Ghosh, J. - (1.) This application arises out of an interim award made and published by the respondent No. 1 on March 4, 1972 deciding therein that the respondent No. 2 the Development Officer under the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus was entitled to present the application under Section 33A of the said Act before the respondent No 1.
(2.) The petitioner at all material times had been carrying on General Insurance Business. For the purpose of its business the petitioner employs several kinds of workmen, to wit (a) Agents who introduced business and are remunerated by a commission on such business, (b) Development Officers, (c) Inspectors and (4) Organisers. The Development Officers select and introduce insurance agents and guide such agents in the matter of procuring business and also supervise the work of such agents. The remunerations of such Development Officers who are whole time employees of petitioner are fixed on monthly basis subject to the condition that the agents introduced by them should procure business earning such minimum amount of premium, as was fixed by the petitioner.
(3.) The respondent No. 2 was appointed a Development Officer by the petitioner on probation for six months from the date of his joining and was liable to be confirmed on the determination of the merit of his performance. The duties of the respondent No. 2 was to recruit, train and control agents in the area of his work, to service business under his jurisdiction and to perform other duties as might be entrusted by the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was to procure through the agents working under him a premium income of at least Rs. 50,000/- per year on fire, marine, motor and miscellaneous business. The remuneration of the respondent No. 2 was liable to be reviewed periodically but not later than three months and was liable to be revised when so reviewed. The petitioner under the contract of employment had the right to review' and alter the terms of appointment if the business position or services of the respondent No. 2 were found to be unsatisfactory.;