MANJEET SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., C.W.P. No. 13524 of 2001 titled Manjeet Singh and another v. Punjab National Bank and others and C.W.P. No. 18792 of 2002 titled Mandip Gujral and another v. Andhra Bank and another as they raise common questions of law and facts.

(2.) The two petitioners in C.W.P. No. 13524 of 2001 titled Manjeet Singh and another v. Punjab National Bank and others were appointed as Pygmy Deposit Collectors in the then New Bank of India, Talwara Branch, Talwara for making collections under the Pygmy Deposit Collection Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme). The then New Bank of India was merged into the Punjab National Bank vide notification, dated September 4, 1993, issued by the Government of India in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India under Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The petitioners who had been working as Pygmy Deposit Collectors since 1979 in the then New Bank of India after the merger in 1993 continued to work as such with the Punjab National Bank. They also continued to be paid the same commission, i.e., 3.5 per cent on their collections which they were getting while working with the New Bank of India. However, a question arose whether to issue fresh appointment to the Pygmy Deposit Collectors as and when the scheme is also to be introduced in other branches of the bank. A clarification was given by the Zonal Office, Ludhiana, respondent No. 1, on September 21, 1993 that the Pygmy Deposit Scheme was almost the same as mini deposit scheme and therefore, in the branches where this scheme had already been implemented it should be allowed to continue and that no fresh appointment of mini deposit collector was to be made. The petitioners, except for the aforesaid commission at the rate of 3.5 per cent, were not paid any fixed pay in the regular scale, bonus, gratuity, dearness allowance etc. The respondent Punjab National Bank was taking steps to reduce the commission on the amount collected for the scheme from 3.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent. The petitioners, therefore submitted representation, dated June 12, 2000, and it was requested to review the above scheme and the petitioners be allowed to keep the collection of Rs. 100 per day per account as was already in force in the bank since 1993 after the merger of the earlier New Bank of India with the Punjab National Bank. This representation was followed by another representation, dated July 25, 2000. The respondent No. 3 Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Talwara Branch, vide his letter dated June 16, 2000, favourably recommended to the effect that mini deposit agents were quite helpful in loan recoveries specially in NPA accounts and that they were bringing in lakhs of rupees in cash deposits. It was requested to allow them commission at the rate of Rs. 100 per day per account. This was followed by another letter, dated August 21, 2000, favouring continuation of the scheme and the payment of commission. The petitioners represented against the lowering of the commission from 3.5 per cent to 2 per cent. However, they were not released regular commission at the rate of 3.5 per cent for the months of June and July 2001. The respondents also decided to effect recoveries from April 1, 2001 and further disallowed them to collect Rs. 100 per day per account which they had been doing for the last more than two decades and instead introduced the collection of Rs. 30 per day per account. The petitioners accordingly served a legal notice, dated August 12, 2001, stating that the action of the authorities in not releasing their commission at the rate of 3.5 per cent despite the fact that they had been performing all regular duties is patently arbitrary and unjust and against the principles of natural justice. The same was not responded to and accordingly the petitioners have filed the present petition, seeking quashing of the orders, dated June 21, 2001, whereby the commission has been reduced from 3.5 per cent to 2 per cent.

(3.) The petitioners in the case C.W.P. No. 18792 of 2001 titled Mandip Gujral v. Andhra Bank and others were appointed as commission agents in September 1977 and October 1978 by respondent No.2 Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh. The action of the said respondent No.2 was confirmed by the respondent Andhra Bank vide letters dated November 18, 1977 and November 2, 1978. The petitioners therein were getting 3 per cent commission as agents under the scheme since 1977-78 i. e. from the date of their appointment. Vide letter, dated August 31, 2001, they were intimated by the respondent Andhra Bank that they would be paid incentive/remuneration at 2 per cent and that recovery would be made with effect from April 1, 2001 pending calculation of arrears/recoveries. The said decision of reducing the incentive/ remuneration was stated to be as per decision of the award of the Industrial Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners represented on October 5, 2001 and requested the Chief Manager, Andhra Bank respondent No.2 not to recover the so-called excess amount. The respondent No.2 Chief Manager, Andhra bank wrote a letter, dated October 12, 2001, intimating the respondent No. 1 Andhra Bank that from April 1, 2001 to August 31, 2001 amount of Rs. 38,385 and Rs. 57,379 as difference of 1 per cent (/. e. 3 per cent minus 2 per cent) is to be recovered from the respective petitioners in C.W.P. No. 18792 of 2001. No incentive/remuneration was paid to the petitioners for the months of September and October, 2001. They, therefore, submitted a representation mentioning therein that they were paid commission at the rate of 3 per cent of the amount calculated under the daily deposit: scheme and without prejudice to the decision of the negotiations between their association and the management they requested to recover the excess amount in 12 monthly equal instalments so that they could get regular commission. It was also submitted that they had not been paid their commission/ remuneration without any justifiable reasons and that in similar case of commission agents of Punjab National Bank, this Court vide order, dated September 4, 2001, in C.W.P. No. 13524 of 2001 had stayed the recovery to be effected from the commission agents. The respondent No. 2, Chief Manager, Andhra Bank, again wrote a letter, dated November 6, 2001, to respondent No. 1 informing the latter that commission payable to the petitioners with effect from September 2001, had not been paid. However, no reply or clarification was received. Therefore, the present petition for quashing order, dated August 31, 2001, whereby it was decided to reduce the remuneration by way of commission from 3 per cent to 2 per cent on the amount collected and also for directing the respondent authorities to pay the same commission at 3 per cent as per terms of their appointment and the policy scheme in existence for the last more than two decades.