(1.) This appeal is filed questioning the judgment dated 14.3.2016 in W.P(C) No.22938 of 2004 by which learned Single Judge has concluded that no recovery shall be effected from the deposit collectors based only on the award of the Tribunal. Consequently the learned Single Judge has set aside the recovery notices, Exts.P4, P5 and P5(a).
(2.) The records reveal that the petitioner/respondent Union is of Deposit Collectors (Pygmy Agents) attached to Canara Bank. The deposit collectors used to collect amounts from the customers on daily basis and remit the same to the Bank on the very next day. The deposit collectors were paid a commission by the Canara Bank. Aggrieved by the fact that they were not paid fixed scales of pay, they approached the Central Government, who ultimately referred the issue to the Industrial Tribunal. Consequently an award came to be passed by the Tribunal on 22.12.1988 for regularization of deposit collectors and for payment of wages in the form of incentive remuneration.
(3.) As against the order of the Tribunal, the Bank as well as the deposit collectors approached the High Court. The High Court vacated the order of regularisation passed by the Tribunal, however, affirmed the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal with regard to payment of wages. Ultimately, the matter reached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3355 of 1998, which came to be disposed of, on 13.2.2001 and the Supreme Court concluded that the pygmy collectors cannot be regularised and hence the order of the High Court was sustained on the said point. However, the award as to the payment of wages in the form of incentive remuneration ie., based on percentage of collection made by each of the deposit collectors granted by the Tribunal was upheld. On the basis of award as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the recovery notices are issued to the members of the respondent Union on the ground that the bank has made excess payment of commission to the members of the respondent Union.