Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8) Mr. Singhvi, the learned senior advocate appearing for Petitioner, would submit that the Labour Court has erred in holding that Petitioner is not an employee within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. He would take me through the defnition of the term 'employee' under Section 3(5) 26 April 2024 Neeta Sawant WP-2579-2017-FC of the MRTU & PULP Act and would submit that in addition to 'workman' defned under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, a 'sales promotion employee' as defned under Section-2(d) of the SPE Act, is also an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. He would then take me through the defnition of the term 'sales promotion employee' under Section 2(d) of the SPE Act. Mr. Singhvi would submit that even if a person fails to establish that he is not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act but establishes that he is a 'sales promotion employee' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the SPE Act, he still becomes an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act.

petition about Petitioner's status as 'employee' within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, it would be frst necessary to understand who exactly fall in defnition of the term 'employee' under the MRTU & PULP Act. Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, defnes an 'employee' as under :

3. Definitions.

(5) "employee", in relation to an industry to which the Bombay Act for the time being applies, means an employee as defned in clause (13) of section 3 of the Bombay Act, and in any other case, means a workman as defned in clause (s) of Section 2 of the Central Act, and a sales promotion employee as defned in clause (d) of section 2 of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.

21) It must be noted here that SPE Act was enacted in the year 1976 possibly in order to govern set of employees engaged in promotion of sale of products and business of establishment, who were not falling within the defnition of the term 'workman' under the I.D. Act. One of the objectives behind enacting SPE Act was to apply the provisions of the I.D. Act to such class of employees engaged in promotion of sales or business of an establishment. This is because Section 6 of the SPE Act provides that the provisions of the I.D. Act shall apply to Sales Promotion Employees as they apply to or in relation to 'workman' within the meaning of I.D. Act. Since SPE Act extends protection available to a 'workman' under the I.D. Act to Sales Promotion Employees, it is clear that those sales promotion employees were not ftting into the defnition of the term 'workman'. Thus, though Sales Promotion Employees were extended benefts under the I.D. Act, they were unable to maintain a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, as they were not 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act. To redress this analogous position, defnition of the term 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act came to be amended and even a Sales Promotion Employee came to be included within the defnition of the term 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act so as to enable them to maintain a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act.


                                       26 April 2024



 Neeta Sawant                                                            WP-2579-2017-FC



22)     Thus, the legal position appears to be that though a Sales

Promotion Employee does not ft into the defnition of the term 'workman', he is still treated as an 'employee' under the MRTU & PULP Act. The combination of provisions of SPE Act and MRTU & PULP act grants twin benefts of protection under the I.D. Act as well as under the MRTU & PULP Act to Sales Promotion Employees. This is the broad statutory framework and interplay between the provisions of the I.D. Act, SPE Act and MRTU & PULP Act.