The court established that for an employer-employee relationship to exist, there must be direct control and supervision over the workers, which was absent in this case.

ORDER :

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. These appeals are at the instance of a Cooperative Bank and are directed against the common Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 8- 10-2012 in the Writ Petition Nos.3932/2000, 3935/2000, 3933/2000, 3937/2000 and 2413/2006 respectively, by which all the Writ Petitions preferred by the appellant Society came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 14-9-1999 in favour of the four respondents (workmen) before us.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant before us is a Cooperative Bank registered under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 (for short, “the Act 1912”) sometime in 1959. The employees of the Bank formed a Society registered under the provisions of the Act, 1912 named as the “U.P. Cooperative Bank Employees Society Limited.”

4. The object behind the formation of the Society was to provide canteen facility to its members.

5. It appears that the Bank took a policy decision to permit the Society to run a canteen.

6. The necessary modalities were worked out in so far as the grant of subsidies etc. is concerned by the Bank in consultation with the Society including the infrastructure.

7. The respondents before us were appointed by the Society as employees to run the Canteen. There are no formal orders of appointment etc. on record. There is also nothing to indicate anything about their terms of employment.

8. Sometime in 1995, the Society requested the Bank to enhance the subsidies for the purpose of running of the canteen. The request was declined by the Bank.

9. In such circumstances, the Society decided not to run the canteen and closed the same.

10. Since the Canteen came to be closed, the four respondents – working were terminated from service. This led to an industrial dispute.

11. The State Government referred the following dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication:

“Whether the termination of services of Shri Achche Lal, Satya Prakash Srivastava, Vijay Kumar and Shri Leela Dhar with effect from 31-5-1995 could be termed as illegal and invalid? If yes, then what compensation the workmen are entitled to receive? And with what other details?”

12. The Bank appeared before the Labour Court and filed its written statement taking the stance that the Bank had nothing to do with the workmen. They were never employed by the Bank at any point of time. There was no relationship of master and servant between them. Their services were not terminated by the Bank. As the Society decided to close the canteen, automatically they had to be relieved.

13. The Labour Court adjudicated the dispute and ultimately vide the Award dated 14.09.1999 held that all the four workmen were in employment of the Bank and their services were illegally terminated.

14. In such circumstances, the Labour Court directed by way of an Award that they all be reinstated in service with back wages.

15. The operative part of the award passed by the Labour Court reads thus:-

“On the basis of above discussions, I have reached to the conclusion that as per the aforesaid legal decisions Petitioner Workmen Sarva Sri Achchey Lal, Satya Prakash Srivastava, Vijay Kumar and Shri Leela Dhar were in the employment of Respondent No. 2, U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd