Holding

Deposit collectors engaged by banks on a commission basis are workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the banks' control over their work satisfies the master‑servant test, rendering the Tribunal's award valid.

Summary

The Indian Banks Association and several nationalised banks challenged an Industrial Tribunal award that classified deposit collectors and commission agents as workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and ordered back wages, gratuity and other benefits. The banks argued that the collectors were engaged on a purely contractual, commission basis, that no master‑servant relationship existed, and that Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 prohibited such employment. The workmen contended that the collectors performed manual and clerical tasks, were subject to the banks' control over collection, deposit and record‑keeping, and that commission is a form of wage under the definition in the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court held that the collectors are indeed workmen, that commission constitutes wages, and that the banks exercise sufficient control to create a master‑servant relationship; it also held that Section 10 does not bar the classification. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s findings and dismissed all the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether deposit collectors engaged on a commission basis qualify as 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether commission paid to deposit collectors falls within the definition of 'wages' under Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether the banks exercise sufficient control over deposit collectors to create a master‑servant relationship.
Whether Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 precludes the classification of commission‑based agents as workmen.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal could direct absorption of deposit collectors as regular staff and prescribe pay scales, allowances and service conditions.

Legislation cited

Banking Regulation Act, 1949s. 10
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 2(rr), s. 2(s)
Payment of Gratuity Act

Subjects

workmen definitionmaster‑servant relationshipcommission as wagesIndustrial Disputes ActBanking Regulation Actdeposit collection schemeabsorption of contract workersindustrial tribunal award

Judgment

INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION A
y v.
WORKMEN OF SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 13, 2001

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] B

~
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(rr), 2(s)-Workman-Deposit
Collectors engaged by Banks on contract and commission basis for collection
of deposits -Held, they are workmen as there is master-sen,anl relationship--
Banking Regulation Act, 1949; Section I 0. c
Respondents, who are Deposit Collectors and Commission Agents for
Nationalised Banks, demanded pay scales, allowances and other service
conditions which are available to regular clerical employees. The Government
of India referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions
of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Tribunal held the respondents to be D
workmen under the Act and directed the banks to absorb them as regular
staff and payment of full back wages, incentives, conveyance and gratuity.
Petitioner-Association filed Writ Petitions before High Court, which partly
t allowed the petitions by setting aside the directions of the Tribunal relating
to absorption as regular staff while upholding the directions relating to E
payment of back wages, gratuity etc.

In appeal to this Court, the petitioner-Association contended that the
Deposit Collectors should not be treated as workmen since their engagement
were purely on contract basis for a specified period; that there is no master-
servant relationship; that there is no control or supervision on them by the F
Banks; that they can undertake other employment also; that their attendance
is not required daily in the banks; that there is no qualification or age limit
for their appointment; that no disciplinary action could be taken against
them; that the Deposit Collectors, who were paid commission, cannot be made
a regular staff contrary to the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act;
G
that the Deposit Collection Schemes of the Banks, under which they are
!'( employed, are un-remunerative and that the Banks are incurring a loss in
running these Schemes; and that the Tribunal and the High Court had not
gone into viability of the Schemes.

The respondents contended that the work of the Deposit Collectors are H
1011
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I) I S.C.R.

A manual as they had to collect deposits by going to places of small depositors ~

at latter's convenience and fill up various forms, accounts, registers and 'y
pass books every day; that they were also made to do other sundry works of
a clerical nature; that the Banks had control over them on the work though
various stipulations laid down by the Banks; that commission received for
collecting deposits for the Banks are included under the definition of 'wages'
B under section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act; that the amount received :-
by way of commission was wage linked to productivity; that commission could
Alt
be paid to a person who was not in regular employment under the provisions ~
of the Banking Regulation Act; that there is master-servant relationship
between the Banks and them since there was control and supervision by the
c Banks on the work performed by them; that the Industrial Tribunal has
power and jurisdiction to award a pay package dehors the statutory Act and
Rules; and that they had been working for the banks as Deposit Collectors
for a long period. +
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
D
HELD : 1.1. The Tribunal correctly arrived at a conclusion that Deposit
Collectors are 'workmen' under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
..
Act. The commission received by Deposit Collectors is a wage which is
dependent on the productivity. This commission is paid for promoting the
·1-
business of the various Banks. (1022-C-D(
E
1.2. The Deposit Collectors are free to regulate their own hours of
work, but that is because of the nature of 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
depositors and at such times as required by the depositors. If this is so, then
F to 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
G the control of the Bank. (1022-D-FI

1.3. The proviso to Section IO 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
H Act. There is clearly a relationship of master and servant between the Deposit
INDIAN BANK ASSO. v.WORKMEN OF SYNDICATE BANK [S.N VAR!A VA, J.] I013
Collectors and the concerned Bank. (1022-G-H] A
1.4. The Banks have introduced Deposit Collection Schemes because
they want to encourage common man to make small and regular deposits. As
a result of such Schemes, the number of depositors have become much larger.
Such Schemes are continued because the Banks find them remunerative.
The Banks have large collections through such Schemes. (1023-E) B
Silver Jubilee Tailoring House & Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Shops and
Establishments & Anr., (1974) 1 LLJ 747; Dharangadhara Chemical Works
Ltd v. State of Saurashtra, (1957) SCR 152; Union of India & Ors. v. KV.
Baby & Anr., (1999) 1 LLJ 1290 and The Management of Indian Bank v. The
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (C) & Anr., (1990) 1 LLJ 50, referred C
to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3355 of
1998.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.97 of the Andra Pradesh High D
Court in W.P. No. 9783 of 1989.

With

C.A. Nos. 3358-3359/1998, C.A. Nos. 3360-3361/1998, C.A. No. 3356/ E
1998, C.A. No. 3357/1998 C.A. No. 3362/1998, C.A. No. 1231/2001 and C.A. No.
4676/1998.

V.R. Reddy, P.P. Rao, Sudhir Chandra, L. Nageshwar Rao, Jitendra Sharma,
Ms. Meera Mathur, B. Sunita Rao, Anil Kamwal for (Goodwill Indeevar, Vikas
, Singh, C.L. Narsimhan, Achintya Dwivedi, Dinesh K. Goswami, Vikrant Yadav, F
Praveen Swarup, R.N. Keshwani, P.N. Jha, M.C. Dhingra, Muksh K. Giri,
Shanth Kumar V. Mahale and P. Narasimhan for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 9000/1998. G
All these Appeals are against a common judgment dated 30th March,
1997. A common question arises in all these Appeals.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by an Order dated 3rd
October, 1980 referred the following dispute under Sections 7A and I 0(1 )( d) H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 1 S.C.R.

A of the Industrial Disputes Act between the Management of 11 Banks and the
Deposit Collectors to the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad for adjudication:

"Whether the 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
B conditions available to regular clerical employees of those banks is
justified? If not, to what relief are the ~orkmen concerned entitled and
from which date?"
Before the Tribunal parties lead evidence both oral and documentary. After
hearing the parties the Tribunal by its Award dated 22nd December, I 988 held that
c the Deposit Collectors were workmen of the concerned Bank. The Tribunal then
directed as follows:
"All those Deposit Collectors and Agents who are below the age
of 45 years on 3. JO. I980 (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
D Graduates and Post Graduates. They may be taken to banks serviced
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
E absorption as Sub-Staff by conducting qualifications examination.

As regards the Deposit Collectors and Agents who are above 45
years of age on the date 3- I 0- I 980 and also those who are un-willing
to be absorbed in Regular Banks service they shall be paid the fall
back wages of Rs. 750.00 per month linked with minimum deposit of
F Rs. 7,500,00 per month and they should be paid incentive remuneration
at 2 per cent 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. I0,000.00 and Rs. I00.00 per month for deposits
of more than Rs. I 0,00.00 upto or above Rs. 30,000.00 per month they
should be paid Gratuity of I 5 days commission for each year of
G service rendered.,.

Various Writ petitions were filed by various Banks and the Indian Banks
Association. All were disposed off by the impugned judgment dated 20th
March, 1997.

H Before the High Court it has been conceded that relief of being absorbed
INDIAN BANK ASSO. i-.WORKMEN OF SYNDICATE BANK [S.N. VARIAVA, J.] ) 015

as regular staff of the banks in clerical cadre was not available to be granted. A
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.

Except for C.A. No. 3356 of 1998, all these Appeals have been filed by B
the various banks and/or the Indian banks Association. C.A. No. 3356 of I 998
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.

On behalf of the Appellants it has been submitted that the Deposit
c
Collectors could not be treated as workmen since their engagement were
purely a matter of contract between the parties. It was submitted that the
Agreements were, in all cases, for a specific period. It was submitted that the
Deposit Collectors did their work without any control or supervision of the
Banks. It was submitted that the Deposit Collectors could also do other works D
and take on other employment. It was submitted that the Deposit Collectors
had no fixed time or period to devote to their work as Deposit Collectors or
for their attendance in the Bank. It was submitted that these Deposit Collectors
could come to the Bank at any time and make the deposits. It was further
submitted that there was no qualification or age limit for a person to be E
engaged as a Deposit Collector and that, infact, many of the Deposit Collectors
were well advanced in age. It was submitted that no disciplinary action could
be taken against the Deposit Collectors. It was submitted that all the above
mentioned facts showed that there was no relationship of master and servant
and that, therefore, these Deposit Collectors were not workmen.
F
Reliance has also been placed on Section I 0 of the Banking Regulation
Act. The relevant portion of Section I 0 reads as follows :

"JO. Prohibition of employment of managing agents and restrictions
on certain forms of employment:- (I) No banking company-
G
(a) Shall employ or be managed by managing agent; or

(b) Shall employ or continue the employment of any person:

(i) Who is, or at any time has been adjudicated insolvent, or
has suspended payment of has compounded with his
creditors, or who is, or had been, convicted by a Criminal
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) I S.C.R.

A Court ofan offence involving moral turpitude; or

(ii) Whose remuneration or part of whose remuneration takes
the form of commission or of a share in the profits of the
company.
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-clause shall apply to the
B payment by a banking company of-
(a) any bonus, in pursuance of a settlement or award arrived at or
made under any law relating to industrial disputes or in accordance
with any scheme framed by such banking company or in
accordance with the usual practice prevailing in banking business;
c (b) any commission to any broker (including guarantee broker)
cashier contractor, clearing and forwarding agent, auctioneer or
any other person, employed by the banking company under a
contract otherwise than as a regular member of the staff of the
company; or
D xxx xxx xxx

It was submitted that Section I O(b) clearly lays down that a banking
company cannot employ any person whose remuneration or part of whose
remuneration takes the form of commission or of a share in the profits of the
E company. It was submitted that it was an admitted position that commission
was paid to the deposit Collectors. It was submitted that it can never be
presumed that the Bank were employing persons contrary to the provisions
of the Banking Regulation Act. It was submitted that this showed that these
Deposit Collectors were not employed by the Banks. It was submitted that
the proviso (b), which permitted payment of commission under a contract to
F a person who was not a regular member of the staff, was merely an extension
and did not detract from the main provision which prevented employment on
commission basis.

It was also submitted that the Deposit Collection Schemes were un-
G remunerative and were not viable. Certain charts and figures were shows to
the Court and it was submitted that the Banks were suffering a loss in running
these Schemes. It was submitted that neither the Tribunal nor the High Court ,.-
had gone into viability of the Schemes.

Mr. P.P. Rao further submitted that the Banking Regulation Act is an
H Act of 1949. He took the Court through the definition of the term "workman"
INDIAN BANK ASSO. v.WORKMEN OF SYNDICATE BANK [S.N. VARIA VA, J.] JQJ7

in the· Industrial Disputes Act as well as various other Acts like Beedi and A
Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, Coal Mines Provident Found
and Misc. Provisions Act, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act
etc. He submitted that under each Act the definition was framed as per the
purpose of the Act. He pointed out that depending on the purpose of the Act,
either a wide or narrow definition had been given to the term "worker". He
pointed out that the proviso to Section I 0 of the Banking Regulation Act has B
been operative since 1949. He submitted that in the Industrial Disputes Act
the definition of the term "worker" in Section 2(s) was amended in 1984. He
submitted that even in 1984 the Legislature did not think it fit to include in
this definition a person who was receiving commission. He submitted that this
clearly indicated that persons receiving commission were not meant to be and C
were not workmen within the meaning of the term as laid down in the Industrial
Disputes Act.

Mr. P.P. Rao further submitted that if the Deposit Collectors are not
workmen, then their entitlement has to be as per their contract or as per the
provisions of a statute. He submitted that the Tribunal had no power to D
change the contract between the parties and/or to impose conditions of
service. He submitted that the Tribunal could only have done so, provided
it was statutorily permitted or it was so provided in the Contract. He submitted
that the gratuity which has been awarded by the tribunal is neither as per the
contract between the parties nor as per the provisions of the Payment of E
Gratuity Act. He submitted that the Deposit Collectors have concealed what
they were receiving from the other employment. He submitted that this
information should have been called for. He submitted that the entire liability
has been foisted on the Banks, when in fact the other employer should be
sharing the burden imposed on the Banks.
F
It was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that for all the above
reasons, the impugned Order and the directions given by the Tribunal should
be set aside.

On the other hand Mr. Sharma, on behalf of the Respondents, submitted G
that the Deposit Collectors had to regularly visit the small depositors, i.e.,
small traders, house wives, students etc. He submitted that they would have
to go to these depositors at times which were convenient to those person or
at times when they would be in a position to give the deposit. He submitted
that the Deposit Collectors may also have to make m~re than one visit to small
depositors. He submitted that the Deposit Collectors would have to collect H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] I S.C.R.

A depo.sits from all these persons and then taken the collections to the banks
and make the deposits after making the relevant entries and filing up the ~
relevant forms. He submitted that the work of Deposit Collectors was manual
inasmuch as they had to make the collections by going from place to place
and from depositor to depositor and that it was also clerical inasmuch as they
had to fill up various forms, accounts, registers and pass books every day.
B He submitted that over and above this work many of the Deposit Collectors
were also made to do other sundry works of a clerical nature in the banks.
He submitted that amount received by the Deposit Collectors by way of
commission was wage linked to productivity. He submitted that it was incorrect
to state that the banks had no control over the Deposit Collectors. He
C submitted that the banks exercised control over the Deposit Collectors and
laid down various stipulations which were to be followed by these Deposit
Collectors. He submitted that merely because the nature of the control was
different did not mean that there was no control.

Mr. Sharma relied upon the definition of the term "Wages" in Section
D 2 (rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as follows:
"2 (rr) "wages" means all remuneration capable of being expressed in
terms of money, which would, it the terms of employment express or
implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a workman in respect of his
employment or of work done in such employment, and includes-
E
(i) such allowances (including dearness allowance) as the workman
is for the time being entitled to;
(ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of supply of light,
water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service or
p of any concessional supply of foodgrains or other articles;
(ill) any travelling concession;
(iv) any commission payable on the promotion of sales or business
or both;
but does not include-
G
(a) any bonus;
(b) any contribution paid or payable by the employer to any pension
fund or provident fund or for the benefit of the workman under
any law for the time being in force;
H (c) any gratuity payable on the termination of his service;"
r

INDIAN BANKASSO. v.WORKMENOF SYNDICATEBANK[S.N. VARIAVA,J.] 1019
He points out that, under sub-clause· (iv) of the above definition, "wage" A
·y includes commission payable on promotion of sales or business or both. He
submitted that the commission which was received by Deposit Collectors was
for promotion of the business of the banks, viz., receiving deposits from
investors.

Mr. Sharma submitted that the proviso to Section I 0 clearly laid down B
that commission could be paid to a person who was not in the regular
employment of a bank. He submitted that, therefore, Section I 0 of the Banking
Regulations Act did not prevent Deposit Collectors from being workmen as
defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. In support of this submission he relied
upon an authority of the Madras High Court in the case of The Management c
of Indian Bank v. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (c) & Anr.,
reported in ( 1990) I LLJ 50. In this case it has been held that Deposit
Collectors satisfy the definition of "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes
Act and that they are "workmen" as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act.
It has been held that the banks have control over such Deposit Collectors
and that Section I 0 of the Banking regulations act did not help the banks in D
contending that Deposit Collectors were not workmen.

Mr. Sharma relied upon the case of Silver Jubilee Tailoring House &
Ors. v. Chief Inspector o/Shops and Establishments & Anr., reported in (1974)
I LLJ 747. In this case the question was whether certain tailors working with
E
the Appellant Company were employees of the Appellant and were covered
by the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act and Payment of
Wages Act. The question which arose for consideration were whether the
Appellants had control over these tailors and whether the fact that these
tailors could work for more than one employee meant that there was no
relationship of master and servant. This Court held that during the last two F
decades the emphasis in deciding the question of relationship of employer
and employee had changed. It held that while control was an important factor
it was wrong to say that in every case it would be a decisive factor. It held
that the degree of control and supervision would be different in different
types of business and that what was essential was an element of authority
G
over the workers in the performance of the work, so that the employee was
..,.. subject to the directions of the employer. It also held that working with more
than one employer did not militate against being the employee of the proprietor
of the shop where he attended the work. It held that a servant need not be
in the exclusive control of one master. It held that the fact that the workers
were not on obliged to work whole day was also not very material. It held H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I) I S.C.R.

A that all that was necessary was that ihe workman was principally employed
by that employer. ""f

Mr. Sharma also relied upon the case of Dharangadhara Chemical
Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, reported in (1957] SCR, 152. In this case
the Appellants were lessees holding a licence for the manufacture of salt on
B certain landed. The salt was manufactured by labourers known as Agarias
from rain water that got mixed saline matter in the soil. The work was seasonal
in nature and commenced in October after the rains and continued till June.
Thereafter the Agarias left for their own villages and did their own cultivation
work. During the season the lands were devided into plots and plots were
C allotted ·to the Agarias. Generally the same plot was allotted to the same
Agaria every year. After manufacturing of salt the Agarias were paid at the
rate of 5 as. 6 pies per maund~ At the end of each season the accounts were
settled and the Agarias were paid the balance due to them. During the season
the Agarias worked with the members of their families and were free to
engages extra labour on their own, if they so desired. No hours of work were
D prescribed, no master roll maintained, nor were working hours controlled by
the Appellants. There were no rules as regards leave or holidays and the
Agarias were free to go out of the factory after making arrangements for
manufacturing of salt. The question for consideration before this Court was
whether the Agarias were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial
E Disputes Act. This Court held that the prima facie test of master of servant
between employer and employee was the existence of the right in the employer
not merely to direct what work was to be done but also to control the manner
in which it was to be done, the nature or extent of such control varying in
different industries and being by its nature incapable of being precisely
defined. This Court held that the correct approach, therefore, was to consider
F whether, having regard to the nature of the work, there was due control and
supervision of the employer. This Court further held that the question whether
the relationship between the parties was one as between an employer and
employee was a question of fact and where the Industrial Tribunal came to
a finding, such finding of fact was not open to question in a proceeding under
G Article 226 of the Constitutions, unless it could be shown to wholly
unwarranted by the evidence.

Mr. Sharma submitted that in this case the Tribunal had, on consideration
of evidence and material before it, arrived at a positive finding that there was
control by the banks and that there was a relationship of master and servant.
H He submitted that such finding of fact was based upon the evidence on
\
INDIAN BANK ASSO. v.WORKMEN OF SYNDICATE BANK [S.N. VARIAVA, J] 1021

record and nothing had been shown that such finding was unwarranted or A
unsustainable on the basis of evidence on record. He submitted that the High
Court was thus right in not interfering with such findings of fact

On the question of the Scheme being un-remunerative, Mr. Sharma
showed certain pamphlets and circulars recently issued by one of the banks,
which is before this Court. He pointed out, from these pamphlets and circulars, B
that far from the Scheme being un-remunerative the banks were receiving
large amounts as deposits through such Schemes. He pointed. out that the
banks were wanting to continue with such Schemes.

Mr. Sharma submitted that gratuity need not be only under the Payment C
of Gratuity Act. He submitted that the Tribunal had not said that it was
awarding gratuity under the Gratuity Act. He submitted that the Tribunal has
powers, dehors the Gratuity Act, to direct payment of Gratuity. He submitted
that the Tribunal always has power and jurisdiction to modify conditions of
service and, in this case, it has been found by· the Tribunal that there was
no fixed pay scales, no bonus, no gratuity, no dearness allowance and, D
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 loosing, but E
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.

Mr. Nageshwar Rao, who appeared for the Appellants in C. A. No. 3356 F
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 concessions 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 G
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 their service conditions of the employees of the banks.
He submitted that most of these Deposit Collectors had been working for 20 H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] I S.C.R.

A to 25 years and ihat 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.

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
B 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
C workmen.

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.
D
We also cannot accept the submission that the banks have no control
over the Deposit Collectors. Undoubtedly, the Deposit Collectors are free io
regulate their own hours of work, but that is because of the nature of 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
E at the convenience of the depositors 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 being 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
F 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.

We also see no force in the contention that Section I0 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
G 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.

H Mr. Nageshwar Rao is right in his submission that the conce~sion was
INDIAN BANK ASSO. vWORKMEN OF SYNDICATE BANK [S.N. VARIAVA, J) I023
· not binding on his clients. However, what has been conceded has been A
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 direction 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 & Ors. v. K. V. Baby B
& Anr., reported in (1999) I 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 works. In the present case, not only care the modes of selection C
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 tower service conditions of the regular employees
of the banks. D
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 E
have no doubt that such Schemes are continued because the Banks find them
remunerative. The Banks have large collections through such Schemes.

For the reasons set out hereinabove, we see no substance in any of
these Appeals. All the Appeals accordingly stand dismissed. There will
however, be no Order and to costs. F
B.S. Appeals dismissed.