SANDIP MANSUKHLAL ARDESANA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rajkot in Recovery Application No. 69/2016 by which the petitioner's application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for recovery of certain amounts was rejected on the short ground that the petitioner being a Medical Representative would not fall within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) Perusal of the order under challenge would indicate that it was undisputed even by the petitioner that he was a Medical Representative which has been observed by the Labour Court considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of H.R. Adyantha vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. [AIR 1994 SC 2608] which holds that a Medical Representative cannot be termed to be a workman.

(3.) Mr. Jeet Rajyaguru, learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the fact that in view of the provisions of Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees Act, 1976, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were made applicable to such employees. In support of his submissions, Mr. Rajyaguru has relied on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Medical And Sales Representatives Union vs. Industrial Research Institute Pvt. Ltd reported in 2001(1) LLJ 91 and Dolphin Laboratories Limited vs. Judge, Labour Court, Udaipur [2001(1) RajLR 718].