NBFCs in addition to the individuals/entities permitted earlier, subject to the compliance with the guidelines and thus, the action of the appellant Bank in doing away with engagement of BCs on individual basis and insisting for their engagement as CSP of National BCs, is ex facie arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that on engagement, the commission is paid to BCs, in proportion to the amount collected and therefore, if the alleged policy decision of the Bank for engagement of the respondents individual BCs, as CSP of National BCs is given effect to, the major portion of the commission earned by them would go to corporate BCs, which is ex facie unfair and unreasonable. Learned counsel submitted that the services of the respondents were found satisfactory and therefore, extension was granted to them from time to time and thus, without there being any justifiable reason, the decision of the Bank in placing the respondents in the hands of the National BCs is unjust and improper. Learned counsel fairly submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, the respondents were engaged as SP and not as employees of the Bank, but if the veil is lifted to find out the true nature of the engagement, it reveals that for all intent and purposes, the respondents were working under the direct control of the appellant Bank and were discharging the same duties which are being discharged by the regularly recruited employees of the Bank and thus, the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge regarding the existence of master and servant relationship between the Bank and the respondents cannot be faulted with. Learned counsel would submit that the respondents have never claimed regularisation in service rather, they claimed that their existing contractual engagements should not be discontinued and they may not be compelled to serve the
