Indian Bank v. All India Bank Deposit Collectors Federation & Anr

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judsment Reserved on : October 01, 2015 Judsment Delivered on : October 05, 2015 + LPA 551/2015 INDIAN BANK Appellant Represented by: MrJagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA PRADEEP NANDRAJOG. J. For orders see LPA No.429/2015. (PRADEEPNAN^B^JOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 05, 2015 mamta n THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judsment Reserved on : October 01, 2015 Judsment Delivered on : October 05, 2015 + • LPA 429/2015 i. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Appellant Represented by: MrJagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus ! ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B. S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan^ Raj an, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 • LPA 432/2015 • • • i KOTAKMAHINDRA BANK LTD \ Appellant Represented by: Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan. Advocatewith Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 433/2015 VIJAYABANK ' Appellant ; Representedby: Mr.JagatArora, Advocatewith Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora,' Advocates LPA No.429/2015 & coim.matters ' / • - . i / ; • . / • versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by; Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-L . Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan' Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates, for R-2 I LPA 434/2015 ' ^ ' KARNATAKA BANK LTD Appellant Represented by: Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate with • Mr.Raj at Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus ^ ALL INDIABANKDEPOSIT i COLLECTORSFEDERATION&ANR Respondents^ Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan; Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA436/2015 ' ; SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD Appellant " Represented by: Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Raj at Arora hnd Ms.Ritu Arora, i Advocates versus ^ ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-F, Dr.K.B.S .Rajan. Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA No.429/2015 & conn.matters / / • LPA 437/2015 CENTPIALBANK OF INDIA Appellant Represented by: MrJagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat.Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Raj an, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 441/2015 STATE BANK OF MYSORE Represented by: Appellant Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Representedby: Mr.InderjitSingh,Advocatefor R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan. Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 44-6/2015' STATE BANK OF PATIALA Represented by: LPANo.429/2015 & corm.matters Appellant Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocatewith Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus / /' •• f'-A, • - -''-A A, .1 'A "I ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT •& ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan' Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 ' LPA 573/2015 & CM No.17172/2015 LAKSHMIVILAS BANK LTD : Appellant ; Represented by: Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora'and Ms.Ritu Arora, • Advocates versus ALL INDIABANKDEPOSIT& ANR Respondents; Representedby: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with , Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshanl; Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 454/2015 FEDERAL BANK LTD Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus . . , ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT ^ COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents: Representedby: Mr.InderjitSingh,AdvocateforR-F Dr.K.B.S.Raj an. Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 455/2015 LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters Vi % - .-iy, : • • II CORPORATION BANK Appellant Represented by: MrJagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, ^ Advocates versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan-- Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 497/2015 ANDHRA BANK Appellant Represented by: Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT ; COLLECTORSFEDERATION & ANR ! Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit-Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajah, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 • LPA 498/2015 DENABANK Appellant Representedby: Mr.JagatArora,Advocatewith Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates LPANo.429/2015& conn.matters Page5.of43 / /• versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, JVh.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 513/2015 . CANARA BANK Appellant i Represented by: Mr.Naveen R. Nath, Advocate with Ms.Hetu Arora, Advocate •j- , - versus A • - • ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B!S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi. B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 . ^ LPA 516/2015 SYNDICATE BANK Appellant Represented by: Mr.Naveen R. Nath, Advocate with Ms.Hetu Arora, Advocate versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Representedby: Mrdnderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B:S.Raj an. Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan LPA No.429/2015 & conn.matters / Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 551/2015 INDIAN BANK Appellant Represented by: MrJagat Arora^Advocate with Mr.Raj at Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S .Rajan. Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan ^ Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 350/2015 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK , Appellant Represented by: Mr.Jagat Arora,-Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora.and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates ; versus ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR .....Respondents Representedby: Mr.Inderjit Singh,Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with Mis.RashmiB.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 351/2015 UNION BANK OF INDIA Appellant Representedby: Mr.JagatArora,Advocatewith LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters fh Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus ALL E^roIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORSFEDERATION& ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B. S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and . ' Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LPA 357/2015 UCO BANK Appellant Represented by: Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus-ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with ^ Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 LFA 359/2015 STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR Appellant Represented by: Mr.Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.Rajat Arora and Ms.Ritu Arora, Advocates versus LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters / ALL INDIA BANK DEPOSIT COLLECTORS FEDERATION & ANR Respondents Represented by: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for R-1 Dr.K.B.S.Rajan, Advocate with Ms.Rashmi B.Singh, Mr.Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.Vijay Sharma and Mr.Arjun, Advocates for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA }L PRABEEP NANDRAJOG. J.

¶1Syndicate Bank was the original pioneer of a movement to penetrate banking in small muffasil towns when it introduced a Pigmy Deposit Scheme. iBy virtue of the depositsSyndicateBank grew from a pigmyto a giant. Others followed, giving it names such as Honey Bees Scheme, Small Depositors Scheme, Mini Deposit Salap Sanchey, Pragati Deposit Scheme, Nityha Laxmi Deposit Scheme, Timely Deposit Collection Scheme, Honey Deposit Collection Scheme, Janta Deposit Scheme etc. As per the scheme, the banks appointed Deposit Collectors who would go to the house or the work place of the customers and collect a daily deposit which was credited to the account of the customer. The customer would earn interest on the deposit and the bank would augment its resources. It was a win-win situation for the bank as well as the customer. The daily Deposit Collector would earn a commission on the deposit collected.

¶2The daily Deposit. Collectors called Commission Agents by some banks, formed associations which marched under the banner of a Federation. Through the Unions as also the Federation these Commission LPANo.429/2015 & conn-.matters / ;v 17-Agents/Deposit Collectors made a demand to be given regular employment. Conciliation proceedings resulted in a failure, leading ultimately to a reference being made by the Government of India to the Industrial Tribunal on October 03, 1980, which reads as under;- "Whether the demands ofthe Commission Agents or as the case may be Deposit Collectors Employed in the Bank listed in the Annexure that they are entitled to pay scales, allowances and other service conditions available to regular clerical employees of those banks is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled andfrom which date? "

¶3Another reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal by the Central Government(date not known), but resulting in registration of ID No'.108/84, which reads as under "Whether the demand of the Commission Agent or as the case may be Deposit Collector employed in the Bank listed in the Annexure that they are entitled to pay scales, allowances and other service conditions available to regular clerical employees of these Banks is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen concern entitled andform which date? "

¶4Succinctlystated,casepleadedby the Deposit Collectors/Commission Agentswas that to fulfil its objectivethe banks appointedthem as workmen to go to the houses or work place of the customersand collect a deposit daily. The money collectedwas remittedto the bapk(s) concernedon the very next day, as per the terms of the employment. The DepositCollectors performedcanvassingof all types of depositssuch as ^SavingBankAccount, Fixed Deposit,RecurringDepositswithoutany remuneration,this they did in addition to their normal duty of daily collection of money from the customersat the door steps of the customers. For these additionalduties LPA No'.429/2015& conn.matters / /' performedby themtheywerenotpaidany commissiop. Theyusedto attend the bank every day in the early hours and made entries in the collection register(s)maintainedby the bank(s). In somebranchestheyusedto prepare the ledgersas well. Theypreparedcardsin whichparticularsofthe amount receivedby them from the depositorsduring the seven days of the week were recorded. Some ofthe banks maintainpass book insteadof cards. In such cases, entrieswere made by the DepositCollectorsin the pass book. They used to go to the depositors as and when the depositors wanted, irrespectiveof the timings. In short, the work performedby the Deposit Collectorswas equivalentto the work performedby the cashiers in the banksas well as the clericalstaff. They claimedthatthe workdone by them _.\ -was an integralpart of the bankingindustry. They claimedto be working under the direct controland supervisionofthe bank management,and that the managementofthe bank was theirpay master. Thus, they claimedthat there was a relationship of employer and employee between the managementand them. As per themthe benefitoftlje servicesrenderedby them was for the bank. The livelihood of the Deposit Collectors substantiallydependedon the labourrenderedby them, to produceservices for the benefitand satisfactionofthe bankingenterprises. Consideringthe overall position and the circumstancesin which these Deposit Collectors renderedserviceand labourto the banks, and taking into considerationthe remunerationpaid to them, they claimedthat the agreementtaken by the managementofthebankswas nothingbutdeceptivedevicesinventedfor the purpose of denying them the scales, allowances and other conditions availableto regularclericalemployeesofthe banks.

¶5The banks denied the case pleaded by the daily Deposit Collectors LPANo.429/2015•& conn.matters i H of and urged that their status was that of Commission Agents. As per the banks the Deposit Collectors were free to chose their working hours and the number of customers they would contact. Relevant would it be to note that the banks admitted the averments in the statement of claim regarding nature of duties performed by the Deposit Collectors.,

¶6In view of the evidence led, vide award dated December 22, 1988, ID No.14 of 1980 and connected Industrial Disputes in which references were made were disposed of by the Industrial Tribunal giving the following directions "1) All those Deposit Collectors and Agents who are below the age of45 years on 3-10-1980 (the date ofthefirst reference of this industrial dispute) shall he considered for regular 4^ absorptionfor the post of Clerks and Cashiers if they are , matriculates and above including qualified Graduates and Post Graduates. They may be taken to Banks service as regular employees if they pass the qualifyingexaminationsconducted by the Banks. Those who are absorbed shall be treated onpar with regular clerical employeesof the Bank. Those who are qualified with 8^^ Class and below Matriculationsshall be consideredfor absorption as Sub-Staffby'conductingqualifying examinations. 2) As regards the Deposit Collectorsand Agents who are above 45 years of age on the date 3-10-1980 and also those who are unwilling to the absorbed in Regular Banks service they shall be paid the fall back wage of f750.00per months linkedwith minimum deposit of f7,500.00per month and they should bepaid incentiveremunerationat 2%for collectionof over and above ^,500.00 per month and theyshould also pay uniform conveyance allowance of ^50.00 per month for. deposits of less than T10,000.00and f100.00 per monthfor depositsofmore than ^10,000.00upto or above ^0,000.00per month. They should be paid Gratuity of 15 days commission for eachyear ofservicerendered." LPA No.429/2015 & coim.matters / ./' • ; I

¶7Needless to state, the Industrial Tribunal accorded status of a workmanto the dailyDepositCollectorsand as a consequenceof saidstatus accorded, issued the directions in the award abovemotedin paragraph 6. Pithilyput the DepositCollectorswere held entitledto a minimumfall back, wage of f750/- per month linked with minimum deposit of f7,500/- per month to be collectedby them and above f7,500/-.a commissionof 2%. Besides a conveyance allowance of ^0/- per month for deposits up to 0,000/-and ^00/- permonthfor depositsabove fl 0,000/-per month.

¶8Aggrievedby the award datedDecember22, 1988, the IndianBanks Associationfiled a writ petitionbefore the High Court of.AridhraPradesh which was disposed of on March 28, 1997. The decisionis reported as N'' \ • •

(1998)I LLJ 23 (AP) IndianBanks AssociationFs. Workmen ofSyndicate Bank & Ors.

¶9Upholdingthe award in so far it accordedstatus ofworkmento the DepositCollectors,the High Courtset asidethe first directionin the award concerningregularabsorptionofthe depositcollectorswho were belowthe age of45 yearsiftheypossessedthe educationalqualificationsprescribedin the award. The second direction concerning fall back ,wages and conveyanceallowancewasupheld.

¶10The onward march took the partiesto the Supreme Court. Petitions seekingSpecialLeaveto .Appealfiledby the IndianBanksAssociationand Associationof the Daily DepositCollectorsagainstthe decisiondated March28, 1997 ofthe.AndhraPradeshHigh Courtwere allowed. Leaveto Appeal was granted. The resultantcivil appealswere decidedon February 13, 2001; and the decisionis reportedas 2001 SCC (L&S)504IndianBanks LPANo.429/2015&conn.matters f^ oP Association Vs. Workmen ofSyndicate Bank & Ors. Dismissing the appeals filed bythe workersand upholdingthe decisionofthe AndhraPradeshHigh Court that the daily Deposit Collectors could not be regularized and directions issued to said extent in the award were rightly set aside by the AndhraPradeshHighCourt,the SupremeCourtupheldthe viewtakenin the award and upheldby the High Courtthat the,daily DepositCollectorswere workmen; albeit part time workmen. Noting the definitionof wages in Section2(rr) of the IndustrialDisputesAct, 1947 the Supreme Court held that the commissionreceived by the daily depositors was a wage which was dependanton the productivity. (Para25)

¶11Thejourneywhichwas commencedby the dailyDepositCollectorsin the year 1980 came to an end in the year 2001. The second round of litigationcommencedimmediately. As per the DepositCollectorsthe fall back wages determinedvide award dated December 22, 1988, was with referenceto the cost of livingreckonedon the consumerprice index of 100 with base year 1960. The daily Deposit Collectorstook the stand that inflationand rise in the cost of livingwarrantedan upward revisionin the fall back wages. The demandfor increasein fall back wages was raisedby thevariousunionsofthe bankemployeesas alsothe federationoftheunions uponthe IndianBanksAssociation. The conciliationproceedingsfailedand a referencewas made by the CentralGovernmentto the IndustrialTribunal of a disputeonAugust06, 2003,whichreads as under:- "Whether the demand of All India Banks Deposit Collectors' Federationfor linkage of fall back wages of T750.00 as determinedby awarddated22.12.1988by IndustrialTribunal, Hyderabad, which is based on ConsumerPrice Index at 500 points (Base 1960 = 100) to thepresentConsumerPriceIndex LPANo.429/2015&coim.matters , Page14of43 and their upward revision is justified? Whether the demand of All India Banks Deposit : Collectors' Federation for reimbursement of conveyance expenses at revised and enhanced rate is justified? If so, what relief the aid deposit collectors, employed by various banks represented by the Indian Banks' Association, are entitled to and from which date? "

¶12The Indian Banks Association raised an objection to the reference on the plea that the daily Deposit Collectors were not its employees.

¶13On the pleadings of the parties three issues were settled by the Industrial Tribunal as under:- "(i) Asper terms ofreference sent by Government ofIndia.

(ii) Was there any privity of contract between the concerned workmanand theIBA? ifnot, whatare consequences?

(Hi) Relief" •

¶14Not wanting to take any chance, the All. India Bank Deposit Collectors Federation and the All India Bank Deposit Workmen Union, who were espousing the cause of the daily Deposit Collectors before the Industrial Tribunal filed an application on January 31, 2005 praying to implead48 banksas respondents. The said applicationwas allowedon July 19, 2005. 40 banks were impleadedas respondentsfor the reason 8 out of the 48 banks sought to be impleadedhad ceased to exist and summonswere served upon these banks, being : (1) Syndicate Bank, (2) State Bank of Hyderabad,(3) IndianBank, (4) VijayaBankLtd., (5) VysyaBankLtd., (6) CorporationBank Ltd., (7) State Bank of India, (8) CentralBank of India,

(9) Andhra Banlc Ltd., (10) Canara Bank, (11) Tamil Nadu Bank, (12) AllahabadBank, (13) Bank of Baroda, (14) Bank of India, (15) Bank of LPA No.429/2015 & conn.matters ' I' . / .' Maharashtra, (16) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., (17) Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.,

(18) Dena Banlc, (19) Dhana Lakshmi Bank Ltd., (20) Federal Bank Ltd.,

(21) Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., (22) Kamataka Bank, (23) Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, (24) Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd., (25) Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., (26) Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd., (27) Punjab & Sind Bank, (28) Punjab National Bank, (29) Sangli Bank Ltd., (30) The South India Bank Ltd., (31) State Bank of Bikaner& Jaipur, (32) StateBank of Indore, (33) StateBank of Mysore, (34) State Bank of Patiala, (35) State Bank of Saurashtra,(36) State Bank of Travancore, (37) Syndicate Bank, (38) Union Bank of India,

(39) UnitedBankof India,and (40) UnitedCommercialBank.

¶15The impleadedbanksfileda statementof defence;andthe distillate;of X the mixture of the pleadingsof the banks was that the Deposit Collectors were called Commission Agents and hence were not the employees of the bank. The bankspleadedthat takinginto accountthe paymentsmadeto the CommissionAgents in terms of the Award dated December22, 1988 and interestpaid to the depositors;after defi-ayingthe administrativecosts and staff costs, the banks were incurring a loss pertaining to the deposits in question. Thus, as per the banks, any revisioninthe fall backwages would make the scheme unviable, and that the claim to enhance the fall back wages,linkedtothe consumerpriceindex,wouldbesuicidalfor the scheme. Some banksraisedthepleathattheywere not havingany suchscheme. The banks which were impleadedas parties and claimednot to have any such depositschemeare: (i) BankofIndia, (ii) Punjab& SindBank(iii) Oriental Banlc of Commerce,(iv) Bank of Baroda,(v) ICICI Bank (afterthe merger of SangliBankLtd.), and (vi) AllahabadBank. Two banks: (i) State Bank of Hyderabad, and (ii) State Bank of Patiala closed the daily deposit LPANo.429/2015& conn.matters / " /.- schemes on February 20, 2010 and September 01, 2008 respectively.

¶16Shri I.P.Ponnusamy, Shri Ashwani Vijh and Shri Ashish Bilala were examined by the All India Bank Deposit Collectors Federation to substantiate the claim. Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri A.N.Sivanand Babu were examined by the All India Bank Deposit Collectors Workmen Uniomto substantiate the claim. Shri K.Ganesan, Vice President of the Indian Banks Association was examined to establish its defence. Shri Neeraj Gupta. (AssistantGeneralManager,Punjab NationalBank), Shri SatheeshKumar (AGM, South Indian Bank), Shri JNS Murali (Senior Manager Vijaya Bank), Shri Kusal Pal (Senior Manager, Central Bank of India), Shri L.Maklcad(Manager(P), State Bank of Bikanerand Jaipur), Shri Shyamal 4^, Kumar Singh (Chief Manager, Indian Bank), Shri C.M.Duggal, (AGM, FederalBank), Shri Ajit Kumar Srivastava,(Manager(Law) CanafaBank), Shri Sunil Prakash (AssistantManager (Law) Union Bank of India), Shri Arun Kumar Tyagi (Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank), Shri SudershanD.Sheth, (Chief Manager, Kamataka Bank), Shri Joginder Pal Bhagat (ChiefManager,UCO Bank), Shri Anil Kumar Y (ChiefManager, StateBankof Travancore),ShriR.Venkatesh(ChiefManager,StateBankof Hyderabad) and Shri P.Venugopal (State Bank of Hyderabad) wbre examinedby the banksto sustaintheir defence..

¶17Vide Award dated October 07, 2013, with reference to Issue No.2 settled by the learnedIndustrialTribunal,which has been noted by us; in paragraph13 above,the learnedPresidingOfficerofthe IndustrialTribunal held,thatinview ofthe factthatthe individualbankslikelyto be affectedLy the awardwere impleadedas partieson July 19, 2005,the saidissuebecame a non-issue i.e. what was the consequenceof there being no privity;of LPA No.429/2015&conn.matters 17of43 / • / . X /• contract between the concerned workmen and the Indian Banks Association.

¶18Referringto the definitionofan industrialdispute>asper Section2(k) of the IndustrialDisputesAct, 1947 and the definitionof a workmanas per Section2(s) of the said Act; notingvariousjudgmentsof variouscourts on the scope of what would be an industrial dispute and who would be a workman, the Industrial Tribunal held that the Deposit Collectors were workmenand the disputewhich they had raisedconcernedtheir wages and hence was an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal discussedres-judicata, and with reference to the earlier litigation terminating in the opinionofthe Supreme Court in which it was held that the daily Deposit Collectors are workmen and the remuneration received by them, called commission,wouldqualifyto be a wage;the Tribunalreinforcedits decision thattheseDepositCollectors/CommissionAgentswereworkmen.

¶19The Industrial Tribunal thereafter noted various decisions concerning the power of an IndustrialAdjudicatorand concludedthat an Industrial Adjudicatorhad verywidepowers,to evenvarythe termsagreedto between the managementand the workmen while settling the wages payable and conditions of employment. . - 20l Proceedingto note the evidenceand the contentionofthe Union and the Federationin para 119 of the award and terminatingthe discussionin paragraph 166, succinctly noted by us the Tribunal highlighted that minimumwages were increasedfrom tinie to time and thatthe conceptofa minimum wage was by taking-into accountthat the family of a workman would comprisethree units, the husbandand the wife as one unit each and two childrenconstitutingone unit. Daily,calorieintakeof2700 caloriesfor an averageadult,clothingrequiring72 yards ofclothper family. Minimum LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters rent for housing and miscellaneous expenses for fuel etc. Wages of regular employeesofthe bank increasedduringthis periodwhichwas fl,228/-per clerk in the year 1980 having gone up to. fl 2,064/- per month as of the year 2001. Consumer price index, with base 100 as of the year 1960 which vyas 500 points as of the year 1980 having crossed 4400 points. The profits earned by the banks during the year 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Tribunal noted that a fair wage had to relate to the work load and a minimum remuneration so that a workman living in a modernized civilized society had sufficient means to sustain himself and the family. The Tribunal tabulated in para 150 of the award minimum wages notified on April 01, 2003 for unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and highly skilled workmen in the fields of X agriculture,stonecrushing,sweepingand cleaning,watchand ward, loading and unloading, mining and construction activities. The Tribunal also noted minimum wages notified by the Government of Delhi as on April 01, 2013 for various scheduled employments. The Tribunal noted that areas were classified into category 'A' 'B' and 'C.

¶21The Industrial Tribunal recognized that the point of view of the baiiks had to be kept in mind, and for which we may highlight para 126 of the Award, in which the Tribunal recognized that the following counter balancing circumstances have to be taken into account:-r-

(i) Unreasonable inroads into the profit of the employer may have the tendency to drive the capital away from the fruilful improvement and may prejudicially affect the capital formation.

(ii) Wage-structure, which is beyond the financial capacity of the employer,may lead to the closure ofthe industry itself LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters Page 19 of43 - f / /• v.- ^7

(Hi) Wage structure, being a long range plan, a long range view of the financial capacity of the industry should be taken into consideration.

(iv) For consideringincrease in the wage, increase should be correlated to minimum wage, in relation to financial capacity ofthe industryto bear the burden.

(v) Effectofincreaseon othersimilarindustriesin the region, should be taken into consideration, i.e. a wage structure should take into consideration on industry cum region basis, after giving careful considerationto the ability of the industry to pay.

(vi) Total pay packet of the workmen, including dearness allowance, other allowance and other benefits enjoyed by them.

(vii) Effect of rise in prices, resultingfrom the rise in wages, which may affect other members of the community and evenprejudiciallyaffectlivingconditionsof the workmen themselves.

(via) The effectof the rise in process on the internationaltrade \ ofthe country.

¶22Thereafter in paragraphs 155 to 179 the Tribunal discussed the concept of a permanentemployee, a temporaryemployee and a part time employee and that on April 27, 2010, the 9^^ Bipartite.Settlementwas arrived at between the association of the banks and the various unions, as per whicha parttime employeewas one who workedfor three hours a day; fixingwage ofsuch employeeat 1/3'"'^ofthe scaleofpay in whicharegular employee was to be paid wages. The Tribunal thereafternoted the pay scales of clerical staff and subordinate staff to bring home the point that as LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters per the bipartite settlement a clerical staff who had put in 20 years' service would receive basic pay in sum of fl 9,300/- and a subordinate staff would receive basic pay in sum of 1,350/-. On this standard the Tribunal held in para 158 that the fall back wage would therefore come to ^,400/- per month, being 1/3'''^ of what would be received by a regular employee performingclericalduties. This beingthe basicpay, the Tribunalnotedthat other allowances(not mentionedin the award,but obviouslywouldbe house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance and travelling allowance) would also be payable. The Tribunal thereafter noted the financial capacity of the banks and tabulated the same in paragraphs 175 to 180 of the award. Thereafter, the pith and substance of the reasoning of the Tribunal was S . recordedinparagraphs183 to 190 of the award,whichread as under:- "755. With above standards in mind, the Tribunal thinks it expedienttofix minima limitof collection,to which,a deposit collector should adhere in all circumstances. For ascertaining that limit of collection, it is to be taken note of as to what amount of money is being collected by the deposit collector in a month. Shri Ponnusamy unfolds that in the year 1978, he used to collect a sum of about ^ lac per month. As on date ' i (he entered the witness box in May 2011), he is collectinga ; sum of f12 lacs approximatelyin a month. Shri AshishBilala declared that he is earning a sum of ^12000.00to ^13000.00 ^ per month, asfall backwagesand incentiveremuneration.He deposed in bold words that he is collecting a sum of T6,50,000.00from the accountholdersper month. According to Shri AshokKumar, he collects a sum of fl,50,000.00 to ^ lac per monthfrom the accountholders. ShriA.KShivanand : Babu deposed that he collects a sum of ^,50,000.00 to T3,75,000.00per month from the account holders. . Shri Ponnusamyoperatesin Chennai, which is A\ area city while all other witnesses-except Shri Bilala operates in 'B' area cities. ShriBilalaoperatesin 'C area city. Facts detailedby LPANo.429/2015&corm.matters Page21 of 43 /• /'.• ^1 above witnesses, relating to quantum of collection made by them, make me to conclude that a deposit collector in 'C area city would be able to collect at least a sum of lacs per monthfrom,the accountholders. A depositcollectorfrom 'B' area-city camcollecta sum of ^4 lac, while a depositcollector from 'A'area citywouldbe able to collecta sum of lacsper monthfrom the accountholders. Resultantly,a minimaceiling ofcollectionof ^ lacfor 'C area city, ^4 lacfor 'B' area cityand lacper monthfor 'A'area city is to befixedfor the : depositcollectors. On a collectionof f3 lacper month, the bank is requiredto retain roughly an amount of ^0,000.00 towards cash reserve ratio and statutory liquidity ratio. A sum of ^,10,000.00 would be available with the bank for . investmentthrough advances to the generalpublic. On this amount, the bank had to spend 5% as its cost. The bank may advance that amount at an interest rate of 14% per annum. ^ When cost ratio ofthe bank is deducted, the bank earns 9%) interest approximatelyper annum on the amount referred above. Costratio ofthe bankon the amountkeptfor CRR and SIR would be neutralized by the earnings of the bank on statutoryliquidityratio. Thus, an amountof T2,l0,000.00per month, so collectedby the depositcollectorfor a year, would fetch an earning of ^1,22,885.00to the bank. Out of this earning, a sum of ^000.00per month would be awardedas fall back wages to the depositcollectorsworkingin 'C area cities. In a year, he willget T4000.00as gratuity. Thus, in a 'C area city, the bank had to spend onfall back wages and gratuity,asum bftl lac outofthe earningoffl,22,850.00.

¶184On^collectionover and above & lac, but upto T5 lac, a , depositcollectorwouldget an incentiveremunerationof 3% and on collectionover and above ^5 lacper month, he willget incentive remuneration of 2% only. Therefore, a deposit collectorof B' areacitywho hadto collecta minimaof ^4 lac per month, will get fall back wages of fSOOO.OO besides incentiveremunerationof ^000.00 a month. His pay packet would come to T11000.00 in a month, besides a gratuity of ^4000.00 a year. LPANo.429/2015&conn.matters of43 X

¶185A deposit collector in A' area city shall collect a sum of lac per month. His pay packet would be ^000.00 as fall ' hack wages and ^6000.00 as incentive remuneration, besides a gratuity of ^4000.00 in a year. If deposit^collectors of any area collects over and above T5 lac in a month, he will get incentive of2% on that amount. Thus, by collecting more than ^5 lacs in a month, the deposit collectors may earn more. The amount, which will come to them towards fall back wages and incentive remuneration, would be over and above the minimum wages, so notified. By making that payment to the deposit collectors, the banks would not be strained financially at all. The fall back wages and incentive remuneration, as referred above, can well be compared to the wages earned by a deemed part time clerical staff, employed in the bank and the minimum wages fixedfor skilled clerical staff in scheduled employments.

¶186One may advance argument that fixation of minima amount to be collected by the deposit collections of 'C' area, • 'B' area and A' area city is a concept not prevalent in the banking industry or any comparable industry. However, that proposition is not factually correct. The insurance industry employs development officers on its role, who are paid wages and incentive on the basis of their performance. Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1989 and General Insurance (Rationalization of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme, 1987 provide an example in that regard. When these rules and schemes are scanned, it emerges over the record that the development officers, employed in insurance industry, are paid wages and incentive in accordance with the performance made by them. In case they fail to meet required standard of collection, incentive paid to them is deducted or stopped and decrements are made out of their wages. When a development officer continues not to attain the criteria fixed for him, his services' are dispensed with. Therefore, it is evident that minima ofcollection asfixed for the deposit collectorsfor respective areas cannot be said to be a new concept. Minima of lac in a monthfor 'C area. LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters / A ^4 lac for 'B' area and ^5 lac for 'A' area is the standard requirement ofperformance, expected ofa deposit collector to sustain himself in the industry. He can meet that standard by collection of that amount in every month or by way of collection of ^ lac, T12 lac and fl5 lac respectively, as the case may be for area-wise, at the end of the quarter ending 3r' March, 30''^June, 30''^Septemberand3r' Decemberevery year. In case a deposit collector is unable to collect the minima amount consecutively for two quarters, he would be bade farewell by the bank by terminating his contract of service. An inefficient person has no place in the industry. In case of failure of a deposit collector to meet the required standards, he would not be able to serve the bank, since his. retention at the cost ofloss to the bank is unwarranted.

¶187Conveyance allowance is being paid to the deposit collectors at fSO.OO per month for deposit of less than H0,000.00 and at h 00.00 per month for deposits.of H0,000.00 or above upto is0,000.00 per month. This quantum of -conveyance allowance was demanded by the. Federation, when it filed its claim before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in the year 1981. The Industrial Tribunal granted that relief in toto and fixed conveyance allowance for the deposit collectors at the above rates. Since 1981 till date, prices ofpetrol has rolled many a times. It is a matter ofcommon knowledge that the deposit collectors had to reach persons of lower and middle income group, small traders, businessman, artisans, self-employed persons and housewives .to collect money from them. A green grocery vendor sitting in subzi-mandi would like to give money to a deposit collector in early hours of the day, housewiveswould give their money during noon hours, when they are free from daily chores, a small trader or businessmen would give money in the evening, whilepersons employedin business centres and courts etc. may like to deposit their money during day hours. These facts bring it to light that a deposit collector has to reach his customer, according to the convenience of the latter. For that purpose, possibility of going for collection twice or thrice a day cannot be ruled out. One cannot dispute hat in LPA No.429/2015 & conn.matters 'C area as well as 'B' area cities, the deposit collectors may have to travel in a radius of 10 kms daily. In 'A' area cities, he may travel a little bit longer. One. cannot be oblivious of thefact that these days such bikes are in the market which are fuel efficient. Manufacturers claim that such bikes havefuel efficiency of running generally 60 kilometersper litre. A deposit collector in 'C' and 'B' area cities may have to travel roughly 500 kms in a month. For A' area-city, a deposit collector may avail public transport also. Conspectus of all thesefacts makes me to commentthat atleast 8 to 10 litres of petrol in a month is to be spent by a deposit collector. , Keeping all these facts in mind, I am of>the view that conveyanceallowanceof ^50.00 per monthatflat rate should be granted to all deposit collectors ofall areas.

¶188On above standard, a deposit collector would get a sum of ^000.00 in a year towardsconveyanceallowance. Adding that amount to the cost incurred on a deposit collector for. collection of f3, lac, the bank had to spend only a sum of ^6,000.00 on fall back wages + ^4000.00 on gratuity + ^000.00 as conveyance allowance. In all, banks have to spend a sum of ^1,09,000.00 out of the earning of h,22,850.00. This arithmeticprojectsthat bypaymentofthat much of amount, the bank would earn something on a-collection of lac per month by a deposit collector of 'C area city. Earning of the bankwouldbe more on collectionof deposit collectors of B' area and A' area cities. When deposit collectors would collect more than the minima prescribedfor them, the incomeofthe bankwouldgrow more. Arguments of the bank relating to economic-viabilityof the scheme would have an answer from the above reasoning.

¶189The Tribunalhaspower to give retrospectiveeffectto its award, as held by the Apex Court in New Edgeson Woollen Mills (1969(2) LLJ 782) and Sarva ShramikSangh, Bombay (1993Lab.IC.870). It is a wellestablishedpropositionoflaw that an industrialadjudicatorcan treat the date ofdemandand the date on which he award comes into forces' as two extreme points to give effect to the award. The datefrom which this LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters ::: * ..T " ; . /' -3-3 award would be ejfective, should be decided by the Tribunal on consideration offacts and circumstances projected herein., As award Ex.WWl/3 highlights, fixation offall back wages and incentive remuneration was based on the circumstances prevalent in the year 1981. Thefall back wages and incentive remuneration fixed by award dated 22.12.1988, remained static till date. The present dispute was ' raised by the Federation in the year 2003. After raising of the disputes and. during the course of adjudication a few of the banks closed their small deposit schemes. In case this awtird is not given any retrospective ejfect, then the deposit collectors' of the banks, who had closed the scheme, would not be eligible to get any relief out of it. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion . that this Tribunal should give retrospective effect to the award so that the deposit collectors, whose case was projected before , the Tribunal, may also avail their rights so adjudicated herein. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the demand of the Federation/Union for enhancement offall back wages and incentive remuneration, besides conveyance allowance isjustified. The issue is answered, accordingly. Relief

¶190In view of the findings recorded on issue No.1, it is ordered that deposit collectors operating in 'A' area, 'B' area - and 'C area cities would collect at least T3 lac, T4, lac and lac per month respectively. They can meet the target every month or may collect a sum of f9 lac, fl2 lac and ^15 lac respectivelyon 3f' March, 30^^ June, 30^^ Septemberand 31^' December every year. On a collection of lac, a deposit collector would get fall back wages of ^000,00 per month, besides conveyance allowance of ^50.00 per month. He will ' also get gratuity of T4000.00 every year. On a collection of • over and above ?3 lac and upto T5 lac, all deposit collectors, irrespective of their areas of operation, will earn incentive remuneration of3%. Thus, a deposit collector of 'B' area and A' area city would get ^000.00 and fbOOO.OO respectively per month as incentive remuneration on minima limit of their collection. On collection of over and above ^5 lac, a deposit LPA No.429/2015 & conn.matters X A collector would get incentive remuneration of2%. All deposit collectors, irrespective of areas of their operation, would get conveyance allowance atflat rate of f750.00 per month. "

¶23As per the direction in para 192 of the award, the same has been made operative retrospectively from July 19, 2005 i.e. the date when the 40 banks were impleaded as respondents.

¶24A,correction was thereafter made by the Tribunal to its award by an order dated June 02, 2014; recording therein that instead of Collectors operating in areas 'A', 'B' and 'C collecting ^,00,000/-, ?4,00,000/- and ^,00,000/- respectively per month as per the award', it should read Collectors operating in areas 'C, 'B' and 'A' respectively. The reason is obvious. The Tribunal inverted the reference to the category of the area and the minimum deposit in the award.

¶25The direction in the award concerning payment of gratuity to the,daily Deposit Collectors having been set aside by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated April 20, 2015, by which order a batch of writ petitions filed by various banks have been disposed of. Rest of the award has been upheld by the learned Single Judge.

¶26In the appeals we are thus concerned with the impugned award as upheld by the learned SingleJudge concerningfall back wages.

¶27We could terminate our discussion, and perhaps would have been justified in recording said aspect of the matter in the very first paragraphof our opinion,and dismissthe appeals,by noting one simple fact. The same would be that on a minimum deposit collected by a Deposit.Collector of ^.,00,000/- per month, as per the award dated December22, 3.988, which had attained finality when the seal of approvalwas accorded thereto by the LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters ' Page 27 of 43 • \ Supreme Court on February 13, 2001, the daily depositor would receive a sum of f750/- per month as the fall back commission on the deposit up to f7,500/- per month and on the remaining sum of ^,92,500/- (calculated @ 2% of the deposit as per the award), would receive a commission of f5,850/- and thus the total amount received would be ?S,600/-. As per the impugned award dated October 07,^- 2013, the fall back wage would be ^,000/- for a deposit of ?3,00,000/- per month. The difference is fl,400/-. On the base ^,600/-, the percentage increase in the fall back wages is only 21.22%. It would be perhaps ridiculous, and we use the expression with an apology, to argue that an award rendered in the year 1988 determining fall back wages by faking into account cost of living, as of the said year should continue to operate indefinitely in the future, ignoring the rise in the cost of living and hence updation of the wages to be received on the concept of a fair wage to 'be receivable by a workman for the work done; benefit of which work would be to the employer. Surely, since the year 1988 the cost of living has increased by 21.22% over 17 years. This should be reason enough to dismiss the appeals.

¶28Be that as it may we proceed to note that in the appeals learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute that the status of the daily Deposit Collectors as workmen has attained finality in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (1998) I LLJ 23 (AP) Indian Banks Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank & Ors. Further, learned counsel had to concede that the payment received by the daily Deposit Collectors has to be treated as a wage in view of the said decision. Though a subtle attempt was made to urge that in view of the said decision of the Supreme Court the daily Deposit Collectors were accorded status of a workman only for the purposes LPANo.429/2015 & conn.riiatters • •• ;i' ;• • ' I • .••• / • // > of giving them a locus to collectively bargain, but the argument was taken no further except for raising it as a point, sans any justification for the point.

¶29In view of the decision reported as (1981) 1 SCC 315 LIC Vs. D.J.Bahadur wherein the Supreme Court observed that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a benign measure which seeks to pre-empt industrial tension, provide the mechanics of dispute resolutions and set up the necessary infrastructure so that the energies of the partners in production may not be dissipated in counter-productive battles and the assurance of the industrial justice may create a climate of goodwill, as also the earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 1950 SC 188 Bharat Bank Ltd. Vs. The Employees of Bkarat Bank Ltd., in which the Supreme Court X observed that in settling the disputes between the employers and,the workman, the function of the Tribunal is not confined to administration of justice in accordancewith law and that the. Tribunal can confer rights and privilegeson eitherparty which it considersreasonableand proper,though theymay not be withinthe terms of anyexistingagreement,learnedcounsel for the appellantsdidnot even make an attemptto urge, a pointwhichthey had urged before the learned Industrial Tribunal and the learned Single Judge,that the Tribunaldidnot havethe powerto adjudicatethe reference.

¶30Four contentions were urged by learned counsel for the appellants in the appeals. The first contentionurged was that the very referenceof the industrialdisputeto the IndustrialTribunalwas vitiatedin law becausethe A unionsofthe dailyDepositCollectorsand the Federationofthe unionshad raised the demand on the Indian Banks Association and for said reason, before the ConciliationOfficer,the banks were denied a right to put forward theircase. The argumentwas thatit ispossiblethatthe ConciliationOfficer, LPANo.429/2015& conn.matters . Page29 of 43 - • ""r ,i " T.: - -A' r • " /• • !• after taking note of the case presentedby the banks may have persuadedthe unions and the Federation not to press the claim. The second contention urged was that the Industrial Tribunal was bound by the terms of the reference and could not traverse beyond the same in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported as (1968) 1 SCR 515 Sindhu ResettlementCorporation Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal and 1972

(25) FLR 26 Jaipur Udvo2Ltd. Vs. Cement WorkKaramchan Sansh. The third contention urged was that the award has rendered the daily Deposit Collection Scheme unviable, and for which argument it was agreed between learned counsel for the parties that the data provided by all the banks concerning cost benefit analysis of the schemes as was discussed in the JX, awardneednot be captured;it beingrestrictedto onlytwo banks : (i) Indian Banlc, and (ii) United CommercialBank. Referring to the testimony of Sh.K.Ganesh MW-1 and the cost benefit analysis MW-1/1 to MW-1/9 of the daily Deposit Scheme (which we note comprises the data concerning 9 banks, includingIndian Bank and United CommercialBank, with the one concerningIndianBankbeingMW-l/l and UnitedCommercialBankbeing MW-1/9) proved by the witness, it was urged that notwithstandingthe Tribunalnoting in para 126 of the award the perspectivefrom which the Tribunal had to approach the issue, and conceding it to be a correct perspective, the error committed by the Tribunal;was to overlook the financialstressbeyondthe capacityofthe banks,and-for whichthe decision ^ of the SupremeCourt reportedas (2003) II LLJ 1078 A.K.BindalVs. UOI was reliedupon. Fourthlyand lastly,it was urgedthat notwithstandingthe Tribunalhaving the power to give retrospectiveoperationto the award, it •fell into errorin the instantcaseto give retrospectiveoperationto the award LPANo.429/2015&conn.matters Va.gQ30 of43 / ./ • ...A n !•' with effect from July 19, 2005. The argument was premised on the reasoning that as per the award the requirement:of minimum monthly deposits in category 'C, 'B' and 'A' areas was increased to 00,00.0/-, ^,00,000/- and ?5,00,000/- respectively with a further conditions that if targets were not achieved by the daily Deposit Collectors in two consecutive quarters, the banks would be justified in terminating their contract of service. The contention advanced was that since the banks had continued to availthe servicesof the dailyDepositCollectorsand had paid them fall back wages as,also commission in terms of the earlier award dated December 22, 1988,it was not possible for the banks while implementingthe instant award to retrospectively terminate the services retrospectively and make recoveries. ,31. As per Section 4 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Conciliation Officershave to be appointedby the appropriateGovernment,chargedwith the duty of mediatingin and promotingthe settlementof industrialdisputes and as per Section 5 of the Act if an occasion arises the appropriate Government may constitute a Board of Conciliation for promoting the settlement of an industrial dispute. As per Section 10 of the Act, before referring an industrial dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, the appropriate Government may refer the dispute to the Board •of Conciliation for settlement. The concept of espousal of causes -in representative capacities is recognized by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Indian Banks Association is admittedly a federal body of all the banks. When summoned by the Conciliation Officer the said Association did not take a stand that it was not the body competentto represent and put forth the point of view of the banks. Had the Association taken said stand before the LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters •;V> . 'JiJ: • V"" X'./ A r ConciliationOfficer, the ConciliationOfficer could have summoned the individualbanks for purposesoftryingout a settlementduringconciliation. The first argument is thus sans any legal foundation;additionallyfor the reasonan irregularityin the conciliationproceedings^is of no consequences because the issue between the parties ultimately got resolved before;an IndustrialTribunal after evidencewas led and befote that all banks were permittedto file theirwrittenstatementofdefencetofthestatementof claim filed.bythe Unionsofthe workmenandthe Federationofthe Unions.

¶32Pertaining to the second contention.advanced i.e. the Industrial Tribunalhas exceededits briefby goingbeyondthe-terms of the reference, we beginour discussionby referringto paragraph11 ofour opinionwherein we have reproducedthe referencemade to the IndustrialTribunalon August 06, 2003. The reference inter-aliais whether the demand of the daily DepositCollectorsFederation,basedon linkageoffall backwagesof f750/- per month determined by the award dated December 22-, 1988 to the consumer price index at 500 points (base 1960 —100) to the present consumer price index and upward revision is justified. Learned counsel urgedthatin para 165 ofthe award,the learnedLabourCourthas returneda categoricfindingto the effectthat the award datedI)ecember22, 1988 was not premised on the consumerprice index. Thus, it was urged that the IndustriaLTribunal ought to have answeredthe referenceby opining that since the award dated December22, 1988 was not linkedto the consumer e '' price indexas urgedby the workmen,theirUnionarid the Federationofthe Union,the demandwas unjustified.

¶33The argumentis too tenuous since it is basedupon a play of words. We coulddo no betterotherthanto reproducethe reasoningofthe Tribunal LPANo.429/2015 & corm.matters / /' • . Uo ] for the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal (on which conclusion the argumentwas premised)and the furtherreasoningofthe Tribunalas a t^ke / off point towards its destination in para 166 of (he award. The two paragraphs read as under "7(55. Exceptthe abovetreatmentto alternativereliefsof the Federation, the Tribunal nowhere linked relief offall back wages and incentive remuneration to All India Consumer Price Index. As detailed above, the Tribunal had not linked fall back wages and incentive remunerationto bepaid to the depositcollectorsto All India Consumer Price Index. When High Court of ' Andhra Pradesh exercised powers of judicial review, none ofthepartiesraisedthe issuesto the effectthatfall back wages and incentiveremunerationwere linked to All India Consumer Price Index. Therefore, there was no occasionfor the High Courtto consideras to whether fall backwages and incentiveremunerationwere linked with All India Consumer Price Index or not. The Apex • i Court too was not invited to delve the issue thatfall back wagesand incentiveremuneration,awardedinfavourof the depositcollectors,were linkedto AllIndia Consumer Price Index.' In the reference order, the appropriate Governmenttried toproject that thefalLbackwages and incentiveremuneration,granted infavour of the deposit collectors, have linkage with All India Consumer Price \ Index. However, the mist created .therein in the reference order melts away when award dated

22.12.1988and findings of the Andhra Pradesh High . Curt and the Apex Court, while makingjudicial review, are noted. Resultantly, it is concluded that fall back ^ Wages and incentive remuneration awarded to the f . deposit collectors, have no linkage with All India Consumer. Price Index.

¶166As noted above, a deposit collector is paid fall | back wages of T750.00 oh a collectionof T7500.00per LPANo.429/2015&conn.matters Page33of43 / /' • M/ month, besides incentive remuneration of 2% on collection over and above ^500.00per month. In case a depositcollectorcollectsa sum of & lacsper month, he gets only a sum of ^6600.00 (^50.00 asfall back wages plus ^5850.00 as incentive remuneration). . Collectionof a sum of ^ lacs per month is moderate amount . but fall back wages and incentive remuneration, which would come in the hands of a depositcollectorwould be less than minimum rates of wages, notifiedfor a matriculateclerk. Evidently,fall back wages and incentiveremunerationare notpart of wage structurein technicalsense, but nomenclatureof fall back wages and incentive remuneration,given to wage packet of a deposit collector, would not denude this Tribunal of its obligationto fix a pay packet co-relative to minimum wages, notifiedfrom time to time. Therefore,the Tribunalwouldproceedaheadto devise^a wage structure in the form b/ fall back wages and incentiveremunerationfor the depositcollectors,which should not be less than the minimiimwages, so notified, from time to time. "

¶34Claims have to be read meaningfully and not pedantically. Referencesmade to the LabourCourt or IndustrialTribunalshave likewise to be readmeaningfullyand not pedantically.At base was the demandfor a revisionofthe fall back wages. Whileraisingthe demand,the justification given was the increasein the consumerprice index and the linkagewas to the fact that in the award dated December22, 1988, while fixing the fall back wages,the consumerprice index at 500 pointsyvithbase year 1960 at 100 points was the basis for the award. The IndustrialTribunal, while consideringthe demand for increase in fall back wages was therefore entitledto decideon thejustificationofthe demand,and merelybecausethe factor justifyingthe demand was found to be wrong, did not result in the LPANo.429/2015&conn.matters / ki^_ Tribunal, being without any power left in it to look at some other factor justifying the demand. The two decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants which we have noted while noting the contentions of the counsel for the appellants in para 30 above, merely hold that being the creature of the reference an Industrial Tribunal cannot travel beyond the reference. The proposition of.law stated therein has not been breached by the Tribunal in the instant case. The second contention advanced is rejected.

¶35Concerning the third contention advanced, as we have noted above, in para 126 of the award the Tribunal recognized the principles to be kept in mind from the perspective of the employer while fixing a fair wage and to said extent the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in A-K-BindaVs case (supra) has been kept in inind by the Tribunal, a fact conceded to by learned counsel for the appellant. The argument was that the evidence on said aspect of the matter was ignored by the Tribunal ,or alternatively the finding returned by the Tribunal is perverse.

¶36We have already noted herienabove that the Tribunal has discussed the relevant evidence in paragraphs 129 onwards till paragraph 154 of the award, and we find that the Tribunal has discussed the evidence led by the Indian Banks Association and the individual banks. While noting the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant on the financial stress, in-para 30 of our opinion we have already noted that it was agreed by learned counsel for the parties that cost benefit analysis of the daily deposit schemes may be looked into by us with reference to two banks ; (i) Indian Bank, and (ii) United CommercialBank, with reference to the testimony of Sh.K.Ganesh MW-1 and the cost benefit analysis MW-1/1 and MW-l/9;of the two banks. LPA No.429/2015 & conn.matters H3

¶37In his affidavitby way of evidence,Sh.K.Ganesh^hassimplydeposed : ""The deponentannexes herewith the copies of the cost benefit analysis studiesconductedby the various banks which,wouldshow that the deposit schemes are not remunerativefor the banks and as such it is becoming difficultfor the banks to continuethe same'. The cost analysisbenefitof various banks have been filed along with the affidavit. ConcerningIndian Bank,the costanalysisbenefitisEx.MW-1/1. It istabulatedas under:- Cost-Benefitanalysisofthe TinyDepositScheme (As on 3March. 2011) i Particulars (Amount in Lakhs) a Aggregatedepositsunder thescheme 3913.00 b No. of Deposit accounts 33,400 c Commissionpaid to deposit collectors

118.03 d Interestpaid on deposits under the scheme

26.48 • COST BENEFIT STUDY Particulars Total per year (f in lakhs) Per TlOO/- of Avg.Deposit T BENEFITS a Income from CRR b - Income from SLR

73.76

1.88 . c Yield on Advances

286.47

7.32 ; Total Benefits

360.23

9.20 - COSTS a Interest paid

26.48

0.67 b Commission paid to Deposit Collectors

118.03

3.01 LPANo:429/2015 & conn.matters A N c Staff Cost

321.71

8.22 d. Other operating cost

70.64

1.80 Total Costs

536.86

13.71 NET BENEFIT (-) 176.63 • (-)4.51 The cost analysisbenefitEx.MW-1/9concerningUnitedCommercial Bank reads as under CostBenefitAnalysisofLaghu Bachat Yojna (basedonfiguresfor theyear 2004-05) Ifthe depositCollectorsfederationdemandsare accepted BASIC DATA Particulars (Amountin T Lacs) a. Average deposits under the scheme 21502.00 h. Commissionpaid to deposit collectors

886.47 . , c. Interest paid on deposits under the scheme 1039.50 COST BENEFIT STUD Y PARTICULARS Total per year Per fl 00/- of Avg.Deposit Benefits f f a. Income from CRR

15.05

0.07 h. Income from SLR

448.32

2.09 c. Yield on Advance 1194.99

5.56 d. Yield on investment of Surplus Deposits - — Total Benefits 1658.36

7.72 Costs a. Interest paid 1039.50

4.83 h. Commission paid to

886.47

4.13 LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters •x ifj deposit collectors c. Conveyance' paid to Deposit Collectors

56.45

0.26 d. Gratuity paid payable to deposit Collectors

36.93

0.17 Cost ofLBYDeposit 2019.35

9.39 e. Operating Cost i.e. staff cost and other cost 3%

645.06

3.00 Total Cost 2665.41

¶38When cross-examined, Sh.K.Ganesh, who had exhibited his affidavit by way of evidence as MW-l/A, deposed:- "Ex.MW-l/A is based on my personal knowledge as well as information gathered from other sources. Contents of para VIII, IX and X of my affidavit are based on information gathered from the documents in possession of Indian Banks Association. Those documents are not placed in record of this Tribunal. I have not brought those documents along with me today. It is incorrect that no documents are in possession of Indian Bank Association and I have made a false statement in contents of the above referred paragraphs. It is incorrect that Ex.MW-1/1to Ex.MW-1/9are prepared only with a view tofile the same before this Tribundl. As per information collected 10274 deposit collectors were working in the year 2007 with various Banks. I have no information as to how much amount . was beingcollectedby them. From the contentsofEx.MW-1/1 to Ex.MW-1/9 I sway that deposit collectors schemes are not remunerative. "

¶39Relevant would it be to highlight that the primary documents on which Ex.MW-1/1 and Bx.MW-1/9 were tabulated were neither filed nor produced by the witness of the banks. The banks are thus guilty of withholdingthe best evidenceand in our opinionwe would be justified;in drawing a presumptionagainst the bank keeping in view clause (g) to LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters /-• . t// Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. That apart, let us highlight MW-1/1,the cost benefitanalysisconcerningIndianBank, which we have notedin paragraph37 above. As perthe same, as ofMarch31, 2011 atotal sum of ^9.13 croreswas lying in depositwith Indian Bank under its Tiny DepositScheme. The outgoingreflectedis commissionpaidto the Deposit Collectors in sum of fl.l803 crores and interest to bq paid to the depositors under the scheme in sum of ?0.2648 crores. As perThe statement,interest which the bank would earn from the SLR to be maintained and advances,to the customers of the bank would be ^.6023 crores.. As per the bank the staff cost to the bank would be f3.2171 crores and other operating costs would be ?0.7064 crores. The net loss shown is ?1.7663 crores. We had repeatedlyput itto the learnedcounselfor the appellantas to, on what basis the banlc had allocated ^.2171 crores as the staff cost relatable to the schemeand ?D.7064croresas theoperatingcost. Therewas no reply. It has to be kept in mind that the DepositCollectorsnot only make entry in the pass book of the customerswhen they collectthe daily amounts but also make entries in the corresponding ledger account of the customer maintainedby.thebank. Ex-faciethe figure of ^.2171 crores as staffcost to the bankfor the schemeis highlyexaggerated,not;onlyfor saidreasonof it being ex-facieexaggerated,for the primaryreason:that the banks did not producetileprimarydocumentsnor gavejustification[forsaidapportionment vis-a-vis:the total staffcostandthe quantumof worksperformedbythe staff for the other operationsof the bank, we are of the opinionthat the view taken by the Tribunalthat the schemewould not become inoperativeif for back wages are increased is correct. There is no perversity in the appreciationof evidencenoristhere any oversightof any relevantevidence., LPA No.429/2015 & conn.matters ,/.- : i

¶40The last contention urged merits acceptance. The reason being that under the award the Tribunal has, within its power reworked the financial package i.e. the fair wage to be received by the daily Deposit Collectors as a fair wage simultaneously link in the same to the quantum of work ,to be performed, in the form of minimum targets to be achieved. Whilst it may be true that the Tribunal had the power to make its award operative from a retrospective date and has found a rational in the day being the one on which all banks were impleaded as respondents i.e. July 19, 2005, but has overlooked the fact that the repackaged remuneration was linked to higher targets td be achieved with right conferred upon the banks to terminate the contract of service if targets were not achieved in two successive quarters. Now, the banks cannotterminatethe contract of service from a retrospective date and make recoveries. Further, the award is silent on the aspect of : What would be the consequence if the minimum target is not achieved in a month? Would it mean that the daily Deposit Collector would be entitled to a pro rata payment? The answer has to be in the negative for the reason the fall back'wages has been determined by the Tribunal with reference to' the minimum fair wage to be received by the daily Deposit Collectors and for which the underlying reasoning of the Tribunal is that keeping in view the nature of work performed by the daily Deposit Collectors, to achieve the targets set by the Tribunalthey wouldhave to work for about 3 hours a day. ' The Tribunal has taken note of the Bipartite Settlementunder which part time workers of the bank who worked for three hours a day would receive 1/3'^'' ofthe basic wage payableto a full time employeeof corresponding status + other emoluments such as house rent allowance, city compensatory allowance and travelling allowance. Thus, a daily Deposit Collector wbo LPA No.429/2015 & conn.matters / r u f does not mtet the target would presumably not be working for three hours a day. The linkageto the fall backwage increasewith productivitycannotbe snapped. Just as an employeewho works for one hour a day cannot claim proportionate wages, the daily Deposit Collectors cannot claim pro-rata reduced fall back wages if they don't meet the target. And we emphasize that as per the Tribunalthe banks wouldbe entitledto terminatethe contract of such' daily Deposit Collectors, a termination which the banks cannot enforceretrospectivelyand make recoveries. The retrospectiveoperationof the award would imperil the daily Deposit Collectors as well because they wouldbe under a threat of recoveries. Till the awardwas pronouncedthese daily depositors were not working on the assumption that they have to achievethe targets of ^,00,000/-, f^,00,000/-and ?5,00,000/-in category 'C, 'B'-and 'A' areas respectively. Thus, on the facts of the instant case the A • rule oftiie game couldnotbe changedretrospectively.

¶41A contention not emanating from the award was sought to be urged. With reference to an additional affidavit permitted to be filed by the learned Single Judge and a statementannexedtherewithit was soughtto be urged that post the award the daily Deposit Collectorshad started misusing'the. award by rotating the same amount in the name of a customer. The argument was that the scheme worked out under the award as the basis of linking productivity to minimum fall back wages had a serious loophole by ( permitting the daily Deposit Collectors to attain productivity by circulating the deposits. On facts reference could be ihade to; one M.A.Shemeer,-an account holder with Federal Bank Ltd. The data proyided would evince that said Sh.M.A.Shemeer opened account No.10030600087410 with the Federal Bank oh November 08, 2013 and through a daily Deposit Collector LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters / / r tif deposited ^6,400/- with the bank which he withdrew on December 03, 2013. The account remained operative for 25 days. Thereafter another account No. 10030600087600 was opened in his name on December 03, 2013 in which f24,000/- was deposited and after 28 days the account was closed on December 31, 2013. On same day account No. 10030600088111 was opened in his name in which 156,000/- was deposited and after 34 days on February 03, 2014 the account was closed. The very next day i.e. :on February 04, 2014 another account No. 10030600088343 was opened in his name in which ^1,600/- was deposited and after 27 days the account was closed on March 03, 2014. The very next day i.e. on March 04, 2014 account No. 10030600088467 was opened in his name in which ^8,800/- was deposited. After 27 days the account was closed on March 31, 2014, On April 04, 2014 another account No. 10030600088855 was opened in his name in which ^6,400/--was deposited and after 25 days on April 29, 20,14 the account was closed. This gentleman opened account No. 10030600089358 on July 04, 2014 which remained operative for a month. And so on. Many such instances can be found in the tabular statement filed.

¶42We find that the learned Single Judge has noted said aspect of the matter but has not dealt with the same. -

¶43The answer lies in the fact that when said rotation of money came to the notice'of the bank they immediately took corrective action by issuing circulars fixing minimum duration of an account with penal consequence of premature closure or withdrawal resulting in commission paid to the daily depositor being deducted from the account and we find that in anticipation of rotation of the money, and probably some smart officer in the bank, as many intelligent litigants do from the queries being put by the Industrial LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters / /' • r Adjudicatorto the counselwhen argumentswerebeingadvancedbeforethe IndustrialTribunal,anticipatedthe awardand in the caseofSyndicateBank issuedacircularto said effecton June 01, 2013. (The awardin questionis datedOctober07, 2013). We findthatpost, awardAndhraBankhadissued acircularon November27, 2013 fixing minimumdurationof the deposit under its BhagyaLaxmiDepositScheme. Otherbanks have followed,and we need not note the dates on which the banks have issued circulars concerningminimumperiodofthedepositto be maintained.

¶44We only have to highligjitthatthe possiblemischieffrom the award wouldnot renderthe awardliableto be set aside. The mischiefis ofakind whichcouldbeprevented,and as amatteroffacthas beenprevented.

¶45The appeals are accordinglydisposed of modifyingthe impugned award datedOctober07, 2013, in that,the awardis made prospectivemits operation. Rest of the award as modifiedby-the learnedSingleJudge,is upheld.

¶46Partiesshallbeartheirowncostsallthroughout'. ^^ iRMOG) OCTOBER 05, 2015 mamta • (PRADEEP N. JUDGE (MUKTAOTPTA) JUDGE LPANo.429/2015 & conn.matters / • / •