrial dispute was between the individual driver (the respondent) and the Management of UCO Bank (appellant) and the reference was as to the justifiability of the termination of the services of Ratan Singh Bhati, driver of the said bank with effect from March 12, 1995. The reference assumes what really is the most contested point in the case as to whether Ratan Singh Bhati was the driver of the said Bank. definition, a workman means ``any person employed in any industry and so the basic jurisdictional issue is as to whether the respondent workman was a person employed by the Bank. If he was, his termination was illegal. If he was not, the reference to the industrial dispute was without jurisdiction. The Industrial Tribunal examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the driver was employed by the Bank. Consequently, a direction for reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service, was made. The Management of Bank came up in writ petition that was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence this special appeal. (2). Mr. Man Singh Gupta, learned counsel took us through Banks circular dated August 30, 1986 and canvassed that Ratan Singh Bhati was engaged as his personal driver by the Divisional Manager of the Bank therefore in the peculiar facts and circumstances present in the case, it was impossible to reach the conclusion that driver was employed by the Bank. Learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on Punjab National Bank vs. Ghulam Dastagir ( AIR 1978 SC 481 ). (3). In order to decide whether the driver was the employee of the Bank, the direction and control are the telling factors. The Supreme Court in Shiv Nandan Sharma vs. Punjab National Bank ( AIR 1955 SC 404 ) indicated thus:- (Page 411) ``Many factors have a bearing on the result. Who is pay master, who can dismiss, how long the alternative service lasts, what machinery is employed, have all to be kept in mind. The Supreme Court in Shiv Nandan Sharma vs. Punjab National Bank ( AIR 1955 SC 404 ) indicated thus:- (Page 411) ``Many factors have a bearing on the result. Who is pay master, who can dismiss, how long the alternative service lasts, what machinery is employed, have all to be kept in mind. The expressions used in any individual case must always be considered in regard to the subject matter under discussion but amongst the many tests suggested I think that the most satisfactory, by which to ascertain who is the employer at a particular time, is to ask who is entitled to tell the employee the way in which he is to do the work upon which he is engaged. (4). Having carefully scanned the material on record we notice that in the instant case Ratan Singh Bhati was paid salary as per the pay fixed by the Bank and as per the conditions of the Bank, primarily for the Banks work. Ratan Singh Bhati was also given other facilities like uniform, shoes, washing allowance, ex- gratia payment, bonus like other staff of the Bank. He was also directed by the Bank to wear the uniform. Only the payment for all these facilities was made by the Bank through the Divisional Manager, which is clearly a colourable device adopted by the Bank. In Punjab National Bank vs. Ghulam Dastagir (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus:- ``we have no doubt that if in this case there was evidence to show any colourable device resorted to by the Bank, our conclusion would have been adverse to the Management. (5). We find no infirmity in the impugned judgments. The Special Appeal deserves dismissal which we direct.