JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.-Respondent No. 3 was working as a Medical Representative with the appellant. By an order dated 11th March, 1986 issued by the Regional Sales Manager of the appellant, respondent No. 3 was transferred from Aligarh to Kanpur. Respondent No. 3, however, did not join the duties at Kanpur despite grant of various opportunities. Thus, a charge-sheet dated 13th October, 1986 was issued to respondent No. 3. An enquiry was held. Respondent No. 3 did not participate in the enquiry. The enquiry officer found the charges proved. By order dated 24th June, 1987 passed by the appellant, respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service.

2. An industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 3. The State Government referred the dispute for adjudication of the Labour Court to determine whether the termination of respondent No. 3 was correct and legal and if not to what relief the workman was entitled to. The Labour Court by order dated 22nd September, 1993 came to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 was a Sales Promotion Employee as per the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 and as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, he comes under the definition of workman and has a right to raise the industrial dispute. The said order also held that the enquiry conducted by the appellant against the workman was not according to the principles of natural justice. By award dated 18th December, 1995, the Labour Court held that the appellant has failed to prove the charge of misconduct against respondent No. 3 and termination of his services with effect from 24th June, 1987 is improper and illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement in service along with consequential benefits. The plea of respondent No. 3 that the transfer order had been issued by an incompetent authority and, therefore, the non-compliance thereof cannot be treated as misconduct was accepted. It was noticed in the award that the appellant did not produce any material to prove that the Regional Sales Manager was competent to pass an order to transfer or that the powers to transfer the Medical Representatives had been delegated to the Regional Sales Manager. It was admitted that the Corporate Manager had the power to pass order of transfer of Medical Representatives.

3. Two writ petitions filed by the appellant, one challenging the order dated 22nd September, 1993 and the other the award dated 18th December, 1995, were dismissed by the High Court by a common judgment which is under challenge in these appeals.

4. Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter since respondent No. 3, a Medical Representative, could not be held to be a deemed workman within the meaning of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act by virtue of Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976. The said section reads as under :

"6(2) The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, sales promotion employees as they apply to, or in relation to, workmen within the meaning of the Act and for the purposes of any proceeding under that Act in relation to an industrial dispute, a sales promotion employee shall be deemed to include a sales promotion employee who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connect with, or as a consequence of, that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment had led to that dispute."

5. The contention of the learned counsel is that assuming the aforesaid provision is applicable, it still does not extend the deeming fiction to any State enactment including the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as it is apparent on reading of the section that Sales Promotion Employees, within the meaning of Central enactment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) have been treated as workman . Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel