H SHIVARAM SHETTY Vs. PHARMED P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 10th Novr., 1982, made by the Labour Court Hubli, in Reference No.7811978. The reference was to the effect as to whether the Managment was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner, a medical representative, with effect from 19.4.1977, by the Management of M s Pharmed P. Ltd., the respondent before the Labour Court. In these proceedings, it is the first respondent and the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court is the second respondent.

(2.) The 1st respondent before the Labour Court had raised several questions, out of which, the second of them, was whether the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the reference as pleaded before it and the 4th question was whether the claimant was not a workman as defined under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act). The Labour Court tried out of the five issues raised, leading to the two questions cited above as preliminary issuep and held against the petitioner. In other wordls, the reference was held to be bad because the petitioner was not a workman. By way of caution the 5th issue was also raised and found that the domestic enquiry held was fair and proper. In this writ petition, essentially, the arguments have been heard only in respect of the question whether the petitioner was a sales promotion employee or not within the meaning of the term as defined in the Sales Promotion Emplovees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as that question has the effect of determining the question of jurisdiction as well.

(3.) The Labour Court came to the conclusion that having regard to the salary andl allowances drawn by the petitioner for the relevant period which was in excess of Rs. 9,000 he was not a 'workman' as can be seen, from the; very language of the definition. Sec. (2) (d) of the Act reads as follows :