Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.45 seconds)Novartis India Limited vs Vipin Shrivastava on 20 December, 2016
In the
beginning, he was pressurized to resign from service and
when he did not resign the petitioners have transferred him
in order to victimize him. It is mandatory on the petitioners
to form a grievance redressal committee in view of section
9(c) of the ID Act. Without a salary of four months from
June to September 2013 and transfer, allowance made him
incapable to join at the transferred place. The judgment
passed by the Division Bench in the case of Novartis India
Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to him because in that case the
concerned employee was not a sales promotion employee but
in the present case, the petitioners have accepted that he was
appointed as a sales promotion employee. The petitioners
have not produced any gazette notification to establish that
section 6(2) of the SPE Act has been omitted from the
statute, therefore, ID Act is very much applicable. It has also
been argued by him that the petitioners approached this
Court vide W.P.No.6445/2015 against the order dated
12.08.2015 in which they did not challenge the applicability
-9- M.P.No.2212/2020
of the ID Act, therefore, now they are estopped from
challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court for want of
applicability of the ID Act. He further submitted that the
scope of interference by the High Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is very limited.
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9C in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tneb, ... vs K. Raman on 4 April, 1984
- 1999 SCC (L&S) 292 & (x) Chief Engineer (Personnel)
TNEB Madras vs. K.Raman - 1985 (1) LLJ 164. Learned
counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the
-7- M.P.No.2212/2020
respondent has alleged mala fide behind the transfer order
but he has failed to prove the same before the Labour Court
and against the said findings on issues No.1 & 3 the
respondent did not file any writ petition, therefore, that
findings are final now . Since ld. Labour Court has held that
that the respondent was transferred due to mala fide reason,
hence the interference with the transfer order was not
permissible. He further submitted that the Labour Court has
interfered with the transfer order merely on the ground that
the respondent being a low paid employee has been
transferred to a metropolitan city like Mumbai is not a valid
ground for interference by the Labour Court because the
respondent himself accepted the terms and conditions of the
appointment order i.e. he is liable to be transferred at any
part of India.
Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 26 September, 2000
So far as the reliance of the petitioner on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rhone-
Poulenc (India) Ltd. (supra) is concerned, in that case
exercising the powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution the reference was made to the Industrial
Court and so far as the Division Bench judgment of this
-19- M.P.No.2212/2020
Court relied upon by the petitioner in the case of R.R. Iyer
(supra) is concerned, in that 8 WP No.10001/19 case the
reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the case of Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd. (supra), though
the power under Article 142 of the Constitution is not
available to the High Court.
M.P. Medical & Sales Representative ... vs Senior General Manager Camlin Ltd on 25 January, 2012
In support of the
aforesaid contention, the respondent has placed reliance over
the judgments passed by the Supreme Court, this Court as
well as other Courts in the case of (i) UCB Inida Pvt. Ltd.
& others vs. Additional Labour Commissioner, Indore &
others in W.P.No.2499/2017 decided on 17.09.2019; (ii)
Novartis India Ltd. vs. Vipin Shrivastava & others in
Writ Appeal No.75/2017 decided on 11.10.2018; (iii)
Abbott India Ltd. vs. Gaurav Bairathi in Writ Appeal
No.547/2017 decided on 09.10.2017; (iv) Rhone Poulenc
India Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in LAWS
(SC)-2000-9-119; (v) Usha Workers Union vs. Usha
Martin Industries Ltd. LAWS (JHAR)-2003-1-49; (vi)
Sompal Singh vs. Artifical Limbs Mfg. Corpn. Of India
LAWS (ALL)-1993-10-39 & (vii) M.P Medical & Sales
Representative Association vs. Senior General Manager
in Writ Petition No.15162/2008 decided on 25.01.2012.
Vimal vs Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. on 4 March, 2020
19. So far the judgments on which the respondent has
placed heavy reliance are concerned, they have already been
considered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case
of Vimal vs. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in
W.P.No.10001/2019 decided on 04.03.2020 and held that
petitioner therein was not a workman within the meaning of
section 2(s) of the ID Act by virtue of the Division Bench
judgment in the matter of Novartis India Ltd. (supra) and I
do not find any reason to take a different view. Para-7 to 12
of the said judgment are reproduced below:
Miss A. Sundarambal vs Government Of Goa, Daman And Diu & Ors on 27 July, 1988
"10. As against it, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has
placed reliance on a case as reported in 1988 (II) MPWN 116 =
AIR 1988 SC 1700 (Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa,
Deman & Diu and others) whereby it was held that teacher
employed in a school is not a workman. But, now dispute stands
resolved with respect to the cases of Medical Representative as
reported in AIR 1994 SC 2608 [H.R. Adyanthya etc. etc. v.
Sandoz (India) Ltd. etc. etc.) whereby it has been held that
'Workman' does not include all employees except those covered
by four exceptions in said definition of section 2(s) of Industrial
Disputes Act. Medical Representatives do not perform duties of
'skilled' or 'technical' nature and therefore, they are not
'workmen'. The connotation of word 'skilled' in the context in
which it is used, will not include work of a Sales Promotion
Employees such as Medical Representative. That word has to be
construed ejusdem generis and thus construed, would mean
skilled work whether manual or non-manual, which is of a genre
of the other types of work mentioned in the definition. The work
of promotion of sales of the product or services of the
establishment is distinct from and independent of the types of
work covered by the said definition."