Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. The learned labour court after detailed discussions and, inter alia, considering the judgements relied upon by the petitioner as mentioned above, decided the issue no.(iii) in favour of the union vide paragraphs 24 and 25 of the award, which are quoted as under:

"24. Therefore, in the light of above decisions, it can be concluded, that the Sale Promotion employees will not fall under the definition of workman under 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, but, on and from 6-3-1976, the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act are applicable to Sale Promotion employees depending upon their wages up to 6-5-1987 and without the limitation on their wages thereafter and upon the capacity in which they were employed or engaged.

25. This Court has gone through the said judgement and finds that the ratio of the judgement has been rightly summarized by the learned labour court in paragraph 16 of the impugned award which is quoted as under:

16. In case of H.R. Adyanthaya Vs. Sandoz (India) Ltd. (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 737, the question for consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court was arose, whether the 'medical representatives' are workman under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act? The Bench of Hon'ble Five Judges, has considered the above question at the great length and held that 'medical representatives' are not workman under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as their works are not manual, skilled, unskilled, clerical, technical or operational. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the relevant provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (Condition of Service) Act, 1976 and observed that after amendment in SPE Act by the amending Act of 48 of 1986 which came into force w.e.f. 06.05.1987 the definition of Sales Promotion Employee has expanded so as to include of all sales promotion employees without a ceiling on their wages except those employed or engaged in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rs.1600/- per mensem and those employed or engaged mainly in managerial or administrative capacity.

(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

26. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court considered numerous judgements all of which referred to the judgement passed in the case reported in (1994) 5 SCC 737 (supra) including the judgements relied upon by the petitioner during the course of hearing, that is, the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in LPA No. 1430 of 2009 (Nalin Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar and others), decided on 19- 01-2011 (Annexure - 4), judgment passed by this Court reported in 2004 (3) JCR 231 (Jhr) (M/s Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand) (Annexure - 5). The learned Labour Court also considered and heavily relied upon the subsequent judgement passed by this Court in WP(L) No. 2000 of 2009 decided on 26.11.2009 against which L.P.A. No. 59 of 2010 (S. H. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand & Another) was dismissed and Special Leave Petition No 9771 of 2011 has also been dismissed. The learned Labour Court also considered the subsequent judgement passed Hon'ble Patna High Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Others decided on 09.03.2016 which has distinguished the judgement passed in LPA No. 1430 of 2009 (supra).

30. It has been clearly held in the judgement passed in the case reported in (1994) 5 SCC 737 (supra) that on and from 06.03.1976 the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act became applicable to the medical representatives depending upon their wages up to 06.05.1987 and for the period beyond 06.05.1987 it was made applicable to all medical representatives without any limitation on their wages and upon the capacity in which they were employed or engaged. Meaning thereby, those who were engaged in supervisory capacity having pay exceeding Rs.1600 per mensem and all those who were engaged in managerial or administrative capacity were kept out of the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the argument of the petitioner company by referring to the salary of Santan Kumar being more than Rs.10,000/- on the date of his termination by referring to definition of workman as defined under section 2 (s) (iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act has no bearing in this case as Santan Kumar was admittedly not working in supervisory, managerial or administrative capacity and in view of the ratio of the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1994) 5 SCC 737 (supra), the salary of medical representatives will have no bearing after amendment made in Sales Promotion Employees Act with effect from 06.05.1987 when the employee is not working in supervisory, managerial or administrative capacity. The plea that medical representatives will not be governed by the Industrial Disputes Act has been rejected by this Court in the judgement passed in order dated 26.11.2009 passed by this Court in W.P. (L) No. 2000 of 2009 (supra) upheld up to Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. CC 9771/2011(supra) vide order dated 07.07.2011, there is no scope for taking any contrary view. This Court finds that the learned Labour Court has passed a well-reasoned judgement on this point vide paragraphs 16, 24 and 25 as quoted above. It has been held that it could be concluded that sales promotion employee would not fall under the definition of workman under section 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, but, on and from 06.03.1976, the provision of the I.D. Act was applicable to sales promotion employee depending upon their wages up to 06.05.1987 and without the limitation of their wages thereafter and upon the capacity in which they were employed or engaged. A finding was further recorded in paragraph no.25 that in the year 2013 Santan Kumar was working as medical sales representative and was not engaged in administrative, managerial or supervisory capacity and therefore the provision of Industrial Disputes Act was applicable and the case was maintainable under section 2-A of the I.D. Act.