GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK versus WORKMEN, ALL INDIA OVERSEAS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 10-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK 
A 
v. 
WORKMEN, ALL INDIA OVERSEAS BANK EMPLOYEES UNION 
MARCH. J 0, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ARUN KUMAR, .JJ.] 
B 
-
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
2(s)-workmen-jewel appraisers employed by the bank-Held, are not c 
workmen. 
Indian Overseas Bank, on the basis of contracts had employed about 
767 jewel appraisers mainly in the rural branches in the States of Tamil 
Nadu, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and few branches 
in Bihar and Orissa. Bank advanced agricultural loans to its constituents D 
and also members of the staff. The All India Overseas Bank Employees 
Union ('Union') raised a dispute taking the stand that the jewel appraisers 
engaged by the bank are part time workers of the bank. Relying upon a 
decision in Indian Bank's case, the Tribunal answered the reference in 
the affirmative. Union filed writ petition claiming that the Tribunal should 
have granted relief from J.4,1978 i.e. date of demand. Appellant-Bank also E 
questioned legality of the award by filing a writ petition. The writ petition 
was dismissed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench in the LPA. 
It was contended by the respondent that the reference was made 
because prima facie the Government felt that jewel appraisers were 
F 
workmen under the Act and in that context, the nature of work, which 
was the same as in the case of Indian Bank's case is relevant. It was also 
contended that three forums have recorded findings of fact and, therefore, 
no interference is called for. It was not a case where respondents were 
asking for regularization, they were claiming to be part-time workers. 
There was power of the Bank to supervise and that was the effective G 
control. The Bank has right to indicate as to in what manner the work 
was to be done. 
~~ 
Appellant, on the other hand, contended that the factual scenario in 
Indian Bank's case was entirely different. One of the determinative factors 
19 
H 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A according to him was that the commission was paid only when the loan 
was sanctioned even if the appraisal had been done by the appraiser and 
the commission amount was paid out of the sanctioned loan amount and 
the payment is made by the borrower and not by the Bank. In any event 
after the Shastri Award there is no question of any part time clerk being 
B appointed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Since the Jewel appraisers were not subject to any prescribed 
qualification and age, their recruitment was not through Employment 
C Exchange/Banking Service Recruitment Board but was direct engagement 
by the local Manager, had no fixed working hours, were not paid monthly 
wages nor any guaranteed payment but only commission was paid, not 
subject to disciplinary control, no control/supervision over the nature of 
work to be performed, not paid wages by the Bank but got charges paid 
by the borrowers, no retirement age, were not subject to transfer, were 
D not barred from carrving on any avocation or occupation, the jewel 
appraisers, therefore, are not employees of the Bank. (26-F-H; 27-A-DI 
Puri Urban Co-operative Bank v. Madhusudan Sahu and Anr., (1992) 
II LLJ 6; Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Shops 
and Establishments and Anr., 1197413 SCC 498; Canara's Bank case (1981) 
E II LLJ 189; Dhrangadhra Chemical Works ltd v. Stale ofSaurashtra, (19571 
SCR 152; Shining Tailors v. Industrial Tribunal ll. U.P., (1983] 4 SCC 464 
and Chintaman Rao v. State of MP., (19581SCR1340, referred to. 
F 
Indian Bank v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal etc., (1990) I LLJ 
50, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7986 of 2004. 
r 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 18.2.2004 of the Madras 
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 465 of 200 I. 
G 
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, K.V. Viswanathan, B. Raghunath, T.S. Gopalan 
H 
and Ms. Mohana for the Appellant. 
Jitendra Sharma, C.R. Chandrasekaran, S. Nandakumar, P.N. Jha, Dalip 
Kapoor, K. Mayilsam and V.N. Raghupathyu for the Respondents. 
GEN. MAN .. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK''· ll'ORKMEN. ALL INDIA OVERSEAS BANK EMP. UNION [PASAYATJ} 2 J 
Ms. Meera Mathur for Intervention. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. The Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter referred 
to as the 'Bank') calls in question legality of view expressed in a judgment 
rendered by the Industrial Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai(hereinafter referred B 
to as the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.