A Tiny Deposit Agent who is engaged in the deposit mobilization scheme of a bank, is a workman as defined by Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, if the bank has sufficient control and supervision over the work of the agent, the agent is paid remuneration in the form of commission, the work of the agent is integrated into the business of the bank, and the bank has economic control over the subsistence, skill, and continued employment of the agent.

Srinivasan, J.

The management of Indian Bank is aggrieved by the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal Madras, in I.D. No. 16 of 1981 holding that the second respondent herein is a workman as defined by Section2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and granting a declaration that she is deemed to be in service and would be entitled to a quantified amount of Rs. 100/- per month from 2nd May 1978 until her reemployment by the management.

2. The second respondent became a Tiny Deposit Agent by virtue of a written contract marked as Ex. M. 3 dated 3rd March 1977 between her and the Bank. There was also an order of appointment dated 21st February 1977 which is marked as Ex. M. 2. By letter dated 2nd May 1978 the Bank purported to terminate the agency of the second respondent. The second respondent raised a dispute through the union that she was a workman as defined by the Industrial Disputes Act and the termination was not justified. On reference to the Tribunal, it was held by the Tribunal that she satisfied the definition of workman given by Section2(s) of the Act.

3. Section2(s) of the Act reads as follows :

"Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge, or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 or the Army Act, 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957, or(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him functions mainly of a managerial nature

"It is obvious that the language of the Section is of very wide import. The crucial words in the Section are "employed in any industry". They have been construed as indicating a contract of service. It had been held that unless there is a contract of service, a person cannot be said to be workman as distinguished by the Act. A contract of service has been differentiated from a contract for service. As pointed out by Denning L.J., in Stevenson, Jorden and Harrison Ltd., v. Macdonald and Evans. (1953- 1 TLR 101 at p. 111(B), it is almost impossible to give a precise definition of the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for service. The learned Judge observed." *

It is often easy to recognize a contract of service when you see it, but difficult to say wherein the difference lies. A ship's master, a chauffeur, and a reporter on the staff of a newspaper are all employed under a contract of service; but a ship's pilot, a taxi-man, and a newspaper contributor are employed under a contract for services. One feature which seems to run through the instances is that, under a contract of service, a man is employed as part of the business, whereas, under a contract for services, his work although done for the business, is not integrated into it but is only accessory to it.

"4. Several tests have been prescribed in the text-books on the subject. In John Bowers "A Practical Approach to Employment Law", Second Edition, at pages 11 to 14, the following tests have been indicated : (a) The control test (b) The integration test (c) The economic reality test and in so far as this country is concerned, the relevant tests have been laid down by various decisions of the Supreme Court and the matter is not res integra. In Dharangadhara Chemical