BAYER INDIA LTD Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question that is posed for decision in this writ petition presented under Article 226 of the Constitution is: What are the legal characteristics that make an establishment a commercial establishment and attract the applicability of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (Act 15 of 1966) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) The facts out of which this writ petition for the issue of a Writ arises my be shortly stated; The first petitioner, Bayer (India) Limited, Bombay is a Pharmaceutical undertaking with its Head Office in Bombay. It has a regional sales office at Madras, The activities of the petitioner-undertaking in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala are supervised by the Regional Office at Madras. The second petitioner is the Area Sales Organiser of the first petitioner-undertaking for the Telangana territory and he resides at Hyderabad.

(3.) The second respondent was appointed by the first petitioner as the Medical Representative for promoting the sales of the Pharmaceutical products of the first petitioner. His salary and his incentive commission were paid by the first petitioner. The area of his operation and his increments were also determined by the first petitioner. According to the petitioners his services were terminated by the first petitioner for reasonable cause and gross misconduct after a full and fair enquiry held into the charges levelled against him by the first petitioner on 9-11-1978. Against the said order, he preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, under section 41 of the Act. The first petitioner raised an objection that the appeal was misconceived and incompetent as there was no establishment or commercial establishment of the first petitioner in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It was also contended that the services of the second respondent were terminated by the Head Office at Bombay and as such the Appellate Authority undar the Act at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to deai with the appeal. The first petitioner also prayed before the Appellate Authority that the issue of jurisdiction may be decided first. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority allowed the parties to adduce evidence on the question of jurisdiction. After a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the appellate Authority held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.