- (1.) The petitioner who was a deposit collector engaged with the respondent bank since October 1978 was terminated from his services in the year 1998. He did not come through any specific order of termination but his services were not utilized and he was not permitted to work with the respondent as a Collection Agent. The petitioner would contend that his credentials were never in doubt and as a matter of fact in a letter of communication dated 28.10.1998 by the Senior Manager of the Bank to his Zonal Office, it was specifically observed that the reintroduction of the deposit collector's services would bring a lot of clientale and they shall be permitted to allow the petitioner to resume work of collection whose agency had still not been suspended. It was only in the reply filed before this Court in response to the petition that it was stated that he had not been permitted to resume duty and his agency was terminated from April, 1999.
(2.) The counsel appearing for the Bank would contend that the petitioner was employed as an agent through an agreement entered into by the petitioner with the Bank on 30.8.1980 and the agreement provided for the termination of the agency at the discretion of the bank without any notice through clause 1 in the agreement and that it further provided through clause 14 that the termination could be effected without assigning any reason. The clause also provided that the Collection Agent shall not be entitled to raise any dispute as to whether the termination was lawful or not. The Bank would therefore contend that no action is possible before this Court to accommodate the prayer for resuming the agency or to give a positive direction for renewing the agency in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) The status of the Collection Agency came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank, 2001 3 SCC 36where the Industrial Tribunal had originally directed absorption to persons who were less than 45 years of age and also granted gratuity and full backwages in respect of persons who are above 45 years. This direction of the Tribunal in the appeal to the High Court stood modified to vacate the direction for absorption and restricted the claim only for backwages, conveyance allowance, gratuity etc. In the further appeal by the Bank's Association, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was a control of Banks on these classes of workmen and affirmed a finding of fact that there was a relationship of master and servant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that deposit Clerks were not regular employees of the Bank and they were not in any way prevented from doing other works and earn a living for themselves. Notwithstanding the scope of such other employment for the Deposit Clerks, the Court held that they were nevertheless "workmen" as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It found that there was a clear relationship of master and servant between the Deposit Clerks and the concerned bank and affirmed the decisions of the High Court awarding backwages, gratuity and other allowances.;