SHANTANU G JOSHI Vs. HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated January 3, 1996 passed by the Labour Court, Nasik, whereby the said Court held that the Petitioner being the medical representative is not workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(2.) THE facts stated in the Writ Petition would show that the Petitioner was employed as an employee of the Respondent-company as a medical representative. He has been in the employment of the Respondent since 1984. Since according to Petitioner certain amounts due to him from the year 1985 were not paid by the Respondent-employer, he made an application under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said application is being contested by the Respondents. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue whether the Petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in H. R. Adyanthaya and Ors.) v. Sandoz (India) Limited and Ors. AIR 1994 SC 2608 : 1994 (5) SCC 737 : 1995-I-LLJ-303, the Labour Court held that the Petitioner being medical representative was not a workman.

(3.) MR. Colin Gonsalves, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that to the extent the Petitioner has not been held to be workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by the Labour Court, no grievance is being raised. The grievance of the Petitioner is that by virtue of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, the provision of Industrial Disputes Act has been made applicable in relation to Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 and despite the fact that the Apex Court in the 1 judgment cited (supra) has held that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act became applicable to the medical representatives depending upon their wages from March 6, 1976 to May 6, 1987 and without the limitation of their wages thereof, the Labour Court overlooked this aspect.