Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1462 (DEL)

SURESH CHATURVEDI v. SYNDICATE BANK

2007-07-24

HIMA KOHLI

body2007
HIMA KOHLI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has assailed the award dated 27. 1. 1987, passed by the central Government Industrial Tribunal in respect of ID No. 70/1984. The terms of reference for adjudication were as below:- "whether the action of the Management of Syndicate Bank New Delhi to relations to their Mathura Main Branch in terminating the service of Shri Suresh chaturved. Adarsh Agent with effect from 5. 12. 81 is justified, If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled"" ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the question that was decided by the tribunal was as to whether an `adarsh Agent' employed by a bank to mobilize deposit is a "workman" as defined in Section 8 (e) of the Industrial Disputes act (hereinafter in short referred to as `the Act'), and whether the relationship of such "adarsh Agents" with the bank is that of an "employee" and "employer" or an "agent" and "principal". After hearing the parties, the award was answered against the petitioner/claimant. It was held that the petitioner was not covered by the definition of "workman" in Section 8 (e) of the Act and it was a case of termination of "contract for service" and not a "contract of service". ( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the writ petition, the Supreme Court has adjudicated the said issue in the matter of Indian Banks Association Versus workmen of Syndicate Banks and Ors. reported as II (2001) SLT 280, wherein it was held as below:- "para 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. Para " 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. There is clearly a relationship of master and servant between the Deposit Collectors and the concerned Bank. Para " 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 Ors. v. K. V. Baby and Anr. reported in (1999) 1 LLJ 1290. 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 work. 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 service conditions of the regular employees of the banks. " ( 4 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations and conclusions arrived at, the impugned award insofar as it is holds that the petitioner is not covered under section 8 (e) of the Act, is set aside. Further, the question of absorption has also been decided by the Supreme Court holding that there is no question of absorption of the deposit collectors as regular staff. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, the case is remanded back to the industrial Adjudicator to decide the reference afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Indian Banks Association (supra ). ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, the case is remanded back to the industrial Adjudicator to decide the reference afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations made by the Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Indian Banks Association (supra ). As the industrial dispute is of the year 1984 and the award is of the year 1987, the Central Government Industrial tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. ( 6 ) THE parties are directed to appear before the Central Government industrial Tribunal on 20th August, 2007, on which date the Industrial adjudicator shall fix a date for further proceedings in the matter. ( 7 ) A copy of this order be sent to the Industrial Adjudicator for information. ( 8 ) THE record of the Industrial Tribunal be sent back immediately.