Commission-based deposit collectors as workmen: bank control, wage treatment, and no parity with regular clerical staff.

Deposit collectors engaged by banks were held to be workmen because the evidence showed clerical tasks carried out under bank direction, accountability for collections, and functional control consistent with a master-servant relationship, despite flexible hours. Commission paid to them was treated as wages since it was linked to mobilising bank business, and Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act did not prevent their recognition as workmen when engaged otherwise than as regular staff. The claim for absorption in regular bank service, or for parity with clerical employees in pay and service conditions, was rejected because the work, selection process, and qualifications were not comparable and such relief was outside the reference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deposit collectors engaged by banks were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the relationship between them and the banks was that of master and servant; (ii) whether commission paid to deposit collectors constituted wages and whether Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act barred such engagement on commission basis; (iii) whether the deposit collectors were entitled to absorption in regular bank service or to the pay scales and service conditions of regular clerical employees.

Issue (i): Whether deposit collectors engaged by banks were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the relationship between them and the banks was that of master and servant.

Analysis: The findings of the Tribunal, based on the evidence, showed that the deposit collectors were engaged in collecting deposits, making entries, filling forms, maintaining registers and carrying out other clerical work as directed by the banks. The nature of the work did not permit fixed working hours, but the absence of fixed hours did not negative control. The collectors were accountable to the banks, had to deposit collections promptly, and were subject to directions in the performance of their work. Such factual findings were not shown to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The deposit collectors were workmen and there existed a relationship of master and servant between them and the concerned banks.

Issue (ii): Whether commission paid to deposit collectors constituted wages and whether Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act barred such engagement on commission basis.

Analysis: The statutory definition of wages includes commission payable on promotion of sales or business. The commission paid to deposit collectors was linked to the business of the banks by mobilising deposits and was therefore wage in substance. Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act prohibits employment of persons whose remuneration takes the form of commission in regular service, but the proviso permits payment of commission to persons engaged otherwise than as regular members of staff. That provision did not exclude persons engaged on commission from being workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Conclusion: Commission paid to deposit collectors was wages, and Section 10 did not prevent their treatment as workmen.

Issue (iii): Whether the deposit collectors were entitled to absorption in regular bank service or to the pay scales and service conditions of regular clerical employees.

Analysis: No demand for absorption in regular service survived within the scope of the reference, and such relief would in any event be beyond the reference. The work performed by deposit collectors was different from that of regular employees, and the mode of selection and qualifications were also not comparable. The Tribunal could not equate commission-based collectors with regular clerical staff or grant them the same service conditions.

Conclusion: The deposit collectors were not entitled to absorption in regular service or to parity with the pay scales and service conditions of regular clerical employees.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in entirety, and the concurrent finding that deposit collectors were workmen was sustained while the claim for regular absorption and parity with regular staff was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the nature of the work and the surrounding control show functional subordination to the employer, commission-based remuneration for promoting the employer's business can amount to wages and the relationship of employment may exist notwithstanding flexible hours or the ability to do other work.

---