Appointment on contract for a very limited period to be treated as part time employee of the Bank.

Indian Bank, one of the Nationalised Banks, files this writ petition to set aside the award in I.D.No.25/77 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Madras on 3.12.1979. A reference was made to it under section 10(a)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act by the Government of India in its order dated 21.4.77, in respect of two issues mentioned therein. The issue which is involved in this writ petition is as follows:

“Whether the action of the management of the Indian Bank, Madras in denying to Appraisers, wages and other conditions of service applicable to regular clerical” Award Staff “of the Rank is justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen concerned entitled?”

2. Petitioner-Bank (hereinafter referred to as Bank) engaged the services of Appraisers for the purpose of weighing and assessing the value and to verify the quality of the gold jewels or ornaments at its various branches for granting jewel loans to its customers. According to the Bank, they are only independent contractors and styled as professionals, who were engaged for a very limited purpose, and their services were utilised based 6n contracts of service, and that the terms contained therein alone are binding between the parties.

3. First respondent contended that the nature of duties discharged by Appraisers and the relationship between the Bank and the concerned Appraisers was that of employer and workmen, and hence, they are entitled to the same benefits as any other workmen in the Bank.

4. The Tribunal came to the conclusion on an assessment of oral and documentary evidence that the Appraisers are entitled to wages and other conditions of service applicable to regular clerical “Award Staff” as part-time employees of the Bank, and would be entitled to such proportionate viz., (half of) wages and benefits of clerical staff with effect from 1.4.1977.

5. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the workmen and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management. 43 Exhibits were filed by Workmen, whereas Management filed 44 exhibits.

6. Mr. Venkataraman, learned Counsel appearing for Bank, submits that, there had been a complete misconception entertained by the Tribunal about the relationship between the Appraisers and the Bank, and therefore, he would not only refer to various exhibits, but also the depositions tendered by all the seven witnesses for the purpose of a re-appraisal to be made by this Court of the nature of evidence existing on record, so that he could show that the Tribunal could not have arrived at the perverse findings as it had done. Even though it was pointed out to him that this Court would not reappreciate the evidence, he would call upon this Court to look into the nature of evidence tendered in which event only it would be possible for him to show that the finding was totally perverse. Hence, the evidence on record was looked into.

7. Mr.Ganapathy, learned Counsel for the Appraisers, submits that, as to whether there is a relationship of employer and workmen as contemplated under I.D. Act exists or not, it being a question of fact, and the Tribunal having already considered it by referring to all the materials placed before it, in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this court would not substitute its finding on these questions of fact as held in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra 1957 S.C.J. 208=1957 S.C.R. 152=A.I.R.1957 S.C.264. Once relevant evidence is on record, and five of the witnesses examined by the Management having spoken regarding the terms and conditions under which Appraisers have been discharging their work, and the nature of evidence so tendered having been understood and appreciated by the Tribunal this is not a fit case for this Court to analyse the evidence on record.

8. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, what could be done is only to find out whether some relevant evidence is available, for the conclusion arr