TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tial work. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The 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 advances agricultural loans to its constituents and also members of the staff. The All India Indian Overseas Bank Employees Union (in short the 'Union') raised a dispute taking the stand that the jewel appraisers engaged by the bank are part time workers of the bank. On the basis of the demand raised reference was made by the Central Government and on 19.2.1990 following dispute was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication: Whether the demand of All India Overseas Bank Employees Union to treat the jewel appraisers engaged by the Bank as part time workmen of the Bank is justified? If so, to what relief, if any, are they entitled? 3. In support of the demand the stand taken was that the jewel appraisers employed for particular branches of the bank are also utilized for certain clerical jobs like entering applications for jewel loans. They are also to go other branches as to the apprai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appraisers of Indian Bank were entirely different from the terms and conditions of jewel appraisers of the appellant Indian Overseas Bank. The Tribunal relied upon the decision in Indian Bank's case (supra) and answered the reference in the affirmative. It made a comparison of the terms and conditions of the two Banks. 6. Union filed writ petition claiming that the Tribunal should have granted relief from 1.4.1978 i.e. date of demand. Appellant-Bank questioned legality of the award by filing a writ petition. As noted above, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in the LPA. In support of the appeal learned Counsel for the appellant-Bank submitted that in the year 1975 the appellant started the process of sanctioning loans on deposit of jewellery and security for which jewel appraisers were engaged who were paid on commission basis. On 20.1.1983 Government declined reference because independent contracts covered the arrangement. The Union filed writ petition before the High Court which by its judgment dated 22.11.1989 directed the Central Government to refer the dispute to the Tribunal. The Tribunal instead of assessing the evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal quoted from the judgment of the Madras High Court in great detail and referred to Ex. M-3 which relied on some conclusions of Tiny Deposits Scheme which was not the case of the jewel appraisers before the High Court. The Tribunal appears to have quoted from the said judgment of the Madras High Court and without applying the conditions which were the subject-matter of adjudication in the said case to the facts of the present case drew parallel. It was submitted that the factual scenario in the Puri Co-operative Bank's case (supra) was almost akin to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the ratio has full application in the present case. Reference was also made to a Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Canara's Bank where for the purpose of the Shop and Commercial Establishment Act jewel appraisers were held to be not employees. 8. It was, however, submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that this was done for the purpose of finding out the parameters. It was submitted that the reference was made because prima facie the Government felt that jewel appraisers were workmen under the Act and in that context nature of work, which was the same as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onceptually different. After accepting that the real issues were not focused by the Tribunal, learned Single Judge held that a substantial portion of the Bank's business was because of the contribution made by the jewel appraisers without indicating as to how same was relevant for the purpose of adjudication. The Division Bench in a very cryptic manner observed that it had perused the evidence and the documents which substantiated nature of the job of the jewel appraisers and they were also doing the clerical job. The circulars issued by the Bank were not considered relevant and it was noted that the ratio in Indian Bank's case (supra) applies. 11. A few distinguishing facts need to be noted. In Indian Bank's case (supra) there was evidence to show that the jewel appraisers work regularly for four hours. It was clearly admitted in the instant case by the witness of jewel appraisers that there were no fixed period of work and they could come and go at any point of time. In Indian Bank's case (supra) the bank had disciplinary control on the jewel appraisers. In the instant case it was admitted by the witnesses that the Bank did not exercise any disciplinary control ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
