JUDGMENT Aloke Chakrabarti, J.
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.
4. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the terms of appointment as appear from the agreement itself (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) indicate that only under the conditions prescribed under paragraph 5 of the said agreement termination could be affected and in the present case those conditions have not been fulfilled. The learned Counsel for the respondents contends that termination under paragraph 3 of the agreement is independent of paragraph 5 of the said agreement and as such pure and simple termination of the agreement under paragraph 3 is perfectly alright and does not suffer from any irregularity.
5. For considering such contentions of the parties necessary paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the said agreement are required to be considered and those run as follows:-
"3. 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 or by the Mini Deposit Collector giving three month's notice of his/her intention to terminate the agency.
4. The agency shall automatically be terminated on the death of the agent or if the agent is adjudicated insolvent or suffers from a state of unsound mind.
5. The Bank may terminate the agency by revoking the authority of the agent, any time by giving a notice, if the Mini Deposit Collector :-
(i) commits breach of any of the terms and/or conditions of this Agreement and of the Rules and Regulations referred to above and also of other such directions as may be issued from time to time by the Bank in this behalf.
(ii) is convicted by any Criminal Court for any offence involving normal turpitude;
(iii) suffers in the opinion of the Bank from any physical or other infirmity that renders him/her unfit for discharging or fulfilling his/her duties or obligations under this agreement;
(iv) commits any act which the Bank considers as prejudicial to its interest;
(v) is guilty of misappropriation or misapplication or amounts collected from the depositor/s; or is found defaulting habitually in observing the Rules and Regulations or directions."
6. A perusal of the said paragraphs indicates that the commencement and continuation of the agency has been prescribed in paragraph 3. It provides that Bank can terminate the agency at its discretion. The agent can also terminate the same giving three months notice. Paragraph 4 provides for automatic termination of the agency on the death of the agent or on his being adjudicated insolvent or his suffering from state of unsound mind. Paragraph 5 provides power of Bank for termination or agency by revoking the authority of the agent any time by giving a notice and this can be done under the prescribed circumstances as mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v).
7. Therefore, a comparison of the said three paragraphs clearly indicates that paragraphs 3 provides for discretionary power of the Bank for termination of agency and for this no notice is prescribed although in the same paragraph power has been given to the agent for termination of agency upon giving three months notice. But the Bank's power to terminate the agency under paragraph 5 is by revoking the authority of the agent under specified circumstances by giving a notice. In my opinion, the power under paragraph 3 is an independent power and it is in no way controlled or governed by paragraph 5. Thus, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 provide for three different modes of termination of the agency and conditions prescribed under paragraph 5 are not relevant for the purpose of termination of the agency under other two paragraphs. Nowhere anything has been provided to indicate that power under paragraph 3 can be exercised only on existence of conditions prescribed under paragraphs 5 and a reading of such a- provision in paragraph 3 overlooking intervening paragraph 4 is not permissible. In view of the aforesaid finding, I find that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this respect is also not tenable.
8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.