G.K. JHA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the industrial award dated 04.02.1998, passed by the Labour Court- I: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi in I.D. No. 67/1991. The Labour Court vide the said award held that the Petitioner is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1978 (for short, the Sales Promotion Act) r/w Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act), and hence the dispute not an industrial dispute. Consequently, the dispute raised by the petitioner contained in the reference made to the Labour Court vide reference dated 14.01.1991 with regard to the termination of the petitioners services by the respondent management, has not been decided on merits on account of lack of jurisdiction.

(2.) The background facts may be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Sales Representative with the Respondent no. 3 on 04.06.1986. After serving for the probationary period, the petitioner got confirmed on 28.11.1986. The petitioner was transferred from Purnea to Muzzafarpur and was asked to be a team leader and co-ordinate between his team members. On 13.02.1987, the petitioner was promoted to the post of District Manager and was put on probation of 6 months. By letter dated 31.08.1987, the probation period of the petitioner was extended by 3 months i.e. upto 01.12.1987 after assessment of the petitioners performance. Vide telegram dated 01.12.1987, the respondent management again expressed its inability to confirm the petitioner in the post of District Manager. The petitioner was transferred from Muzzafarpur to Rajamundhry with effect from 01.06.1988. His area of operation was also reduced to Muzaffarpur area only. On account of his unsatisfactory performance, the management terminated the services of the petitioner vide letter dated 28.10.1988.

(3.) In August 1989, the petitioner filed a dispute before the Patna Labour Court. The said claim was apparently dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Eventually, the reference, as aforesaid, came to be made by the appropriate government to the Labour Court which was registered as I.D. No. 67/91. The petitioner filed his statement of claim. The petitioner claimed that his services were terminated illegally and on false allegations. The respondent management, inter alia, raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the claim on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. The respondent claimed that the petitioner was employed as a District Manager and was discharging managerial and/or sales functions. Other defences were also raised regarding territorial jurisdiction and estoppel. The respondent also claimed that the termination was made in terms of the stipulations contained in the appointment letter. On the basis of the pleadings, the Labour Court, on 03.08.1994, framed the following issues