RIPU DAMAN BHANOT Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the award dated May 2. 1995 passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana, the petitioner has filed this petition with the prayer to quash the impugned award and to direct the Labour Court to decide the dispute on merits.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Medical Representative of M/s. Cipla Limited with effect from January 8, 1985. His service was terminated on June 18, 1990 after a domestic enquiry was held by the employer. The dispute raised by him came to be referred to the Labour Court, Ludhiana by the Punjab Government's order dated April 10, 1991. After the dispute remained pending adjudication for over three years, respondents No. 2 and 3 filed an application dated March 10, 1995 for rejection of the claim of the workman. The petitioner contested that application by alleging that his case was covered by the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as '1976 Act' ). After hearing the parties, the Labour Court upheld the contention raised on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 that the reference was not maintainable. In arriving at this conclusion, the Labour Court relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in H. R. Adyanthaya etc. etc. v. Sandoz (India) Limited, etc. etc. , (1995-I-LLJ-303 ). The Labour Court also held that the provisions of Section 6 (2) of 1976 Act' stand omitted by virtue of Section 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 and the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of that provision.

(3.) THE main question, which requires determination by this Court, is whether a dispute raised by a sales representative/medical representative can be tried under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ancillary question which would require adjudication by this Court is whether the provisions of Section 6 (2) of '1976 Act' stand omitted by virtue of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982.