2006 (3) TMI 802 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether jewel appraisers for loans are to be treated as workers and absorbed as part-time clerical staff of the Bank.
2. Whether the Tribunal and High Court judgments affirming the status of jewel appraisers as part-time workers were justified.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Status of Jewel Appraisers as Workers:
The core question for adjudication was whether "jewel appraisers for loans" should be treated as workers and absorbed as part-time clerical staff of the Bank. The appellant-Bank argued that jewel appraisers were not employees of the Bank and did not perform substantial work. The Union contended that jewel appraisers were part-time workers performing clerical jobs such as entering applications for jewel loans and were required to be present at branches during specific hours. They were paid a commission of Rs. 3/- per thousand rupees sanctioned as a loan.

2. Tribunal and High Court Judgments:
The Tribunal relied on a previous case involving Indian Bank, where jewel appraisers were deemed part-time employees entitled to wages and benefits akin to regular clerical staff. The appellant-Bank resisted this by arguing that jewel appraisers did not qualify as workmen under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal, however, affirmed the Union's stance, drawing parallels with the Indian Bank case without adequately considering the appellant-Bank's distinct terms and conditions for jewel appraisers.

3. Factual Background and Evidence:
The Bank employed around 767 jewel appraisers on a commission basis, primarily in rural branches. The Tribunal did not thoroughly analyze the evidence presented by the parties. Instead, it relied heavily on the Indian Bank case, despite significant differences in the factual circumstances. For instance, in the Indian Bank case, jewel appraisers worked regular hours and were under the Bank's disciplinary control, conditions not present in the appellant-Bank's case.

4. Legal Precedents and Comparisons:
The appellant-Bank cited the Puri Urban Co-operative Bank case, arguing that the factual scenario was similar and should apply. The Tribunal and High Court overlooked these distinctions and focused on the Indian Bank case. The appellant-Bank highlighted that jewel appraisers were independent contractors, not subject to fixed working hours, disciplinary control, or employment procedures typical of regular employees.

5. Circulars and Employment Terms:
The Bank issued circulars explicitly stating that jewel appraisers were not regular employees and were engaged on a commission basis. These circulars were not adequately considered by the Tribunal or the High Court. The Tribunal's reliance on the Indian Bank case was misplaced, as the conditions and terms of employment were conceptually different.

6. Judicial Findings and Conclusions:
The learned Single Judge and Division Bench upheld the Tribunal's award, asserting that jewel appraisers were indispensable to the Bank's functioning and performed clerical jobs. However, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal and High Court failed to address the real issues and did not adequately consider the evidence and distinct terms of employment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that jewel appraisers are not employees of the Bank. The judgments of the Division Bench and learned Single Judge affirming the Tribunal's views were deemed indefensible and set aside. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.