- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) An industrial dispute was raised by the first respondent before the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) by which a question as to whether his termination of service was justified or not was referred to. The case put-forth by the respondent is that he was engaged by the appellant on April 9, 1984 as a Peon on an emolument of Rs. 200. 00 per month; that he was to keep watch over the goods locked up in stores and the small scale industrial units which were financed by the Bank; that he had been carrying on his duties under the guidance of the concerned Branch Manager; that pursuant to a Notification dated July 20, 1991 he made an application for regularisation but his services were terminated w. e. f. September 4, 1991 without assigning any reason; that the Branch Manager had recommended his case for the appointment of the respondent on permanent basis by the letter dated May 23, 1990 despite which termination order had been issued. The appellant resisted the claim in dispute by stating that in the course of its business a large number of godowns have to be dealt with which are hypothecated with the Bank and in certain cases in order to see that appropriate security is provided to the goods in question the loanee is requested to make suitable arrangement for security of the goods kept therein and the appellant had asked the loanee in the present case to post a watchman to look after the goods kept in the godowns. Though it may be at the instance of the Bank, the loanee had appointed the respondent and requested the Bank to debit its accounts towards. his emoluments. That arrangement was carried on and respondent had neither been appointed by the appellant nor had he worked under the guidance of the Branch Manager concerned.
(3.) On this aspect of the matter as to the: non-existence of the relationship of employer and the workman, the finding of the Tribunal is as follows: "Thus the petitioner was appointed by the, Bank itself to safeguard its own interest. The' petitioner is a representative of the Bank. He watches the hypothecated goods of the loanee. The Branch Manager under Ex. M3 letter dated May 23,1990 addressed to the Regional Manager to provide employment to the' petitioner. He has admitted therein "taking into consideration his youth, welfare and the length of service he has put in with us indirectly relying in our good faith, I recommend that he may be provided with employment opportunity on a permanent basis. ";