SHIVNANDAN SHARLIA versus THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1427 · Decided: 15-03-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. 
' 
-
! 't
S.C~R .. 
SUPREllIE COURT REPORTS· 
1427 
and of the Calcutta High Court in. 11Iathurapore 
19;5 
Zamindary Co. Ltd. v. Bhasaram · lllandal(') 
and 
lk"-h- 5 · 
/ 
Prabashinee Debi v. Rasiklal Banerji(') are correct. Juga '' v":'. ara 
As at present advised, I would like to express no 
RawC-Otton 
opinion as to whether the expression "by operation 
· Co. Ud. 
of law" can be given the interpretation suggested by 
my learned brother Das, J., as it is uiinecessary to do 
so in the present appeal. . 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· 
· · 
· 
· 
·. Appeal di;"inissed. 
SHIVNANDAN ·SHARl\IA 
. v. 
THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK LTD.· · 
-
--
. 
[ViviA:N Bos~, JAG~NNADHADAS and SINIIA JJ.]. 
-. ' . 
-
Master and servant-Banker-Agreement .. between Bank and -
TreasUrers~Treasurers, wheth'e:Y sirvantS or independent - contractors 
-Cashier appointed by Treasitrer-Whether servant of the Bank. 
. 
.. 
I 
. 
• 
' 
• 
• l 
_ . 
. , 
{. 
• 
· l 
. The appellant was appoiµted head. cashier in one of the branches 
of the .respondent Ballk by,'tbe Tfeasurers who .wer_e ~D. charge Qf~h6 
Cash Department of the Bank by virtue of an agreeffient between 
them .. The question arose as to whetner the appellant' was' an•: em· 
p!oyee of the Bank. 
•. · ' 
· 
· 
. 1 
Held, (i) that the te~s oi the ~gree~ent ciearly showecl that 
the Treasurers were servants ofthe Bank and not fodependent con~ 
tractors; and tha~ 
·1 
• 
1 
t 
:-" · ... , 
(ii) as the direction and control of the appellant ancl of the 
ministerial staff in charge of tlie· Cash Departl!lent of the Bank was 
··entirely vested.in:the Bank, the appellan~was an.employee of the 
Bank. 
· 
... 
· 
. , 
, 
. 
.... . 
t 
· · , · 
. 
If a ma."sier employ"s a s~rvant and autho.rizes hiin-to e~ploy·a 
number of persons to do a. particular job and -to guarantee_the_ii fide~ 
lity and efficiency for a cash consideration, the ·employe8s thUS ap-
pointed by the servant would be, equally with the employer, servants 
of the master. · 
... i 
. ! · · ; 
Th.e question a3 to whose employe0 a parlicUlar : person'; hi h~~ 
to be determined with reference to tb6 facts ·and( circUmstarices 'of 
·each individual case, and among the many ~sts · by which to as~r
tain who is the employer, the most satisfactory one is to ask who fa 
entitled to tell the employee the way in which ha is to .do the work 
upon which he is enga:;ed. · 
· 
. 
: 
. (1) [192!] I.L.R. 51 Cal. 703. 
(2) [1931] I.L.R. 59 Cal. 297. 
ImamJ. 
1955 
March 15 
195L 
Shicnandan 
Sharma 
v. 
The .P-unjab 
National Barik Ltd. 
1428 
SUPREME :coURT:REPORTS ,. 
[1955] · 
' Don6van· -V. lAing, Wharton'&·· Down·,.COnitruction Syndicate 
([1893] 1 Q.B.D. 629) and Mersey.Pocks & Harbour }3oard v . . r;ogginr 
& Griffit~ (Liverpool) Ltd. (l1947] A.C.I.), referred to. · · 
· C1v1L 
APPELLATE 
· JuR1so1cnoN : 
Civil .. Appeal 
No. 207 of 1954. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment ' and 
Order· dated· the 31st day of August 1953 of the La' 
bour 
Appellate Tribunal 
of 
India; 
Lucknow, · rn 
Appeal No. III-57 ot 1953. 
A. S. R. Chari 
(Ba";;;a-Shzv Charan Singh and 
M. R. Krishna Pillai, with him), for the appellant. 
Achhru Ram (Naunit Lal, with him), for the re'-
~~= 
. 
. 
1955. 
March 
15. 
The Judgment . of the Court 
was delivered by 
·S1NHA. 
J.'-This is an appeal. by special 
leave 
against the orders of · · the Lucknow Bench of the 
Labour Appellate Tribunal ·of India (hereinafter ·.to be 
referred to as "The Appellate Tribunal") dated the . 
31st August 1953, setting aside the award dated ·the 
13th October 1952 made by . the · Chairman, ·Central 
Government 
Industrial 
Tribunal, 
Calcutta 
(herein· 
after ·to be referred to as · "The· Tribunal") reinstat-
ing 'ihe appellant as the head cashier. with ,back salarv 
under the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called 
... The Bank"). 
.. 
. 
The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be 
stated. The appellant started his service as the head 
cashier in the Una Branch of the Bank on the 18th 
June 1949. The Cash Department of the Bank is in 
charge of Treasurers. The relation between the Bank 
and the Treasurers . is evidenced by ail agreement d3ted 
the 1st May 1944 (Ex. 1) which will be noticed in 
· detail 
hereinafter~ That · was an agreertrent ·between 
the Bank ··'and · "Messrs Rai Bahadur Karam ' Chand 
Puri & Bros". That firm was appointed the Tr.casurers 
at the head office .of the Bank -and other places iri and 
outside the Punjah. On the 28th Septemhcr-1951 the 
District Manager
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.