2001 (2) TMI 1051 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Deposit Collectors are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. Whether Deposit Collectors are entitled to pay scales, allowances, and other service conditions of regular clerical employees.
3. Applicability of Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act.
4. Viability and remuneration of Deposit Collection Schemes.
5. Tribunal's power to modify conditions of service and award gratuity.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Deposit Collectors are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act:
The Tribunal found that Deposit Collectors were workmen of the concerned banks, a finding supported by evidence showing they performed both manual and clerical work, such as collecting deposits and filling out forms. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the commission received by Deposit Collectors qualifies as wages under Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court emphasized that the nature of the Deposit Collectors' work required flexibility in working hours but did not negate the control and supervision exercised by the banks, thus establishing a master-servant relationship.

2. Whether Deposit Collectors are entitled to pay scales, allowances, and other service conditions of regular clerical employees:
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's direction to absorb Deposit Collectors as regular staff based on a concession that such relief was not available. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the work and qualifications of Deposit Collectors were not comparable to those of regular employees. The Court referenced the case of Union of India & Ors. v. K. V. Baby & Anr., which held that individuals working on a commission basis under individual contracts could not be equated with regular employees.

3. Applicability of Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act:
The appellants argued that Section 10(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, which prohibits employment on a commission basis, implied that Deposit Collectors were not employees. However, the Supreme Court noted that the proviso to Section 10 allows commission payments to individuals not in regular employment, thus not preventing Deposit Collectors from being considered workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. Viability and remuneration of Deposit Collection Schemes:
The appellants contended that Deposit Collection Schemes were un-remunerative. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that the banks continued these schemes because they found them beneficial, evidenced by large collections and the issuance of recent promotional pamphlets.

5. Tribunal's power to modify conditions of service and award gratuity:
The Tribunal directed payment of fallback wages, conveyance allowance, and gratuity to Deposit Collectors. The Supreme Court upheld these directions, noting that the Tribunal has the authority to modify conditions of service and that the awarded gratuity was part of a fair and just package, not necessarily under the Payment of Gratuity Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, affirming the Tribunal's findings and directions except for the absorption of Deposit Collectors as regular employees. The Court held that Deposit Collectors are workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and entitled to certain benefits but not to regular employment status or pay scales of regular clerical staff. The judgment emphasized the control banks exercised over Deposit Collectors and the viability of Deposit Collection Schemes.