IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 22.04.2025

Pronounced on: 28.05.2025

(1) LPA-766-2025 (O&M)

LEKHRAJ ……Appellant

Versus

APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY

ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS

……Respondents

(2) LPA-767-2025 (O&M)

PAWAN KUMAR JETHI ……Appellant

Versus

APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY

ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS

……Respondents

(3) LPA-768-2025 (O&M)

SATINDER PAL SINGH ……Appellant

Versus

APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY

ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS

……Respondents

(4) LPA-769-2025 (O&M)

AJAY KUMAR SHARMA ……Appellant

Versus

APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY

ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS

……Respondents

(5) LPA-771-2025 (O&M)

HARBANS SINGH ……Appellant

-2-

Versus

APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PAYMENT OF GRATUITY

ACT, 1972 AND OTHERS

……Respondents

(6) LPA-963-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK

OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

……Appellants

Versus

PAWAN KUMAR JETHI AND OTHERS

……Respondents

(7) LPA-965-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK

OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

……Appellants

Versus

SATINDER PAL SINGH AND OTHERS

……Respondents

(8) LPA-968-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK

OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

……Appellants

Versus

BHUSHAN KUMAR SADANA AND OTHERS

……Respondents

-3-

(9) LPA-969-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK

OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

……Appellants

Versus

HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS

……Respondents

(10) LPA-970-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK

OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

……Appellants

Versus

LEKH RAJ AND OTHERS

……Respondents

(11) LPA-990-2025 (O&M)

THE CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BANK

OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

……Appellants

Versus

AJAY KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS

……Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN

Present: Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for appellants (writ

petitioners).

Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate

for the respondent-Bank.

ALOK JAIN, J.

This order shall dispose of a batch of 11 intra

Court appeals as mentioned above, arising out of a common

-4-

order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge,

whereby two sets of writ petitions i.e., one filed by the

workmen-Deposit Collectors of the Bank and another filed

by the Bank itself, were dismissed, thereby upholding the

orders dated 25.08.2023 and 28.11.2024, passed by the

Controlling and the Appellate Authorities under the

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the 1972 Act’)

However, for the facility of reference, the facts are taken

from LPA-766-2025 arising out of CWP-3657-2025.

2. For ease of reference and better understanding,

collection agent/writ petitioner be hereinafter referred to as

the appellant and the Bank as the respondent.

3. The factual position is narrated in the tabulated

form as under:-

1979-2022 The appellant was rendering his services as

Authorized Collection Agent under the Central

Mini Deposit Scheme of the respondent Bank.

01.04.2022 The said Scheme of the respondent was

discontinued.

13.10.2022 The appellant submitted his claims before the

Controlling Authority under the 1972 Act, for

grant of gratuity along with interest on delayed

payment of gratuity.

The appellant submitted his claim by taking his

last drawn amount to be treated as his wages,

-5-

which included “fall back wages plus incentives”

and pleading the cut-off date as 31.03.2022 on the

ground that the said scheme was discontinued

thereafter.

25.08.2023 The Controlling Authority, while returning a

finding that the appellant was held entitled to the

gratuity as per Section 4(1) of the 1972 Act,

allowed the claims of the appellant by taking only

his “fall back wages” as wages holding him entitled

to gratuity.

15.09.2023 Two sets of appeals were filed before the Appellate

Authority under the 1972 Act.

First set of appeals filed by the appellant and

other workmen claiming the correction of the

calculation by taking their incentive also in their

wages for calculation and Second set of appeals

filed by the respondent-Bank challenging the

order of the Controlling Authority by submitting

that the appellant and the other workmen, were

not entitled to gratuity as they were neither

employees of the Bank nor had they been paid any

wages.

28.11.2024 The Appellate Authority vide common order dated

28.11.2024 upheld the order of the Controlling

Authority and dismissed both sets of appeals.

This led to filing of two sets of civil writ petitions,

-6-

one by the appellant and other workmen and the

second by the respondent-Bank.

28.02.2025 The learned Single Judge by a common order in

both sets of writ petitions, dismissed all the writ

petitions upholding the order passed by the

Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued

that the appellant had continuously worked from 1979 till

2022 (when the scheme under reference was discontinued)

under the Central Mini Deposit Scheme as an Authorized

Collection Agent on commission basis with the respondent-

Bank. It is further argued that post discontinuation of the

aforesaid scheme, the appellant filed a claim before the

Controlling Authority claiming the gratuity under the 1972

Act, by taking into consideration ‘the fall back wages’ as his

last drawn wages and also taking within the ambit of said

wages, the commission paid to the appellant. It is further

argued that the Controlling Authority vide order dated

25.08.2023 had partially allowed the claim by holding the

appellant entitled to the gratuity on the amount of ‘fall back

wages’, but had excluded the commission, which was being

paid to him by the respondent-Bank, as an incentive. It is

further argued that the aforesaid order was challenged by

way of an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which vide

-7-

order dated 28.11.2024, had dismissed the same and a

further challenge to the aforesaid orders before the learned

Single Judge, has remained unsuccessful, as noticed above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued

that the question of law which arose for consideration

before the learned Single Judge was whether the incentive

or commission earned by the appellant would fall within the

definition of wages as defined under Section 2 (s) of the

1972 Act and whether such commission could have been

excluded from the wages for computing the gratuity

payment to the appellant. It is further submitted that the

appellant has to be treated as a workman on the strength of

the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Bank

Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank, and

others, 2001 (3) SCC 36 and, therefore, the “fall back

wages” plus the incentive remuneration received by the

appellant has to be taken as his wages. He has also tried to

draw an analogy that the incentives and the “fall back

wages” would collectively amount to be the remuneration

and, hence, has to be treated as wages and, thus, the

appellant is entitled to receive the gratuity by taking the

said remuneration as his wages. It is, thus, argued that

while passing the impugned order, the learned Single

Judge, has wrongly discarded the case set up by the

appellant and the arguments raised for and on his behalf.

-8-

5. Mrs. Madhu Dayal, Advocate, appearing for the

respondent-Bank submits that the analogy sought to be

drawn by the appellant by claiming himself to be the

workman on the strength of the judgment in

Indian Bank Association (supra) is completely

misconceived. It is further submitted that there is no denial

to the fact that the appellant has to be treated as workman,

but only for the purposes of any action under the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, as the above said judgment was also in

the backdrop of the provisions of the said Act. It is

contended that the 1972 Act, is an independent piece of

legislation and the term ‘wages’ has been clearly defined

therein. She further submits that the word commission has

been specifically stated in the exclusion clause to the

definition of wages and, therefore, the amount of

commission received by the appellant cannot be stretched

to the extent of declaring it to be wages, especially in the

light of a specific bar under the provisions of the 1972 Act.

It is further submitted that the appellant being a

commission agent cannot be treated as a workman of the

respondent-Bank and, therefore, he is not entitled to any

gratuity even on the ‘fall back wages’, but the said legal

aspect has totally been overlooked by the Authorities under

the 1972 Act as also by the learned Single Judge.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has

-9-

also assisted this Court with regard to the term “fall back

wages” by submitting that the payment of such wages is

subject to the minimum deposit per month. While referring

to the decision of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in the

award dated 22.12.1988, wherein it was, inter-alia, held

that the Deposit Collectors and Agents, who are below the

age of 45 years as on 03.10.1980 and also those, who are

unwilling to be absorbed in regular Banks service, they

shall be paid the fall back wages of Rs.750 per month linked

with minimum deposit of Rs.7500/- per month and they

should be paid incentive remuneration @ 2% for collection

of over and above Rs.7500/- per month. It is argued that

the “fall back wages” are in fact, the minimum commission

that the deposit agents will have to earn. It is further

submitted that the same was revised vide Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Delhi award dated

07.10.2013, for the category of cities in which the deposit

agents work, because in case the deposit agents fail to

collect the minimum amount of collection consecutively for

two quarters of a year, his contract would be terminated by

the Bank without further notice.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has

also argued that the term “fall-back wages” is nothing, but

the minimum commission which is to be paid to the deposit

collectors and agents and the same is not to be considered

-10-

as emoluments that are earned by the tiny deposit

collectors. It is further argued that the distinction between

the “fall back wages” and “incentive remuneration” is that

whereas the former is the minimum component of the

emoluments linked to a minimum deposit of collection, the

latter is a variable component of commission linked to the

quantum of collection of deposits over and above the

minimum collection. It is further argued that the appellant

is not earning wages and, therefore, he is not entitled to

gratuity under the 1972 Act. Learned counsel for the

respondent-Bank has further argued that the benefit of

gratuity extended to the commission agents in terms of the

orders/awards/judgment passed by the CGIT, Delhi and

the Delhi High Court @ Rs.4000/- for “every year

completed” demonstrates the benevolence and

acknowledgement of the deposits collected by commission

agents, but cannot be taken as a ground to make the

respondents liable for compliance of statutory provisions,

which are not attracted to it.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

9. The question that arises for consideration by this

Court is whether the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge, upholding the orders passed by the

Authorities under the 1972 Act, requires any interference.

In order to answer the said question, the following two

-11-

points need to be determined:-

(i) Whether there is a relationship of employer

and employee between the respondent-Bank

and the appellant?

(ii) Whether the “fall back wages” can be

considered as wages under the 1972 Act?

10. Before proceeding further in the matter, it would

be just and relevant to reproduce the statement and object

and the relevant provisions of the 1972 Act, and that of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as under:-

“The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

An Act to make provision for the investigation

and settlement of industrial disputes, and for certain

other purposes.

Definition of Wages under Section 2 (rr)

“wages” means all remuneration capable of

being expressed in terms of money, which would, if the

terms of employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled,

be payable to a workman in respect of his employment or

of work done in such employment, and includes –

(i) Such allowances (including dearness

allowance) as the workman is for the time

being entitled to;

(ii) the value of any house accommodation, or of

supply of light, water, medical attendance or

other amenity or of any service or of any

concessional supply of foodgrains or other

articles;

(iii) any travelling concession;

(iv) any commission payable on the promotion of

sales or business or both;]

but does not include –

(a) any bonus;

(b) any contribution paid or payable by the

-12-

employer to any pension fund or provident

fund or for the benefit of the workman

under any law for the time being in force;

(c) any gratuity payable on the termination of

his service;]

The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

An Act to provide for a scheme for the

payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories,

mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies,

shops or other establishments and for matters connected

therewith or incidental thereto.

Definition of Employee under Section 2 (e)

“employee” means any person (other than an

apprentice) who is employed for wages, whether the terms

of such employment are express or implied, in any kind of

work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the

work of a factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway

company, shop or other establishment to which this Act

applies, but does not include any such person who holds

a post under the Central Government or a State

Government and is governed by any other Act or by any

rules providing for payment of gratuity.

Definition of Wages under Section 2 (s)

“Wages” means all emoluments which are earned

by an employee while on duty or on leave in accordance

with the terms and conditions of his employments and

which have paid or are payable to him in cash and

includes dearness allowance but does not include any

bonus, commission, house rent allowance, overtime

wages and any other allowance.

Section 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

4. Payment of gratuity. – (1) Gratuity shall be

payable to an employee on the termination of his

employment after he has rendered continuous service for

not less than five years, -

-13-

(a) on his superannuation, or

(b) on his retirement or resignation, or

(c)on his death or disablement due to accident or

disease:

Provided that the completion of continuous

service of five years shall not be necessary where

the termination of the employment of any employee

is due to death or disablement:

[Provided further that in the case of death of

the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid

to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made,

to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs

is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be

deposited with the controlling authority who shall

invest the same for the benefit of such minor in

such Bank or other financial institution, as may be

prescribed, until such minor attains majority.]

Explanation. - For the purposes of this

section, disablement means such disablement as

incapacitates an employee for the work which he,

was capable of performing before the accident or

disease resulting in such disablement.”

11. From the above reproduced statutory provisions,

it is apparent that the 1947 Act, was enacted for an

investigation and settlement of industrial disputes, and for

certain other purposes, whereas the 1972 Act was enacted

in order to pay gratuity to the employees engaged in

factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway

companies, shops or other establishments and for matters

connected therewith or incidental thereto. Under the 1972

Act, an employee means any person other than an

apprentice, who is employed for wages on the experience or

-14-

implied terms for any kind of work in a factory, mine,

oilfield, plantation, port, railway company, shop or other

establishment, but it does not include any person, who

holds a post under the Central or State Government and is

governed by any other Act or any other rules providing for

payment of gratuity. Section 4 of the 1972 Act stipulates

that the gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the

termination of his employment after he has rendered

continuous service for not less than five years.

12. The definition of wages is different under both the

Acts. Whereas under 1947 Act, wages means all

remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money,

which would, if the terms of employment expressed or

implied, were fulfilled and such wages includes dearness

allowance; value of any house accommodation; any

travelling concession and any commission payable on the

promotion of sales or business or both, but does not include

any bonus, contribution or any gratuity payable on terms of

service of an employee. However, under the 1972 Act, wages

means all emoluments which are earned by an employee

while on duty or on leave in accordance with the terms and

conditions of his employment and which have been paid or

are payable to him in cash and includes dearness

allowance, but does not include any bonus, commission,

-15-

house rent allowance, over time wages and any other

allowance.

13. Thus, in order to answer point No.(i), it would be

just and expedient to refer to the terms of the employment

of the appellant. Relevant Clauses i.e. opening part and

Clause (1) and (6) of the proforma of agreement (Annexure

P.3 with CWP-5714-2025), stipulates as under:-

“This agreement made this 10

th day of October,

1977 between Mr. Om Parkash Sabharwal

inhabitant residing in House No. 300/1, Dhokh

Diggti, Kachi Bazar, Ambala Cantt. (hereinafter

called the authorized collection agent) of the one

part and Central Bank of India, body corporate

constituted under the Banking Companies

(Acquisition and transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970 and having its Head Office at “Chander

Mukhi” Nariman Point Bombay 400021 and a

Branch Office inter alia at Niclsohoud Ambala

Cantt in Haryana State (hereinafter referred to as

the Bank which expression 1shall unless repugnant

to the context or meaning thereof include its

successors and assigns) of the other part.

xx xx xx

“1. The Agency shall commence from the date of

execution of these presents and shall continue to

remain in force until terminated by the Bank at its

discretion (without any notice) or/and without

-16-

assigning any reason by the Authorized Collection

Agent giving a three months’ notice of his intention

to relinquish this Agreement.

xx xx xx

6. The Authorized Collection Agent will be paid

by the Bank Commission at the rate of 3% on all

Deposits brought by him under the Scheme, no

remuneration being payable on deposits made

direct at the Branch. The said commission will be

made in the first week of each month for deposits

turned in during the previous month as per entries

made in the relative Branch Registers, subject to

the conditions hereinafter stipulated.”

14. It may be noticed that the matter regarding

whether or not the commission agents are employees of the

Bank, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association’s case (supra).

In the said case, it has been held by the Supreme Court

that undoubtedly the deposit collectors are not regular

employees of the Bank, but they, nevertheless are workers

within the meaning of the term as defined in the 1947 Act,

and there is a clear relationship of master and servant

between the deposit collectors and the Bank concerned. In

Para No. 27 of the judgment, it was held as under:-

“27. We also see no force in the contention that

Section 10 of the Banking Regulation Act prevents

-17-

employment of persons on commission basis. The

proviso to Section 10 makes it clear that

commission can be paid to persons who are not in

regular employment. Undoubtedly the Deposit

Collectors are not regular employees of the Bank.

But they, nevertheless, are workers within the

meaning of the term as defined in the Industrial

Disputes Act. There is clearly a relationship of

master and servant between the Deposit Collectors

and the Bank concerned.”

Though the said judgment was delivered in the

context of the provisions of the 1947 Act, yet the fact

remains that the ratio of master-servant relationship held in

the said judgment, would also be applicable in order to

examine the claim of the workman under the 1972 Act. It

may be noticed that after the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the Central Bank of

India, Zonal Office, Sector-17, Chandigarh, had issued a

circular dated 13.01.2002, thereby providing the following

relief to the Tiny Deposit Collectors in the Bank.

“Central Office, PRS Legal vide their letter No.

CQ:PRS:LEGAL:GSG:MISC: 809: 01-02-698 dated

25

th December, 2001 has advised us that the Banks

may proceed against the Tiny Deposit Collector in

the following manner:-

2.1 Put on Notice all the Deposit Collectors, that

on and from 28.03.1997, the commission payment

to them on the monthly collections shall be as per

-18-

the Award (details to be given in the Notice i.e. you

may mention in the Notice that the Tiny Deposit

Collectors as per the Award of the Tribunal) and

pending calculation of arrears/recoveries they will

be paid commission as per the Award.

2.2 Back wage of Rs.750/- per month linked to

minimum deposit Rs.7500/-p.m.

2.3 2% commission for deposit collected over and

above Rs.7500/- p.m.

2.4 Uniform Conveyance allowance of Rs.50/- per

month for deposit collected less than Rs.10,000/-

and Rs.100/- per month for deposit collected over

Rs.10,000/-.

2.5 Besides they are also entitled to be paid

Gratuity equal to 15 days commission for each year

of service rendered by the Deposit Collectors and

whose agencies got terminated on or after

28.03.1997 for reason other than miss-

appropriation/fraud/forgery. Gratuity may have to

be paid at the rate of 15 days average commission

for each year of service rendered. As such, you may

accordingly arrive at the gratuity payable to the

Tiny Depositors and pay them against valid

discharge.”

15. It may further be noticed that vide an award

dated 07.10.2013, passed by the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal, gratuity @ Rs.4,000/- for every

completed year was awarded to the Deposit Collectors. The

said award was challenged in Delhi High Court by way of a

writ petition. The learned Single Judge in State Bank of

Bikaner and Jaipur and others Vs. All India Bank

Deposit Collectors Federation and another, 2016(3) SLR

-19-

347, while upholding the award, set aside the gratuity part

has held as under:-

“71. Keeping in view the above discussion, I find

no discrepancy in Award dated 07.10.2013, except

the gratuity part. Accordingly, order on gratuity is

hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the

respondents to claim gratuity, if they are entitled,

under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 before the

appropriate forum.”

The matter went in LPA before the Division Bench and the

Division Bench in State Bank of Hyderabad and others

Vs. All India Bank Deposit Collectors Federations and

another, 2015(20) SCT 347, has modified the impugned

award dated 07.10.2013 and made it operative

prospectively.

16. Subsequently, the Central Bank of India issued a

circular dated 26.04.2017 implementing the order passed

by the Delhi High Court giving the following benefit to the

Collection Depositors.

“We have been informed by Central Office for

implementation of the award vide above mentioned letter

that Award dated 07/10/2013 as modified by Hon’ble

Delhi High Court vide judgments dated 20/04/2015 in

W.P. No.7833/2014 and 05/10/2015 in LPA 437/2015

in the matter of Bank V/s All India Bank Deposit

Collectors Federation & Ors be implemented inter alia

-20-

by allowing Fall Back Wages. Incentive Remuneration

and Conveyance allowance for Deposit Collectors under

the CMDS Scheme, in terms of their eligibility as laid

down by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,

Delhi.

The Gist of criteria stipulated in the said judgment dt.

07/10/2013 is as under for Tier A, B & C cities is as under:-

Nature

of

Financi

al

Benefit

s

QUANTUM OF MONTHLY COLLECTION

PARAMETER EXISTING REVISED AS PER

AWARD w.e.f.

07/10/2023

C B A C B A

MINIMUM

COLLECTION

3

Lacs

4

Lacs

5

Lacs

3 Lacs 4

Lacs

5 Lacs

Fall

back

Wages

Minimum of

Rs.750/-

subject to

collection of

Rs.7500/- pm

and 2%

commission

on collection

over and above

Rs.7500/-.

6600 8600 106

00

8000 1100

0

14000

Convey

ance

Min.50

Max. 100

50

OR

100

50

OR

100

50

OR

100

750 750 750

Total 6700 8700 107

00

8750 1175

0

14750

XX XX XX

B) On Collection of over and above Rs. 3 Lakh and up to

Rs.5 Lakh, all deposit collectors, irrespective of their areas of

operation, will earn incentive remuneration of 3%. Thus, a

deposit collector of area ‘B’ & ‘C’ area city would get Rs.3000/-

-21-

and Rs.6,000/- respectively per month as incentive

remuneration on minima limit of their collection. On collection

of over and above Rs. 5 Lakh, a depositor collector would get

incentive remuneration of 2%.

C) In case of failure of collector to meet minima standard of

collection i.e., Rs. 3 Lakh per month, consequently for two

quarters of a year, his contract of service would be snapped by

the Bank without any further notice to him. For this

inefficiency, he will not be able to claim any right of being

heard from the Bank.

D) The date of the effect of the revision of Fall Back wages,

conveyance & incentive will be from 07/10/2013.

In view of the Award passed by the Hon. Court, All

Branches are advised to implement the same and pay the Fall

Back Wages. Conveyance and incentive to the eligible CMDS

Agents working in the Branch as on 07/10/2013.”

From the aforesaid factual and legal position, it is

apparent that the circular dated 13.01.2002 has never been

withdrawn by the respondent-Bank. The said circular had

extended the benefit of gratuity to the collection depositors.

Further, the issuance of the circular on 26.04.2017 does

not indicate that the benefit of gratuity extended vide

circular issued in 2002 has been withdrawn. In view of the

pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syndicate

Bank case (supra), coupled with the subsequent circulars

issued by the Central Bank of India thereby treating the

collection agents as their employees, it is held that there is

a relationship of master and servant between the

respondent-Bank and the appellant and, therefore, the

-22-

appellant would be covered by the definition of the employee

under the 1972 Act.

17. The first point having been answered, now we

may advert to point No. (ii) i.e. whether “the fall back wages”

can be considered as wages under the 1972 Act. In this

regard, it may be noticed that the emphasis of the learned

counsel for the respondent-Bank is on the fact that the “fall

back wages” is nothing, but the minimum commission

earned by the Collection Depositor. However, we do not find

any substance in the said argument for the simple reason

that the term of “fall back wages” defined by the Industrial

Tribunal, Hyderabad, has been upheld by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank’s case (supra), wherein

it has been clearly laid down that the Deposit Collectors

would be paid minimum amount as the “fall back wages”

and such “fall back wages” would earn

remuneration/incentives on the amount collected by them

for onwards deposit in the Bank. The concept of the “fall

back wages” thus, means that the minimum amount of

wages is to be paid to the collection agents and the same

has been deliberated in extenso by Delhi High Court in

State Bank of Hyderabad’s case (supra) and as indicated

above, the said judgment of the Delhi High Court has

already been implemented by the respondent-Bank. Though

an SLP is stated to be pending against the said decision, yet

-23-

the fact remains that once the directions of Delhi High

Court have been complied with, we need not deliberate the

matter any further on the said count.

18. In our opinion the “fall back wages” cannot be

considered to be commission as it is clearly stipulated in

the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and Delhi High Court that the commission and

incentive is over and above the “fall back wages” earned by

the deposit agents. In the circular issued on Central Bank

of India on 26.04.2017, while implementing the

order/judgment of the Delhi High Court, it has been clearly

mentioned that the `fall back wages’ are different from

incentive and conveyance allowance. It is further clear that

only a limit of fall back wages has been set i.e. Rs.750/- on

collection of Rs.7500/- from 2001 to 2013 and from 2013 to

2022 Rs.14,000/- on collection of Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the

commission being over and above the said amount of fall

back wages, the latter term cannot be included in the

former.

19. Still further, if the contention of the learned

counsel for the respondent-Bank that the “fall back wages”

is nothing but a commission earned by the deposit agents,

is accepted, then there is no logic in the stand of the

respondent-Bank that the incentive and commission would

-24-

increase based on the collections made by the deposit

agents. Thus, the concept of minimum “fall back wages” is

nothing, but the minimum wages which collection agent is

entitled to. The commission/incentive being over and above

the `fall back wages’, cannot be included into the wages as

defined under the 1972 Act, as payment of commission has

been excluded in the definition of the wages under the said

Act.

20. We, thus, find that the learned Single Judge, is

perfectly justified in holding that in terms of the circular

issued by the Central Bank of India on 26.04.2017, the

respondent-Bank cannot be allowed to backtrack and plead

that the “fall back wages” do not fall under the definition of

the wages under the 1972 Act. As noticed above, by

considering the concept of minimum “fall back wages”, the

respondent-Bank has already granted benefits of

convenience allowance and incentive to the collection agents

w.e.f. 07.10.2013. The two documents i.e., the circular

issued in the year 2002 and another circular issued on

26.04.2017 make it clear that the respondent-Bank had

never challenged the concept of “fall back wages” and

rather, continued making payment to the Deposit Collectors

in terms of the said circulars. The argument of the learned

counsel for the respondent-Bank that the payment of

gratuity and other benefits to the appellant and the deposit

-25-

agents was made out of generosity of the Bank is not

tenable as had the Bank been aggrieved by the aforesaid

action, it could have very well challenged the same before

the appropriate Court. It is only after the appellant and

other similarly placed employees had filed their claims

before the Authorities under the 1972 Act and/or the

challenge to the said orders came before this Court that the

respondent-Bank is taking an objection that “the fall back

wages” concept is not covered by the definition of wages

under the 1972 Act.

21. In view of the above, while answering point

No.(ii), we hold that the “fall back wages” falls under the

definition of wages under the 1972 Act.

22. Resultantly, we find that there is no illegality or

perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge. Consequently, both sets of appeals are hereby

dismissed.

23. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(SUDHIR SINGH) (ALOK JAIN)

JUDGE JUDGE

May 28, 2025.

S.Sethi/Himanshu

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes

Whether Reportable:- Yes