Back
1994 Supreme(SC) 559
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.)
H.R. ADYANTHAYA AND OTHERS
Versus
SANDOZ (INDIA) LIMITED AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 235 of 1983 with W.P. (Civil) No. 5259 of 1980 and C.A. Nos. 242 of 1990, 818 of 1992 and SLP (C) No. 15641 of 1983{From the Judgment and Order dated 18-7-1980 of the Bombay High Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 66 of 1978}, decided on May 12, 1994
Advocates appeared :
N.B. Shetye, P.S. Poti, V.A. Bobde, G.B. Pai, P. Chidambaram, J.P. Cama and R.F. Nariman, Senior Advocates (M.C. Dhingra, Jitendra Sharma, P. Gaur, A.K. Sanghi, Ms Gunwant Dara, Urmila Sirur, Ambrish Kumar, N. Sudhakaran, O.C. Mathur, Meera Mathur, P.H. Parekh, Arvind Sharma, M. Mudgal, Rohit Pure, H.S. Parihar, K.S. Parihar, P.K. Rele, P. George, C.V.S. Rao, P.K. Pillai and A.S. Bhasme, Advocates, with them) for the appearing parties.
A.K.Sanghi, A.S.BHASME, AMBRISH KUMAR, ARVIND SHARMA, C.V.SUBBA RAO, G.B.PAI, GUNVANT DARA, H.S.PARIHAR, J.P.CAMA, JITENDRA SHARMA, K.S.PARIHAR, M.C.DHINGRA, M.MUDGAL, MIRA MATHUR, N.B.SHETYE, N.SUDHAKARAN, O.C.MATHUR, P.CHAUDHARY, P.Gaur, P.GEORGE WILLIAMS, P.H.Parekh, P.K.PALLI, P.K.RELE, P.S.POTI, R.F.NARIMAN, ROHIT PURI, URMILA SIRUR, V.A.BOBDE
Conflicting decisions by multiple three-judge benches on the interpretation of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding the status of medical/sales representatives, necessitate a reference to a larger five-judge bench for resolution.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) - Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 - Interpretation of "workman" - Status of medical and sales representatives prior to the commencement of the 1976 Act and the 1984 amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act - Conflict between multiple three-judge bench decisions of the apex court - Propriety demands that the matter be heard by a larger bench.
Facts of the case:
The matter concerns the determination of whether medical and sales representatives were considered "workmen" under the definition provided in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the enactment of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976, and the subsequent amendment to the definition of "workman" on August 21, 1984.
Findings of Court:
The court observed a conflict between two sets of three-judge bench decisions regarding the interpretation of the status of such employees under the relevant statutes.
Issues: Whether the conflicting decisions of three-judge benches on the interpretation of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, necessitate a reference to a larger bench.
Ratio Decidendi: When there is a conflict between multiple decisions of benches of equal strength on a significant point of law, propriety demands that the matter be referred to a larger bench for resolution.
Result: Matter referred to a five-judge bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
labour and industrial law
-
industrial disputes act, 1947
- definition of workman
-
industrial disputes act, 1947
-
practice and procedure
- reference to larger bench
ORDER
In view of the conflict between three three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in May & Baker (India) Ltd. v. Workmen{(1961) 2 LLJ 94 : AIR 1967 SC 678}, Western India Match Co. Ltd. v. Workmen{(1964) 3 SCR 560 : AIR 1964 SC 472 : (1963) 2 LLJ 459} and Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distribution Co. of India v. Burmah Shell Management Staff Association{(1970) 3 SCC 378} on the one hand and later three three-Judge Bench decisions in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983) 4 SCC 214, Ved Prakash Gupta v. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. (1984) 2 SCC 569 and Arkal Govind Raj Rao v. Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay{(1985) 3 SCC 371 on the other, on the interpretation of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and consequently the status of the medical/sales representatives prior to 6-3-1976 when the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 was brought into force and also prior to 21-8-1984 when the definition of "workman" under the Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act was amended, we are of the view that propriety demands that the matter be heard by a larger Bench. We, therefore, refer the matter to a five-Judge Bench to be constituted by the learned Chief Justice of India for the purpose. These papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice for constituting the Bench.
For Citation : (1994) 4 SCC 164
