Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20.He submits that advancing loan on pledged jewels is not a main stream of banking on which the second respondent bank's revenue is dependent. Such kind of work cannot be called as permanent work, as there is no guarantee of jewels being pledged daily for availing loan, much less indispensable as already explained above. Jewel appraisers role is restricted to checking the quality of the jewel that the customer pledges for loan and certifying the quality of the jewels pledged and its market value. The decision as to extension of the loan and the quantum is left to the discretion of the branch manager and the appraiser has no role to play in this matter. They never fill up loan forms as alleged but only the jewel appraiser form and the appraising fees / Commission for professional services rendered paid to the appraisers are completely borne by the customer and not by the second respondent bank. Therefore the appraisers are not under the pay roll of the second respondent bank at all. The jewel appraiser's role ends with giving the certificate assuring the quality of the jewel that is to be pledged. As contended by the petitioner they do not perform any duties of disbursement or follow up of loan as alleged. The appraiser's certificate is independent of the loan application and it clearly lays down the boundaries of the duties of appraiser. No other work is performed other than what is required for apprising the jewels. Moreover employees of the bank are assigned with unique Service Record Number, unique log in Identity and password which are mandatory for performing any kind of work including clerical and as the jewel appraisers, who are not the employees of the second respondent bank, are not provided with such service record number or identification number, no circumstances can arise demanding their discharge of clerical functions. They are free to be engaged by more than one bank. The allegations that the appraiser is required for other clerical work incidental to jewel loan and follow up and that they fill up loan application and obtain signature of borrowers and that their work is permanent in nature all are concocted and without substance.

23.He submits that the cost of repetition it is submitted that the respondent bank has been extending loan against the security of gold jewels. The respondent bank empanelled Gold smiths in the panel of jewel appraisers for the limited purpose of ascertaining the weight, quality, purity and market value of the security. Depending upon the requirements and availability of jewel appraisers in the village / town where the branch is located, one or more gold smiths are in the panel of such branch extending jewel loan to serve the Banking Public. A prospective customer intending to raise a loan by pledging gold jewels obtains a certificate from any of these gold smiths in the panel. The charges payable for giving such professional certificate is paid by the customer directly to the concerned gold smith in the panel. To ensure that the jewel appraised by them is the same jewel which offered to be pledged with the bank, the respondent bank is insisting the personal presence of the gold smith at the time of appraisal by the gold smith and pledge of jewels to the bank. For the limited purpose of seeking professional opinion, the respondent bank identified certain gold smiths and empanelled them as jewel appraisers. It is humbly submitted that the respondent bank is having panel of lawyers to give opinion on the deeds of properties proposed to be mortgaged to the bank and also panel of engineers to give valuation of building, plant and machinery etc., for rendering professional services. These panel lawyers / Engineers charge professional fees. Similarly the respondent bank thought it fit and advisable to have a panel of goldsmiths. Just like Engineers and Advocates, these goldsmiths in the panel render independent professional opinion on the jewels proposed to be pledged by a customer in the respondent bank. The borrowers are paying fees / professional charges to Advocates, Engineers for giving opinion on title deeds and valuation certificates, as the case may be. Similarly, the borrowers are directly paying the fees to the empanelled goldsmiths who appraise the jewels. Apart from giving professional opinion on the jewel, these goldsmiths are not doing any clerical work and there is no fixed time to render their services as they are at liberty to make them available for offering their professional services. The goldsmiths who are presently in the panel are only appraising the jewels of the borrowers and the respondent bank does not have any administrative control over them and for the services rendered by the goldsmiths the fees are not paid by the respondent bank, as the intending borrowers are to pay the same directly to the panel appraisers.

25.Contrary to what has been stated by the petitioner the existing state of affairs, to prove that there is no master-servant relationship, is as follows:

i.Working hours of jewel appraisers is not fixed by the Bank. Professional Services of appraisers utilized as and when required.
ii.Commission is not paid by the Bank. The Bank is permitting the customers to pay the eligible professional fee / commission directly to the appraisers for the professional services rendered.
iii.No disciplinary control of appraisers as in the case of staff.

27.The case that petitioner is relying on is completely distinguishable on facts from the case at hand. The jewel appraisers are similarly placed as bank panel lawyers and engineers. As already submitted, the second respondent bank / branch maintains the list of Panel Jewel Appraisers just as in the case of Panel advocates / Panel Engineers and their services are used for the benefit of customers. Bank is allowing the panel jewel appraiser to charge a professional fee, by way of appraiser charges directly from the customers. The petitioner's averments have been denied in the preceding para of his submission. The facts of the case stated by the petitioner are different from the facts of the case at hand and hence it cannot be applied in the present system of empanelment of Jewel appraisers. Since, there is no employer  employee relationship between panel appraiser and second respondent bank, as explained in the preceding paras, there is no question of dismissal of appraiser, as there is no written order / communication issued to the aggrieved persons. However Bank in order to de-panel any of the panel appraisers or include additional members as panel appraisers, make suitable modifications as and when there is a necessity for the same, taking into account the business of the bank and the larger interest of the customers of the Bank. Allowing this kind of writ petition will only encourage back door entry into the bank to claim employee status which otherwise is not possible. Hence for the aforesaid reasons it is humbly prayed that this Court dismiss the writ petition.