KRISHNA AUTAR GUPTA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed Agent under the Mini Deposit Scheme of the respondent Bank of inducing public to participate to the said scheme, collecting deposit from customers from their residence or place of business and deposit the amount with the Bank. The contract was terminated by the order dated 18.8.1990 at Annexure-3 to the writ petition and this has been challenged herein.

(2.) Mr. P.N. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner first contended that as the petitioner was serving the respondent's cause against Commission the relationship amounted to master and servant and, therefore, such termination amounting to retrenchment is illegal. Mr. K.L. Grover, learned Counsel for the Bank contended that the relationship was of principal and agent and there was a contract of agency and as such there is not question of retrenchment.

(3.) After considering the respective contentions of the parties, I perused the terms of the contract which appear from various documents available on record and in particular the documents at Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition, the copy of the Scheme at Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit and the documents annexed at Annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit. The terms of the said agreement as appear from the said documents clearly indicate that relationship of the petitioner and the Bank was of the agent and the principal and it was not a relationship of Master and servant. The appointment itself indicates that it was a case of agency. Moreover, the extent of control of the Bank on nature of work, hours of work and other relevant factors has not been shown to create any relationship of Master and servant. Therefore, there is no question of retrenchment and as such the said contention of the petitioner is not tenable.