4.At this phase, the petitioner`s qualified counsel argues that: That the petitioner`s condition was known to the respondent/bank and, although the respondent did not report inconsistencies or deficiencies in his work to the petitioner, a procedure of 10.06.2012 was issued and indicated that the bank had otherwise terminated its expert service for its branch and terminated its service after 30 days of work. The respondent/bank`s decision was received by the petitioner on 19.06.2012. The petitioner sent a reply through his lawyer and also sent a representation to the respondent/bank on 10.07.2012. However, after 1983, the bank began to create a group of jewelry auditors and used its services against the payment of 300 euros US for each jewelry loan it had sanctioned. Your plea for regularization has been examined. 9.To the assertion that there is no “master and servant” relationship between the petitioner and the respondent/bank (and, furthermore, that the petitioner is a jewellery expert appointed by a specific contract), the respondent`s qualified counsel refers to the 2006 Supreme Court (3) SCC 729-730 (Indian Overseas Banks). The remuneration to be paid to the evaluators for verification was set at 1 reviewed per package. The bank is not on the right track. Suppose you are `A` (the service provider), the bank is the recipient of the service as `B` and the end consumer is `C`. It`s B`s client, not A`s.
A has nothing to do with Czudom. He`s your client`s client. B acts as a mediator. In his affidavit, the association`s general secretary, S. Bakthavathsalam, said that out of 3,000 jewelry auditors hired by the nationalized bank nationwide, 1,550 were members. The amount collected by the bank should not be called a commission. “The respondent (bank) asserts, on the one hand, that the jewelry auditors are not employees of the bank interviewed and, on the other hand, it obliges the evaluators to do all the work it conducts without bargaining power. The same goes for forced labour or slavery,” he said in the affidavit, insisting on paying decent wages. 2.According to the petitioner, since 20.02.1988, he was a credit auditor in jewellery with the complainant/bank.